16 ms·

Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

233 points by gabemart 13y ago

tejay 13y ago
The same triple constraint nature of the project management triangle exists, I think, with food intake. Quality, cost, and ease/speed of preparation -- pick two. Every two days, I cook up 2 lbs ground beef, boil 4 cups beans, and 4 cups rice. I let it cool off, and throw it in Tupperware, and into the fridge. I take from that whenever I'm hungry. It doesn't taste the best, but it fills you up, is cheap, and is good for you! If you're feeling the need for some extra veggies/fruit, avocado, frozen blueberries, and frozen kale offer the most nutritional content at the lowest price and least preparation time. Like work, I don't think this will ever be 'optimal', but it's good for now, in that it saves me time, money, and waistline. Can tweak it as I go.
- drharris 13y ago
  You can make that combination taste good. When cooking your beef, add some garlic, onion, bell pepper (if $$ allows), cumin, oregano, and chili powder. If they're black beans, add cilantro, onion, and garlic. In the rice, saute the dry rice in a few teaspoons of olive oil before adding water, and replace some of the water with lime juice. Now you basically have a simplified Chipotle burrito bowl. Garnish with avocado, cilantro, pico de gallo, etc.
tyilo 13y ago
1 calorie != 1 kcal 1000 calories == 1 kcal
- bbrks 13y ago
  Typical notation is Calories (note the capital C) is calories * 1000 1000 calories = 1 Calorie = 1 kcal Yes, it's weird and inconsistent in the article.
- adventureloop 13y ago
  All of the tables indicate the use of kcal as the unit. The fact isn't spelled out in the text, but this comment seems more like a pet peeve in terminology than an accurate criticism. It occurs to me, that if all the parts in a conversation understand the correct meaning pedant-ism can be left aside.
- lenazegher 13y ago
  Any mention of calories in the article refers to large calories, hence the notation as kcals. I agree it's confusing, but because almost everyone means a large calorie when they say "calorie", it seemed like the most readable and simplest solution was to refer to them as calories and use the kcal notation in the tables.
- claudius 13y ago
  Yet another reason why non-SI should die a fiery death. 1J is always exactly one joule and nobody talks about 1kJ as ‘large joule’.
weego 13y ago
I think the main weakness of the diet not listed on their weaknesses is they've made no attempt to break it down into a realistic 3x7 meal plan, because it doesn't really make one. Yeah, it's easy to put together a whole load of things cheaply that conform to predetermined values on a spreadsheet, but sometimes sum of the parts does not give you a realistic outcome. Also, I can tell you as someone who grew up with parents that grew lots of our own fruit and veg, things like onions will survive weeks or months if they are hand-picked, strung and stored correctly but once they have been through delivery/storage/shelf stacking for a supermarket those dents a bruises start going bad quite fast regardless of your best efforts in storage so buying that far ahead may itself be a false economy.
- lenazegher 13y ago
  > I think the main weakness of the diet not listed on their weaknesses is they've made no attempt to break it down into a realistic 3x7 meal plan, because it doesn't really make one. Yeah, it's easy to put together a whole load of things cheaply that conform to predetermined values on a spreadsheet, but sometimes sum of the parts does not give you a realistic outcome. That's a very fair point, but it seemed like premature optimization to try to nail down a meal plan before all the kinks in the nutrition side of things were ironed out. I do plan on getting to that stage in a later version. Perhaps I should have waited before publishing this post, but honestly, I tend to lose myself in projects like this, and without some indication that other people are interested I often end up leaving the work in an archive somewhere to finish later. I hope that there's enough data there to be useful/interesting in its current state, but I agree, needs more work
  - drharris 13y ago
    No, I think you're right on for a 0.1 version. The basic nutrition (most important) is there, and you now have a good list of foodstuffs to go by. I think 0.2 should allow for some diversification (trade these two foods for these two, at an extra cost of xx). Version 0.3 can then work on some basic recipes. Also consider things like freeze-dried fruit (easy to rehydrate to put inside oatmeal) and vegetables (make good salad toppings) to add diversity. I think most people would allow sale prices if you can prove they're on a cycle. For example, sacks of yellow onions go on sale every 3rd week at the store I frequent, which lines right up with my usage habits.
weiran 13y ago
This article (and many others like it) miss out an incredibly cheap and healthy source of food, growing your own vegetables.
- icebraining 13y ago
  c1u: You're hellbanned. But in any case, if you can trade a few hours for $500 at will, you probably can spend more than £1/day in food. Most people can't just work a few more hours (if they have a job at all) though.
- ExpiredLink 13y ago
  Given that most people nowadays live in towns or agglomerations ...
  - nkozyra 13y ago
    I live in the suburbs but with a very small backyard. I have about 60 sq ft of space that provides 90% of my vegetables throughout the year. When I lived in an apartment I had two tomato plants and two squash plants on my deck and it would give me pounds of food a week (squash grows really quickly, tomatoes grow abundantly). It's not impossible by any means for most people to do so, even in small quantities.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    A lot of stuff can be grown in tubs or growbags. Yes, there's the cost of getting it and tending it, but there are advantages in positive mental health and exercise (with bigger yards) and some hippy "feeling connected to the world" stuff. Eatings peas just off the plant is great. Even herbs and spices can be grown if you just have a window sill. But, yes, it's not for everyone. Some people just don't like that kind of thing.
- c1u 13y ago
  Only if your time is cheap as well. If I can make $500 in the few hours a week it takes to tend my garden, then it's better to buy off a local farmer.
- 13y ago
venomsnake 13y ago
Now if only there was consensus what is healthy eating (it changes once a decade, cyclical fashion). Fat is currently returning with a vengeance, while sugar is the killer molecule. 10 years ago a spoonful of butter was considered slightly worse than cyanide. The amounts of protein per day is also debated as are total calories, and carb/fat ratios. And the number of meals per day and the optimal amounts of fasts.
- DanBC 13y ago
  You mention some things that are under debate. Those things are not part of "healthy" eating, they are important for "optimal" eating. Fat is not returning with a vengeance. Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are). But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice. Of course, if people pay attention to wing-nuts pumping out crank advice then yes, everything changes every week. Peas cause cancer one week, red cabbage causes it the next. Most people do not need "optimal", they need "good enough". Most people are not at "good enough", they're at high fat, high sugar, high salt, high poor quality foods, low exercise. Someone drinking 4 litres of cola a day and eating a jar of peanut butter on crackers doesn't need to know whether their total calories should be 2,000 kCalorie per day or 2,500 kCalorie per day. They just need to eat less than 7,000kCal per day.
  - Shorel 13y ago
    You should see the weight loss and muscle gain pictures in the keto forums to really understand why (only some kinds of) fat is returning with a vengeance. With these sustainable results, it's not going back. Now traditional dietitians seem quite outdated and retrograde (because of their results) in comparison.
    - itsybitsycoder 13y ago
      Keto is the first weight-loss diet I've ever been on where I'm not constantly hungry. It's also the first diet where I've lost 15lb in the first three weeks, without actually trying that hard. (Clearly some water weight in there, but still.) Fancy coffees every morning and steak every night, if I want. I don't know that this is an issue of HCLF vs LCHF diets as much as the previous dominance of HCLF diets though. I'm not a biologist/nutritionist at all, but it seems like HCLF and balanced diets work for some people, otherwise we'd all be obese or constantly hungry. But they definitely never worked for me. We already know that people's bodies differ in how well they process different foods (allergies, Celiac, alcohol flush, etc), so I wouldn't find it too surprising if different people had different ideal macro ratios.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
