zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
> “The data show clear changes in food spending following adoption,” Hristakeva said. “After discontinuation, the effects become smaller and harder to distinguish from pre-adoption spending patterns.”

It's interesting that overall spending doesn't decrease that much in the end, although shifting from snacks to fruit is the kind of change health advocates have always wanted?

>>nemoma+j4
Around here fruit is significantly more expensive than snacks. In fact, replacing the snacks with healthy food in our case increased spending. So it is awesome that these households managed to cut spendings.

>>spockz+Y5
> fruit is significantly more expensive than snacks

This is a commonly repeated claim but it's usually not true. Fruit is, in fact, pretty cheap:

In the US, bananas average $1.68/kilo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings...

A kilo is usually ~6 bananas. So a banana costs maybe 28c on average. Find a cost-competitive ultra-processed snack for the calories and satiety that a banana provides. Healthy eating might not is cheap but junk food, specifically, is not usually a cost optimisation.

>>calpat+vb
Why is fruit the example of a healthy snack? Fruits are full of fructose, which is enemy #1 for weight loss.

>>astran+ip2
Everything in moderation. An understated benefit of fruit is their prebiotic nature which promotes a healthy gut. A lot of healthy eating advice is settling down towards one idea. Eat a wide range of raw and fermented plant food.