Gregg Wallace programme on TV

Nargleblast

Yes, sometimes it can be more cost effective to choose quality over quantity, which can be difficult for those on low incomes. We just have to do what we can. I've been meaning to look in on the Gregg Wallace programme, but I find programmes like this seem to feature gormless people and patronising presenters. Or, could it be that the programme makers put a slant on the show to make the people appear gormless when in reality they are not? I suspect it is all about what makes good telly - Mr and Mrs Gormless get the viewers, Mr and Mrs Sensible don't!

jackieblack

Mr and Mrs Sensible wouldn't be spending £330 a week, on average, on groceries though

Owain_Moneysaver

jackieblack wrote: »

Mr and Mrs Sensible wouldn't be spending £330 a week, on average, on groceries though

And if they did they could eat a lot better than the couple on the programme, who for all their money didn't actually seem to have very nice food.

If I could spend £23 a day per head on food I'm sure I could get some nice organic aged meat, mature farmhouse cheeses, etc, rather than the processed muck which took up a lot of their money.

jackieblack

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

And if they did they could eat a lot better than the couple on the programme, who for all their money didn't actually seem to have very nice food.

If I could spend £23 a day per head on food I'm sure I could get some nice organic aged meat, mature farmhouse cheeses, etc, rather than the processed muck which took up a lot of their money.

There were 3 adults and a child in the household, I think that works out about half of your £23, approximately, but I take your general point:)

Nargleblast

jackieblack wrote: »

Mr and Mrs Sensible wouldn't be spending £330 a week, on average, on groceries though

True, indeed!

Cornucopia

Nargleblast wrote: »

I suppose it's a bit like someone paying out £200 for an item of clothing. If you hardly ever wear it then it's an expensive item in your wardrobe. If, however, you wear it say 20 times over a year (1-2 times a month) then it has cost you £10 for each time you wear it. And if it is well made and top quality, it will last years and you will get to the point where it has more than paid for itself.

Sometimes you have to invest for the long term.

On that basis, it probably makes sense to introduce new ingredients gradually, so that you know you will like them, and know that you will use them.

Certainly, you could imagine a transition from tinned pasta to dried pasta with a shop-bought sauce to dried pasta with a homemade sauce to fresh pasta with a homemade sauce with some fresh basil in it. Each time enhancing the quality of ingredients and the nutritional balance whilst controlling/understanding the extent to which the cost increases.

VfM4meplse

Cornucopia wrote: »

Certainly, you could imagine a transition from tinned pasta to dried pasta with a shop-bought sauce to dried pasta with a homemade sauce to fresh pasta with a homemade sauce with some fresh basil in it. Each time enhancing the quality of ingredients and the nutritional balance whilst controlling/understanding the extent to which the cost increases.

The exact opposite of MSE Martin's downshift advice!

Ladyluck1

Unfortunately it is just habit.
Mostly these family's are seeing a cut in income which means after years of not having to think about what they buy they now have to. Though I find it hard to see how they couldn't equate half of their food spends to a nice holiday
Whilst most of us shop wisely, meal plan and chose the best products from discount supermarkets it makes it hard to remember that hey are at least trying to make a change!
I can't imagine spending even £100 a week on groceries now (2 adults 2 children) plus we eat nearly all free range meat and local veggies!

Cornucopia

VfM4meplse wrote: »

The exact opposite of MSE Martin's downshift advice!

Indeed. As Liza Tarbuck herself says (she narrates the programme): "sometimes we substitute a more expensive product to improve quality".

The elephant in the room is that good nutrition generally, and the Jamie Oliver recipes specifically, involve ingredients and an approach to food that some people may view as "trendy" or "middle class". We need to get over that. The optimal nutritional approach is whatever it is... to an extent we ignore it at our own risk (but also at a cost to the NHS).

Pollycat

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Fashion maths!

I call it 'total cost of ownership' - I used to do data modelling and my boss was gob-smacked when I bought a pair of boots that he thought were a bit expensive and I justified it by this reasoning:

Nargleblast wrote: »

I suppose it's a bit like someone paying out £200 for an item of clothing. If you hardly ever wear it then it's an expensive item in your wardrobe. If, however, you wear it say 20 times over a year (1-2 times a month) then it has cost you £10 for each time you wear it. And if it is well made and top quality, it will last years and you will get to the point where it has more than paid for itself.

Sometimes you have to invest for the long term.

He said 'you must run rings round your husband. (He was right )

VfM4meplse wrote: »

The exact opposite of MSE Martin's downshift advice!

But I guess you could employ the same principles - change up, if you like it and can really see the difference in taste (and can afford it) stick with it.
If you can't taste any difference, drop back down again.