EEV: Hmmm if you disagree with their theory of nutrition. You are a ” Liberal ‘coalition of class snobs, locavore foodies and militant anti-corporate types “ If its dollars per calories they believe in, why not cut to the chase and just drink High Fructose Corns Syrup straight? I guess they are just putting their macabre spin on poverty being cool. Let them eat “Mcdoubles” yea worked for Marie Antoinette also.
PUBLISHED: 00:04 EST, 29 July 2013 | UPDATED: 00:05 EST, 29 July 2013
In terms of ‘the cheapest, most nutritious and bountiful food that has ever existed in human history,’ the golden arches of McDonald’s probably isn’t the first thing to pop into your mind.
But they should – according to a New York Post columnist and an economics blogger, anyway.
Post columnist Kyle Smith made a pretty compelling case for the McDonald’s Mcdouble’s giving diners the most bang for their nutritional buck.
Behold, the McDouble: ‘the cheapest, most nutritious and bountiful food that has ever existed in human history’
At 390 calories, 23 grams of protein, 7-percent of the daily value of fiber, 20-percent of daily calcium and 19 grams of fat – with a typical price tag of about a buck – the McDouble, its advocates argue, is the most price-efficient food ‘that has ever existed in human history.
‘For the average poor person, it isn’t a great option to take a trip to the farmers market to puzzle over esoteric lefty-foodie codes. (Is sustainable better than organic? What if I have to choose between fair trade and cruelty-free?) Produce may seem cheap to environmentally aware blond moms who spend $300 on their highlights every month, but if your object is to fill your belly, it is hugely expensive per calorie,’ Smith writes.
‘Junk food costs as little as $1.76 per 1,000 calories, whereas fresh veggies and the like cost more than 10 times as much, found a 2007 University of Washington survey for the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. A 2,000-calorie day of meals would, if you stuck strictly to the good-for-you stuff, cost $36.32, said the study’s lead author, Adam Drewnowski.’
Bold: NY Post columnist Kyle Smith (center-right) realizes his theory on the McDouble isn’t a popular one
Smith’s argument initially was made by a commenter on the Freakonomics blog run by economics writer Stephen Dubner and professor Steven Leavitt, who co-wrote the million-selling books on the hidden side of everything.
Adding fuel to the argument is the fact that studies show that ‘people who eat out tend to eat less at home that day in partial compensation; the net gain, according to a 2008 study out of Berkeley and Northwestern, is only about 24 calories a day.’
Another factor in the argument is the rising cost of organic foods, which Smith says are now becoming a ‘luxury item.’
Smith realizes the theory isn’t going to be a popular one amongst the Liberal ‘coalition of class snobs, locavore foodies and militant anti-corporate types.’
But facts are facts – and ‘where else but McDonald’s can poor people obtain so many calories per dollar?’
Lovin’ It: Poor people, Smith argues, can get the most bang for their buck by eating at McDonald’s
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380548/Is-McDonalds-McDouble-cheapest-nutritious-bountiful-food-existed-human-history.html#ixzz2aPqL07jm Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook