How to eat healthily for £1 per day – version 0.2(supplementsos.com)
supplementsos.com
How to eat healthily for £1 per day – version 0.2
http://supplementsos.com/blog/eat-healthily-for-1-pound-per-day-version-0-2/
84 comments
> 3) The guy from a culture where the average TV viewership per capita is 4 hours and 38 minutes per day (per Neilson 2012) could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker. Also all home cooked meals take 8 hours to prepare because he says so. Finally multitasking has not been invented (serious, HN?) so time spent stirring a pot must be spent 100% focused on the stirring never a single brain cell firing on any other task. I honestly believe there is some kind of cooking phobia loose on HN.
This is low quality, and doesn't add to the discussion.
Here's a real case study; a mother, two children under six years old, mid-twenties, high school dropout, only has a bus pass and foodstamps. The closest grocery store is 3 miles away and she lives on government checks.
How much time do you believe it would take her to go to the grocery store to get fresh produce? How much time does it take someone with kids AND a car to get to the grocery store and back?
How much time have you devoted towards helping the poor? I mean actually sitting down with someone in the bottom 15% (not your friends-friend who's eating ramen at college or someone you heard of from high school) and how successful were you in training them to spend less money?
These topics are fine for what they are: Affluent people trying to spend less. They lose value when people look at the numbers and say "Gosh, this is so easy, why don't the poor just do this! Why don't they just buy a hybrid and save money on gas? Or maybe order all this stuff online with their macbooks to save time?".
This is low quality, and doesn't add to the discussion.
Here's a real case study; a mother, two children under six years old, mid-twenties, high school dropout, only has a bus pass and foodstamps. The closest grocery store is 3 miles away and she lives on government checks.
How much time do you believe it would take her to go to the grocery store to get fresh produce? How much time does it take someone with kids AND a car to get to the grocery store and back?
How much time have you devoted towards helping the poor? I mean actually sitting down with someone in the bottom 15% (not your friends-friend who's eating ramen at college or someone you heard of from high school) and how successful were you in training them to spend less money?
These topics are fine for what they are: Affluent people trying to spend less. They lose value when people look at the numbers and say "Gosh, this is so easy, why don't the poor just do this! Why don't they just buy a hybrid and save money on gas? Or maybe order all this stuff online with their macbooks to save time?".
> "low quality, and doesn't add to the discussion"
That was my reaction to your last paragraph, as well. Every time there's a thread about dealing with certain challenges of poverty, someone comes along and accuses the rest of us of having unrealistic expectations of poverty, and makes some snarky remark about hybrids or hookers or macbooks.
Instead of dragging the thread down, why don't we elevate the discourse?
I personally have plenty of real case studies to go from. There was the divorced mom of 3 whose ex hid his assets so he could duck child support, who my wife and I helped move between 3 different shelters. There was the mentally ill guy on disability who I took to the hospital on occasion, and who thanked me for teaching him to shop because for the first time in his adult life he had food at the end of the month. There's the single mom, recovering from mental illness, and her son who live with me right now. There are over a dozen homeless guys who come to my church on Sunday mornings for free hot breakfast, and over 6000 families who come to our food bank each year.
Would the information in the original post, or the comment you were criticizing, help all of those people? No, but it could help some of them.
Knowing which foods give the best bang-for-buck in terms of calories and nutrients, and having some basic idea of how to combine them to make some viable meals, is a big deal for some people. Gaining the basic confidence to attempt actual cooking, instead of feeling like you must rely on pre-packaged convenience foods, is a big deal for some people. Learning certain time management skills, such as planning ahead and taking a few minutes to start beans soaking in the morning, is a big deal for some people. Yeah, this thread as a whole is a pretty theoretical exercise, but it does have valuable practical implications even for those dealing with real poverty.
That was my reaction to your last paragraph, as well. Every time there's a thread about dealing with certain challenges of poverty, someone comes along and accuses the rest of us of having unrealistic expectations of poverty, and makes some snarky remark about hybrids or hookers or macbooks.
Instead of dragging the thread down, why don't we elevate the discourse?
I personally have plenty of real case studies to go from. There was the divorced mom of 3 whose ex hid his assets so he could duck child support, who my wife and I helped move between 3 different shelters. There was the mentally ill guy on disability who I took to the hospital on occasion, and who thanked me for teaching him to shop because for the first time in his adult life he had food at the end of the month. There's the single mom, recovering from mental illness, and her son who live with me right now. There are over a dozen homeless guys who come to my church on Sunday mornings for free hot breakfast, and over 6000 families who come to our food bank each year.
Would the information in the original post, or the comment you were criticizing, help all of those people? No, but it could help some of them.
Knowing which foods give the best bang-for-buck in terms of calories and nutrients, and having some basic idea of how to combine them to make some viable meals, is a big deal for some people. Gaining the basic confidence to attempt actual cooking, instead of feeling like you must rely on pre-packaged convenience foods, is a big deal for some people. Learning certain time management skills, such as planning ahead and taking a few minutes to start beans soaking in the morning, is a big deal for some people. Yeah, this thread as a whole is a pretty theoretical exercise, but it does have valuable practical implications even for those dealing with real poverty.
Well said. The post doesn't have to have an answer for everything to be interesting.
In the 0.1 post, she's quite clear about the limitations of the exercise: "I’m not trying to work out how easy or difficult it is for people or families who find themselves in this position — there are clearly a large number of concomitant challenges that I wouldn’t presume to be able to quantify or address."
In the 0.1 post, she's quite clear about the limitations of the exercise: "I’m not trying to work out how easy or difficult it is for people or families who find themselves in this position — there are clearly a large number of concomitant challenges that I wouldn’t presume to be able to quantify or address."
His point is valid, albeit sarcastic. It's amazing how many respond with variations on "it's too hard" because various luxuries aren't trivial to acquire. Most of humanity spent most of history surviving on a lot less acquired with a lot more work.
We can continue the quibbling over narrow cases and solutions, but it all comes down to a phrase in a memorable HN thread: your life depends on it, so fucking figure it out. Some of us are trying to and doing pretty good at it; naysayers add nothing.
We can continue the quibbling over narrow cases and solutions, but it all comes down to a phrase in a memorable HN thread: your life depends on it, so fucking figure it out. Some of us are trying to and doing pretty good at it; naysayers add nothing.
Many middle class women manage to care for two children while simultaneously shopping and preparing food. The husband fulfills the same economic role as the government does in your example - providing money while being otherwise absent. Why do you feel the poor lack the ability to do the exact same thing the middle class do?
Also, this situation is atypical. About 3/4 of the poor do have a car. 1/4 have more than one.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
Also, this situation is atypical. About 3/4 of the poor do have a car. 1/4 have more than one.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
> Here's a real case study; a mother, two children under six years old, mid-twenties, high school dropout, only has a bus pass and foodstamps.