'Healthy' doesn't mean the same for all people. If you are not so young any more your cholesterol level becomes high priority. For me food that does not lead to a high cholesterol level is healthy food.
josephturnip 13y ago
I think the biggest flaw is the assumption that each day must stand on its own. I'd say that its generally much cheaper to make one big meal than to try and make 3 individual meals, but there's no attempt to create large soups or chilis or something in which you CAN use fractional prices because the final product will last several days or can be frozen.
c1u 13y ago
Working back from a government nutritional RDA is not really the best way to shape a diet. Instead: 1: Uncover your total daily energy expenditure: BMR*activity multiplier 2: Once you have your TDEE set your macro intake, and try to get them from mostly whole foods: _2a: Set daily intake of protein to around 0.82g/lb of bodyweight. Higher if you're more active, can be lower if you're more sedentary. _2b: Set daily fat intake to around 0.25-0.5g/lb bodyweight, prioritizing essential fats. _2c: Fill remaining TDEE with carbohydrates. _2d: Get adequate fibre: at least 0.15g/lb bodyweight per day, but stay below ~0.4g/lb so that it doesn't begin to negatively affect the absorption of nutrients. 3: Measure intake and body comp over time, adjust diet as required.
nkozyra 13y ago
Ah, the unquantifiable "healthy" designation.
- lenazegher 13y ago
  I don't agree it's unquantifiable in this instance -- the diet is intended to meet the standards outlined by the UK Food Standards organization [1]. Whether or not you agree with the standards is a valid point, but a separate issue. [1] http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutguideuk.pdf http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutguideuk.pdf
  - msandford 13y ago
    His point is that while the government can write into law what they believe the definition of healthy to be, that doesn't necessarily make it biologically accurate. I see your point, though, you're not going to get drawn into a debate on that definition since your project isn't about the "true definition" of healthy but rather it assumes that the nutrition guide is adequate.
  - nkozyra 13y ago
    "Healthy" is a subjective descriptor, it cannot be quantified. There's a reason it differs from person to person, nation to nation, health organization to health organization.
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      It can be quantified, and it was. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You not liking the definition of healthy that she specified does not mean it can not be specified.
wtvanhest 13y ago
If you want to save some money, save some time and eat healthy, try this: Go to the grocery store, buy these 3 items: 1 bag of frozen vegetables. 3 chicken breasts 1 bag of dried lentils. Sunday night: Cook lentils in water, don't add anything Slice chicken breasts down the side, add seasoning, no oil, just seasoning, don't bread it etc. Bake the chicken breasts Monday for lunch: Microwave a bunch of the vegetables, grab your chicken breast, and precooked lentils mix lentils in with vegetables and throw the chicken breast on top, cook together. Repeat that 4-5 days a week. Your energy will be higher, you will start loosing weight, and you will save money. Its the only meal I have found that does all three. [it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well just grab a burger or some Chinese food] [ADDED] I am not advocating this be your only meal. Its just a meal that replaces the normal garbage that I would eat if I didn't have a good, low-cost, delicious alternative. If you are fully aware of your diet and are in good shape, then by all means, add whatever you think you want to make it taste better, but this meal really doesn't need it. My comment about not adding butters/oils etc. is aimed at people who think they are eating healthy by having a salad with blue cheese dressing. Also, for those of you in your early 20s who think you know how to eat well, prepare yourself. Once you get to your late 20s, early 30s, it starts getting much tougher.
- CountHackulus 13y ago
  Go with chicken thighs instead. It's cheaper and better tasting. Just takes a tiny bit longer to cook.
- king_jester 13y ago
  This is more suited to someone with regular working hours that needs a fast lunch, is someone who can eat meat, and has basic cooking skills and equipment. Hourly workers, those working multiple jobs, and those that do not have the money to purchase kitchen equipment would be hard pressed to follow this advice.
- frou_dh 13y ago
  > it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well ... Fear of butter and grease is an anomaly from the 1980s.
frou_dh 13y ago
Am I the only one unduly annoyed by the ubiquitous slogan "fruits and vegetables"? Fruit is full of fructose AKA sugar. They are worth eating some of, but it's bizarre that they've come to occupy this front and centre position in diet advice.
- mscrivo 13y ago
  There's some evidence to suggest that eating fructose in combination with fiber (as found naturally in fruits) is far less harmful than just sugar alone, and way less harmful than refined sugar. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
  - ryeguy 13y ago
    You are correct that fructose with fiber is pretty harmless, but that video is bullshit. See here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
- Isamu 13y ago
  I believe it is only because the phrase sounds better that way, and it has become the canonical form. But I partially agree, especially with the advice you sometimes see about a service of fruit juice being the same as a serving of fruit. But many whole fruits have their sugar bound up in fiber. You don't take quite the same insulin hit eating an apple as you do drinking apple juice.
- claudius 13y ago
  I guess it is easier to convince people (and especially kids) to eat fruits than vegetables, as the former are often sweeter. And even sugar-laden fruits are still better than none at all.
- Shorel 13y ago
  If they share 40% of the economy, then your diet should be 40% of their product. Think of the economy! /sarcasm
LatvjuAvs 13y ago
Go hunt doves in park or forest, eat it raw = should be OK with 1 or 2 per day. All world hungers solved. Occasional berries you pick up(from street vendors when they are not looking).
king_jester 13y ago
Eating cheaply is really difficult to do for the folks with the least amount of money to spend on food, as working is counter to the things that make eating cheaper: cooking your own meals, shopping or growing cheaper foodstuffs, having appliances to store items for longer periods or cook dried items, being able to plan meals out in advance, etc. That is the reason why convenience foods are popular. A lot of advice stories about eating cheaply often fail to achieve that goal because it is hard to do and requires a lot of effort.
- marknutter 13y ago
  So these people have no free time whatsoever?
  - fghh45sdfhr3 13y ago
    On weekdays? Long job, long commute, children, sleep - yes, it is easy to have pretty much no free time for most of the week.
    - MarkMc 13y ago
      Then plan the meals, do the shopping, prepare and cook the food on weekends and stick it in the fridge/freezer for the coming week. Would reduce food preparation time to around 15 mins on a weekday.
    - 13b9f227ecf0 13y ago
      Ridiculous. The average American watches hours of TV a day. Prepping a simple rice or potato based meal takes ten minutes; less time than the drive-thru. We have to stop pretending that the obesity epidemic is about something more than poor self control.
    - jff 13y ago
      The total time it takes to start the rice cooker, slice a chicken breast (it can even be frozen, just slice it small), and give the chicken a quick fry in my cast iron pan (which I then rinse out and wipe clean, 10 seconds cleanup) is probably less time than you'll spend sitting in the drivethrough of McDonalds. While you're waiting for the rice to cook, you can spend some time with your kids or watch the expensive cable service every "too poor to cook" person I've ever know has had.
Nursie 13y ago
While it is a great article, and potentially useful info for those that fall on hard times, I don't share some of the other poster's views of this being aspirational. Food is not just a mechanical source of fuel, surely? I couldn't abide eating the same stuff more than a couple of days in a row, let alone every day for weeks at a time.
- claudius 13y ago
