Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Study: Food advertisements equal obesity; correlation, causation   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, academic institutions, correlations, government spending, BMC Public Health, randomized trial, food ads, obesity  
•       •       •

1385 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Mar 2013 at 2:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-11 02:19:23 PM  
Subby: advertising has no effect on consumption.
 
2013-03-11 02:25:02 PM  
FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?


/Seriously, put down the fork
 
2013-03-11 02:27:03 PM  

Kimpak: FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?


/Seriously, put down the fork


Who eats their KFC Doubledown with a fork?  You farking elitist snob!
 
2013-03-11 02:27:22 PM  
I think that while advertising has an effect, I think it's also likely that people who live in areas with more food advertising live in areas where poor eating/activity are perhaps more likely.

Then again, one could argue that obese people have issues with "saying no" and that advertising only hurts more on top of that. In my own experience,  it's not an ad that makes me buy more food, but what it advertises. If I just see a generic sign telling me a Big Mac exists, I doubt it'd have any effect. An ad for some new thing though - very likely to tempt me to try it out.

At the end of the day, no one person is obese for one reason alone (other than the simple science of calories in > calories used).
 
2013-03-11 02:28:20 PM  

Lyonid: Kimpak: FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?


/Seriously, put down the fork

Who eats their KFC Doubledown with a fork?  You farking elitist snob!


If you eat it straight out of the fryer, it'll burn your fingers.
 
2013-03-11 02:31:57 PM  

Lyonid: Kimpak: FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?


/Seriously, put down the fork

Who eats their KFC Doubledown with a fork?  You farking elitist snob!


Hey, now!  Its KFC....so I'd eat it with a spork.
 
2013-03-11 02:40:03 PM  
Correlation does not equal causation however when you reach a sufficient percentage of correlation causation no longer matters since you have 100% correlation.

/Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
//It doesn't matter. Chickens lay eggs. Chickens hatch from eggs. It's 100% correlation.
///Who needs a cause?
 
2013-03-11 02:40:44 PM  
FTFA:In fact, it is easy to imagine how the causation could run the opposite way (something the article did not mention): If food vendors believe obese people are more likely than non-obese people to buy their products, they will place more ads in areas where obese people already live.

Um, how would the advertisers know where the more obese people live. The only reason the researchers knew was because they actually interviewed the people living there -- that's not public data available to the advertisers. That alone supports the causation being one-way.

Also from FTFA:  Christopher Chabris is a professor of psychology at Union College. Daniel Simons is a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois.

Okay, no I understand why they're full of shiat with respect to statistics.
 
2013-03-11 02:50:41 PM  

Msol: FTFA:In fact, it is easy to imagine how the causation could run the opposite way (something the article did not mention): If food vendors believe obese people are more likely than non-obese people to buy their products, they will place more ads in areas where obese people already live.

Um, how would the advertisers know where the more obese people live. The only reason the researchers knew was because they actually interviewed the people living there -- that's not public data available to the advertisers. That alone supports the causation being one-way.

Also from FTFA:  Christopher Chabris is a professor of psychology at Union College. Daniel Simons is a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois.

Okay, no I understand why they're full of shiat with respect to statistics.


The CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html  ) and others ( http://www.americanobesity.org/obesityInAmerica.htm  ) don't seem to be hiding this data.
 
2013-03-11 02:59:57 PM  

Just another Heartland Weirdass: Subby: advertising has no effect on consumption.


I know right.

It's not like we have mountains of data and billions of dollars pouring into advertising to convince us that the latest low-fat food craze is healthy and that some obscure berry is going to save you from cancer.
 
2013-03-11 03:05:19 PM  

Girl Pants: I think that while advertising has an effect


I've found that while I am on a diet, one of the worst things I can do is watch television* in the evening.  About a sixth of all ads are for food.  Late evening is especially bad, with all of the fast food ads that come on.  After a while, I really start to get the munchies.   Even if you don't give in, every food ad begins to stand out, and it is annoying as fark.