This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. The majority of people don't live next to a market that has proper fresh produce, but demand drives supply and there's a reason they don't.
Most upper and middle class families have largely abandoned the concept of fresh produce. When the poor become not so poor, they follow the same pattern. Not because they don't have a choice, but because they choose to.
My parents live a very affluent area. Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Pathmark (large local grocer), Mitsuwa (large Japanese market). Four choices within 1 square mile. All walkable. Not a single one of them has any significant fresh food selection. Not one. Oh, they have a ton of prepared food that you can buy by the pound, but not a whole lot if you want to make it yourself.
I live in a less affluent area (putting it mildly) and there is a farmer's market 5 minutes walking distance from my house that has only fresh produce, absolutely no prepared food. It has more fresh produce than all the the other 4 combined. Why? Because the people who live here can't afford prepared food. It's that simple. They would, if they could.
This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. The majority of people don't live next to a market that has proper fresh produce, but demand drives supply and there's a reason they don't.
Most upper and middle class families have largely abandoned the concept of fresh produce. When the poor become not so poor, they follow the same pattern. Not because they don't have a choice, but because they choose to.
My parents live a very affluent area. Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Pathmark (large local grocer), Mitsuwa (large Japanese market). Four choices within 1 square mile. All walkable. Not a single one of them has any significant fresh food selection. Not one. Oh, they have a ton of prepared food that you can buy by the pound, but not a whole lot if you want to make it yourself.
I live in a less affluent area (putting it mildly) and there is a farmer's market 5 minutes walking distance from my house that has only fresh produce, absolutely no prepared food. It has more fresh produce than all the the other 4 combined. Why? Because the people who live here can't afford prepared food. It's that simple. They would, if they could.
I'm sorry....but I'm going to call B.S. on this one.
Whole Foods doesn't have fresh food selection? Really? They don't have fresh chicken? They don't have any vegetables?
Please kindly supply me with the address of such a place.
When you make blanket statements like "Most upper and middle class families have largely abandoned the concept of fresh produce" I have to question your information. I live in CT, in Fairfield county, which could claim as residents some of the wealthiest people in the world. Yes, the world. Think Steven Cohen kind of money. The Winklevoss Twins have a rowing club not far from my home. Do you think they're eating Chef Boyardee from a can? KFC?
I'm willing to believe that the fresh produce section will not be as varied in the smaller towns in the poorer areas of the country, but absent isn't something I'm willing to believe.
Whole Foods doesn't have fresh food selection? Really? They don't have fresh chicken? They don't have any vegetables?
Please kindly supply me with the address of such a place.
When you make blanket statements like "Most upper and middle class families have largely abandoned the concept of fresh produce" I have to question your information. I live in CT, in Fairfield county, which could claim as residents some of the wealthiest people in the world. Yes, the world. Think Steven Cohen kind of money. The Winklevoss Twins have a rowing club not far from my home. Do you think they're eating Chef Boyardee from a can? KFC?
I'm willing to believe that the fresh produce section will not be as varied in the smaller towns in the poorer areas of the country, but absent isn't something I'm willing to believe.
> Whole Foods doesn't have fresh food selection? Really?
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call BS on this one. When was the last time you were in Whole Foods?
When you combine their frozen, refrigerated, packaged goods, and prepared foods sections ... their fresh vegetable section is maybe 1/10 of that size? Which is normal for most grocers in the US.
The local farmer's market? 90% fresh vegetable. Which, you know, makes sense.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to call BS on this one. When was the last time you were in Whole Foods?
When you combine their frozen, refrigerated, packaged goods, and prepared foods sections ... their fresh vegetable section is maybe 1/10 of that size? Which is normal for most grocers in the US.
The local farmer's market? 90% fresh vegetable. Which, you know, makes sense.
Dude, I shop at Whole Foods every week.
The point everyone was making was that good healthy food is available. It might not be the BULK of what's on sale. But it's certainly AVAILABLE.
Here is a quote from you: "Not a single one of them has any significant fresh food selection."
I can get almost any fresh meat I desire and nearly any vegetable at my store. I think you need to reconsider your language.
The point everyone was making was that good healthy food is available. It might not be the BULK of what's on sale. But it's certainly AVAILABLE.
Here is a quote from you: "Not a single one of them has any significant fresh food selection."
I can get almost any fresh meat I desire and nearly any vegetable at my store. I think you need to reconsider your language.
> This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation.
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Po...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k...
> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Nearly half of all children with a single mother — 47.6 percent — live in poverty. Indeed, the children of single mothers experience poverty at a rate that is more than four times higher than kids in married-couple families.
Further reading:
http://www.google.com/search?q=single+mothers+poverty+rates+...
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Po...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k...
> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Nearly half of all children with a single mother — 47.6 percent — live in poverty. Indeed, the children of single mothers experience poverty at a rate that is more than four times higher than kids in married-couple families.
Further reading:
http://www.google.com/search?q=single+mothers+poverty+rates+...
So why is it politically incorrect to advocate not procreating until in a viable & believably permanent relationship?
> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf).
Exactly how is being poor the most common situation? Are you under the impression that everyone is poor?
What?
Read my post. My point is that you don't have to be poor to lack access to fresh produce and in fact, if you're poor, chances are you have better access to it.
Exactly how is being poor the most common situation? Are you under the impression that everyone is poor?
What?
Read my post. My point is that you don't have to be poor to lack access to fresh produce and in fact, if you're poor, chances are you have better access to it.
I think this may be a little off. In fact a lot of poorer urban areas have relatively little access to fresh produce and have been dubbed "food desserts".
See: http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deser...
See: http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deser...
What does one do if in a desert, with nigh unto no food available and conditions oppressive? MOVE.
Most of these "food deserts" are that way because harsh socioeconomic conditions (to wit: disinterest in quality products, coupled with prolific theft) made commerce in suitable foods untenable. Complain about "food justice" all you want, but the next meal is just a few hours away as is the next bus ticket. Demanding someone provide a balanced meal is both unproductive and unfair, so figure out a near term solution.
BTW, some of us are trying to help by finding what is viable at low costs in nearby stores. Strange how many deride the attempt to help.
Most of these "food deserts" are that way because harsh socioeconomic conditions (to wit: disinterest in quality products, coupled with prolific theft) made commerce in suitable foods untenable. Complain about "food justice" all you want, but the next meal is just a few hours away as is the next bus ticket. Demanding someone provide a balanced meal is both unproductive and unfair, so figure out a near term solution.
BTW, some of us are trying to help by finding what is viable at low costs in nearby stores. Strange how many deride the attempt to help.
314 carbs is around what a bodybuilder eats when he's bulking up. But bodybuilders eat 4 times this amount of protein (55 g). This diet is designed for a normal/small person obviously!
How much would it cost to throw a multivitamin in there? Get some zinc, magnesium, fish oils in there since there's no meat at all. Zinc is obviously important if you're a man since you need it to produce testosterone.