  I more or less live on pasta, cooking 1-2 kg at a time and then heating it up in a pan with tomatoes, ham and possibly eggs. Takes less than ten minutes, and less than twenty including the actual meal, and two meals (~250 g of pasta) get me more or less through a day. And, yes, to me food is mostly a mechanical source of fuel. Sure, there are occasions where a good dinner with friends is a nice thing, but definitely not on a daily basis, and especially not in the morning when I’m short on time already. But YMMV[0], of course. [0] There should totally be a ‘YMWV’ for ‘Your mileage will vary’.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Ah, I don't eat in the mornings, so it's not much of concern. But lunchtime I like to vary (and not prepare myself, preferably) and in the evening I usually eat with friends or family, rarely alone so someone usually takes time and prepares something. The urge to make celebration food every day is a hard one to resist, of course, and I'm sure not everyone enjoys preparing food.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Food is not just a mechanical source of fuel, surely? Speak for yourself. > I couldn't abide eating the same stuff more than a couple of days in a row, let alone every day for weeks at a time. I've eaten the same lunch every day for well over a year or more at times. Food is fuel; it doesn't have to be a source of entertainment.
  - shrikant 13y ago
    I could eat (and have done so as well) a simple cheese sandwich (slice of cheese, few veggies between two slices of bread) for lunch all the time. When I lived by myself for a little over a year, I was quite happy with this arrangement. As fuel and as entertainment -- I really really love my simple sandwiches.
Isamu 13y ago
Project for someone: provide better sorting, ranking, visualization etc. for food nutrition info. You sometimes see these, not all of them are well done. OP mentions use of the USDA National Nutrient Database. Here is where you can get a download, plus previous versions and updates from previous versions if you plan to maintain your own database copy over time: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964
- lenazegher 13y ago
  That's a really interesting idea. A potential problem is finding a similar, standardized source of food price data (if you want to include that). Some data are published by the USDA ERS [1], but it's far from comprehensive. [1] e.g. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/quarterly-food-at-home-price-database.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/quarterly-food-at-home...
- szx 13y ago
  How about this? http://bl.ocks.org/syntagmatic/raw/5023284/ http://bl.ocks.org/syntagmatic/raw/5023284/
Kurtz79 13y ago
I'm not criticising the article (I love seeing hackers/hacker like mentality applied to diet and cooking, check : http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/) but I hate when I read something as "healthy food". Of course there are foods that are good for you and others that aren't, but somehow this always leads to the conclusion that in order to eat "healtily" you have to eat only "healthy" foods and avoid like the plague "unhealthy" ones. Truth is, you can eat things like bacon, biscuits, jam, white breads, without any problems if in moderation and in the context of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, and doing regular exercise (exercise != half an hour loitering in the gym). The diet illustrated in the article, it's indeed healthy, it's cheap, and it's absolutely depressing. I can't see too many people being able to stick to it for a reasonable time. Good food is one of life's pleasures and it doesn't have to be in conflict with "healthy" eating. It would help a lot speaking about "healthy diet" or better "healthy lifestyle" rather than "healthy foods".
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  > The diet illustrated in the article, it's indeed healthy, it's cheap, and it's absolutely depressing. Of course it is, but try finding a diet that costs £1 a day that isn't absolutely depressing. I think this overemphasis on £1 or $1 a day is way too low. The real question is how much are people who "can't afford" or "don't have time" to eat healthily spending on food per day? I would guess at least £5. With £5 a day you could actually make an enjoyable, healthy and varied diet.
Shorel 13y ago
> Around 50% of food energy from carbohydrate That's NOT healthy at all.
- ska 13y ago
  > That's NOT healthy at all This statement assumes facts not in evidence. There is a lot of argument about what the best distributions are, without any real resolution at this point. The author reasonable chose to target a standard without claiming it was the only way to go.
  - Shorel 13y ago
    No, the author simply repeated old stuff. If all those 'reasonable' diets worked, the current obesity epidemic would not be in its worst point, as it is. Some evidence about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRAwgdvhWHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRAwgdvhWHw http://martin.ankerl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/trouble_with_fructose_slides.pdf http://martin.ankerl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/trouble_...
    - ska 13y ago
      This is what "no real resolution yet" means: every few years we get a pet theory or two. The reason this so easily devolves into a `religious` argument scenario is because the basic science is still too weak. The author did the right thing to stay well shut of all that in this article.
    - lmaz3 13y ago
      I don't think that the videos you posted support your claims, at least not the first one. In the suggested diet, almost 2/3 of the carbohydrates don't come from sugar. From the foods listed, most of these carbohydrates should come from the oats and the rice. In these foods, the carbohydrates come almost exclusively from starch, which the body splits into glucose. And glucose is the ideal power source for your body, as Lustig shows at 44:52 in the first of the youtube videos you linked. Now, about the suggars, at 1:13:55 in the same video, he states that we "should eat our carbohydrates with fibers, and thats why fruits are ok". The diet in the article contains plenty of fibres, so that should be ok.
susi22 13y ago
This can actually be formulated as an interesting (constrainted) optimization problem. Given * an amount of calories * a distribution of macronutritions (protein,fat,simple carbs, complex carbs) * a certain variablility (at least 20(?) different foods) do minimize: - Cost Interesting problem. A more thorough database with micronutritions would even yield a healthier result Edit: Look like it's not new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler_diet
Zenst 13y ago
Whilst it is nice people try and point out cheap options they ignore the following: 1) cost of running a fridge and freezer 2) calorie intake and how people are all different 3) large supermarket nearby and only you hanging around the reduced counter With that I'm sure a very short small inactive person could live well on this amount and intake but we are not all small inactive people. A few years ago I was in hospital, I eat breakfast, dinner, evening meal and late night snacks and had seconds on every occasion. I was not overly active and bordering on totaly inactive. I slept lots as well. In short I eat almost twice the ` so called` reccomended calorie amount. I had nothing like worms or the sort and over a 2 week period I lost over a stone in weight. Now I'm large frame, over 6feet tall and male and a active brain yet was phsicaly inactive, eating twice the so called daily calorie intake and had no medical issues like worms or digestive issue at all and I lost weight. In short my my personal calorie intake is over twice what the so called average is and when I read articles like this it is hard not to feel persecuted as other read them, take them as fact and then think you are wrong. Yet the facts show, as well as common sence that not everybody is the same. The acticale on the BBC was born out of benifit cuts and was showing how somebody could eat cheaply, it totaly ignores that a even the `so called` average daily intake is 2000 for a women and 2500 for a man and that men and women are paid the same amounts, with that most of the replies and posted menu's came from small frame short people and females (no offence intended btw). With that I'm jelous I'm not a small female and able to eat less to lead the same quality of life. Sadly that is not so and that is te case for many people. We are all different and there is no cookie-cutter way to say this will sort everybody as it won't, or shoe shops would have shoes the same size and that would be it for everybody. What I find worrying is the mentality that some people have and wil impose based upon this and what might be good for them is not good for others and they will not know any better as the `reccomended intake` gets bastardised from being average to the normal for all. That said, not everybody has a garden to grow their own vegtables and that helps hugely, sadly I can't but we all have windows and a small window ledge herb garden can help loads. I would also say baking your own bread helps as well on many levels. Beyond that your down to mapping out what time what supermarkets reduce items, keeping it to yourself and playing hit and miss that others not in the same situation as you as there are only so many reduced items. I have found you can eat cheaply, or you can eat healthy, but as a non vegan/vegatarian it is extreemly depressing.
