Overview
Grading will be based on the sum of 3 subsection scores – taste, nutrition, and convenience. Each field will be graded from 1-7 for a minimum score of 3 and a maximum score of 21. A 7-point grading scale was chosen to avoid the distortion and inflation that naturally creeps into 5-star and 10-point grading systems. To see why, let’s examine the pitfalls of traditional rating metrics. Imagine a 5/10 – hardly inspiring, right? Even though it should be entirely average, due to being in the center of the scale, it carries the connotation of subpar quality. And a 4? Well that’s hardly edible, even as its absolute position on the scale implies an experience only slightly worse than average instead of the travesty you’ve been led to believe.
Truthfully, the “midpoint” on a 10 point scale is closer to 7 – where 6 conveys acceptable if mediocre while 8, 9, and 10 are the only real way to express approval and thus are handed out like candy. This shifting of the scale constrains the reviewer by throwing out a large portion of his or her available “review space” – a 3 in actuality must be given a 5 and none but the worst meals can be placed lower. On the other end, great meals are only given 3 degrees of praise (8, 9, and 10 like I said before), instead of the full 5 which they should be distributed across.
It is impossible to avoid this pitfall when using a 10 point scale. Even if I announce my intention to rebalance my scores around the true midpoint of 5, years of exposure to inflated scores have skewed you, the reader’s, perception of what is acceptable, average, and bilaterally unremarkable. The 7 point scale addresses some of these issues – the unfamiliar endpoint will escape the rigged mental model imposed by the 10 point scale, while the choice of an odd number provides a true middle ground instead of the asymmetry of 5. A true marvel of thought.
Taste
Subjective. Next question please.
But if you’ll trust my judgement, this section will likely be the most important to your future purchasing decisions. Meals should taste good, and regardless of any other considerations or restrictions, meals CAN taste good. I won’t pretend to be an Anton Ego, with the most discerning palette, but I will give my impressions on each aspect of a dish, as well as cohesiveness of those elements. I will value adherence to what was advertised – as in, if a bowl remarks “spicy”, I’ll expect at least a slight kick. I could list off other aspects in an attempt to be thorough but …that would be missing the point. Taste is subjective, and my aim isn’t to prescribe how something should taste, but to capture how it does taste—and whether it aligns with its promises. That said, there are a few universal touchpoints I’ll consider when grading:
1. Balance: Are the flavors harmonious, or does one overpower the rest?
2. Authenticity: Does the dish reflect the spirit of its origin or packaging? I’m not a hardliner, but I’ll value integrity and do my best to reward successful risk-taking.
3. Surprise: Does it offer something unexpected—in a good way?
While my impressions are personal, they’ll always aim to be fair, thoughtful, and, most importantly, useful to you. After all, the ultimate question is simple: Would I eat this again? If the answer is yes, then we’re off to a good start.
Convenience
I lied – THIS might be the most important section if you find yourself on this blog. As the vast world of the frozen meals aisle abounds with options, so too does it carry a host of preparation methods, directives, and recommendations. A dish could range from the breathtaking simple “just eat it” in the case of a frozen dessert, to the bread-and-butter “microwave for X minutes”, all the way to a multi-step guide on how to prepare it in or on a stove with auxiliary ingredients (cooking oil? who has the time???). But let’s break down the considerations for completeness sake:
- Time: It comes for us all. This is simple – shorter prep times get higher scores, with some consideration given to how the time is spent. After all, 8 minutes tending a pan, stirring and adding sauce, is a greater commitment than 7 in the microwave while I idly feel myself age.
- Tools: A pan, microwave, and oven is likely all you’ll ever need to make one of these meals, but, as mentioned, the less involvement – the higher the score. If you’re thinking “that sounds lazy” – you’re absolutely right. Don’t forget which blog you’re on.
- Servings Provided: Quality > Quantity, sure. But quantity doesn’t hurt either. If a 12 minute prep time can make more than I can eat in a single sitting, then it seems only fair to prorate the time by the number of servings.
- Price: We are cost-conscious at TJFMR. Price per serving will be factored in, using the prices from my local TJs in Southern Virginia. This may eventually be moved into its own category, based on reader demand.
- Auxiliary Ingredients: If you’re like me, you don’t want to eat your orange chicken or tempura cauliflower alone. If certain dishes can’t be enjoyed properly without an add-on, such as rice, then the need will be factored in, albeit as a minor component of the score.
Nutrition
This one will be the most challenging to give a fair assessment on. Nutritional needs (like everything else) vary based on factors like age, size, and gender before even considering personal goals such as lose weight or build muscle. Furthermore, even given a fixed person with clearly stated goals, controversy rages over the optimum diet and intake. It is here that I must address an important point – aren’t ultraprocessed foods bad for you? Yes. Obviously(citation needed). But that doesn’t mean that all UPF must be same level of “bad”.
Research is still determining whether the negative health effects of UPF are solely due to their taste-forward composition (high salt, high sugar, etc.) or whether there are more insidious mechanisms, independent of the nutritional load, that lead to their well-deserved bad rap. In the PHAFAQ, I address my justifications for recommending such foods (tl;dr you should cook whole meals from scratch but let’s be real, we don’t always have the time), but that won’t stop my from advocating a harm-reduction approach of looking at nutritional labels to avoid some absolute monsters in the aisle.
So what’s the “ideal” nutrition that I’ll grade upon? No one really knows, including me, but I’ll go off of the FDA’s Daily Value recommendations for a 2000 Calorie diet, with an emphasis on sodium (the AHA recommends 1500 mg vs the FDA’s 2300mg), cholesterol (less is more!), protein (more is more!), dietary fiber, and added sugar.