4 ms·

You tried spending 7 hours a day thinking about your diet? Also what do you mean by ‘have a life’? Doesn’t that just mean diet is a lower priority than other

by zepto 5y ago

You tried spending 7 hours a day thinking about your diet? Also what do you mean by ‘have a life’? Doesn’t that just mean diet is a lower priority than other things? If you really don’t have much time, one approach is to improve your diet incrementally. Switch out cereal for oatmeal and fruit. Make another improvement next month. Keep doing this and in a year or so you’ll have a great diet.

surfpel 5y ago
Have a life means different things to different people, but in the end the point is the same. Make friends, do hobbies... things that make life actually enjoyable. Is cooking enjoyable? Sure, but spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden
- alisonatwork 5y ago
  You don't need to spend "so much time" cooking to eat low in sugar. Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw, notably all the "standard" salad vegetables in the west like cucumber, carrot, tomato, avocado, celery, bell pepper and so on. You can eat them in a salad by themselves, or you can make some noodles (thin Asian noodles just require stirring for a few seconds in boiling water) and toss the raw veges in with some seasoning of your choice. Nuts and seeds are easy to add too, and don't require cooking. Tofu doesn't need cooking. If you don't mind eating bread, you can make a sandwich instead of a salad or a noodle bowl. If you are making a breakfast or don't mind oats for dinner, just buy quick oats and add some water, stir it up and eat. Frying an egg doesn't take long, or stir-frying some meat, if you eat those things. No need to put a pot on the stove or chuck something in the oven. Think about how people eat when they are camping, or how short order cooks make food in diners, or how street vendors cook stuff up for you on-the-spot. I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment.
  - surfpel 5y ago
    > Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :) > Think about how people eat when they are camping People eat like that because they're camping > I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried Yeah that's just not true
    - alisonatwork 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by your "caloric needs" being so high that you cannot possibly meet them with a meal made in 20 minutes. You could eat a stick of butter in 5 minutes. No sugar. Plenty of calories. In fact, that's exactly what some thru hikers do. If you really require a vast amount of calories, this is solved by eating fat, which you could get in oils, nuts, seeds, butter, cheese and processed meats - all of which require zero cooking time. If you don't like the taste of any vegetables, or noodles, or porridge/oatmeal, or bread, or fruit, or stir-fried meat, or anything that does not require being stewed or baked or smoked for several hours... then just say so. But then that's a personal preference for the type of food you choose to eat - it doesn't mean that it takes "so much time" to cook nutritional, varied and delicious food. It's fine if you only enjoy a very limited set of foods, but I suspect most people have a broader palate.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :) From the way you talk, it sounds like a diet full of sugar and quick to prepare processed foods is actually the optimal one for you because your body and mind simply can’t deal with anything else. If this is the case, then maybe it’s best to enjoy convenient foods, and enjoy ‘living’, and not worry about health consequences because that will only detract from your present enjoyment.
      - surfpel 5y ago
        Such a passive aggressive comment. I don’t understand why people feel the need to be so vitriolic in the face of an experience that doesn’t match their own on this site
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment. This is how I cook dinner when its my term, but that is usually just broccoli or cauliflower and pork (stir fried) over rice. My wife takes a lot long with her meal prep...and they taste better. Restaurants/cafeterias have scale and specialization working for them, you can't compare that to making individual or family meals on your own.
    - alisonatwork 5y ago