sandGorgon 13y ago
There is a subreddit on this, tagged by the CHEAP keyword http://www.reddit.com/r/fitmeals/search?q=CHEAP&restrict_sr=on http://www.reddit.com/r/fitmeals/search?q=CHEAP&restrict...
rythie 13y ago
Actually it's interesting to look at what people in developing countries (who typically only have £1/day or about that) eat: http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs
- Nursie 13y ago
  I think that British family might be on the run, having escaped (barely) from the late 80s/early 90s. They even have a VHS machine! (Also I like that the german family have put everything in very neat rows)
gbog 13y ago
Just reading Antifragile, and stumble on this seemingly immortal shitcliché: one need to eat "At least 55 grams of protein per day", "Around 50% of food energy from carbohydrate". I do not even want to know what a carbothing is. This is plain proved horseshit. Our stomach has been prepared by Mother Evolution to handle a wide range of variation in the feed. And the risk of stomach boredom is very real. So the real proper diet is: do not have a diet. Do know what is tasty, eat 1kg steack some days (rarely), eat stone soup other days. Don't eat things that have been invented in the last 50 years (from margarine to exctasy). Do never ever watch TV or other addicting ads carriers. Amen.
- aghast 13y ago
  On the one hand, you have a point, and it's really tempting to give into this sort of ethos, as an approach to diet and nutrition, but at some point it becomes important to acknowledge that a very real and practical biology reigns over your internal organic processes. These processes can be measured and understood at a chemical level. We don't understand them perfectly, and many people (maybe more than half the world?) don't actually measure out their hunger in grams and milliliters, or understand the fundamental building blocks of metabolism at the chemical level, and get buy just fine, purely trusting their guts. One size doesn't fit all, and sometimes cravings are correct, but not all the time. Addictive substances and microbes show us that "what you want" isn't always "what you need." Opiates have been around for centuries, and demonstrate that just because you might feel a hunger for something and find it satisfying doesn't mean it's good for you. You're body's understanding of the world around it can be distorted. Sometimes the things that distort it's intuition are odorless and colorless. Natural food does not come with labels (and even labels can be wrong), and if you're uncertain of the purity of the water you boil your meat in, well, maybe there could be something in it that is sapping and impurifying your precious bodily fluids. Meanwhile, it might be counter-intuitive that bread mold can ward off infection, but then again we have penicillin which has proven to be a powerful and valuable anti-biotic. So, feel free to operate on faith and emotion, but going through life with your blinders on, you might be caught off guard by things that you could have avoided if you hadn't chosen to ignore them.
  - 13y ago
np422 13y ago
Before we start talking about "eat healthily", please visit http://nusi.org/ http://nusi.org/ , apply critical thinking - ask for references to published research papers. Be aware of the difference between observational and clinical studies and of course, always remember correlation does not imply causation. We, as in mankind, don't know very much about what really is healthy food.
- goldmab 13y ago
  It took me a little reading to figure out the agenda, but some key phrases like "obesity is a growth disorder" tipped me off. This is a Gary Taubes project. He is a writer of books in favor of low-carbohydrate diets, and he often badly misinterprets the scientific literature. He has a selection bias about which studies he thinks are worth talking about, so as to make it appear that low-carbohydrate diets are the answer to everything. No actual nutritional scientists think his "alternate hypothesis" is credible.
  - mberning 13y ago
    If you think there are literally no legitimate nutritional scientists that agree with Taubes then you are woefully misinformed.
    - goldmab 13y ago
      Thanks. I think a lot of them agree that low-carb approaches work for weight loss and some other outcomes, since that's what the science shows. But his "insulin hypothesis" is pure pseudoscience and I'm not aware of any papers about it.
      - frankc 13y ago
        Unvalidated/untested hypothesis are not "pseudoscience".
  - danielweber 13y ago
    I wish I had seen your comment earlier. The "what is healthy food" discussions are just as bad as language- or editor-wars. And they totally ground these discussions. Instead of offering a bunch of options of cheap food, the various posters insist that you have to follow their whatever-plan first or else fuck everything else. Cheap foods: Bananas. Eggs. Brown rice. Brown pasta. Red beans. Carrots. Sweet potatoes. Peanut butter. Whole-wheat bread. There are some foods on there that aren't allowed under certain diets. That's okay.
JoeKM 13y ago
I eat lots of Amy's low-sodium organic soup. I dunno, it's quick and easy, and tastes good. Doesn't seem like there are too many canned soup lovers around here.
fpp 13y ago
Before even going into the side-effects of such a diet let's just have a look at the numbers used: Olive oil (extra virgin)(price per kg quoted) 3.30 (price per kg actual) 6.39 (weekly quoted) 1.96 (weekly actual) 3.80 Yellow split peas (dried)(price per kg quoted) 1.16 (price per kg actual) 0.98 (weekly quoted) 1.62 (weekly actual) 1.37 Bananas (price per kg quoted) 0.68 (price per kg actual) 0.68 (loose / leftover 2+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.38 (weekly actual) 0.50 (1) Carrots (price per kg quoted) 0.46 (price per kg actual) 0.80 (loose / leftover 2+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.26 (weekly actual) 0.50 (1) Onions (price per kg quoted) 0.42 (price per kg actual) 0.90 (loose / leftover 5+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.23 (weekly actual) 0.50 Red cabbage (price per kg quoted) 0.80 (price per kg actual) 0.96 (loose / leftover 3+ BBD 1 piece) (weekly quoted) 0.45 (weekly actual) 0.96 (1) Tomatoes (chopped, tinned) (price per kg quoted) 0.78 (price per kg actual) 0.93 (3 400g cans est. BBD of opened can 4 days) (weekly quoted) 0.87 (weekly actual) 0.93 (1) this requires you to go to the supermarket twice a week for e.g. 3 bananas, 3 carrots + 1 cabbage - it also assume that the cheapest offers are always on sale (which is not the case) plus that none of the food goes bad. weekly total quoted: 5.78 weekly total actual (no transport cost, cheapest goods always on sale) 8.56 at this point you're already far over the proclaimed budget and if I call this rightly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck) you're on a diet that the protagonist (Woyzeck) was put on to find out if he will be going crazy by just eating that kind of food (peas). (update) sorry forgot the rice and oats Long Grain Rice (price per kg quoted) 0.40 (price per kg actual) 1.39 (weekly quoted) 0.25 (weekly actual) 0.88 Oats (price per kg quoted) 0.75 (price per kg actual) 0.75 (weekly quoted) 0.42 (weekly actual) 0.42 weekly total quoted (updated): 6.45 weekly total actual (updated) 9.86
- a_c_s 13y ago
  Did you read the full article or just the data? 1. The author assumed NO sales. 2. Aside from bananas everything else will easily last a full week. If you wanted to say you are only shopping once a week then that means you either are willing to eat very ripe bananas by the end of the week (some people do this), or if you are like me then you would have to just eat bananas the first part of the week and not eat them the end of the week. 3. Including transportation costs is beyond the scope of a diet - the author already minimized costs by limiting things to a single supermarket (as opposed to the original article which would have required multiple trips to multiple stores to track sales and get deals). 4. The assumption that there is no waste is explicitly discussed by the author as a drawback that needs to be addressed in subsequent iterations (Edit: formatting)
nobodysfool 13y ago
Butter is cheaper than olive oil, and it's good for you. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/0/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/0... Compare that to olive oil. Also, add milk. Yes, fresh milk is out of the question, but not powdered.
walshemj 13y ago
SPAM