"How much would it cost to throw a multivitamin in there?"
Supplements would be an interesting v0.3 or perhaps appendix to her next plan. I am well aware of body builders consuming 500 grams of protein/day in the form of weird expensive powders. But I wonder as a supplement to the existing diet how it works mathematically to eat perhaps 5 grams instead of 500 grams of supplement "complete" protein powder per day and then maybe cheap out on the bulk plant protein by selecting some plant that's not a complete protein. Carried out to a logical extreme I wonder if it "works" financially and nutritionally at $1/day or whatever to just eat rice and pop a multivitamin and a very small protein shake every day.
Supplements would be an interesting v0.3 or perhaps appendix to her next plan. I am well aware of body builders consuming 500 grams of protein/day in the form of weird expensive powders. But I wonder as a supplement to the existing diet how it works mathematically to eat perhaps 5 grams instead of 500 grams of supplement "complete" protein powder per day and then maybe cheap out on the bulk plant protein by selecting some plant that's not a complete protein. Carried out to a logical extreme I wonder if it "works" financially and nutritionally at $1/day or whatever to just eat rice and pop a multivitamin and a very small protein shake every day.
Whatever happened to "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants." ?
One of the things that worries me is the focus on cost as opposed to nutrition. As it stands, we have relatively poor ways of measuring the nutritive value of any particular meal vice measuring the cost. We've trained entire generations to shop for food on taste and cost rather than nutrition.
If you've ever watched those documentaries on morbidly obese people, you learn that even though these people are consuming tens of thousands of cheap calories per day, they're all malnourished.
My wife started a ketogenic diet and I've largely been following her meal plan. Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home.
As a result, we've saved something like $2K per month on restaurant bills. Keep in mind that we're not making any special effort to save money.
As a bonus, my wife has greatly reduced her bf% and has seen several markers of absolute health improve significantly. I've reduced bf% and improved my lifting program along with my sleep and mental clarity.
One of the things that worries me is the focus on cost as opposed to nutrition. As it stands, we have relatively poor ways of measuring the nutritive value of any particular meal vice measuring the cost. We've trained entire generations to shop for food on taste and cost rather than nutrition.
If you've ever watched those documentaries on morbidly obese people, you learn that even though these people are consuming tens of thousands of cheap calories per day, they're all malnourished.
My wife started a ketogenic diet and I've largely been following her meal plan. Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home.
As a result, we've saved something like $2K per month on restaurant bills. Keep in mind that we're not making any special effort to save money.
As a bonus, my wife has greatly reduced her bf% and has seen several markers of absolute health improve significantly. I've reduced bf% and improved my lifting program along with my sleep and mental clarity.
> One of the things that worries me is the focus on cost as opposed to nutrition.
Well, this is just an experiment to see if a nutritionally adequate diet can be made for £1 per day.
I hope no-one is going to actually eat it.
I think it could actually be useful if the author increased the amount of money available - say £2 per day. Or if the author did plans for 2 people.
Well, this is just an experiment to see if a nutritionally adequate diet can be made for £1 per day.
I hope no-one is going to actually eat it.
I think it could actually be useful if the author increased the amount of money available - say £2 per day. Or if the author did plans for 2 people.
I sure hope no one is going to eat it either. Cooked oatmeal for breakfast 7 days a week? The author seems to be stuck in the mindset that certain foods are "breakfast" foods.
I've had chicken breast and broccoli for breakfast. I've had omelets for dinner. Nutritious food isn't time-specific.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see from a cost basis is learning to cook and then actually cooking. The wife and I cook 2-3 times a week, make enough to last a few days and reheat foods as needed.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see form a nutritional basis is the removal of food additives and taste enhancers that are designed to make food palatable for consumption while enhancing shelf-life or allowing the use of substitute ingredients that cost less. (Modified food starch, I'm looking at you!)
I've had chicken breast and broccoli for breakfast. I've had omelets for dinner. Nutritious food isn't time-specific.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see from a cost basis is learning to cook and then actually cooking. The wife and I cook 2-3 times a week, make enough to last a few days and reheat foods as needed.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see form a nutritional basis is the removal of food additives and taste enhancers that are designed to make food palatable for consumption while enhancing shelf-life or allowing the use of substitute ingredients that cost less. (Modified food starch, I'm looking at you!)
For that matter, I'm a bit concerned about taking in nutrients on a per-day basis... I think having some thing to eat a few time a day is important, but that the nutrition can be averaged over a 3-4 day cycle.. you may get a bit more one thing one day, and another the next as long as it averages out.
I'm actually a huge fan of savory oatmeal at anytime of day
Horses for courses.
My point was that she set up breakfast to be a single uniform meal with no variation whatsoever. It was also a high carb meal which is certain to cause an insulin crash later in the day.
I'd much rather see a higher fat/higher protein earlier in the day with some greens, fat, and protein for lunch. Dinner should be a light meal of protein and plant carbs.
My point was that she set up breakfast to be a single uniform meal with no variation whatsoever. It was also a high carb meal which is certain to cause an insulin crash later in the day.
I'd much rather see a higher fat/higher protein earlier in the day with some greens, fat, and protein for lunch. Dinner should be a light meal of protein and plant carbs.
I don't plan to eat her diet either, well, unless I have a personal economic collapse, but it is interesting to watch how someone in a different field optimizes for various parameters. Similar to how we iterate.
"Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home."
With my kids food allergies, this works out pretty well for us too. You'd think there would be a huge untapped market of "restaurants for people who like pure and relatively non-allergenic foods" but apparently no.
"Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home."
With my kids food allergies, this works out pretty well for us too. You'd think there would be a huge untapped market of "restaurants for people who like pure and relatively non-allergenic foods" but apparently no.
...what a bodybuilder eats when he's bulking up. But bodybuilders eat 4 times this amount of protein (55 g).
A midget bodybuilder. The rule of thumb is 0.75-1g protein/lb bodyweight, 0.5g for maintenance.
A midget bodybuilder. The rule of thumb is 0.75-1g protein/lb bodyweight, 0.5g for maintenance.
55g is the amount of protein referenced in the article. OP is suggesting bodybuilders eat 4 * 55 = 220g of protein a day.
I'd rather flag the entire submission. Cooking cheap is one thing, but the "healthy" throughline continues to go nowhere.
The meal plan should be christened "This Week In Starch". Just look at it!
The meal plan should be christened "This Week In Starch". Just look at it!
> I'd rather flag the entire submission. Cooking cheap is one thing, but the "healthy" throughline continues to go nowhere.
Perhaps a better title would be "how to eat as healthily as possible for £1 per day", but I tried to find a balance between precision and clarity.
Yes, the primary energy source is starch, but this is simply a necessity on such a limited budget. Even if you were comfortable getting the majority of your calories from vegetable oil or lard, it would be extremely difficult to find a palatable diet that incorporated such large quantities without breaking the budget.