/ * specifically, ad-supported channels without having been recorded using a PVR
//one more reason why I love my HTPC with Windows Media Center
 
2013-03-11 03:12:35 PM  
Right, food advertising doesn't promote obesity.

Taco bell  spends millions annually advertising the "fourth" meal right around 9-10pm because it in no way encourages fat American's to get in their Hundai's and pick up a loaded stuffed   grilled burrito to keep them full for those tenuous 3 hours between 11pm snack and the 2am night meal.
 
2013-03-11 03:17:44 PM  
If food advertising didn't cause people to eat more then why spend all that money on advertising?
 
2013-03-11 03:20:27 PM  
It's sad to watch the busted arguments of tobacco companies get recycled again and again. They used to say the same thing, Joe Camel was just there to get Marlboro smokers to switch, why we'd never dream of encouraging people to smoke, filthy habit really. Also correlation isn't causation, maybe smokers just happen to get lung cancer for some other reason that nobody can identify.
 
2013-03-11 03:22:29 PM  
I HATE advertising propaganda.
 
2013-03-11 03:25:40 PM  

odinsposse: If food advertising didn't cause people to eat more then why spend all that money on advertising?


Charity for out of work actors.
 
2013-03-11 03:39:42 PM  

Lyonid: The CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html  ) and others ( http://www.americanobesity.org/obesityInAmerica.htm  ) don't seem to be hiding this data.


That's all well and good, but it's not broken down by census tract, which is what's important here. Only the researchers have that info, advertisers don't. There's no reasonable way for the advertisers to know which census tract is fatter than the other without having done the same research as the others. I highly doubt people were answering there phones when faced with "Hi, this is your McDonalds. What is your BMI?"
 
2013-03-11 03:43:04 PM  
graphics8.nytimes.com

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-11 03:43:10 PM  
Oblig.
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-03-11 03:53:29 PM  

neversubmit: I HATE advertising propaganda.


To stop those monsters 1-2-3,
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free,
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
(Guarantee void in Tennessee.)
All: Just don't look! Just don't look!
Just don't look! Just don't look!
Just don't look! Just don't look!
 
2013-03-11 03:55:10 PM  
I absolutely and honestly believe that correlation and causation is more important that just about everything covered in school.  It has SO many applications for adults, politics, voting, raising children, I mean, it's such a core concept.....

And people don't get it.

It should be taught every year and included on mandatory 'You can't get a GED until you understand this' testing.  I know people with PhDs who don't understand it.  Seriously...what the hell?
 
2013-03-11 04:00:41 PM  
I jerked off today.
People died today.
Since correlation = causation, there's only one conclusion: people dying makes me wanna jerk off!!
 
2013-03-11 04:03:18 PM  
obey.jpg
 
2013-03-11 04:17:14 PM  
Then there is Cooking Channel, Food Network, Travel Channel, and all their shows like Diners, Drive Ins and Dives. Man, Fire, Food. It all just makes you want to go to Publix, lay down $38 for a brisket, take it home and fire up the smoker. Then chop it up and put it in a mac and cheese dish. Oh, the hungramity!
 
2013-03-11 04:28:16 PM  

veive: Correlation does not equal causation however when you reach a sufficient percentage of correlation causation no longer matters since you have 100% correlation.

/Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
//It doesn't matter. Chickens lay eggs. Chickens hatch from eggs. It's 100% correlation.
///Who needs a cause?


Evolution says the egg.
Creationism says the chicken cuz Godidit
 
2013-03-11 04:28:30 PM  

stonicus: I jerked off today.
People died today.
Since correlation = causation, there's only one conclusion: people dying makes me wanna jerk off!!


Or you're killing people by jacking off.

In which case...

/stupid file size limit
 
2013-03-11 04:37:45 PM  

Kimpak: FTFA:    Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?



I would just like to clarify that for the most part, exercise has very little to do with losing weight (while it has everything to do with being healthy). I made a point of doing virtually no exercise beyond the normal walking around I had always done at work while I was 260lbs, and simply focused on changing what I ate. 80lbs later I was pretty pleased with my personal acceptance that weight gain is cause by what you eat, not how much you exercise.
 
