This pictures shows something called “caloric density.” Most people’s nutritional misunderstandings asides- a modern sentiment is to bash on high calorie foods by default. Here’s the thing though- your body needs a certain number of calories a day. Generally between 1,000-2500 for most people. There’s nothing wrong with a food which provides a large amount of calories in a small quantity. Our ancestors would have loved that luxury. It’s when you eat so much of any food- regardless of its density- that you get too many calories for health. If you can eat a small amount of food and get your basic nutrition and stay within caloric limits- you’re actually doing very well. The other thing this doesn’t factor in is cost and time. How much more money and time does t take to buy and prepare those foods on the right? Should you live on fast food? Likely not, but This agin falls into the same pit as “vaccines are bad because of mercury.”
It’s sort of a mess. 1700 calories falls between 1-3 meals worth of food for most people. If you consume all the food on either side in a single sitting, you will be ingesting 1700 calories period. A less calorocically dense food will take more to equal the same amount of calories yes. But neither option is particularly healthy as a meal. On the right, the food shown represents a mass that many would not eat in a single for sitting. Realistically- who would split large fast food fries and a shake into multiple meals anyway? It’s not a realistic comparison. There are some people who’s idea of a meal is a large strawberry shake and an order of fries- but I’d say that’s relatively rare no? My point is it’s like comparing the weight of a new back pack to the weight of a camper van. You can put stuff in either or take either camping- but if you’re shopping for a back pack the alternative suggestion wouldn’t be a camper van. It’s not equivocal, and neither is arguably a meal....
.... and at 1700 calories neither is a snack for most people. Yes- one is “bigger” as displayed. But turn that fruit into a smoothly so it’s comprable to the shake and what does it look like? It’s just a mess. The message is as you say- you can eat more on the right for the calories on the left. But it’s not well thought out or really helpful. Especially since calories are only part of the equation. Further more- again, comparing fast food to food you need to prepare and shop for isn’t really the best comparison either. If time and money weren’t factors why wouldn’t everyone eat well prepared home made meals? The demographics aren’t the same.
1. The point is that we need more of the food on the right to feel full: which results in overeating and hence weight gain. The food on the left makes us feel full only when large quantities are consumed, without making us fat because they're not very dense in calories.
2. Calories aren't the only things that are necessary for our bodies. We also need other nutrients, which the food on the left would lack. The food on the right, in addition to having calories, will also be rich in those essential nutrients.
2. Calories aren't the only things that are necessary for our bodies. We also need other nutrients, which the food on the left would lack. The food on the right, in addition to having calories, will also be rich in those essential nutrients.