Eating Healthily for $3 a Day • Hacker News Board

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#291

Post by eavc » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 6:54 PM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #256

xiaoma wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gary Taubes is a journalist, not an expert in nutrition. He also has a track record of questionable academic honesty. He's an excellent writer who has cashed in fabulously on fad diets, particularly the Atkins craze 10 years ago. Follow his advice at your own risk. http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake

I've started reading this hit piece, and saw, e.g. > "One can lose weight on a low-calorie diet if it is primarily composed of fat calories or carbohydrate calories or protein calories. It makes no difference!" Quoted from one of the "experts" refuting taubes. And yet, research by Robert Israel and Michel Cabanac (full list of references in Roberts' "What Makes Food Fattening" bibliography) shows that this is complet…

You're saying one can't lose weight on low-calorie diets that are primarily composed of carbs?

In that case, we should send a single rice grain to all starving persons to serve as their only nutrition.

I imagine you have a more nuanced point, but the statement you quoted is clearly true taken for what it actually is saying.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#292

Post by r0s » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 6:56 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #91

r0s wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we found a few "living on a dollar a day" blogs, but every single one bought in bulk and then calculated the cost of each scoop they took out of the bin. What's wrong with that? It's by far the cheapest way to cook. Bulk makes buying organic cheap too, as long as you don't shop at supermarkets. They have a habit of avoiding organic brands that are price-competitive with existing products.

You have to store those products somewhere. 25lb - 50lb bags or buckets of flour, rice, beans and/or other dry goods are not small. Buying produce in bulk may save you money, but you must use the produce before it goes bad which can start to happen within a few days or a week.

That's ridiculous. I have a couple large plastic containers for beans and rice, each holds about ten pounds, about the size of a milk jug.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#293

Post by georgieporgie » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:11 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #274

georgieporgie wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do explain how taking 400mg of caffeine per day constitutes an addiction. I also take a daily multivitamin that contains ginseng, and a 'super' vitamin B pill. The latter makes the biggest difference in energy levels. I guess I'm 'addicted' to vitamin B, as well.

Are you kidding? You're taking a stimulant to get through the day and when one form of it is taken away, you supplement with another form. How is that different than a junkie getting their fix to stave off withdrawl? You don't need to get defensive about it, but if you're taking a concentrated form of a drug to get through your day... and you notice when you don't take it... that's the definition of an addiction.

You're taking a stimulant to get through the day

Come again? This is news to me.

when one form of it is taken away, you supplement with another form.

Again, what? I decided to try caffeine in a pill form and found that I mostly prefer it to the coffee form. Nothing was taken away.

How is that different than a junkie getting their fix to stave off withdrawl

For starters, because I don't experience any withdrawl.

You don't need to get defensive about it.

I'm not the least bit defensive about it. Rather, I find it bizarre that you make so many assumptions, and view taking a legal, safe stimulant as an inherent addiction.

if you're taking a concentrated form of a drug to get through your day

Again, where did I say anything about 'getting through the day'? Where did I imply that I 'need' caffeine? I should not benefit from a chemical, which seems to have no downside for my body, simply because it offends your arbitrary principles? How is it a "concentrated form of a drug" when a single cup of coffee contains 150mg of caffeine, in what seems to be a more rapidly absorbed liquid form? (Incidentally, a Starbucks Tall drip has 240mg, while a Grande has 320mg)

I hope you see that you're projecting a lot onto my statements.

and you notice when you don't take it... that's the definition of an addiction.

That is neither what I said, nor is it the definition of addiction. http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+addiction

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#294

Post by papa_bear » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:13 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #271

papa_bear wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it a little high too, so I may switch the equation for another one but I'm not sure yet. I originally made the site specific to gaining weight for lifters (hence the name), and the high weight gain calorie values seem to make sense for the most part, but I do think the weight loss and maintenance values are still a little high for most people.

I agree, and I don't think you should focus only on the "gaining weight" part, since most people want to lose weight. That said, I assume that the diet produced is balanced and thus good for people who train for strength/lifters, not just people who want to fill out a bit? If so, it will be indispensable to me, as I am doing SS and need something like it. Right now I just sort of eat all the meat, eggs and almonds I…

It should be balanced as far as macronutrient ratios go (you can change the ratios in one of the dropdowns), but the proportions of macros you want may change based on your goals. The default 50/25/25 split should be good if you're trying to build muscle, and with weight loss, you'll probably want fewer carbs and a higher fat/protein proportion. I'll add some presets at some point to make it more straightforward.