2013-03-11 04:55:10 PM  

TrollDerpistan: Kimpak: FTFA:    Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?


I would just like to clarify that for the most part, exercise has very little to do with losing weight (while it has everything to do with being healthy). I made a point of doing virtually no exercise beyond the normal walking around I had always done at work while I was 260lbs, and simply focused on changing what I ate. 80lbs later I was pretty pleased with my personal acceptance that weight gain is cause by what you eat, not how much you exercise.


Well if we're using anecdotal evidence.  I eat pretty much whatever I feel like eating.  Fast food, snacks etc..  But I lead a very active lifestyle, swimming, biking, hiking and so on.  I maintain a nice healthy 180-190.  But if I get lazy in the winter and can't do some of the outdoorsy things that i do then I'll be come a gigantic fat man.
 
2013-03-11 05:13:46 PM  

Kimpak: FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?
/Seriously, put down the fork


I'll put that right up there with "All you have to do to stop teen pregnancy is for teens to stop having sex".

Yes, the advice is correct, but it's also uninformative and kind of useless as a policy position. The question isn't what physical process is causing people to gain weight, the question is why so many people are gaining weight.

It clearly wasn't always the case, so why now and not before? What forces are leading to such a situation where a disturbingly large (in both senses of the word) part of the population are becoming obese?  We need a better answer than "put down the fork, fatty".

Unless you can identify and understand the social factors that are driving this change, you can't have any real hope of countering them, endless quantities of earnest advice to eat more and exercise to the contrary.

So let me ask you: what do you think is driving this? Why are so many people becoming fat and why is the US near the front of this trend?
 
2013-03-11 05:29:05 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: So let me ask you: what do you think is driving this? Why are so many people becoming fat and why is the US near the front of this trend?


It's correlated with monstrosities like this being available at your local grocery store:
(the worst part being that some people actually buy and eat these things.)
 streetwiseprofessors.com
 
2013-03-11 06:03:26 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Kimpak: FTFA:    People weigh more than ever - but why? If we can find the causes of obesity, we can try to eliminate or counter them.

Cause: People eat more and exercise less. Where's my research grant?
/Seriously, put down the fork

I'll put that right up there with "All you have to do to stop teen pregnancy is for teens to stop having sex".

Yes, the advice is correct, but it's also uninformative and kind of useless as a policy position. The question isn't what physical process is causing people to gain weight, the question is why so many people are gaining weight.

It clearly wasn't always the case, so why now and not before? What forces are leading to such a situation where a disturbingly large (in both senses of the word) part of the population are becoming obese?  We need a better answer than "put down the fork, fatty".

Unless you can identify and understand the social factors that are driving this change, you can't have any real hope of countering them, endless quantities of earnest advice to eat more and exercise to the contrary.

So let me ask you: what do you think is driving this? Why are so many people becoming fat and why is the US near the front of this trend?


I'm not a scientist (obviously), but I think people are thinking about it way too much.  People are getting fatter because its easier to get fat.  The more we innovate and automate the world the less people have to physically work.  A farm can be run by much fewer people over a wider tract of land thanks to modern farming impliments.  So we can grow more food for cheaper.  The rest of the supply chain can take those raw ingredients and turn it into whatever crap they feel like.  So..fewer needed physically active jobs, and more desk type jobs means you can eat all of this available food and sit on your arse and get paid for it to continue eating and sitting on your arse.  I work in networking, if I become 400lbs as long as I can wiggle my fingers across my keyboard I still have a job.  But if I'm a farm hand and am 400lbs, I can't even climb into the tractor.   What I'm saying is there's no need to be thin or even in shape to have a really well paid job. Sure you might live a much shorter life, but it is what it is.

Macro case study.  Cats.  If you leave a bowel of food constantly filled to the brim for your cat, its going to get morbidly obese.  If you feed it as prescribed on the bag (of leading cat food) your cat will be a healthy weight.

/Apologize in advance if this is apples/oranges to the topic of human obesity
 
2013-03-11 06:18:33 PM  

Msol: Lyonid: The CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html  ) and others ( http://www.americanobesity.org/obesityInAmerica.htm  ) don't seem to be hiding this data.

