Pete C. > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Let's say you each want to consume 2000 calories a day. (It could
>> be less, but if one or both of you is very active physically it
>> will need to be more.) At $60/week that comes to 0.21 cents per
>> calorie. You are not going to get your grocery budget to gel
>> unless there are significant numbers of foods in it that cost
>> less per calorie than this figure. For example, olive oil (or
>> any cooking oil) costs a quarter of this, or less. Flour,
>> pasta, rice come in under this figure as well. But bread, or breakfast
>> cereal usually costs a little more. You are going to need basic,
>> caloric yet inexpensive food ingredients to make this work.

>> You will want vegetables and meat or other protein in there, but
>> you will have to limit these to not blow out the budget. Tilt
>> towards fruits/vegetables with a lot of fiber (zucchini, cauliflower,
>> apples/pears, legumes); then you will need fewer of them total in
>> your diet. Make modest-sized salads instead of gigantic salads,
>> and put plenty of olive oil on them.

>The idea that vegetables are less expensive than meat/fish is pretty
>much urban legend. When you compare the cost per serving of either and
>presuming you buy what's best priced, not grass fed fillet or organic
>asparagus, the cost per serving is about the same.

Maybe the "cost per serving", but "serving" is ill-defined. Whereas
"cost per calorie" is well-defined. It is not urban legend that
vegetables cost more per calorie than cooking oil, grains, or
minimally-processed grain products.

Not that calories are the end-all of nutrition, but they are
the most important single number.

>The point about the
>4oz meat portion is indeed correct, that 24oz steak does not constitute
>one portion.

Traditional portion sizes may or may not make sense in constructing
a food budget. It is more logical to look at nutrients, starting
with macronutrients.


Steve