      I didn't talk about restaurants/cafeterias, I mentioned diners and street vendors for a reason. Specifically these places feature solo cooks who cook complete dishes to order within a few minutes by using a griddle or wok. The only significant amount of time required here is the chopping of the raw ingredients, which they do beforehand so the customers can get their orders in 5 minutes. At home that might take up to 20 minutes, depending how much you need to chop. There are plenty of different dishes you can cook like this. Of course there are also plenty of other dishes that require a longer time to cook, but that's beside the point. The original comment was complaining that it takes "7 hours a day" and causes burnout to prepare a variety of meals that aren't packed with sugar. This is an absurd statement that at best adds nothing to the conversation and at worst discourages people from attempting to develop simple, healthy eating habits.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        7 hours a day is definitely an exaggeration but it isn’t that far from some common extreme cases. My mother in law when we visit her will spend most of her time in the kitchen preparing each meal, but then she kills her own chickens also (this being a low tier Chinese city). She has just done cooking that way most of her life. Then again, when we lived in China eating in was a special case and eating out was cheaper/more time efficient and was pretty healthy if you chose the right stuff.
        zepto 5y ago
        Sure - but the point is that the original commenter is using an extreme as though it was typical or necessary, when it is clearly not. I have a curry recipe that takes about 3 hours to execute, however it makes about 20 portions which can then be frozen, and reheated. That’s 9 minutes per portion, and reheating it along with some rice from a rice cooker takes 5-6 minutes of attention. I.e. 15 minutes per meal. My lunch today will be pan fried salmon with crispy skin, a baked potato, and lettuce. The potato takes at most 2 minutes to scrub and put into a toaster oven. It takes about 2 minutes to rinse and select a few lettuce leaves. The salmon takes about 10 minutes to pin-bone, season, and cook isolaterally. Again, around 15 minutes. I learned the salmon cooking technique from watching a 10 minute Gordon Ramsay YouTube video. This stuff isn’t rocket science. You don’t have to spend 7 hours a day cooking, but you do have to accumulate learned techniques steadily over time, just like with anything you want to do yourself.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Sure, but every spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden Yes, but that simply isn’t necessary.
throwaway81523 5y ago
> oatmeal and fruit Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar. Oatmeal is further but it's still carbs.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar. Hate to break it to you, but you don’t need a lot. Also my point is that you can incrementally improve your diet. Oatmeal and fruit is way better than most packaged cereal. If you know of something better still why not share it, so people can make another incremental improvement?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with "carbs" that are not sugar. Starch is made out of glucose, which is generally harmless. Oatmeal has lots of fiber. The problem with sucrose is the fructose that makes up half of it. Fruit almost always has plenty of fiber in it to modulate sugar absorption long enough that your gut bacteria get most of it. So, fruit is harmless, except grapes, which apparently have had the fiber bred out of them.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    That's an interesting assumption, but do we have sufficient sources to back it? I'd assume at least certain fruit would still be dangerous, like grapes, figs, maybe dates. And of course candied fruit too.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I have been unable to find out whether wild ancestors of grapes (if there are any left) have more fiber than domestic varieties. And, I don't know about dates. But I am assured by numerous online sources that domesticated grapes have vanishingly little fiber, however that came about. I have encountered a claim that sugar in mango is, uniquely, mostly fructose. But I have been unable to confirm that.
    - slacka 5y ago