That's all well and good, but it's not broken down by census tract, which is what's important here. Only the researchers have that info, advertisers don't. There's no reasonable way for the advertisers to know which census tract is fatter than the other without having done the same research as the others. I highly doubt people were answering there phones when faced with "Hi, this is your McDonalds. What is your BMI?"


So you're saying a county by county breakdown wouldn't be sufficiently granular for use in advertising?  Interesting.
 
2013-03-11 06:42:50 PM  
If advertising unhealthy foods didn't cause them to sell more, why would the food companies keep doing it?
 
2013-03-11 06:58:58 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Some 'Splainin' To Do: So let me ask you: what do you think is driving this? Why are so many people becoming fat and why is the US near the front of this trend?

It's correlated with monstrosities like this being available at your local grocery store:
(the worst part being that some people actually buy and eat these things.)
 [streetwiseprofessors.com image 374x347]


I just showed it to my 5 year old. He said, "I want that!"

If I see some when we're out tomorrow I'm totally picking them up. I want one too.

I'll accept a causative relationship between chocolate chip pancakes and sausage on a stick and obesity. However, the fallacy is that because fat people eat them, therefore only fat people eat them and all who eat them will be fat.
 
2013-03-11 06:59:27 PM  
Hey social scientists. You suck at statistics and casually correlated variables. Stop pretending you are science. Only federal grants fund you. Go fark off.
 
2013-03-11 07:12:01 PM  
Kimpak:

<i>Macro case study.  Cats.  If you leave a bowel of food constantly filled to the brim for your cat, its going to get morbidly obese.  If you feed it as prescribed on the bag (of leading cat food) your cat will be a healthy weight.
/Apologize in advance if this is apples/oranges to the topic of human obesity
 </i>
Leaving aside the comparisons to humanity, this is jsut not true; I've had many cats in my life, and customarily do exactly that, yet mysteriously they don't get fat.  I think it has to do with them getting exercise, really.
 
2013-03-11 07:25:32 PM  
If advertising doesn't increase consumption, why pay for it? The purpose of advertising is to sell stuff, thus increasing consumption. No increase in consumption, no advertising.

Ever notice that almost nobody advertises good restaurants? They don't need to advertise. They get all the business they need by word of mouth. The top restaurants don't even have signs. They have, like the restaurant in the Archer cartoon a couple weeks ago, fake phone numbers for the nobodies to call.

Look at what is advertised and marketed: tobacco, booze, junk food, soft drinks. All stuff you don't need and possibly don't want. All stuff that is highly profitable, more or less addictive, and ruinous for your health.

ADVERTISING:  because it works to trigger your addictions and cravings. Damn few people are addictive to carrots (although it is possible) and thus there is damn little advertising for carrots. But for potato chips or sugar, you betcha they are triggering your cravings and moving product.

Other things that are heavily advertising is stuff like cosmetics, designer clothes and other over-priced crap which would be commodified and cheap if the markeeters and advertisers and fashonistas didn't push product day and night. It's all the same crap. There's not a jot or iota of difference between the shampoo you buy in a gallon jug at WalMart and the stuff that is $35 a small bottle in your hair salon. The function is the same--to part dirt from hair by surrounding the dirt with soap and surfactants.

But to make sure you buy one over-priced and useless product over another over-priced and useless product, you need mighty market forces: advertising, marketing, fashion, stupidity.

The tobacco industry disingenuously claims that advertising doesn't sell tobacco, it just encourages brand loyalty. Same thing. You wouldn't be loyal to your fricking poison of choice if a lot of work didn't go into triggering the cravings of your addicted brain.

The USA is the fattest country on Earth. It is also the most advertised to country on Earth. Coinincidence?

Well, name the second fattest country on Earth and let's look at its advertising and marketing budgets.
 
2013-03-11 07:35:33 PM  
The more two goods are similar, the more advertising it takes to be number one and dominate the competition.

Let us call this the Brantgoose Iron Law of Poopsi-Cola.

