Nutrition in foods(particularly cheap foods)

111222

Could we start an ongoing thread here regarding the nutrition values of foods, particularly cheap foods, like smart price etc..

I have been buying these ultra cheap smart price instant noodles, and after a quick google i find this.

Instant noodles have no nutritional value and should be avoided. Second, uncooked instant noodles have a wax coating on them to prevent them from sticking to each other. This wax then forms part of the noodle when cooked. When taken excessively, the wax coats the stomach lining and cause stomach problems and at times even cause cancer.

Usually nothing comes that convenient, i.e being so cheap.

Apart from BPA in cans and bottles, which is an ongoing debate, can you find any other information on foods you buy that are potentially bad for your health?

Ken68

Liver is cheap, 111, £1 kg but has high chloresterol.
Sooooo, maybe not good for the heart.
Also cheap low fat dairy products,look out for SUGAR added .

Edwardia

Following on from Ken68's post most low fat yogurts are full of fructose. In nature it's OK it comes with fibre. So fructose-wise the price of the yogurt makes no difference.

When I was looking for the least carby fish fingers and houmous they were both own brands and the least carby houmous was a value product.

I'd agree that there's no food value in instant noodles, probably not much in white rice and pasta either.

If you assume that the premium brands are more nutritious that isn't the case. Sometimes what you're paying for is better crumb mix.

Even if it says 100% fish fillet on your fish finger that doesn't mean the finger is straight from a fish. 100% fish could mean a mix of fish and fillet is only a cut so it could be a cut of any old fish. MDF could be labelled 100% natural if made from natural fibres.

Nor is organic necessarily more nutritious either, it just won't have GM ingredients, chemicals, pesticides etc.

rufydoofyM

Milk is worth a look too. Most milk and all cheap supermarket milk is homogenised. This process disperses the cream throughout the milk so that it doesnt rise to the top. There has been research into this process that points to higher chances of heart disease. Worth googling to find out more. We now use less and only buy non homogenized.

Soworried

I compared the nutrition between Kelloggs cornflakes and MrT basics and the basic one was better on the sugar, comparable on the other groups.

abailey54

I had some cheap baked beans (can't remember which ones sorry) that had lower calorie and salt content than the Heinz reduced salt and sugar tin - though calorie content may be due to less/smaller beans in the cheaper version

geordie_joe

rufydoofyM wrote: »

Worth googling to find out more. We now use less and only buy non homogenized.

I did google it, and found these sites

http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/is-homogenized-milk-bad-for-you.aspx

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/38/2/327.long

~Chameleon~

Soworried wrote: »

I compared the nutrition between Kelloggs cornflakes and MrT basics and the basic one was better on the sugar, comparable on the other groups.

All cereals are the work of the devil and should be banished forthwith!!

I make exception for "proper" porridge (not ready-brek or sugar loaded oatso-whatever) and Weetabix as this, assuming you're not gluten intolerant, is an excellent breakfast base (for those who must have cereals at whatever cost).

Of course, I'd rather you didn't choose a cereal based breakfast but opt for eggs, bacon, vegetables etc.... far more nutritious and filling... or protein pancakes... or fruit & greek yoghurt... or my favourite banana omelettes

Soworried

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

All cereals are the work of the devil and should be banished forthwith!!

:eek: Do you realise the impact that would have on the 3rd world?:(

~Chameleon~

Soworried wrote: »

:eek: Do you realise the impact that would have on the 3rd world?:(

It might have catastrophic financial impact but would have a massive worldwide health benefit

Soworried

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

would have a massive worldwide health benefit

Or just the Western world where food is plentiful surely.

The rest of the world would starve worse than they already are.