JWZ and the Paleo Diet

[elfs]

Mark Bittman latest article is Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? in which he writes about the commonplace canard that "Junk food is cheaper than real food." He writes:

A typical order for a family of four – for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas – costs, at the McDonald's a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. ... Despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people.

Jamie Zawinski has a famous quote: "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." His point is simple: it takes time to install and master Linux. Compared to the idiotproofing of a Mac, Linux has a learning curve. Making Linux work isn't free, but knowing it is a skill worth having, both personally and financially. It was for me.

I've been on a quasi-paleo diet, eating paleo meals much more often. Last night I subjected my family to shredded roasted brussel sprouts and pork chops, and I liked it, but the shredded sprouts were visually unappealing. I'm hesitant to use the shredded "cauliflower as rice substitute" because I worry we'll get the same effect. But here's the thing:

My value system includes the idea that cooking is pleasure. I enjoy cooking. I enjoy turning raw vegetables and meats into food. So much so that I'm willing to dedicated between one and two hours of my day doing that, every day.

(I disdain the raw food diet for the simple reason that, if the Paleos are correct, our guts are evolutionarily post-cooking: paleobiological data indicate that, after the discovery of fire, our intestines got shorter because fire prepares food for digestion and releases nutrients. It was a rapid and profound evolutionary change, but it was a change that happened pre-H. sap. We're animals that cook.)

Bittman's comment that "real food is cheaper..." only applies if you think your time is worthless. The fact is you have to calculate the value of real food, and the time and effort and experience of cooking, into your equation. I've made that choice. You may find that your long-term health (Hell, your short-term health; paleo effects are pronounced even after only 8 weeks) and your personal eating pleasure are worth the time it takes to learn how to cook, and to cook for yourself every day, and to learn how to optimize the periphery of the grocery store. I recommend it, but I won't force it on ya.

Comments

[kistha.livejournal.com]

Ironically a friend of mine just posted about doing that cauliflower thing and turning it into rice.

You can find the post and her experience here: http://e-bourne.livejournal.com/350931.html

Worked for her, and then made a modified mac & cheese replacement with it.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

We have a big batch of cauli-fried "rice" in the fridge right now.

[violet-tigress1.livejournal.com]

Mashed cauliflower is yummy.

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

I've been doing the shredded sprouts thing varying on this recipe: http://www.101cookbooks.com/archives/caramelized-tofu-recipe.html

Mainly changing the tofu for fried bacon bits and toasted almond slivers instead of pecans.

And I might have used maple syrup instead of sugar as well. Can't really say it looks visually unappealing though. It's a hell of a job to shred the sprouts however.

Worthless Time

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, you may only put your timewise effort into the equation if you could have spend that time earning or making money. Otherwise it`s just living.

Re: Worthless Time

[elfs.livejournal.com]

If you think the only way to calculate the worth of your time is in currency, you've a long way to go. You didn't even understand the point of post.

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

I read a very scathing article the other day (nearly had me elvising the 'puter) about how the poor wouldn't be fat if they just quit eating fast food and cooked for themselves.

Right.

It completely ignored the time factor both of cooking and shopping. Let alone whether or not you can actually get to a store and get the food home.

Then there's the whole having a place to store food -- not just a fridge, but also a vermin-free pantry or cabinet or two.

And the equipment: a stove, pots and pans, minor details really.

The reality is, fast food isn't cheaper, but it's quicker. For a lot of people, getting calories quickly beats eating well.

I cook for myself (working on that Paleo thing right now) and generally bring leftovers for lunch because I get a 1/2 hour lunchbreak (on a good day) and anything more complex than retrieving something from the office fridge to either eat cold or reheat in the microwave just isn't happening. But that takes time and planning.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And if you *can* get to a store, it's probably the corner grocery where prices are higher, since small businesses can't manhandle the distributors into price breaks the way the big chains can. So that $21/person/month doesn't go as far, and the kids are hungry so you go for quantity over quality.

[kengr]

Also, if you are living alone, a lot of fresh food is just unworkable. I gave up buying lettuce, because a head would spoil before I used more than a fraction of it, and the bags of shredded lettuce are both not the form I use (unless I'm making a salad) and hideously expensive compared with the head.

similar things go for a lot of fruits and veggies. I have a few thinghs I use often enough *and* that are sold in small enough amounts that I can use them. Otherwise, I gotta skip them.

And heck, even the "bad" stuff like Hamburger Helper has problems if you are single. mostly amounts. Then again, so do typical recipes.

And, of course, all the parents (at least for my generation) who conditioned us to "you have to finish everything that's on your plate" don't help.

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

Tell me about it! I live alone and planning menus so that I can make large size ingredients work for 2 or 3 meals takes some creative thinking.

One thing I do though, is make soups and stews in quantities that will feed 4 or 5 and take leftovers to work for lunch. Or freeze them for nights when nuking something frozen is all I have time or energy for. That helps with it.

[kengr]

I'm not much for making stuff like soups. I generally keep a few cans of Campbells vegetable beef and chicken noodle around. A family size can and some bread will take me thru an entire day at home. Great for when I'm under the weather.

