How much should one meal cost?

[Kelthaz]

I am aware of that, and that's exactly what I'm getting at. I realize people can't afford top quality food all the time; I certainly can't. But I do place enough importance on my diet to focus what money I have on the food I eat.

As do I. I also spend about $3-5 dollars a meal for $7-8 total for the day. Everyone seems to be giving about the same average, so I'm really not sure what you're looking for here.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't know what I'm looking for anymore.

 

[auntiehill]

For me and my hubby, it probably averages around $2-5 dollars a meal. I usually eat just toast for breakfast, but we usually have chicken, pork or fish for dinner, so that brings it up a bit.

 

[farmkid]

My family consists of 2 adults and 6 children ranging from 6 months to 14 years in age. We basically never eat out, so our grocery bill covers almost all of our food, and we spend about $600/month on food, so that's about $20/day. Four of the children eat lunch at school, so there are 20 lunches/week that aren't included in that monthly amount. We reduce our grocery bill somewhat by canning food from our garden and we have a few chickens to provide eggs. That doesn't make a huge difference, maybe $50/month or so, but it should be factored in.

As for what a meal costs, that depends greatly on what we eat. If we make pancakes (made from scratch, not a mix) or oatmeal for breakfast (from oats, not the prepackaged/presweetened stuff), I doubt it costs more than $1-$2, whereas a typical dinner for my family might cost $8-$10 (for the whole family, not per individual).

 

[Holdfast]

I didn't ignore a thing.

A normal, healthy human being should eat X amount of different types of food. Given that, I assumed there would be a way to figure out what a typical meal should cost.

The British Government did a study a while back on this issue, trying to figure out if it was possible to eat a healthy balanced diet on the minimum state benefits (making certain assumptions about what the rest of the money was spent on). They found that it was possible, and came up with a balanced meal plan. I'll see if I can google up the study.

EDIT: no luck after a few minutes searching. Maybe someone else knows where it is.

 

[RoJoHen]

As for what a meal costs, that depends greatly on what we eat. If we make pancakes (made from scratch, not a mix) or oatmeal for breakfast (from oats, not the prepackaged/presweetened stuff), I doubt it costs more than $1-$2, whereas a typical dinner for my family might cost $8-$10 (for the whole family, not per individual).

Yeah, I was looking mostly at dinner when I talked about "meals." Breakfast is such an iffy subject for a lot of people that I barely even count it as a meal.

I didn't ignore a thing.

A normal, healthy human being should eat X amount of different types of food. Given that, I assumed there would be a way to figure out what a typical meal should cost.

The British Government did a study a while back on this issue, trying to figure out if it was possible to eat a healthy balanced diet on the minimum state benefits. I'll see if I can google up the study...

That would be cool!

 

[O'Dib]

I watched Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead. The film proposes doing periodic "reboots", week-long diets of only juiced veggies and fruits, to clear out one's system of crap and hopefully learn to replace some of the stuff one eats with a healthy alternative. They say this would cost $30/day, which is like eating-out expensive. So I imagine anyone who includes shitloads of veggies probably has a much higher grocery bill.

 

[RoJoHen]

I watched Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead. The film proposes doing periodic "reboots", week-long diets of only juiced veggies and fruits, to clear out one's system of crap and hopefully learn to replace some of the stuff one eats with a healthy alternative. They say this would cost $30/day, which is like eating-out expensive. So I imagine anyone who includes shitloads of veggies probably has a much higher grocery bill.

I usually make chili and dump a container of Benefiber in it if I'm looking to clean out my system.

 

[Starbreaker]

I pretty much loathe sandwiches, so I do a lot of eating out because I'm constantly on the go, spending $5-6 per meal for lunch. I actually find it cheaper than trying to scrounge up a bunch of meat at the grocery store and making a meal.

 

[Holdfast]

I didn't ignore a thing.

A normal, healthy human being should eat X amount of different types of food. Given that, I assumed there would be a way to figure out what a typical meal should cost.

The British Government did a study a while back on this issue, trying to figure out if it was possible to eat a healthy balanced diet on the minimum state benefits. I'll see if I can google up the study...

That would be cool!

Can't find it, sorry. I know one was done in the early/mid-90s, and it was redone a couple of years back or so I think.

However, Sainsbury's (one of our major supermarket chains) fairly recently suggested that one could feed a family of 4 healthily on £50 per week, and came up with a series of meal plans to support their statement. Of course, it depends on a number of factors (what's on sale, what your appetite is like, etc, etc) but it gives you an idea. Their meal plans are still online here, and here's a Guardian article from a while back discussing the Sainsburys promotion campaign. More articles discussing it, with meal plans, from the Daily Mail and the Independent.

 

[RoJoHen]

That meal plan is atrocious! I would starve!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This estimates what the average cost per day of food per individual is based on whether they are average or low-income and the type of diet they eat.

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.

The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.

Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November08/Features/AffordHealthyDiet.htm

This estimates how much someone spends per day based on income bracket:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=787129

And this lists a host of factors that go in to determining how much a healthy diet costs based on location, time allotment for making meals, and other factors:

www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November08/Features/AffordHealthyDiet.htm

 

[Holdfast]

That meal plan is atrocious! I would starve!

Well, I suppose you could allocate the entire £50 for 4 people to just yourself.

There's a bit more info about its origins at the bottom of the Indy article. Relevant bits bolded. I suspect the £140 income figure from 1992 is from the study I was thinking of upthread. It's certainly a lot lower than the average 1992 income (and I reckon also well below what would have been the relative poverty threshold in that year, so it's probably the minimum the family would have got from the state, adding together all the various different benefits. Not 100% sure of that though).

Sainsbury's based the figure of pounds 46.62 on the average amount spent on food by a family of four on an income of about pounds 140 per week, as calculated by the Department of Health's National Food Survey for 1992. The trolley they produced relies heavily on own- brand economy staples such as sausages, fish fingers and prepared meat pies, rather than cheap cuts of meat. It includes a good mix of fresh fruit and vegetables (although there are omissions, such as tomatoes), plus plenty of treats.

The eating plan was formulated to fulfil the guidelines of the Government's recent Health of the Nation report, which recommended that people should eat plenty of starch and at least five pieces of fruit and veg a day, and derive less than 35 per cent of their calories from fat. It is meant to deliver an average calorie requirement of 2,054 per person.

The aim was to do away with the notion that healthy eating is expensive and requires self-sacrifice and imaginative ways of dealing with scrag end of neck. Geoff Spriegel, who led the team that formulated the plan, says: 'We didn't want to give the impression that you can only eat healthily by buying all raw ingredients and preparing them yourself. Healthy eating can be convenient, affordable and enjoyable.'

 

[RoJoHen]

I find it funny that the government is still trying to push people to eat all these grains and starches. They're so bad for you! And fats -- assuming you're eating the right kind -- are one of the best things you can put in your body.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Five dollars or less.

 

[Holdfast]

I find it funny that the government is still trying to push people to eat all these grains and starches. They're so bad for you! And fats -- assuming you're eating the right kind -- are one of the best things you can put in your body.

There's nothing wrong with a relatively high starch diet, as long as it's the right kind of starch, eaten at the right time with gaps in between them, and balanced with adequate amounts of all the other food groups and sufficient vitamin/minerals. Most high starch diets fail badly at all those criteria, which is why they're unhealthy. It requires a bit of knowledge to craft a healthy relatively high starch diet.

High calorie high starch diets lacking in fat or protein, and continuously grazed at over the day, yeah that's a very poor way to eat and most people who eat a high starch diet eat like that which leads to poor health. But that's not what those meal plans suggested. I haven't studied them closely, but at first blush, they seem fine to me. They appear to contain enough (good) fat, enough protein and enough fresh stuff with vitamins and minerals to balance it out, without going over a reasonable calorie limit.

People overcomplicate healthy eating too much, generally, and there's quite a lot of poor science out there around it with lots of vested interest groups supporting some "interesting" positions on the topic.

 

[RoJoHen]

I find it funny that the government is still trying to push people to eat all these grains and starches. They're so bad for you! And fats -- assuming you're eating the right kind -- are one of the best things you can put in your body.

There's nothing wrong with a relatively high starch diet, as long as it's the right kind of starch, eaten at the right time with gaps in between them, and balanced with adequate amounts of all the other food groups and sufficient vitamin/minerals. Most high starch diets fail badly at all those criteria, which is why they're unhealthy. It requires a bit of knowledge to craft a healthy relatively high starch diet.

High calorie high starch diets lacking in fat or protein, and continuously grazed at over the day, yeah that's a very poor way to eat and most people who eat a high starch diet eat like that which leads to poor health. But that's not what those meal plans suggested. I haven't studied them closely, but at first blush, they seem fine to me.

I wasn't referring to those meal plans specifically, just the general requirements that governments are still trying to push in terms of "healthy eating." We've come to learn to much more about nutrition in the last few years, and I feel like governments (at least the US) are lagging behind. I can tell you right now that those plans do not contain near enough protein for me to ever consider them.

 

[Holdfast]

I can tell you right now that those plans do not contain near enough protein for me to ever consider them.

For an average person, it's probably just about enough I think. If, for example, you work out a lot, or have a high protein requirement for other reasons, obviously that alters the balance. They're designed for the average (moderately sedentary) person I suspect.

 

[O'Dib]

There's this other documentary I saw, Forks Over Knives, that propagates a vegan diet, pretty much. And there's actually a really buff UFC champ in there who's a vegan. Supposedly there's protein in plants as well.

 

[RoJoHen]

I can tell you right now that those plans do not contain near enough protein for me to ever consider them.

For an average person, it's probably just about enough I think. If, for example, you work out a lot, or have a high protein requirement for other reasons, obviously that alters the balance. They're designed for the average (moderately sedentary) person I suspect.

Sometimes I forget that normal people don't eat like bodybuilders.