If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Which foods are a bargain? I don’t just mean in terms of cost, but also in terms of calories? At Health Assist, one writer decided to take a look, creating the 300 calorie food picture gallery.
I think this is fascinating. It’s fun to look at these photos and say, “Yeah, that’s worth the money (and the calories).” Or, “No way!”
For example, bananas are cost- and calorie-effective for me. There’s no way I’m going to eat more than one banana at a time. If I remember right, they average 105 calories each and, according to Health Assist, they cost about 40 cents a piece.
Olives are also a pretty good deal. I love olives, and 300 calories can buy me a lot of them.
I used to eat a lot of potato chips (mainly for the salt). As you can probably guess, they’re not very calorie-efficient.
Potato chips are cheap, however. For the same price as a single banana, I can get 300 calories of food (instead of 105). Water-packed tuna in a can also looks like a relative bargain (in terms of calories):
But gummy bears? Not so much.
It’s a little sad — though perhaps unsurprising — that in general it’s cheaper to get calories from processed foods than from fresh fruits and vegetables.
A few years ago, my brother used Dr. Howard Shapiro’s Picture-Perfect Weight Loss to effectively lose weight. Picture-Perfect Weight Loss uses photos to demonstrate calorie-equivalent portions of various foods. Here’s one of the book’s most famous examples:
Looking at that, even I would choose the fruit. There are several other examples at the book’s web site. The trick, however, is being able to make these sorts of comparisons when there’s nobody there to spell out the differences…
Mac
6 responses so far ↓
1 Amber // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:34 am
I love this kind of stuff! I read a book once (don’t remember which one; maybe it was “Best Life Diet”), in which the author encouraged you to think about how long it takes to burn 300 calories. For me, that’s running for a little more than 3 miles. Then picture the number of Double Stuff Oreos that are 300 calories — about 3. For some reason, that image stuck with me and now I picture how long I’d have to work out to burn the number of calories in whatever junk food I’m craving. Sometimes I eat it anyway, but I often decide that the Pop Tarts aren’t worth it.
2 Jen S. // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:15 am
Thank you for this! I started comparing foods, their calorie content, and their cost per calorie on my blog a while back, but haven’t followed up recently. It’s true, processed stuff is FAR more affordable on a per-calorie basis. My goal is to find the most affordable healthy foods.
Thanks for your site; I read every post!
3 elisabeth // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Loved this entry — the money was US but the food looked British to me (the jaffa cakes are delicious but so sweet I’d never eat more than one…).
4 greenman2001 // Jun 4, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I like the line, “I used to eat a lot of potato chips (mostly for the salt)”. I read Playboy for the articles, myself.
How’s your leg doing?
5 Cynthia // Jun 11, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I’ve always liked plenty of food… so yeah, it helps for me to look at a pack of Sesame snacks and think 250 calories for something the size of half your palm vs. a nice pile of food from protein and veggies on a plate.
Sadly, the nice pile o’ healthy food WOULD cost considerably more than the pack of Sesame Snacks.
6 Sheamus // Jun 11, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I’m all for healthier eating, certainly in an ‘everything in moderation’ sense, but nowhere on this planet is a non-fat, non-sugar muffin 720 calories. Unless it’s the size of a basketball. You’d have to make it yourself!
Starbucks Low-Fat Blueberry Muffin (420 kcal)
420 kcal isn’t low, but it isn’t 720 kcal, either. In fact, it’s 42% less.
Healthy-eating sites (not this one) that use this kind of deception to report ‘facts’ are as bad as those same ‘evil’ companies who do the same thing on the other side (i.e., McDonalds or whomever). A few weeks back the same kind of stuff was being reported about the calories in some of the food at The Outback, with their Cheese Fries being stated at around 2,500 calories. It was complete nonsense, but it quickly became ‘fact’ on a lot of sites.
As I said, the overall message here is good but one, it’s comparing apples with oranges (and pineapples, grapes and pairs), and two, the numbers don’t match.
Your overall point is quite valid, though; you’ll always pay more for convenience, as that’s what you’re paying for, and it comes at a premium.
Leave a Comment