by zepto 5y ago

surfpel 5y ago

Have a life means different things to different people, but in the end the point is the same. Make friends, do hobbies... things that make life actually enjoyable. Is cooking enjoyable? Sure, but spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden

alisonatwork 5y ago
You don't need to spend "so much time" cooking to eat low in sugar. Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw, notably all the "standard" salad vegetables in the west like cucumber, carrot, tomato, avocado, celery, bell pepper and so on. You can eat them in a salad by themselves, or you can make some noodles (thin Asian noodles just require stirring for a few seconds in boiling water) and toss the raw veges in with some seasoning of your choice. Nuts and seeds are easy to add too, and don't require cooking. Tofu doesn't need cooking. If you don't mind eating bread, you can make a sandwich instead of a salad or a noodle bowl. If you are making a breakfast or don't mind oats for dinner, just buy quick oats and add some water, stir it up and eat. Frying an egg doesn't take long, or stir-frying some meat, if you eat those things. No need to put a pot on the stove or chuck something in the oven. Think about how people eat when they are camping, or how short order cooks make food in diners, or how street vendors cook stuff up for you on-the-spot. I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment.
- surfpel 5y ago
  > Plenty of vegetables can be eaten raw And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :) > Think about how people eat when they are camping People eat like that because they're camping > I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried Yeah that's just not true
  - alisonatwork 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by your "caloric needs" being so high that you cannot possibly meet them with a meal made in 20 minutes. You could eat a stick of butter in 5 minutes. No sugar. Plenty of calories. In fact, that's exactly what some thru hikers do. If you really require a vast amount of calories, this is solved by eating fat, which you could get in oils, nuts, seeds, butter, cheese and processed meats - all of which require zero cooking time. If you don't like the taste of any vegetables, or noodles, or porridge/oatmeal, or bread, or fruit, or stir-fried meat, or anything that does not require being stewed or baked or smoked for several hours... then just say so. But then that's a personal preference for the type of food you choose to eat - it doesn't mean that it takes "so much time" to cook nutritional, varied and delicious food. It's fine if you only enjoy a very limited set of foods, but I suspect most people have a broader palate.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > And this is what I do, but it doesn't meet my caloric needs unfortunately. I really wish I could sustain myself off of just that. Same with some of your other suggestions. I know because I've tried for a while :) From the way you talk, it sounds like a diet full of sugar and quick to prepare processed foods is actually the optimal one for you because your body and mind simply can’t deal with anything else. If this is the case, then maybe it’s best to enjoy convenient foods, and enjoy ‘living’, and not worry about health consequences because that will only detract from your present enjoyment.
    - surfpel 5y ago
      Such a passive aggressive comment. I don’t understand why people feel the need to be so vitriolic in the face of an experience that doesn’t match their own on this site
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > I would say most meals you should be able to make within 15 minutes of chopping/prep, plus 5 minutes if it needs to be fried. It's really not that big of an investment. This is how I cook dinner when its my term, but that is usually just broccoli or cauliflower and pork (stir fried) over rice. My wife takes a lot long with her meal prep...and they taste better. Restaurants/cafeterias have scale and specialization working for them, you can't compare that to making individual or family meals on your own.
  - alisonatwork 5y ago
    I didn't talk about restaurants/cafeterias, I mentioned diners and street vendors for a reason. Specifically these places feature solo cooks who cook complete dishes to order within a few minutes by using a griddle or wok. The only significant amount of time required here is the chopping of the raw ingredients, which they do beforehand so the customers can get their orders in 5 minutes. At home that might take up to 20 minutes, depending how much you need to chop. There are plenty of different dishes you can cook like this. Of course there are also plenty of other dishes that require a longer time to cook, but that's beside the point. The original comment was complaining that it takes "7 hours a day" and causes burnout to prepare a variety of meals that aren't packed with sugar. This is an absurd statement that at best adds nothing to the conversation and at worst discourages people from attempting to develop simple, healthy eating habits.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      7 hours a day is definitely an exaggeration but it isn’t that far from some common extreme cases. My mother in law when we visit her will spend most of her time in the kitchen preparing each meal, but then she kills her own chickens also (this being a low tier Chinese city). She has just done cooking that way most of her life. Then again, when we lived in China eating in was a special case and eating out was cheaper/more time efficient and was pretty healthy if you chose the right stuff.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Sure - but the point is that the original commenter is using an extreme as though it was typical or necessary, when it is clearly not. I have a curry recipe that takes about 3 hours to execute, however it makes about 20 portions which can then be frozen, and reheated. That’s 9 minutes per portion, and reheating it along with some rice from a rice cooker takes 5-6 minutes of attention. I.e. 15 minutes per meal. My lunch today will be pan fried salmon with crispy skin, a baked potato, and lettuce. The potato takes at most 2 minutes to scrub and put into a toaster oven. It takes about 2 minutes to rinse and select a few lettuce leaves. The salmon takes about 10 minutes to pin-bone, season, and cook isolaterally. Again, around 15 minutes. I learned the salmon cooking technique from watching a 10 minute Gordon Ramsay YouTube video. This stuff isn’t rocket science. You don’t have to spend 7 hours a day cooking, but you do have to accumulate learned techniques steadily over time, just like with anything you want to do yourself.
zepto 5y ago
> Sure, but every spending so much time on it every single day can be a serious burden Yes, but that simply isn’t necessary.

throwaway81523 5y ago

> oatmeal and fruit Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar. Oatmeal is further but it's still carbs.

zepto 5y ago
> Hate to break it to you but fruit is not far removed from sugar. Hate to break it to you, but you don’t need a lot. Also my point is that you can incrementally improve your diet. Oatmeal and fruit is way better than most packaged cereal. If you know of something better still why not share it, so people can make another incremental improvement?
ncmncm 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with "carbs" that are not sugar. Starch is made out of glucose, which is generally harmless. Oatmeal has lots of fiber. The problem with sucrose is the fructose that makes up half of it. Fruit almost always has plenty of fiber in it to modulate sugar absorption long enough that your gut bacteria get most of it. So, fruit is harmless, except grapes, which apparently have had the fiber bred out of them.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  That's an interesting assumption, but do we have sufficient sources to back it? I'd assume at least certain fruit would still be dangerous, like grapes, figs, maybe dates. And of course candied fruit too.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I have been unable to find out whether wild ancestors of grapes (if there are any left) have more fiber than domestic varieties. And, I don't know about dates. But I am assured by numerous online sources that domesticated grapes have vanishingly little fiber, however that came about. I have encountered a claim that sugar in mango is, uniquely, mostly fructose. But I have been unable to confirm that.
  - slacka 5y ago