For breakfast each day I eat one container of low-fat yogurt, one whole grain bagel with peanut butter, and a container of coffee, iced or warm, depending on the weather. This is basically an "it's good for ya" breakfast. I'm not big on yogurt; it's only O.K., but it's "good for ya." Whole grain bagels are "good for ya" but taste a lot like roof shingles no matter what is spread on them. Coffee's not particularly "good for ya," but I love it. So, flavor and food value considered, this is an acceptable breakfast for me.
Now that I am back to blogging, I decided it would be an interesting blog topic to figure a formula of sorts with which to judge an "acceptable" meal. My two criteria for an acceptable meal are decency of taste and decency of nutritional/health value. I feel that a scale of 1 to 10 is acceptably accurate with 10 being the best in either taste or nutrition. So if I give yogurt a 5 on flavor and a 8 on nutrition, by multiplying those numbers, I rate a cup of ACTIVIA or whatever brand I might choose, with a 40. A peanut-buttered whole grain bagel receives a 4 and 8, creating a 32 rating. The coffee receives a 9 on flavor and a 2 for food value, creating an 18 rating. I must state that these rating are totally subjective and must be decided upon by the person rating his or her meal. So an acceptable meal of three items for me can be rated at 40+32+18 which equals 90.
I decided to test my lunch today with this formula. Often I have "Cheerios" for lunch, but today was special. I had an amazing meal. I had one slice cold pizza, one 8 oz. glass of skim milk, and one beautiful peach. Working backward, I judge the peach at 9 and 8 totaling 72, the milk gets a 9 and a 6 because of the sodium in milk. for 54, and the pizza gets 9 and a 2, for an 18. My lunch total was 144. A score of 144 marks a meal for me as way more than acceptable flavor wise and acceptable nutritionally.
ERGO, a meal scoring in the 80-100 area will be acceptable but uninspiring for me, and a meal in the 150 to 170 range is outstanding and still acceptably healthy. Subjectivity remains the key to this formula. Let me outline an absolutely horrible meal for me. It would have to begin with broccoli. Broccoli, so I am told, is wonderful for one. If it's so damn wonderful then I will grant it the only nutritional "10" in all of my food rating, but I'll also give it the only "1" for flavor. I hate what it tastes like, and I hate its texture, and no matter what you do with it still tastes like its got dirt on it. That's a "10" for broccoli. For the main course, I choose that flavorless free range chicken the health gurus rave about it. It gets a 3 for taste and and 8 for nutrition, totaling 24. For a beverage, I will have a glass of white wine. I know wine has its health benefits, so it gets 5 for nutrition and 3 for flavor, totaling 15. So a perfectly disgusting but extremely healthy meal for me totals "49." Strangely, if I had the delightful lunch of pizza, Buffalo wings, and draft beer, I would award the pizza with 18, the wings with the same 9 and 2, and the draft beer with an 8 and 3 for 24. The total of this delightful meal is "60," very close to my disgusting meal total. For another person the rating could be completely different. I've heard many people claim to love broccoli and white wine. I don't know how anyone could love that tough, stick-in-your-throat bird, but I can imagine a person of a different palate rating my disgusto meal with 200 points or more.
Try this test on your own meals being completely subjective to your taste buds. The lesson to be learned is old and wise: "Moderation in all things." You have to balance the flavor with the food value. I often wonder though, why God didn't make things that are good for you taste better.
No comments:
Post a Comment