Perhaps a better title would be "how to eat as healthily as possible for £1 per day", but I tried to find a balance between precision and clarity.
Yes, the primary energy source is starch, but this is simply a necessity on such a limited budget. Even if you were comfortable getting the majority of your calories from vegetable oil or lard, it would be extremely difficult to find a palatable diet that incorporated such large quantities without breaking the budget.
I don't see why it's necessary to overreach and make health claims at all. It could just be "Meals You Can Cook On £1/day".
Frankly, it's this wishy-washy "Food Pyramid" definition of healthy eating (load up on carbs by default, also, FaVs solve everything) that's put the general population in such a bad state.
Frankly, it's this wishy-washy "Food Pyramid" definition of healthy eating (load up on carbs by default, also, FaVs solve everything) that's put the general population in such a bad state.
After watching on my own eyes that unbelievable soylent mess, I'd rather leave that kind of topics for natural selection.
What's wrong with canola oil?
Absolutely nothing. It's really strange that HN is filled with people who think they're experts on nutrition, even though their beliefs are often directly contradicted by scientific research.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-and-cholest...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-and-cholest...
There are absolutely no scientific citations in what you posted. The link between saturated fat and heart disease has been debunked repeatedly. Ancel Keys, the originator of the saturated fat = bad meme has repudiated his own early research.
When done in moderation, absolutely nothing :
http://www.livestrong.com/article/459116-can-you-replace-veg...
I think there's a perception of bad taste with canola oil, but in my experience, this is due to cooks inexperienced in cooking with canola oil. There are temperature and duration changes that must be taken to account. Some recipes need adjusting and calibration and that takes a bit of experimentation. Not everyone has the patience for that or is willing to research the differences.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/459116-can-you-replace-veg...
I think there's a perception of bad taste with canola oil, but in my experience, this is due to cooks inexperienced in cooking with canola oil. There are temperature and duration changes that must be taken to account. Some recipes need adjusting and calibration and that takes a bit of experimentation. Not everyone has the patience for that or is willing to research the differences.
I had to Google Canola oil as I'd never heard of it, but it seems to be a product name for rapeseed oil. If so what have you got against rapeseed oil. It's a great oil and every bit as 'valid' as olive oil and I use both when cooking all the time.
Sure you can buy shit rapeseed oil, but you can also buy equally shit olive oil, and I fail to see why you would think one better than the other. Or is it just that the Canola brand produces bad rapeseed oil.
Sure you can buy shit rapeseed oil, but you can also buy equally shit olive oil, and I fail to see why you would think one better than the other. Or is it just that the Canola brand produces bad rapeseed oil.
It has a few issues.
1) Depends on what you're using it for. Personally I think it tastes foul in salad dressing type applications. Olive oil is the gold standard for homemade salad dressings. I would imagine if you're frying donuts or potatoes or something, you'd want the more neutral flavor of canola instead of olive.
2) Rancidity issues lead to three problems. First is massively excessive processing which turns the healthy omega3 oils into trans fats, and also contamination from processing chemicals make the oil smell/taste weird compared to a more natural/real oil. The second is failure of the extensive processing means the stuff goes rancid really quickly, meaning you either dump half the bottle making it more expensive than olive or you eat rancid oil which is really unhealthy. The third problem is you can solve post-purchase rancidity issues by getting tiny little containers and using them up quickly, but that boosts the cost per oz way beyond something tastier, healthier, and longer shelf life, like olive oil or frankly pretty much anything else.
3) Its exceedingly heavily processed compared to most other off the shelf oils. This is not necessarily bad other than as noted above, but the more they screw around with it, the more chance to screw it up. Its easier to purchase un-screwed up evoo than canola.
4) Probably all that matters is your own local shopping experience, but I'm just saying where I live pretty much only shit grade canola is widely available, but pretty good olive (and other stuff) is available. I'm willing to believe there might exist a place, perhaps where you live, where really good excellent fresh properly minimally processed canola is available and no decent olive (and other) is available, although I find it pretty unlikely. The only oil worse than canola on my oil pecking order is generic "vegetable oil". Now that's not exactly made out of cucumbers carrots and tomatoes. Very disturbing, like a package at the butchers which refuses to officially identify itself beyond "meat, animal".
Those are the real world reasons why it usually sucks compared to olive oil. Outside of the real science based world, you run into stuff like over 90% of the canola is non-organic and GMO, so people who don't know anything about science are trained by advertising to respond by freaking out about it. I'm not so worried about pseudo religious "beliefs" as I am about real world biochemistry above. Everything is genetically modified to some extent or another, and as a class of product oil is processed a lot more than, say, lettuce, so being organic probably doesn't matter as much relatively for oil as for apples.
TLDR is its overly vulnerable to rancidity, so it either is super over processed to the point of icky, or has to be consumed while rancid which is icky, or goes bad fast so small bottles are more expensive per unit volume than a big jug of something that doesn't rot so quickly.
1) Depends on what you're using it for. Personally I think it tastes foul in salad dressing type applications. Olive oil is the gold standard for homemade salad dressings. I would imagine if you're frying donuts or potatoes or something, you'd want the more neutral flavor of canola instead of olive.
2) Rancidity issues lead to three problems. First is massively excessive processing which turns the healthy omega3 oils into trans fats, and also contamination from processing chemicals make the oil smell/taste weird compared to a more natural/real oil. The second is failure of the extensive processing means the stuff goes rancid really quickly, meaning you either dump half the bottle making it more expensive than olive or you eat rancid oil which is really unhealthy. The third problem is you can solve post-purchase rancidity issues by getting tiny little containers and using them up quickly, but that boosts the cost per oz way beyond something tastier, healthier, and longer shelf life, like olive oil or frankly pretty much anything else.
3) Its exceedingly heavily processed compared to most other off the shelf oils. This is not necessarily bad other than as noted above, but the more they screw around with it, the more chance to screw it up. Its easier to purchase un-screwed up evoo than canola.
4) Probably all that matters is your own local shopping experience, but I'm just saying where I live pretty much only shit grade canola is widely available, but pretty good olive (and other stuff) is available. I'm willing to believe there might exist a place, perhaps where you live, where really good excellent fresh properly minimally processed canola is available and no decent olive (and other) is available, although I find it pretty unlikely. The only oil worse than canola on my oil pecking order is generic "vegetable oil". Now that's not exactly made out of cucumbers carrots and tomatoes. Very disturbing, like a package at the butchers which refuses to officially identify itself beyond "meat, animal".
Those are the real world reasons why it usually sucks compared to olive oil. Outside of the real science based world, you run into stuff like over 90% of the canola is non-organic and GMO, so people who don't know anything about science are trained by advertising to respond by freaking out about it. I'm not so worried about pseudo religious "beliefs" as I am about real world biochemistry above. Everything is genetically modified to some extent or another, and as a class of product oil is processed a lot more than, say, lettuce, so being organic probably doesn't matter as much relatively for oil as for apples.