Countries spending the most in Online Advertising (In Billions)


20112012201320142015USA32.039.546.552.857.5Canada2.162.542.863.233.5 6UK7.137.918.709.7010.43Germany5.616.597.428.629.37France2.883.203.503 .954.22Italy1.521.782.012.272.64Spain1.201.411.481.671.84Japan7.218.10 8.919.5810.17China4.576.217.639.4611.36
Who's getting fatter fastest?

USA
China
UK
Germany
France
Canada
Italy
Spain

The only anomaly is Japan. They refuse to get fat. Possibly because nobody can understand what the Hell they are advertising. Or maybe they just have the longest way to go giving outrageous rents, food prices, and ancient traditions of frugality and Buddhism--the most vegetarian of all major religions including Confucianism.
 
2013-03-11 07:38:46 PM  
Sorry about the table--it was showing in the preview.

Here's the source:  http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-ad-spending/

Bottom of the page.
 
2013-03-11 07:44:37 PM  

brantgoose: Sorry about the table--it was showing in the preview.

Here's the source:  http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-ad-spending/

Bottom of the page.


Your previous post:
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-11 08:49:52 PM  
Recently I changed my diet. I noticed two things primarily. The first is that there's sugar or HFC in everything. The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries. The least expensive breads are awful for you. And on and on.

I'm not sure how much adults are influenced by food advertising, but I do know that adults are influenced by prices.
 
2013-03-11 08:51:58 PM  
Ever since that farking xkcd strip, every moron on the internet thinks that correlation never means causation.

And the implication in the headline that advertising doesn't increase sales of bad food is the usual american "triumph of the will" bullshiat. Just like any mention of mental illness which elicits the response of "you just need to toughen up!" from the dickhead brigade.

I should probably just accept that Fark is now Gawker-level trollbaiting and nothing more.
 
2013-03-11 09:17:13 PM  

Underwater Bystander: Recently I changed my diet. I noticed two things primarily. The first is that there's sugar or HFC in everything. The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries. The least expensive breads are awful for you. And on and on.

I'm not sure how much adults are influenced by food advertising, but I do know that adults are influenced by prices.


Strawberry Pop-Tarts are cheaper than strawberries because they put HFC in everything.  Corn syrup is incredibly cheap in the US, and incredibly calorie dense.

Want to really make a dent?  End corn subsidies.  In fact, go further, put a tax on corn used to fatten up people, cows.
 
2013-03-12 12:41:24 AM  

Underwater Bystander: The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries.


Given the law of supply and demand, that should tell you something about what most people are eating.
 
2013-03-12 01:51:24 AM  
Anyone who says they've never been influenced to eat when they were otherwise not hungry is a lying sack of shiat. Television is probably the worst offender, you cant watch TV without being bombarded with images of food. Everything from fast food burgers to more fine dining, candy bars, chips, and even grocery store ads. For every hour of TV you watch, chances are you will see at least 8-10 minutes worth of food related imagery.  Hell even the shows themselves contribute to this, when was the last time you watched a show that didn't include at least one scene of people eating? Next thing you know, you're standing in front of the fridge looking for something.

It's all to easy to blame people for their lack of self control, given enough temptation people will eventually give in.
 
2013-03-12 02:03:40 AM  

Underwater Bystander: Recently I changed my diet. I noticed two things primarily. The first is that there's sugar or HFC in everything. The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries. The least expensive breads are awful for you. And on and on.

I'm not sure how much adults are influenced by food advertising, but I do know that adults are influenced by prices.


I feel your pain, been going through the same thing recently. Another problem is that fresh fruits/vegetables don't last long so you have to shop every 2-3 days, and if you're single like I am you still end up throwing a lot away because you simply can't use it all in time.

Aside from fresh produce, it seems that anything that's healthy is more expensive. I thought I would buy pickles for an occasional snack seeing as they have zero calories. One problem is that they're incredibly high in sodium, so I looked for a low salt brand and was only able to find one, which happens to be the most expensive jar on the shelf. How is it that anything that contains less of something costs more?
 