233 points by gabemart 13y ago

tejay 13y ago

The same triple constraint nature of the project management triangle exists, I think, with food intake. Quality, cost, and ease/speed of preparation -- pick two. Every two days, I cook up 2 lbs ground beef, boil 4 cups beans, and 4 cups rice. I let it cool off, and throw it in Tupperware, and into the fridge. I take from that whenever I'm hungry. It doesn't taste the best, but it fills you up, is cheap, and is good for you! If you're feeling the need for some extra veggies/fruit, avocado, frozen blueberries, and frozen kale offer the most nutritional content at the lowest price and least preparation time. Like work, I don't think this will ever be 'optimal', but it's good for now, in that it saves me time, money, and waistline. Can tweak it as I go.

drharris 13y ago
You can make that combination taste good. When cooking your beef, add some garlic, onion, bell pepper (if $$ allows), cumin, oregano, and chili powder. If they're black beans, add cilantro, onion, and garlic. In the rice, saute the dry rice in a few teaspoons of olive oil before adding water, and replace some of the water with lime juice. Now you basically have a simplified Chipotle burrito bowl. Garnish with avocado, cilantro, pico de gallo, etc.

tyilo 13y ago

1 calorie != 1 kcal 1000 calories == 1 kcal

bbrks 13y ago
Typical notation is Calories (note the capital C) is calories * 1000 1000 calories = 1 Calorie = 1 kcal Yes, it's weird and inconsistent in the article.
adventureloop 13y ago
All of the tables indicate the use of kcal as the unit. The fact isn't spelled out in the text, but this comment seems more like a pet peeve in terminology than an accurate criticism. It occurs to me, that if all the parts in a conversation understand the correct meaning pedant-ism can be left aside.
lenazegher 13y ago
Any mention of calories in the article refers to large calories, hence the notation as kcals. I agree it's confusing, but because almost everyone means a large calorie when they say "calorie", it seemed like the most readable and simplest solution was to refer to them as calories and use the kcal notation in the tables.
claudius 13y ago
Yet another reason why non-SI should die a fiery death. 1J is always exactly one joule and nobody talks about 1kJ as ‘large joule’.

weego 13y ago

I think the main weakness of the diet not listed on their weaknesses is they've made no attempt to break it down into a realistic 3x7 meal plan, because it doesn't really make one. Yeah, it's easy to put together a whole load of things cheaply that conform to predetermined values on a spreadsheet, but sometimes sum of the parts does not give you a realistic outcome. Also, I can tell you as someone who grew up with parents that grew lots of our own fruit and veg, things like onions will survive weeks or months if they are hand-picked, strung and stored correctly but once they have been through delivery/storage/shelf stacking for a supermarket those dents a bruises start going bad quite fast regardless of your best efforts in storage so buying that far ahead may itself be a false economy.

lenazegher 13y ago
> I think the main weakness of the diet not listed on their weaknesses is they've made no attempt to break it down into a realistic 3x7 meal plan, because it doesn't really make one. Yeah, it's easy to put together a whole load of things cheaply that conform to predetermined values on a spreadsheet, but sometimes sum of the parts does not give you a realistic outcome. That's a very fair point, but it seemed like premature optimization to try to nail down a meal plan before all the kinks in the nutrition side of things were ironed out. I do plan on getting to that stage in a later version. Perhaps I should have waited before publishing this post, but honestly, I tend to lose myself in projects like this, and without some indication that other people are interested I often end up leaving the work in an archive somewhere to finish later. I hope that there's enough data there to be useful/interesting in its current state, but I agree, needs more work
- drharris 13y ago
  No, I think you're right on for a 0.1 version. The basic nutrition (most important) is there, and you now have a good list of foodstuffs to go by. I think 0.2 should allow for some diversification (trade these two foods for these two, at an extra cost of xx). Version 0.3 can then work on some basic recipes. Also consider things like freeze-dried fruit (easy to rehydrate to put inside oatmeal) and vegetables (make good salad toppings) to add diversity. I think most people would allow sale prices if you can prove they're on a cycle. For example, sacks of yellow onions go on sale every 3rd week at the store I frequent, which lines right up with my usage habits.

weiran 13y ago

This article (and many others like it) miss out an incredibly cheap and healthy source of food, growing your own vegetables.

icebraining 13y ago
c1u: You're hellbanned. But in any case, if you can trade a few hours for $500 at will, you probably can spend more than £1/day in food. Most people can't just work a few more hours (if they have a job at all) though.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
Given that most people nowadays live in towns or agglomerations ...
- nkozyra 13y ago
  I live in the suburbs but with a very small backyard. I have about 60 sq ft of space that provides 90% of my vegetables throughout the year. When I lived in an apartment I had two tomato plants and two squash plants on my deck and it would give me pounds of food a week (squash grows really quickly, tomatoes grow abundantly). It's not impossible by any means for most people to do so, even in small quantities.
- DanBC 13y ago
  A lot of stuff can be grown in tubs or growbags. Yes, there's the cost of getting it and tending it, but there are advantages in positive mental health and exercise (with bigger yards) and some hippy "feeling connected to the world" stuff. Eatings peas just off the plant is great. Even herbs and spices can be grown if you just have a window sill. But, yes, it's not for everyone. Some people just don't like that kind of thing.
c1u 13y ago
Only if your time is cheap as well. If I can make $500 in the few hours a week it takes to tend my garden, then it's better to buy off a local farmer.
13y ago

venomsnake 13y ago

Now if only there was consensus what is healthy eating (it changes once a decade, cyclical fashion). Fat is currently returning with a vengeance, while sugar is the killer molecule. 10 years ago a spoonful of butter was considered slightly worse than cyanide. The amounts of protein per day is also debated as are total calories, and carb/fat ratios. And the number of meals per day and the optimal amounts of fasts.

DanBC 13y ago
You mention some things that are under debate. Those things are not part of "healthy" eating, they are important for "optimal" eating. Fat is not returning with a vengeance. Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are). But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice. Of course, if people pay attention to wing-nuts pumping out crank advice then yes, everything changes every week. Peas cause cancer one week, red cabbage causes it the next. Most people do not need "optimal", they need "good enough". Most people are not at "good enough", they're at high fat, high sugar, high salt, high poor quality foods, low exercise. Someone drinking 4 litres of cola a day and eating a jar of peanut butter on crackers doesn't need to know whether their total calories should be 2,000 kCalorie per day or 2,500 kCalorie per day. They just need to eat less than 7,000kCal per day.
- Shorel 13y ago
  You should see the weight loss and muscle gain pictures in the keto forums to really understand why (only some kinds of) fat is returning with a vengeance. With these sustainable results, it's not going back. Now traditional dietitians seem quite outdated and retrograde (because of their results) in comparison.
  - itsybitsycoder 13y ago
    Keto is the first weight-loss diet I've ever been on where I'm not constantly hungry. It's also the first diet where I've lost 15lb in the first three weeks, without actually trying that hard. (Clearly some water weight in there, but still.) Fancy coffees every morning and steak every night, if I want. I don't know that this is an issue of HCLF vs LCHF diets as much as the previous dominance of HCLF diets though. I'm not a biologist/nutritionist at all, but it seems like HCLF and balanced diets work for some people, otherwise we'd all be obese or constantly hungry. But they definitely never worked for me. We already know that people's bodies differ in how well they process different foods (allergies, Celiac, alcohol flush, etc), so I wouldn't find it too surprising if different people had different ideal macro ratios.