TLDR is its overly vulnerable to rancidity, so it either is super over processed to the point of icky, or has to be consumed while rancid which is icky, or goes bad fast so small bottles are more expensive per unit volume than a big jug of something that doesn't rot so quickly.
I'm going to call bullshit on pretty much everything you've said here.
As I understand, Canola oil is a cheap, neutral oil with decent nutritional properties and an excellent range of cooking temperatures. Its a great alternative to olive oil. Its better than olive oil if you're frying a steak or using high temperatures.
Can you provide sources for what you've said?
I'll start: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp
Also, to address your claim about 'heavily processed' canola oil - the more refined/processed it is, the less contaminants are left in the final product. Its unrefined canola oil that is potentially dangerous.
Your claim about rancidity is also bogus. All oil goes rancid. Canola oil stored correctly (ie in a closed bottle in your cupboard or fridge) will last a year. Olive oil will last about the same time.
As I understand, Canola oil is a cheap, neutral oil with decent nutritional properties and an excellent range of cooking temperatures. Its a great alternative to olive oil. Its better than olive oil if you're frying a steak or using high temperatures.
Can you provide sources for what you've said?
I'll start: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp
Also, to address your claim about 'heavily processed' canola oil - the more refined/processed it is, the less contaminants are left in the final product. Its unrefined canola oil that is potentially dangerous.
Your claim about rancidity is also bogus. All oil goes rancid. Canola oil stored correctly (ie in a closed bottle in your cupboard or fridge) will last a year. Olive oil will last about the same time.
Yeah, now open the bottle, use about 1/8th of it a month for a couple months and see which goes bad faster. Also, Olive Oil isn't the only option here.
Personally in my kitchen I have coconut oil, olive oil, rice bran oil (about as processed as canola, but much better properties), walnut oil (used sparingly, great flavor) and regular butter. On occasion I'll use regular lard, which is actually pretty healthy.
I probably use more butter and rice bran oil than the others. Canola/vegetable oils are just not good for you, do some cursory searches. There are much better alternatives that aren't much more expensive over the course of a year.
Personally in my kitchen I have coconut oil, olive oil, rice bran oil (about as processed as canola, but much better properties), walnut oil (used sparingly, great flavor) and regular butter. On occasion I'll use regular lard, which is actually pretty healthy.
I probably use more butter and rice bran oil than the others. Canola/vegetable oils are just not good for you, do some cursory searches. There are much better alternatives that aren't much more expensive over the course of a year.
Seriously, this is Hacker News, not Fox News. Misinformation has no place here. I'm calling you out. Provide evidence to back up your ludicrous claims.
Canola/vegetable oils are just not good for you, do some cursory searches.
This is absolute bullshit. Citations please.
I wonder if all this scaremongering comes from the fact that Canola oil is much cheaper than other oils?
Personally in my kitchen I have coconut oil, olive oil, rice bran oil (about as processed as canola, but much better properties), walnut oil (used sparingly, great flavor) and regular butter. On occasion I'll use regular lard, which is actually pretty healthy.
If you're ok using lard I'd highly suggest you try some Schmaltz. Once a month I render a batch of Schmaltz and its fantastic for roasting vegetables and searing. Its extremely cheap to make, the butcher gives me poultry frames for $1/kg. Its a bonus side product of making stock from the frames and simple to clarify given the natural seperation of water/oil.
Canola/vegetable oils are just not good for you, do some cursory searches.
This is absolute bullshit. Citations please.
I wonder if all this scaremongering comes from the fact that Canola oil is much cheaper than other oils?
Personally in my kitchen I have coconut oil, olive oil, rice bran oil (about as processed as canola, but much better properties), walnut oil (used sparingly, great flavor) and regular butter. On occasion I'll use regular lard, which is actually pretty healthy.
If you're ok using lard I'd highly suggest you try some Schmaltz. Once a month I render a batch of Schmaltz and its fantastic for roasting vegetables and searing. Its extremely cheap to make, the butcher gives me poultry frames for $1/kg. Its a bonus side product of making stock from the frames and simple to clarify given the natural seperation of water/oil.
Well, if you search google for canola unhealthy, you get quite a few results, some of which are fud, and hippy nonsense regarding GMO foods, etc. My larger concerns are saturated vs. unsaturated fats and their effect on the growth of metabolic syndrome in this country from crisco and other transfat introductions to the more recent canola oil.
Most of these products are as far from natural as it gets considering the sheer amount of processing involved when compared to say butter, lard, or fats absorbed from regular food intake (nuts, and meat).
A couple of decent articles related to the issue are as follows (note, this isn't just canola vs. others so much as trans fats (not all canola is hydrogenated) and the use of unsaturated vs. saturated fats (canola is unsaturated).
* http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/#axzz2U... * http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/component/content/article/6... * http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat
I'm not opposed to GMO, but have been avoiding a lot of different types of fats, and starches for the better part of a year, without reducing my caloric intake, and have done far better with that than the USDA recommendations.
Most of these products are as far from natural as it gets considering the sheer amount of processing involved when compared to say butter, lard, or fats absorbed from regular food intake (nuts, and meat).
A couple of decent articles related to the issue are as follows (note, this isn't just canola vs. others so much as trans fats (not all canola is hydrogenated) and the use of unsaturated vs. saturated fats (canola is unsaturated).
* http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/#axzz2U... * http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/component/content/article/6... * http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat
I'm not opposed to GMO, but have been avoiding a lot of different types of fats, and starches for the better part of a year, without reducing my caloric intake, and have done far better with that than the USDA recommendations.
I'm guessing the nonsense is somehow connected to anti-GM and Monsanto and GM rapeseed. It's not a popular crop in England. People say it's bad for hay fever sufferers.
Olive oil does have much better word-of-mouth marketing.
Olive oil does have much better word-of-mouth marketing.
"It's not a popular crop in England"
I wouldn't say that exactly. There's been a small surge in its popularity. You can find bottles of cold-pressed rapeseed oil in most supermarkets (at fairly premium prices). Many of these cold-pressed varieties have come from small-scale producers. Also, a lot of oil in supermarkets simply labelled as vegatable oil is in fact rapeseed oil.
I wouldn't say that exactly. There's been a small surge in its popularity. You can find bottles of cold-pressed rapeseed oil in most supermarkets (at fairly premium prices). Many of these cold-pressed varieties have come from small-scale producers. Also, a lot of oil in supermarkets simply labelled as vegatable oil is in fact rapeseed oil.
Australia's KFC recently switched to Canola Oil [1], I think because it's cheaper to use the local oil than to import. Maybe other companies will follow?
From the press release: >High-oleic canola oil contains more oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat) and less polyunsaturated fats (namely alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid), allowing for greater heat tolerance and longer shelf life than regular canola oil.