2013-03-12 04:19:11 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Underwater Bystander: Recently I changed my diet. I noticed two things primarily. The first is that there's sugar or HFC in everything. The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries. The least expensive breads are awful for you. And on and on.

I'm not sure how much adults are influenced by food advertising, but I do know that adults are influenced by prices.

I feel your pain, been going through the same thing recently. Another problem is that fresh fruits/vegetables don't last long so you have to shop every 2-3 days, and if you're single like I am you still end up throwing a lot away because you simply can't use it all in time.

Aside from fresh produce, it seems that anything that's healthy is more expensive. I thought I would buy pickles for an occasional snack seeing as they have zero calories. One problem is that they're incredibly high in sodium, so I looked for a low salt brand and was only able to find one, which happens to be the most expensive jar on the shelf. How is it that anything that contains less of something costs more?


For pickles, the lower salt stuff doesn't keep as long, so the grocer and supplier need to rotate the stock more often.

As for fresh fruit and veggies, apples have great shelf life for fruit. Carrots, most root veggies, and green cabbage last a good long time. For leafy greens you're kinda screwed unless you buy that butter lettuce with the roots still on it. That lettuce lasts at least two weeks if you get the moisture balance right.

/big fan of kimchi.
//tasty pickled greens that last *forever*
 
2013-03-12 05:28:44 AM  

ReapTheChaos: Anyone who says they've never been influenced to eat when they were otherwise not hungry is a lying sack of shiat. Television is probably the worst offender, you cant watch TV without being bombarded with images of food. Everything from fast food burgers to more fine dining, candy bars, chips, and even grocery store ads. For every hour of TV you watch, chances are you will see at least 8-10 minutes worth of food related imagery.  Hell even the shows themselves contribute to this, when was the last time you watched a show that didn't include at least one scene of people eating? Next thing you know, you're standing in front of the fridge looking for something.

It's all to easy to blame people for their lack of self control, given enough temptation people will eventually give in.


It is interesting the idea that $467b is spent every year on advertising and it apparently has no affect on anyone. That is a lot of companies wasting money for an awful long time, so you would have to have pretty strong evidence to suggest they are all wrong.
 
2013-03-12 05:28:55 AM  

Bonzo_1116: ReapTheChaos: Underwater Bystander: Recently I changed my diet. I noticed two things primarily. The first is that there's sugar or HFC in everything. The second is that the healthier foods (including fruits and vegetables) are more expensive than the foods that are bad for you. It's cheaper to buy strawberry pop tarts than strawberries. The least expensive breads are awful for you. And on and on.

I'm not sure how much adults are influenced by food advertising, but I do know that adults are influenced by prices.

I feel your pain, been going through the same thing recently. Another problem is that fresh fruits/vegetables don't last long so you have to shop every 2-3 days, and if you're single like I am you still end up throwing a lot away because you simply can't use it all in time.

Aside from fresh produce, it seems that anything that's healthy is more expensive. I thought I would buy pickles for an occasional snack seeing as they have zero calories. One problem is that they're incredibly high in sodium, so I looked for a low salt brand and was only able to find one, which happens to be the most expensive jar on the shelf. How is it that anything that contains less of something costs more?

For pickles, the lower salt stuff doesn't keep as long, so the grocer and supplier need to rotate the stock more often.

As for fresh fruit and veggies, apples have great shelf life for fruit. Carrots, most root veggies, and green cabbage last a good long time. For leafy greens you're kinda screwed unless you buy that butter lettuce with the roots still on it. That lettuce lasts at least two weeks if you get the moisture balance right.

/big fan of kimchi.
//tasty pickled greens that last *forever*


Not so sure about that, I bought two jars, one regular and one low salt and the low salt jar has a use by date that's longer than the regular. Of course, that doesn't mean they were made at the same time.
 
2013-03-12 05:38:21 AM  
Salt is the original preservative. A good quality low salt pickle will probably be a "bread'n'butter" pickle. I think those ones go through a lactic acid fermentation process, which needs less salt.

Do any pickling enthusiasts out there have better better info? I love me some pickles.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report