ExpiredLink 13y ago

'Healthy' doesn't mean the same for all people. If you are not so young any more your cholesterol level becomes high priority. For me food that does not lead to a high cholesterol level is healthy food.

josephturnip 13y ago

I think the biggest flaw is the assumption that each day must stand on its own. I'd say that its generally much cheaper to make one big meal than to try and make 3 individual meals, but there's no attempt to create large soups or chilis or something in which you CAN use fractional prices because the final product will last several days or can be frozen.

c1u 13y ago

Working back from a government nutritional RDA is not really the best way to shape a diet. Instead: 1: Uncover your total daily energy expenditure: BMR*activity multiplier 2: Once you have your TDEE set your macro intake, and try to get them from mostly whole foods: _2a: Set daily intake of protein to around 0.82g/lb of bodyweight. Higher if you're more active, can be lower if you're more sedentary. _2b: Set daily fat intake to around 0.25-0.5g/lb bodyweight, prioritizing essential fats. _2c: Fill remaining TDEE with carbohydrates. _2d: Get adequate fibre: at least 0.15g/lb bodyweight per day, but stay below ~0.4g/lb so that it doesn't begin to negatively affect the absorption of nutrients. 3: Measure intake and body comp over time, adjust diet as required.

nkozyra 13y ago

Ah, the unquantifiable "healthy" designation.

lenazegher 13y ago
I don't agree it's unquantifiable in this instance -- the diet is intended to meet the standards outlined by the UK Food Standards organization [1]. Whether or not you agree with the standards is a valid point, but a separate issue. [1] http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutguideuk.pdf http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutguideuk.pdf
- msandford 13y ago
  His point is that while the government can write into law what they believe the definition of healthy to be, that doesn't necessarily make it biologically accurate. I see your point, though, you're not going to get drawn into a debate on that definition since your project isn't about the "true definition" of healthy but rather it assumes that the nutrition guide is adequate.
- nkozyra 13y ago
  "Healthy" is a subjective descriptor, it cannot be quantified. There's a reason it differs from person to person, nation to nation, health organization to health organization.
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    It can be quantified, and it was. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You not liking the definition of healthy that she specified does not mean it can not be specified.

wtvanhest 13y ago

If you want to save some money, save some time and eat healthy, try this: Go to the grocery store, buy these 3 items: 1 bag of frozen vegetables. 3 chicken breasts 1 bag of dried lentils. Sunday night: Cook lentils in water, don't add anything Slice chicken breasts down the side, add seasoning, no oil, just seasoning, don't bread it etc. Bake the chicken breasts Monday for lunch: Microwave a bunch of the vegetables, grab your chicken breast, and precooked lentils mix lentils in with vegetables and throw the chicken breast on top, cook together. Repeat that 4-5 days a week. Your energy will be higher, you will start loosing weight, and you will save money. Its the only meal I have found that does all three. [it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well just grab a burger or some Chinese food] [ADDED] I am not advocating this be your only meal. Its just a meal that replaces the normal garbage that I would eat if I didn't have a good, low-cost, delicious alternative. If you are fully aware of your diet and are in good shape, then by all means, add whatever you think you want to make it taste better, but this meal really doesn't need it. My comment about not adding butters/oils etc. is aimed at people who think they are eating healthy by having a salad with blue cheese dressing. Also, for those of you in your early 20s who think you know how to eat well, prepare yourself. Once you get to your late 20s, early 30s, it starts getting much tougher.

CountHackulus 13y ago
Go with chicken thighs instead. It's cheaper and better tasting. Just takes a tiny bit longer to cook.
king_jester 13y ago
This is more suited to someone with regular working hours that needs a fast lunch, is someone who can eat meat, and has basic cooking skills and equipment. Hourly workers, those working multiple jobs, and those that do not have the money to purchase kitchen equipment would be hard pressed to follow this advice.
frou_dh 13y ago
> it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well ... Fear of butter and grease is an anomaly from the 1980s.

frou_dh 13y ago

Am I the only one unduly annoyed by the ubiquitous slogan "fruits and vegetables"? Fruit is full of fructose AKA sugar. They are worth eating some of, but it's bizarre that they've come to occupy this front and centre position in diet advice.

mscrivo 13y ago
There's some evidence to suggest that eating fructose in combination with fiber (as found naturally in fruits) is far less harmful than just sugar alone, and way less harmful than refined sugar. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- ryeguy 13y ago
  You are correct that fructose with fiber is pretty harmless, but that video is bullshit. See here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-...
Isamu 13y ago
I believe it is only because the phrase sounds better that way, and it has become the canonical form. But I partially agree, especially with the advice you sometimes see about a service of fruit juice being the same as a serving of fruit. But many whole fruits have their sugar bound up in fiber. You don't take quite the same insulin hit eating an apple as you do drinking apple juice.
claudius 13y ago
I guess it is easier to convince people (and especially kids) to eat fruits than vegetables, as the former are often sweeter. And even sugar-laden fruits are still better than none at all.
Shorel 13y ago
If they share 40% of the economy, then your diet should be 40% of their product. Think of the economy! /sarcasm

LatvjuAvs 13y ago

Go hunt doves in park or forest, eat it raw = should be OK with 1 or 2 per day. All world hungers solved. Occasional berries you pick up(from street vendors when they are not looking).

king_jester 13y ago

Eating cheaply is really difficult to do for the folks with the least amount of money to spend on food, as working is counter to the things that make eating cheaper: cooking your own meals, shopping or growing cheaper foodstuffs, having appliances to store items for longer periods or cook dried items, being able to plan meals out in advance, etc. That is the reason why convenience foods are popular. A lot of advice stories about eating cheaply often fail to achieve that goal because it is hard to do and requires a lot of effort.

marknutter 13y ago
So these people have no free time whatsoever?
- fghh45sdfhr3 13y ago
  On weekdays? Long job, long commute, children, sleep - yes, it is easy to have pretty much no free time for most of the week.
  - MarkMc 13y ago
    Then plan the meals, do the shopping, prepare and cook the food on weekends and stick it in the fridge/freezer for the coming week. Would reduce food preparation time to around 15 mins on a weekday.
  - 13b9f227ecf0 13y ago
    Ridiculous. The average American watches hours of TV a day. Prepping a simple rice or potato based meal takes ten minutes; less time than the drive-thru. We have to stop pretending that the obesity epidemic is about something more than poor self control.
  - jff 13y ago
    The total time it takes to start the rice cooker, slice a chicken breast (it can even be frozen, just slice it small), and give the chicken a quick fry in my cast iron pan (which I then rinse out and wipe clean, 10 seconds cleanup) is probably less time than you'll spend sitting in the drivethrough of McDonalds. While you're waiting for the rice to cook, you can spend some time with your kids or watch the expensive cable service every "too poor to cook" person I've ever know has had.