>A healthier, home-grown alternative to palm oil, high-oleic canola oil also has an extended fry life and is thus more cost efficient than regular canola oil.
Source: [2]
[1] http://www.kfc.com.au/nutrition/canola-oil.asp
[2]
From the press release: >High-oleic canola oil contains more oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat) and less polyunsaturated fats (namely alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid), allowing for greater heat tolerance and longer shelf life than regular canola oil.
>A healthier, home-grown alternative to palm oil, high-oleic canola oil also has an extended fry life and is thus more cost efficient than regular canola oil.
Source: [2]
[1] http://www.kfc.com.au/nutrition/canola-oil.asp
[2]
> I would imagine if you're frying donuts or potatoes or something, you'd want the more neutral flavor of canola instead of olive.
Don't deep fry with canola - it smells nasty after a bit. It smells sort of like old fish. I like corn oil for deep frying.
Don't deep fry with canola - it smells nasty after a bit. It smells sort of like old fish. I like corn oil for deep frying.
[deleted]
The fact that you got caught by poe's law is not reassuring.
I'm not sure if he was "caught" per-se. More like he preemptively objected to the opposition in the court of public opinion for this round using excerpts from the last round.
Yeah, and half the people replying thought he was seriously making those points rather than recapping the crap from round one.
>>I honestly believe there is some kind of cooking phobia loose on HN.
If you think about the main demographic of HN - people in their 20s who have spent more time with computers than anything else - it makes sense. :)
If you think about the main demographic of HN - people in their 20s who have spent more time with computers than anything else - it makes sense. :)
But that's why I like cooking!
All the techniques you learn from simple knife cuts to measuring to cooking techniques like braising and roasting, all those are object oriented development methods that can be applied to objects, objects of food. There's a lot of object oriented analogies between programming and cooking. If you can apply the "Julienne knife cut" method to a potato object, you can do it to an apple object and probably a carrot too.
Its a big linear programming puzzle to scale recipes. Did I mention scaling? Cooking is a whole barrel of square/cube law scalability puzzles to get cooking rates of different ingredients to intersect at one completion time.
There are some pretty interesting software engineering principles WRT recipe and meal design. Do you "waterfall" your holiday dinner design, or "agile" it? There's the sheer queueing theory joy of arranging everything just so, such that its all just-in-time ready to be cooked, when it works its awesome and when you're stuck in the weeds its panic time, just like hacking something before a demo.
Its fun to iterate thru optimization getting the "design pattern" applied to the puzzle better and better. And there's so many design patterns, and if you stay out of pastry work, those design patterns are pretty flexible.
One point where you have me is most programmers hate testing, so I can see an issue with cooking.
I am kinda bummed that most "computer geeky" books about cooking fixate solely on gadgetry like liq N2 or molecular gastronomy, cool as that might be, there's a whole nother world of describing cooking with flowcharts and object oriented methods and development models and algorithms and "real computer geeky" stuff like that.
I have noticed that at least some people cook like they program, across a sample size of about 3. Here's to hoping that cooking something never becomes a technical interview fad stunt, although I suppose worse has happened in the past.
All the techniques you learn from simple knife cuts to measuring to cooking techniques like braising and roasting, all those are object oriented development methods that can be applied to objects, objects of food. There's a lot of object oriented analogies between programming and cooking. If you can apply the "Julienne knife cut" method to a potato object, you can do it to an apple object and probably a carrot too.
Its a big linear programming puzzle to scale recipes. Did I mention scaling? Cooking is a whole barrel of square/cube law scalability puzzles to get cooking rates of different ingredients to intersect at one completion time.
There are some pretty interesting software engineering principles WRT recipe and meal design. Do you "waterfall" your holiday dinner design, or "agile" it? There's the sheer queueing theory joy of arranging everything just so, such that its all just-in-time ready to be cooked, when it works its awesome and when you're stuck in the weeds its panic time, just like hacking something before a demo.
Its fun to iterate thru optimization getting the "design pattern" applied to the puzzle better and better. And there's so many design patterns, and if you stay out of pastry work, those design patterns are pretty flexible.
One point where you have me is most programmers hate testing, so I can see an issue with cooking.
I am kinda bummed that most "computer geeky" books about cooking fixate solely on gadgetry like liq N2 or molecular gastronomy, cool as that might be, there's a whole nother world of describing cooking with flowcharts and object oriented methods and development models and algorithms and "real computer geeky" stuff like that.
I have noticed that at least some people cook like they program, across a sample size of about 3. Here's to hoping that cooking something never becomes a technical interview fad stunt, although I suppose worse has happened in the past.
At least when I test the code it's not like half of it is gone afterwards like all the cake dough.. and everyone else crowding in to test it too. Cake dough requires rigorous testing, it does.
Cooking is easy. What stumps people is the prep work and cleanup. That's rooted in laziness.
I worked in a kitchen for a bit and I learned how to cook meals the way that restaurants do:
1. Buy everything as fresh as possible. 2. Get your prep work done first. 3. Pre-cook what can be pre-cooked. 4. Don't let anything spoil. Cook what's about to turn. Don't buy more than you will consume or cook for later consumption. 5. Make stuff from scratch. It's cheaper in the long run. 6. Rotate your ingredients and buy what's in season. It's fresher (#1) and cheaper (#5).
If you are a smart chef, you cook on Sundays and Wednesdays. You make more than you need for that day's meal and assemble fresh meals from the cooked ingredients prepared on those days.
It's easy. Buy a pound of bacon and cook the whole pound in the oven at once. Now breakfast is an egg or two in a frying pan on the stove and some bacon reheated in the microwave. Vegetables? Buy a bunch of brocoli, blanch it and put it in the fridge. Buy a bunch of spinach, blanch it and put it in the fridge.
Lunch is precooked chicken breast over blanched vegetables reheated in the microwave. Add rice you've pre-cooked if that's your thing.
Dinner is a salad and protein that's reheated. Chicken/beef/whatever.
Food isn't hard. I spend less than 4 hours cooking per week and I eat super healthy using only fresh ingredients I buy at Whole Foods and the local natural market. Grass-fed beef, marinated chicken, etc.
The only reason people in their 20's haven't learned to live this way is because nobody has ever made it a priority for them. The plethora of fast-food, college meal-plans, and bar-food/takeout have made it possible for a 20-something to never be hungry but instead chronically malnourished.
Seriously, you can code C++ but Rachel Rae is better in the kitchen? WTF? This stuff isn't rocket science.
I worked in a kitchen for a bit and I learned how to cook meals the way that restaurants do:
1. Buy everything as fresh as possible. 2. Get your prep work done first. 3. Pre-cook what can be pre-cooked. 4. Don't let anything spoil. Cook what's about to turn. Don't buy more than you will consume or cook for later consumption. 5. Make stuff from scratch. It's cheaper in the long run. 6. Rotate your ingredients and buy what's in season. It's fresher (#1) and cheaper (#5).
