>>7024124Not him , but he never said 'filling.' I was about to attack his post, too, but realised that his point is absolutely spot on: there are lots of things cheaper and more nutritious than beans and rice, however, few (none?) of them are as filling.
For example, 100g of cooked kale has about eighty kajillion times more nutrients than 100g of cooked beans. And it's much cheaper. When adjusted for cost, dry beans in my area are sold 99¢/lb while fresh kale is 49¢/lb. 1lb of beans will swell up to about 600g of cooked beans, so there would be six, 100g servings per 99¢. Kale, on the other hand, cooks /down/ from 1lb to about 200g. That's 49¢ for two, 100g servings of kale. Beans seem like they're cheaper, right? Nope! Because 100g of cooked beans isn't quite a filling serving. 150g is, though. And that's four servings per 99¢. So, per serving, kale and beans cost about the same, but kale is far more nutritious while beans are far more filling.
Best thing to do? Combine the two into one meal.
There's a dish where I'm from of beans, onion, garlic, chillies and kale cooked together in pork-or-chicken-bone stock to make a green soup which is just about the most nutritious and filling dish I can think of. Total cost is about 70¢ per serving.