Nursie 13y ago

While it is a great article, and potentially useful info for those that fall on hard times, I don't share some of the other poster's views of this being aspirational. Food is not just a mechanical source of fuel, surely? I couldn't abide eating the same stuff more than a couple of days in a row, let alone every day for weeks at a time.

claudius 13y ago
I more or less live on pasta, cooking 1-2 kg at a time and then heating it up in a pan with tomatoes, ham and possibly eggs. Takes less than ten minutes, and less than twenty including the actual meal, and two meals (~250 g of pasta) get me more or less through a day. And, yes, to me food is mostly a mechanical source of fuel. Sure, there are occasions where a good dinner with friends is a nice thing, but definitely not on a daily basis, and especially not in the morning when I’m short on time already. But YMMV[0], of course. [0] There should totally be a ‘YMWV’ for ‘Your mileage will vary’.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Ah, I don't eat in the mornings, so it's not much of concern. But lunchtime I like to vary (and not prepare myself, preferably) and in the evening I usually eat with friends or family, rarely alone so someone usually takes time and prepares something. The urge to make celebration food every day is a hard one to resist, of course, and I'm sure not everyone enjoys preparing food.
gnaritas 13y ago
> Food is not just a mechanical source of fuel, surely? Speak for yourself. > I couldn't abide eating the same stuff more than a couple of days in a row, let alone every day for weeks at a time. I've eaten the same lunch every day for well over a year or more at times. Food is fuel; it doesn't have to be a source of entertainment.
- shrikant 13y ago
  I could eat (and have done so as well) a simple cheese sandwich (slice of cheese, few veggies between two slices of bread) for lunch all the time. When I lived by myself for a little over a year, I was quite happy with this arrangement. As fuel and as entertainment -- I really really love my simple sandwiches.

Isamu 13y ago

Project for someone: provide better sorting, ranking, visualization etc. for food nutrition info. You sometimes see these, not all of them are well done. OP mentions use of the USDA National Nutrient Database. Here is where you can get a download, plus previous versions and updates from previous versions if you plan to maintain your own database copy over time: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964 http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964

lenazegher 13y ago
That's a really interesting idea. A potential problem is finding a similar, standardized source of food price data (if you want to include that). Some data are published by the USDA ERS [1], but it's far from comprehensive. [1] e.g. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/quarterly-food-at-home-price-database.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/quarterly-food-at-home...
szx 13y ago
How about this? http://bl.ocks.org/syntagmatic/raw/5023284/ http://bl.ocks.org/syntagmatic/raw/5023284/

Kurtz79 13y ago

I'm not criticising the article (I love seeing hackers/hacker like mentality applied to diet and cooking, check : http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/) but I hate when I read something as "healthy food". Of course there are foods that are good for you and others that aren't, but somehow this always leads to the conclusion that in order to eat "healtily" you have to eat only "healthy" foods and avoid like the plague "unhealthy" ones. Truth is, you can eat things like bacon, biscuits, jam, white breads, without any problems if in moderation and in the context of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, and doing regular exercise (exercise != half an hour loitering in the gym). The diet illustrated in the article, it's indeed healthy, it's cheap, and it's absolutely depressing. I can't see too many people being able to stick to it for a reasonable time. Good food is one of life's pleasures and it doesn't have to be in conflict with "healthy" eating. It would help a lot speaking about "healthy diet" or better "healthy lifestyle" rather than "healthy foods".

shawabawa3 13y ago
> The diet illustrated in the article, it's indeed healthy, it's cheap, and it's absolutely depressing. Of course it is, but try finding a diet that costs £1 a day that isn't absolutely depressing. I think this overemphasis on £1 or $1 a day is way too low. The real question is how much are people who "can't afford" or "don't have time" to eat healthily spending on food per day? I would guess at least £5. With £5 a day you could actually make an enjoyable, healthy and varied diet.

Shorel 13y ago

> Around 50% of food energy from carbohydrate That's NOT healthy at all.

ska 13y ago
> That's NOT healthy at all This statement assumes facts not in evidence. There is a lot of argument about what the best distributions are, without any real resolution at this point. The author reasonable chose to target a standard without claiming it was the only way to go.
- Shorel 13y ago
  No, the author simply repeated old stuff. If all those 'reasonable' diets worked, the current obesity epidemic would not be in its worst point, as it is. Some evidence about sugar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRAwgdvhWHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRAwgdvhWHw http://martin.ankerl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/trouble_with_fructose_slides.pdf http://martin.ankerl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/trouble_...
  - ska 13y ago
    This is what "no real resolution yet" means: every few years we get a pet theory or two. The reason this so easily devolves into a `religious` argument scenario is because the basic science is still too weak. The author did the right thing to stay well shut of all that in this article.
  - lmaz3 13y ago
    I don't think that the videos you posted support your claims, at least not the first one. In the suggested diet, almost 2/3 of the carbohydrates don't come from sugar. From the foods listed, most of these carbohydrates should come from the oats and the rice. In these foods, the carbohydrates come almost exclusively from starch, which the body splits into glucose. And glucose is the ideal power source for your body, as Lustig shows at 44:52 in the first of the youtube videos you linked. Now, about the suggars, at 1:13:55 in the same video, he states that we "should eat our carbohydrates with fibers, and thats why fruits are ok". The diet in the article contains plenty of fibres, so that should be ok.

susi22 13y ago

This can actually be formulated as an interesting (constrainted) optimization problem. Given * an amount of calories * a distribution of macronutritions (protein,fat,simple carbs, complex carbs) * a certain variablility (at least 20(?) different foods) do minimize: - Cost Interesting problem. A more thorough database with micronutritions would even yield a healthier result Edit: Look like it's not new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler_diet

Zenst 13y ago

Whilst it is nice people try and point out cheap options they ignore the following: 1) cost of running a fridge and freezer 2) calorie intake and how people are all different 3) large supermarket nearby and only you hanging around the reduced counter With that I'm sure a very short small inactive person could live well on this amount and intake but we are not all small inactive people. A few years ago I was in hospital, I eat breakfast, dinner, evening meal and late night snacks and had seconds on every occasion. I was not overly active and bordering on totaly inactive. I slept lots as well. In short I eat almost twice the ` so called` reccomended calorie amount. I had nothing like worms or the sort and over a 2 week period I lost over a stone in weight. Now I'm large frame, over 6feet tall and male and a active brain yet was phsicaly inactive, eating twice the so called daily calorie intake and had no medical issues like worms or digestive issue at all and I lost weight. In short my my personal calorie intake is over twice what the so called average is and when I read articles like this it is hard not to feel persecuted as other read them, take them as fact and then think you are wrong. Yet the facts show, as well as common sence that not everybody is the same. The acticale on the BBC was born out of benifit cuts and was showing how somebody could eat cheaply, it totaly ignores that a even the `so called` average daily intake is 2000 for a women and 2500 for a man and that men and women are paid the same amounts, with that most of the replies and posted menu's came from small frame short people and females (no offence intended btw). With that I'm jelous I'm not a small female and able to eat less to lead the same quality of life. Sadly that is not so and that is te case for many people. We are all different and there is no cookie-cutter way to say this will sort everybody as it won't, or shoe shops would have shoes the same size and that would be it for everybody. What I find worrying is the mentality that some people have and wil impose based upon this and what might be good for them is not good for others and they will not know any better as the `reccomended intake` gets bastardised from being average to the normal for all. That said, not everybody has a garden to grow their own vegtables and that helps hugely, sadly I can't but we all have windows and a small window ledge herb garden can help loads. I would also say baking your own bread helps as well on many levels. Beyond that your down to mapping out what time what supermarkets reduce items, keeping it to yourself and playing hit and miss that others not in the same situation as you as there are only so many reduced items. I have found you can eat cheaply, or you can eat healthy, but as a non vegan/vegatarian it is extreemly depressing.