If you are a smart chef, you cook on Sundays and Wednesdays. You make more than you need for that day's meal and assemble fresh meals from the cooked ingredients prepared on those days.
It's easy. Buy a pound of bacon and cook the whole pound in the oven at once. Now breakfast is an egg or two in a frying pan on the stove and some bacon reheated in the microwave. Vegetables? Buy a bunch of brocoli, blanch it and put it in the fridge. Buy a bunch of spinach, blanch it and put it in the fridge.
Lunch is precooked chicken breast over blanched vegetables reheated in the microwave. Add rice you've pre-cooked if that's your thing.
Dinner is a salad and protein that's reheated. Chicken/beef/whatever.
Food isn't hard. I spend less than 4 hours cooking per week and I eat super healthy using only fresh ingredients I buy at Whole Foods and the local natural market. Grass-fed beef, marinated chicken, etc.
The only reason people in their 20's haven't learned to live this way is because nobody has ever made it a priority for them. The plethora of fast-food, college meal-plans, and bar-food/takeout have made it possible for a 20-something to never be hungry but instead chronically malnourished.
Seriously, you can code C++ but Rachel Rae is better in the kitchen? WTF? This stuff isn't rocket science.
In many ways cooking is a form of "hacking" and creating, a form of human ingenuity that has very concrete and practical applications...
You take raw materials, in themselves nutritious but unappetizing, and create a final product that looks and feel completely different, and manages to be satisfying in addition to being functional and necessary to survival.
Making something like bread starting from flour, yeast and water... what a brilliant hack!
Since I have started looking at cooking from this point of view I have been hooked.
You take raw materials, in themselves nutritious but unappetizing, and create a final product that looks and feel completely different, and manages to be satisfying in addition to being functional and necessary to survival.
Making something like bread starting from flour, yeast and water... what a brilliant hack!
Since I have started looking at cooking from this point of view I have been hooked.
Yes, but programming vs cooking maybe has some left brain vs right brain going on?
Only if you're cooking and programming wrong.
I have to wonder about this. Granted, many of my friends are in their late twenties, but the programmers I know are overwhelmingly more likely to cook than people I know from similar demographics in different occupations.
Perhaps -- assuming the cooking phobia does indeed exist -- it's something more specific to the kind of people who gravitate towards HN than it is an attribute of 20-something computer nuts.
Perhaps -- assuming the cooking phobia does indeed exist -- it's something more specific to the kind of people who gravitate towards HN than it is an attribute of 20-something computer nuts.
"The guy . . . . could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker."
If you just throw beans into a slow cooker without boiling them, you can risk haemagglutinin toxicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaseolus_vulgaris#Toxicity
If you just throw beans into a slow cooker without boiling them, you can risk haemagglutinin toxicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaseolus_vulgaris#Toxicity
That was very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I've never owned a cheap slow cooker that didn't end up boiling the product, so if ten minutes of boiling is safe, then 5 hours or whatever of boiling should be safe. I can see where a much more expensive theoretically "better" wanna be sous vide rig of a slow cooker could actually poison you by not getting hot enough due to extremely accurate temperature control. Its always interesting to see a scenario where doing a "worse" job is surprisingly "better".
I once read that a slow cooker that doesn't boil/simmer was dangerous and assumed with no evidence it was because of chicken salmonella and the other usual undercooked contaminated protein problems but that rule may have actually been due to this bean toxicity.
This could be a serious issue for people fooling around with sous vide rigs. I have not taken that plunge yet.
I once read that a slow cooker that doesn't boil/simmer was dangerous and assumed with no evidence it was because of chicken salmonella and the other usual undercooked contaminated protein problems but that rule may have actually been due to this bean toxicity.
This could be a serious issue for people fooling around with sous vide rigs. I have not taken that plunge yet.
I must have been drunk or dyslexic when I read the original article. I could've sworn that the URL was supplementacos.com and throughout the article, I was wondering, "OK, where is the call to action to buy a 1 euro supplement-taco?"
That said, virtually all of the ingredients listed (even oranges, in a citrus salsa) could be combined to make some tasty tacos.
That said, virtually all of the ingredients listed (even oranges, in a citrus salsa) could be combined to make some tasty tacos.
I read it as "supple mentos" and was, needless to say, confused how mentos fit into the "Eating Healthily" part.
Very interesting! I'm currently on a strength training/bulking diet, so I'll need about 3-4 times as much protein, but there are some interesting tidbits in here that I'll probably try and incorporate into my diet. I currently spend probably 10-15 dollars per day on food, so if I can cut that down to something like $5 that would be a huge accomplishment. If successful maybe I'll make a blog post about it ;)
An interesting read, and I would still prefer spending an year with this diet than a week on Soylent.
Why not do this as a more up-to-date, honest-to-goodness Linear Programming problem? Why all this faffing about with approximate sums by hand?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5775071
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5775071
This is a mildly interesting experiment. I kind of wish a more realistic budget had been allocated.
The author is doing one portion for one person. The upfront costs of herbs would be easier if you do the plan for two people.
The author is doing one portion for one person. The upfront costs of herbs would be easier if you do the plan for two people.
My own version:
Buy palm oil, raw pork belly, plantains, milk and sugarless chocolate.
Palm oil and pork belly are rich in saturated fat, and they are cheap because of that.
Cut and fry the raw pork belly with a little bit of palm oil, then fry the plantains with the oil that's left.
Make the chocolate with half water-half milk.
Enjoy something really healthy for a keto-style diet. When the currently acknowledged science catches up with keto research, this will not be cheap anymore: remember the shortage of butter in Scandinavia. This food will be really expensive in 15-30 years. Enjoy while it lasts.
Buy palm oil, raw pork belly, plantains, milk and sugarless chocolate.
Palm oil and pork belly are rich in saturated fat, and they are cheap because of that.
Cut and fry the raw pork belly with a little bit of palm oil, then fry the plantains with the oil that's left.
Make the chocolate with half water-half milk.
Enjoy something really healthy for a keto-style diet. When the currently acknowledged science catches up with keto research, this will not be cheap anymore: remember the shortage of butter in Scandinavia. This food will be really expensive in 15-30 years. Enjoy while it lasts.
It'd be interesting to see if anyone could look at this from a more "business" point of view, basically investing money up front for a better quality diet for less cost over the long term. For instance, buying seeds and growing veg, herbs, etc. Even buying 2-3 chickens and keeping them in your garden for eggs and perhaps meat. It'd be interesting to see what kind of investment would be needed, what the running cost would be and how long before you got a 100% ROI back.
"basically investing money up front"
She came down pretty hard on that in the article, even to the point of not buying spices because the smallest container is an expensive three months supply. Which is too bad.
