On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:12:50 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
>> I think the only way one could come up with a realistic number would
>> be to keep a log for a whole year. I'll take a pass on logging that.
>> I'm in the camp that believes two can live for not much more than one.
>> We spend over a $100 a week. But we eat out less than once a month.
>>
>> Lou
>
>There are other ways. I use Quicken. The monthly trip to BJ's is either
>check or debit card, most trips to the supermarket are debit card. I can
>call up any time period in a couple of seconds. On Average, I spend $230 a
>month at BJ, but that includes cleaning supplies and the like also.

There's no way I'm going to annalize each receipt to decide what was
food and what was something else. My 100 figure is an estimation. We
may get nothing other than milk and cream one week, and the next spend
$200 at a few stores and more at costco and then spend very little for
a few weeks.

>How many people are you feeding on that $100 a week?

LOL.. Technically it's supposed to be only two. But we make and sent
goodies to two of the kids and the other is here all the time and he
eats all the leftovers. Which is fine because I'm not big on
leftovers so very little gets thrown out around here. I hate throwing
food away.

>The OP was talking $40 for one. You can eat amazingly well for that much money.

I'm sure I "could" eat for $40 a week myself. But there is no way I'd
call it "amazingly well". I like too many things like steak, shrimp,
brie, nice condiments, shark steaks, salmon, pine and macadamia nuts,
kalamata olives, and the list goes on.

I have no doubt a person can eat well, and even healthy for $40 a
week. But not "amazingly," and certainly not the way a foodie
claiming to have over a 1000 cookbooks would be content with.

>Good food does not mean high prices.

I didn't say it did.

Lou