sandGorgon 13y ago

There is a subreddit on this, tagged by the CHEAP keyword http://www.reddit.com/r/fitmeals/search?q=CHEAP&restrict_sr=on http://www.reddit.com/r/fitmeals/search?q=CHEAP&restrict...

rythie 13y ago

Actually it's interesting to look at what people in developing countries (who typically only have £1/day or about that) eat: http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs http://imgur.com/a/mN8Zs

Nursie 13y ago
I think that British family might be on the run, having escaped (barely) from the late 80s/early 90s. They even have a VHS machine! (Also I like that the german family have put everything in very neat rows)

gbog 13y ago

Just reading Antifragile, and stumble on this seemingly immortal shitcliché: one need to eat "At least 55 grams of protein per day", "Around 50% of food energy from carbohydrate". I do not even want to know what a carbothing is. This is plain proved horseshit. Our stomach has been prepared by Mother Evolution to handle a wide range of variation in the feed. And the risk of stomach boredom is very real. So the real proper diet is: do not have a diet. Do know what is tasty, eat 1kg steack some days (rarely), eat stone soup other days. Don't eat things that have been invented in the last 50 years (from margarine to exctasy). Do never ever watch TV or other addicting ads carriers. Amen.

aghast 13y ago
On the one hand, you have a point, and it's really tempting to give into this sort of ethos, as an approach to diet and nutrition, but at some point it becomes important to acknowledge that a very real and practical biology reigns over your internal organic processes. These processes can be measured and understood at a chemical level. We don't understand them perfectly, and many people (maybe more than half the world?) don't actually measure out their hunger in grams and milliliters, or understand the fundamental building blocks of metabolism at the chemical level, and get buy just fine, purely trusting their guts. One size doesn't fit all, and sometimes cravings are correct, but not all the time. Addictive substances and microbes show us that "what you want" isn't always "what you need." Opiates have been around for centuries, and demonstrate that just because you might feel a hunger for something and find it satisfying doesn't mean it's good for you. You're body's understanding of the world around it can be distorted. Sometimes the things that distort it's intuition are odorless and colorless. Natural food does not come with labels (and even labels can be wrong), and if you're uncertain of the purity of the water you boil your meat in, well, maybe there could be something in it that is sapping and impurifying your precious bodily fluids. Meanwhile, it might be counter-intuitive that bread mold can ward off infection, but then again we have penicillin which has proven to be a powerful and valuable anti-biotic. So, feel free to operate on faith and emotion, but going through life with your blinders on, you might be caught off guard by things that you could have avoided if you hadn't chosen to ignore them.
- 13y ago

np422 13y ago

Before we start talking about "eat healthily", please visit http://nusi.org/ http://nusi.org/ , apply critical thinking - ask for references to published research papers. Be aware of the difference between observational and clinical studies and of course, always remember correlation does not imply causation. We, as in mankind, don't know very much about what really is healthy food.

goldmab 13y ago
It took me a little reading to figure out the agenda, but some key phrases like "obesity is a growth disorder" tipped me off. This is a Gary Taubes project. He is a writer of books in favor of low-carbohydrate diets, and he often badly misinterprets the scientific literature. He has a selection bias about which studies he thinks are worth talking about, so as to make it appear that low-carbohydrate diets are the answer to everything. No actual nutritional scientists think his "alternate hypothesis" is credible.
- mberning 13y ago
  If you think there are literally no legitimate nutritional scientists that agree with Taubes then you are woefully misinformed.
  - goldmab 13y ago
    Thanks. I think a lot of them agree that low-carb approaches work for weight loss and some other outcomes, since that's what the science shows. But his "insulin hypothesis" is pure pseudoscience and I'm not aware of any papers about it.
    - frankc 13y ago
      Unvalidated/untested hypothesis are not "pseudoscience".
- danielweber 13y ago
  I wish I had seen your comment earlier. The "what is healthy food" discussions are just as bad as language- or editor-wars. And they totally ground these discussions. Instead of offering a bunch of options of cheap food, the various posters insist that you have to follow their whatever-plan first or else fuck everything else. Cheap foods: Bananas. Eggs. Brown rice. Brown pasta. Red beans. Carrots. Sweet potatoes. Peanut butter. Whole-wheat bread. There are some foods on there that aren't allowed under certain diets. That's okay.

JoeKM 13y ago

I eat lots of Amy's low-sodium organic soup. I dunno, it's quick and easy, and tastes good. Doesn't seem like there are too many canned soup lovers around here.

fpp 13y ago

Before even going into the side-effects of such a diet let's just have a look at the numbers used: Olive oil (extra virgin)(price per kg quoted) 3.30 (price per kg actual) 6.39 (weekly quoted) 1.96 (weekly actual) 3.80 Yellow split peas (dried)(price per kg quoted) 1.16 (price per kg actual) 0.98 (weekly quoted) 1.62 (weekly actual) 1.37 Bananas (price per kg quoted) 0.68 (price per kg actual) 0.68 (loose / leftover 2+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.38 (weekly actual) 0.50 (1) Carrots (price per kg quoted) 0.46 (price per kg actual) 0.80 (loose / leftover 2+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.26 (weekly actual) 0.50 (1) Onions (price per kg quoted) 0.42 (price per kg actual) 0.90 (loose / leftover 5+ BBD) (weekly quoted) 0.23 (weekly actual) 0.50 Red cabbage (price per kg quoted) 0.80 (price per kg actual) 0.96 (loose / leftover 3+ BBD 1 piece) (weekly quoted) 0.45 (weekly actual) 0.96 (1) Tomatoes (chopped, tinned) (price per kg quoted) 0.78 (price per kg actual) 0.93 (3 400g cans est. BBD of opened can 4 days) (weekly quoted) 0.87 (weekly actual) 0.93 (1) this requires you to go to the supermarket twice a week for e.g. 3 bananas, 3 carrots + 1 cabbage - it also assume that the cheapest offers are always on sale (which is not the case) plus that none of the food goes bad. weekly total quoted: 5.78 weekly total actual (no transport cost, cheapest goods always on sale) 8.56 at this point you're already far over the proclaimed budget and if I call this rightly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck) you're on a diet that the protagonist (Woyzeck) was put on to find out if he will be going crazy by just eating that kind of food (peas). (update) sorry forgot the rice and oats Long Grain Rice (price per kg quoted) 0.40 (price per kg actual) 1.39 (weekly quoted) 0.25 (weekly actual) 0.88 Oats (price per kg quoted) 0.75 (price per kg actual) 0.75 (weekly quoted) 0.42 (weekly actual) 0.42 weekly total quoted (updated): 6.45 weekly total actual (updated) 9.86

a_c_s 13y ago
Did you read the full article or just the data? 1. The author assumed NO sales. 2. Aside from bananas everything else will easily last a full week. If you wanted to say you are only shopping once a week then that means you either are willing to eat very ripe bananas by the end of the week (some people do this), or if you are like me then you would have to just eat bananas the first part of the week and not eat them the end of the week. 3. Including transportation costs is beyond the scope of a diet - the author already minimized costs by limiting things to a single supermarket (as opposed to the original article which would have required multiple trips to multiple stores to track sales and get deals). 4. The assumption that there is no waste is explicitly discussed by the author as a drawback that needs to be addressed in subsequent iterations (Edit: formatting)

nobodysfool 13y ago

Butter is cheaper than olive oil, and it's good for you. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/0/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/0... Compare that to olive oil. Also, add milk. Yes, fresh milk is out of the question, but not powdered.

walshemj 13y ago

SPAM