On the other hand allowing 80 pound sacks of rice vs the little 1 pound bags that cost 2x as much per pound is going to really distort and mess up her math, so maybe she needs to stick to her very strict budget.
She came down pretty hard on that in the article, even to the point of not buying spices because the smallest container is an expensive three months supply. Which is too bad.
On the other hand allowing 80 pound sacks of rice vs the little 1 pound bags that cost 2x as much per pound is going to really distort and mess up her math, so maybe she needs to stick to her very strict budget.
If you make the calculations from "biological eggs produced from chicken in liberty", I'm sure it's profitable! These eggs cost a fortune now.
Buy spices in bulk - save lots of money. The price per kg is the same as per 100g at your supermarket. And then you can get away with eating the same staple foods all the time.
More meat and at least some beef. Obviously you can't eat steak for dinner every day for £1 a day but come on, a little thinly sliced beef stir fried with some teriyaki sauce - I can skip lunch for that.
Why no pasta? It's awesome to use up any leftovers you may have.
Then again you got your budget down to ~30 quid and I'm at more than twice that (though I never get over 80 except when it spikes around every 6 months when I buy spices) so clearly you must be making better choices. My excuse is that I eat meat and bake cakes.
More meat and at least some beef. Obviously you can't eat steak for dinner every day for £1 a day but come on, a little thinly sliced beef stir fried with some teriyaki sauce - I can skip lunch for that.
Why no pasta? It's awesome to use up any leftovers you may have.
Then again you got your budget down to ~30 quid and I'm at more than twice that (though I never get over 80 except when it spikes around every 6 months when I buy spices) so clearly you must be making better choices. My excuse is that I eat meat and bake cakes.
v0.1 discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5685812
I wonder what the "5-a-day" vegetable recommendation is based on - surely it can't be as simple as 5x80 grams of any plant?
It's a UK government health recommendation: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/5ADAY/Pages/Whatcounts.aspx
Yeah, I know. But that's just nanny-language telling me to eat my veggies (and I do and that's all fine) - it doesn't tell me the "why".
Top down you'll get studies with graphs of veg intake vs "illness" and pretty much the more veg you eat, the better. This is an outcome based "why" not a biochemical based "why".
Bottom up there really are no completely ideal foods, but there are foods that specialize in certain things, and much as animal meat specializes in protein, veg specializes in fiber and the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc). This specialization is not absolute. You could get your vitamin A from a meal of liver once a week or so, but it seems easier just to eat a carrot every day or two. Unless you really like liver. Fruits are almost as good as veg other than having lots of sugar.
The "why" for the hair shirt crowd is its pretty easy to F up vegetables such that they taste horrible, therefore they feel better because you're suffering, because you deserve it. Why? Doesn't matter much. They'd probably be really pissed off that I actually enjoy the taste of a salad of proper proportions, or a snack of eating a carrot or whatever.
You guys in the UK are pretty lucky to have science based guidelines, in the USA our govt enforced guidelines are based solely on who paid politicians election funds, so we're stuck with "eat as much grains as you can" and stuff like that, designed to make us fat.
Bottom up there really are no completely ideal foods, but there are foods that specialize in certain things, and much as animal meat specializes in protein, veg specializes in fiber and the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc). This specialization is not absolute. You could get your vitamin A from a meal of liver once a week or so, but it seems easier just to eat a carrot every day or two. Unless you really like liver. Fruits are almost as good as veg other than having lots of sugar.
The "why" for the hair shirt crowd is its pretty easy to F up vegetables such that they taste horrible, therefore they feel better because you're suffering, because you deserve it. Why? Doesn't matter much. They'd probably be really pissed off that I actually enjoy the taste of a salad of proper proportions, or a snack of eating a carrot or whatever.
You guys in the UK are pretty lucky to have science based guidelines, in the USA our govt enforced guidelines are based solely on who paid politicians election funds, so we're stuck with "eat as much grains as you can" and stuff like that, designed to make us fat.
I pick vegetables from a community garden, buy lentils from the grocery store, cook them with spices.. add butter || peanut butter & quinoa for fats & more amino acids. Very healthy, very cheap, tastier than anything I find in restaurants.
Is naive diet rationalisation a new hacker's disease?
To die for math that is not working in long period, anyway?
Come on, travel to South Africa and settle in savannah, hunting and gathering for free. Anything else will kill you in unnatural and premature way.
Come on, travel to South Africa and settle in savannah, hunting and gathering for free. Anything else will kill you in unnatural and premature way.
Whereas hunting and gathering for free in the South African savanna will kill you in a natural [1] and premature way.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_South_Africa#Predat...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_South_Africa#Predat...
I really want to see some meat on that menu. I hope they do a 1.5£ or 2£ version.
for an extra 25p /day you can spend an extra 1.75GPB a week.
so then you can buy these from asda and add it to whatever you want.... why wait for the OP to do the work?
http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/catalog/sectionpagecon...
so then you can buy these from asda and add it to whatever you want.... why wait for the OP to do the work?
http://groceries.asda.com/asda-estore/catalog/sectionpagecon...
Really depends on location. Cheap canned meats are available. Chickens are cheap but take work (see standard objections to gardening). Roadkill is viable (norm in rural areas). Hunting takes work but can be cheap per pound (somewhere around license around $20, gun for $100, $0.25 per shot).
I just grilled & ate a hamburger. Under $1 for meat, sesame bun, and salsa (easy mix of vegetables).
Apart from being cheap, this is also very denture-friendly. Chewing is absolutely required only 1/6 of the time (carrots, seeds).
[deleted]
1) A little too much oil/fat to be politically correct, a bit too little to be nutritionally correct. Canola oil? I wouldn't put that in my car. Eat half as much olive oil if you have to, but don't eat that rot.
2) Carbs about right to be politically correct, WAY too much grains/carbs to be nutritionally correct. Gonna get fat fat fat on this diet and feel miserable.
3) The guy from a culture where the average TV viewership per capita is 4 hours and 38 minutes per day (per Neilson 2012) could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker. Also all home cooked meals take 8 hours to prepare because he says so. Finally multitasking has not been invented (serious, HN?) so time spent stirring a pot must be spent 100% focused on the stirring never a single brain cell firing on any other task. I honestly believe there is some kind of cooking phobia loose on HN.
4) The point of the article was to set a ridiculously low standard while figuring out how to make it survivable, therefore at least 10% of HN posts will be along the lines of "her diet sounds boring". Well, congrats at missing the whole point. I will admit that around version 1.0 it would be interesting to see how you can improve her diet plan with the delta of $5/person-day to $6/person-day. I spend about $12/person-day but my family eats like kings, we really do enjoy our fancy stuff. I don't think it would be possible to cook at home more expensively without doing ridiculous stuff like upgrading us from organic grass fed beef to imported Kobe, or dumping genuine saffron all over everything. Maybe if we ate morel mushrooms with everything instead of an occasional delicacy, for example.