One of my "staples when money was really tight, and that I've carried on came from the recipes printed on a bag of dried pinto beans in a food box. I took the rice & beans recipe and ran a few changes, including various spices and stuff.

I cook the beans (which keep well) in a big batch, measure out the 2 cups needed for a batch, add chopped hot dogs, and freeze that in a container. So when I want a batch, I pull the pre measured container out of the freezer. I heat the water, add the soup base and spices, and then I can thaw the frozen stuff in the pot. Once it's thawed and back up to a boil, add rice, stir and let it simmer.

A batch gives me several meals. It's good enough that I can eat it regularly, but not so good that I will try to devour the whole batch too fast.

[urox.livejournal.com]

Until you said you weren't much for making soups, I was going to say about how rather than using lettuce, I switched to romaine because i could multi-use it far more easily in salad, sandwiches... and then cook it in some broth to make a light soup. :)

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

I can toss together an omelet in less time than I can get to McDonalds and pick up a quarter pounder. I can microwave a frozen dinner in the same amount of time as the omelet, give or take two minutes.

[bldrnrpdx.livejournal.com]

You aren't a single mom (or one of two working parents) with three kids, no car, and a job that makes you change shifts every couple of months, living in a town where the buses become less frequent after 6pm. I'll leave out the child with special needs, the questionable command of the English language and/or questionable literacy skills, the child with behavior issues (occasionally necessitating after-school meetings with the teacher/principal/school counselor), the parents with physical and/or mental issues (you or one of your parents living with you because there's nowhere else to go) or the 10 blocks you have to walk with those groceries because that's as close as your bus gets you to your home.

Some form of that covers about a quarter of the families on my caseload, possibly more.

Patti, you are someone who enjoys learning new things, like cooking and keeping it from getting too boring. You are invested in taking care of yourself. Many of my families can't quite get beyond getting through the day, getting to that next paycheck, and hoping the kids don't burn the house down.

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

I have no rebuttal-- you are correct.

[hydrolagus.livejournal.com]

I'd be happier if the argument regarding the comparative costs of real and junk food wasn't usually stated in such absolute terms. Real food can be cheaper but it isn't inherently so, and there are issues of time, accessibility, equipment available, and know-how, not to mention the challenges of getting kids to eat healthy regardless of income level. But that doesn't make as good a sound-blip.

[dossy.livejournal.com]

One can get pre-roasted rotisserie chicken and frozen vegetables from the supermarket. I suspect this will cost less than $28 -- probably close to the $14 mark -- take much less than time than preparing it yourself from scratch (just a few minutes to microwave the frozen veggies), and still be healthier than the fast food.

There's a large continuum between "instant fast-food" and "slow, everything from scratch" -- buying and consuming fast-food still has a time cost component, which may be equal to or even greater than buying pre-prepared foods that are healthier and cost less dollar-wise.

Junk food is a luxury ... there's nothing wrong with that, except when people "over-spend" their life budget on it, borrowing against their future life to buy the luxury in their present life.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

There is also the issue of Urban Living.

If you live in a small apartment, you have next to no kitchen (by tradition & design; more on that below). So, storing ingredients, let alone cooking, becomes something of a space issue. And that's before we even consider time.

Most people who live in urban areas will have small apartments. Only the wealthy living in urban areas will have large domiciles, and neither time nor space nor expense are an issue for them, ever.


It's been this way for quite a long time, actually. People living in cities have always had to eat out, especially pre-electricity/pre-gas. How would you cook in an apartment, pre-20^th-Century? Can't really use a wood stove like out in the country — fire hazard, much?

In Ancient Rome, nobody had kitchens in their apartments. (Oh, the well-off did, but then, they didn't have an apartment so much as a city-house. And they also had slaves to do the cooking.) Nope, the average Ancient Roman ate out, at one of the numerous food vendors. They weren't what we'd consider restaurants; there might be stools at a counter that one could sit on. And the food was affordable, since the vendors made their money off of volume.

And, again, all of this out of practicality: nobody in Ancient Rome wanted one of the 5-story apartment buildings going up in flames. (And, yes, the Ancient Romans had 5-story and 6-story buildings.)


[Information about past living & eating habits courtesy of former-Python, Terry Jones … specifically, one of the BBC programs he did on life in Ancient civilizations.]

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I'm familiar with the Roman way of dining. I even wrote porn about it. (http://pendorwright.com/other/Orgy_In_August.html)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

Oh, I didn't know that! Sorry if I insulted you at all.

I've read that porn of yours. Your description of Rome as stinking because they had no sewers … that sounds more like post-Western-Empire European cities to me. (FYI to any of Elf's readers: Even up until the 19^th Century, most cities reeked during the summers, even in Europe. People just tossed their waste water (including chamber pots) into the streets. Sidewalks were originally invented so that the well-to-do could walk down the street without having to walk in raw sewage.) I was pretty sure that the Romans had sewers, or at least, decent drainage of the streets. If there's one thing that the Romans did very, very well, it was plumbing & pipes.

Mind you, the Tiber was utterly, utterly foul as a result of all of the sub-street pipes draining into it. But I thought the streets were clean(er), due to people dumping things into the drains rather than directly into the streets. I'll have to have another look at that Terry Jones program on Rome.