171–180 of 361 posts
Wow, the amount of protein in this diet is really low. And all those carbs may not be for everyone. This diet may be cheap, but not healthy. If you are the type of person who puts on weight easily (like me), than I would suggest doing 50% to 60%+ of your calories from protein and 20% or less from carbs. The easiest source of protein are white eggs (in a carton), chicken (pre-cooked), beans (get low sodium), and prote…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you want to save on coffee, buy green beans and roast. I pay around $30 for 5lbs of green beans that are extremely high quality. you can do far cheaper than that though.
I save money on coffee by not buying it. ;-) Instead, I found Jet Alert 200mg caffeine tablets. They're about $3.70 for 90 tablets. Each tablet is equivalent to two cups of coffee, which really means one cup of coffee, the way we tend to serve it. I usually take one around 10am, and another around 3pm. The good: no, uh, 'intestinal distress', whiter teeth, better breath, no buzzy feeling like I get with coffee, and I…
He follows (old) USDA dietary recommendations, which stipulate no saturated fat, and 60% carbs. That is really, really bad. The ultimate reference is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes - it is meticulously researched and referenced, and is likely 40 years more up-to-date than your nutrition or medical professional.
Good Calories, Bad Calories is often based on incomplete science. It certainly does not make sense when viewed through the lens of some of the largest human dietary studies ever performed (such as the China Study; which Taubes "debunked" in his own unique fashion, but he can't alter the fact that it's among the best, longest, widest, and broadest studies of human diet available; to ignore it is to ignore good science…
Good Calories, Bad Calories is about why the "garbage" people eat has caused them to get fat, and why it's not the saturated fat like experts have been telling the public for a generation.
It's not a book about the best way for everyone to eat like Michael Pollan's books are. If you believe it's about telling people "eat food, but not too many carbs" I understand why you think little of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try living primitively, without technology, no stove, no refrigerator, no guns, no tractors, none of this stuff. What are you going to eat? Are you going to eat meat? Just try to capture a wild animal with your bare hands and eat it raw, you will look ridiculous. This isn't a practical option without technology. And even if you manage to capture it somehow or scavenge one that is already dead, there are tons of bacte…
Regards to the whole hunting thing... give this a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting It's entirely practical without technology (well, they need a pointy stick...).
The wasted time, energy and risk of injury or death pale in comparison to the sheer logistical problems if you do manage to make a kill. How does one exhausted hunter transport 300-400kg of meat without refrigeration back to his family 8 hours' run away?
Looks like more of an extreme sport than a reliable method of finding food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about you but I think I would rather pick fruit then spend eight hours in the hot sun hunting... I also would rather eat fruits then the dead animal. Fruits are absolutely delicious to anyone whose taste buds aren't maladapted, and dead animals stink, are hard to eat uncooked, and carry diseases/bacteria. Carnivores have 10 times the hydrochloric acid of humans so they can eat meat without worrying about…
I'd prefer to hunt I think, especially knowing the benefits of meat. And as for the current debate/link, modern fruits are unfortunately different then the lower fructose versions our ancestors ate. As such, I think people should tread lightly in the land of delicious fruit (excepting berries and the like). Rotten fruit stinks by the way ;) and hosts bacteria, flies, and disease! :)
And at least fruits get rotten! I think there is something wrong with all these preservative-enhanced foods that you can forget about for like a decade only to find that they are still edible ;)
BTW, I am not honestly recommending that people eat all fruits or anything like that, just that they consist of at least 10% of a person's diet. A fruitless diet like the one recommended here is generally a bad idea, even if it saves you some money.
It's a diet generator I made over the past few weeks that promotes adhering to certain proportions of macronutrients. I'll probably make a full post about it when I add some more features/food choices, but so far it's been a great way to learn to program. If you use it, let me know if you have any feedback!
My wife and I tried to do this recently on $1.70 per person per day. We didn't last our intended 28 days. A few observations we found: Meat and organic food was too expensive. Fruit is crazy expensive so we bought OJ from concentrate with no additives as a cheap source of Vitamin C. Eggs were are very expensive, but we needed the protein and nutrients, so rationed ourselves to 3 each per week. We had to remove all su…
I'm surprised you found eggs to be expensive. Where I'm at (Eugene, OR), you can find eggs for $7 for 5 dozen -- an incredible deal per nutrient dollar, even on your extreme budget. (This is at the Red Apple, if any Eugene locals are curious.)
Personally eggs and meat are things I will pay the extra for the animals to be free range and fed a natural diet, and I eat a lot less of them. With a diet such as the one in the post such things can become an occasional treat and their true value is appreciated.
A non-trivial part of the problems facing the human race is related to the growing expectation of a never ending, abundance of cheap meat.
Can I ask: What is the motivation of trying to limit the cost of your food to such a low (for first-world) amount? I am really weirded out by the number of me-too responses, the philosophy of such extreme saving on food is alien to me. For me, delicious food is near the top of my priority list. I really do not stint at all, my grocery bill is abt $40/day for 2 people... that is $15k/yr, such a bargain considering: re…
Can I ask: What is the motivation of trying to limit the cost of your food to such a low (for first-world) amount? I am really weirded out by the number of me-too responses, the philosophy of such extreme saving on food is alien to me. For me, delicious food is near the top of my priority list. I really do not stint at all, my grocery bill is abt $40/day for 2 people... that is $15k/yr, such a bargain considering: re…
Agreed, I don't get the stinginess on food either. Among price, healthiness, taste and ease of preparation, price is my last priority. I'd love to read a blog post or article that optimizes on the other three criteria instead.
I've mentioned it before, but anyone serious about this type of thing should get familiar with quinoa. It might be more expensive than rice, but it also contains a balanced set of essential amino acids - which is pretty rare for a plant. Most meals that call for rice can generally use quinoa instead, and you'll be much better off.
I tried quinoa for the exact reasons you mentioned, but didn't find it nearly as palatable as more "traditional" staples. Compared to rice I found it didn't gel together when cooked, had a stronger (slightly unpleasant) flavour and a gritty texture. In the end I couldn't justify the cost to eat something I just didn't enjoy. More power to those who enjoy it.