Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Eating Simply is "Money in the Bank"

There's a challenge out now to food bloggers from Jennifer Silverberg (website is Eat Yourself Well) to see who can contribute the best tips for feeding a family of four on $100 a week.

"Impossible!" many would say. After all, the cost of food is going up and money is tight for much of middle-class America.

Part of the problem is our palate's cravings for sugar, fat and salt. We can spend plenty of time and money putting together meals that pivot on that, and get little nutrition for the effort.

I give the example of dinner for myself last night. I had about 3/4 cup serving of left over eggplant parmesan in the fridge, but I also had plenty of romaine lettuce in there, too. I decided to mix the greens with enough vinegar & oil to barely coat the leaves, along with a dash of salt and pepper.

The eggplant occupied a very small part of my plate, so I loaded the rest of my plate with the lettuce salad. (It was about a half a head, which would equate to about 85 cents in cost. The eggplant serving was less than many folks scrape off their plates and toss!)

Interestingly, I feel totally satisfied afterwards, and savoring the greens just felt "good."

Thus inspired, I went to the store and picked up some kale, some blueberries, spinach and a few apples.

The apples are a great mid-morning snack, or you can chop them and add them to yogurt smoothies, oatmeal or salads, to name a few options. The spinach can be added to hot pasta noodles with a few sautéed onions, a little parmesan cheese and some olive oil; or added to a salad or a smoothie, or sautéed with some onion and garlic as a side dish and then doused with a splash of vinegar. Same with kale.

Blueberries are for my waffles, but they are a great high-fiber snack anytime.

Even for four people, mixing it up that way can stretch your food dollar while you deliver good nutrition to your very cells!

I love the saying: "Less is more".  If we just think ahead, we waste less so we spend less.

What's not to like about that?

No comments: