Since I have signed up to do the Live Below the Line challenge of living on $2 per day for 5 days, I've been in the supermarkets checking prices and starting to work out a meal plan. With only $10 for the week - staying reasonably full and getting what I need nutritionally is going to be tricky. During one of these trips to the supermarket I started thinking about the cost of food vs the benefits gained nutritionally. Are we really getting what we pay for? Is the burden of those protein bars, fancy restaurant meals or even chocolate bars on our wallet worth it to our bodies? Or should we be heading back to simple staples that pack a punch nutritionally but don't cost the earth?
I was inspired by an article written by Brendan Leonard on Adventure Journal (see here for the full article) that was based on an interview with a "Dirtbag Gourmet" - someone that had spent a lot of time thinking about how to get the most food for his money. His definition of food value was:
“Food Value is a complex, algorithmically derived formula, principally accounting for one’s satiety, nutritional benefits, and money spent in order to ascertain said food items.”
In a nutshell - if a food is packed full of nutrients, fills you up and costs you nothing then it has the highest food value. On the otherhand, something that costs a bomb, doesn't deliver your body many nutrients and leaves you wanting more has the lowest food value.
I've done my own little cost-benefit analysis (see below) purely based on nutritional benefit and cost of certain foods (generally speaking - there has not been any tough mathematical calculations to get to this point). My analysis of nutritional benefit has included things like the amount of protein, fat, sugar, fibre, and vitamins and minerals and also taken into account how much you get to eat (the hunger-killing factor).
I love this idea because you can apply it to everything - it works well for food value but what about "activity value" or "fashion value"? Take going a walk and watching the TV for example - you might enjoy them both equally but which do you think your body likes more? Or those trusty pair of jeans vs a fancy dress for much more that you don't get as much wear out of?
So what's the moral to the story that I've learnt? I think the biggest take-out is that those foods that are best for you ("superfoods" if you will) don't necessarily have to cost you the earth. Hooray for that! You can forget about Goji's and Coconut Water and protein shakes and bars... Back to basics is definitely the best way to go! And next week, what I will be living on? Oats, lentils, eggs, in season veg, rice and a bit of dairy... I'll keep you posted on how it goes!
PS - To support the cause you can donate at www.livebelowtheline.com/team/fitness-adventures or to join the challenge yourself visit www.livebelowtheline.com.au - I dare you!
I was inspired by an article written by Brendan Leonard on Adventure Journal (see here for the full article) that was based on an interview with a "Dirtbag Gourmet" - someone that had spent a lot of time thinking about how to get the most food for his money. His definition of food value was:
“Food Value is a complex, algorithmically derived formula, principally accounting for one’s satiety, nutritional benefits, and money spent in order to ascertain said food items.”
In a nutshell - if a food is packed full of nutrients, fills you up and costs you nothing then it has the highest food value. On the otherhand, something that costs a bomb, doesn't deliver your body many nutrients and leaves you wanting more has the lowest food value.
I've done my own little cost-benefit analysis (see below) purely based on nutritional benefit and cost of certain foods (generally speaking - there has not been any tough mathematical calculations to get to this point). My analysis of nutritional benefit has included things like the amount of protein, fat, sugar, fibre, and vitamins and minerals and also taken into account how much you get to eat (the hunger-killing factor).
I love this idea because you can apply it to everything - it works well for food value but what about "activity value" or "fashion value"? Take going a walk and watching the TV for example - you might enjoy them both equally but which do you think your body likes more? Or those trusty pair of jeans vs a fancy dress for much more that you don't get as much wear out of?
So what's the moral to the story that I've learnt? I think the biggest take-out is that those foods that are best for you ("superfoods" if you will) don't necessarily have to cost you the earth. Hooray for that! You can forget about Goji's and Coconut Water and protein shakes and bars... Back to basics is definitely the best way to go! And next week, what I will be living on? Oats, lentils, eggs, in season veg, rice and a bit of dairy... I'll keep you posted on how it goes!
PS - To support the cause you can donate at www.livebelowtheline.com/team/fitness-adventures or to join the challenge yourself visit www.livebelowtheline.com.au - I dare you!
No comments:
Post a Comment