Aside from macronutrients though, I would either take a good multivitamin or make sure you're getting the rest of your vitamins/minerals from lean vegetables.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#295

Post by icegreentea » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:15 PM UTC

westicle wrote: post #174

icegreentea wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...).

I feel like this example only reinforces the point parent is trying to make. Having watched the clip below, it seems like running for eight hours in the heat of the day with no guarantee of a meal at the end is a dangerously foolish way to live. 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 transpo…

There are still bushmen in Africa who live by this. It's entirely possible to make this work. There was a BBC documentary on this (it's on youtube somewhere). They hunt in teams of 3-4, with one designated runner. Once they find their prey, the runner is the only one who actually does the long persistent run. The others follow at a slower pace.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#296

Post by bdclimber14 » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:16 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #142

bdclimber14 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely is cheaper, but pan roasting coffee on a stove can take quite a bit of time, is a fire-hazard, and causes quite a bit of irritating smoke and fumes for a few days. It sure tastes good though.

Are you sure it's still cheaper to roast your own, if you look into the energy bills? (Not to think of your own unpaid work.)

If you calculate your time, almost certainly no, at least for pan roasting.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#297

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:30 PM UTC

zach wrote: post #277

yummyfajitas wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So processed white flour [1] isn't the culprit? Good to know. Maybe the real culprit in the obesity epidemic is fats, oils, and sugar. It certainly fits the data. [1] At the beginning of the century, whole wheat flour was uncommon except in rural areas. It spoiled too quickly.

It's hard to know enough to say definitively what the culprit is. That's why Taubes is mostly content to argue merely the cause of increased obesity is located within the high-carbohydrate aspect of the modern diet. But even that has been a controversial enough position. The problem could be primarily that the Kool-Aid, fruit juice, Tang, soda and Sunny Delight (and other sweet food like sugared-up yogurt and maybe e…

But we can be quite sure that the suspect(s) is a carbohydrate.

How can we be so sure? The most obvious culprit is total calories. From 1980 to the present, total caloric consumption increased by 500 calories/day (see table 1 of my report). Coincidentally, obesity increased over the same period. But lets ignore that.

Carb consumption decreased, both as a fraction of diet and in absolute numbers. Obesity increased. Taking these two facts together, you need to make a very convincing argument that carbs are really the problem, in spite of the fact that obesity and carb consumption are negatively correlated.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#298

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:34 PM UTC

papa_bear wrote: post #294

StavrosK wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I don't think you should focus only on the "gaining weight" part, since most people want to lose weight. That said, I assume that the diet produced is balanced and thus good for people who train for strength/lifters, not just people who want to fill out a bit? If so, it will be indispensable to me, as I am doing SS and need something like it. Right now I just sort of eat all the meat, eggs and almonds I…

It should be balanced as far as macronutrient ratios go (you can change the ratios in one of the dropdowns), but the proportions of macros you want may change based on your goals. The default 50/25/25 split should be good if you're trying to build muscle, and with weight loss, you'll probably want fewer carbs and a higher fat/protein proportion. I'll add some presets at some point to make it more straightforward. Asi…

I've been looking for something like this for ages, thank you. Do you mind if I have /r/Fitness link to it?

Also, it seems it's going down a bit too frequently, have you thought of moving it to AppEngine?

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#299

Post by limedaring » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #193

henryw wrote: post #153

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…

Back when our diet was 54% carbs and 12.6% fats & oils, we were a lot thinner than today (43% carbs, 24% fats & oils). https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd...

We were also not sitting on our butts all day long then.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#300

Post by limedaring » Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 7:45 PM UTC

bdclimber14 wrote: post #57

illumin8 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I followed the 4HB diet for a month and it definitely does work to lose weight. The problem is that it has no variety, and you will get extremely sick of eating the same meal continuously over and over again. There are many ways to eat slow carb without strictly following the 4HB diet. For example, Tim Ferris says to stay away from anything that is "white, or can be made to be white." He's talking mostly about wheat,…

I agree with fruit, he seemed to contradict himself since he praises foods with low GI, but ostracizes fruit. His counter argument for the lack of sustainability for this diet is the "cheat day" but I haven't found that to be effective at all with sustaining the diet.

His argument against fruit isn't the GI index, it's fructose and its extremely efficient ability to be converted to fat as compared to other sugars.

http://www.quora.com/What-does-Tim-Ferriss-mean-by-Dont-eat-...