Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

supplementsos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#51

Post by Kurtz79 »

I'm not criticising the article (I love seeing hackers/hacker like mentality applied to diet and cooking, check : 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".

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#53

Post by susi22 »

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

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#54

Post by prawks »

gnaritas wrote: post #36
Nursie wrote: post #32

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.

> 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.

> Food is fuel; it doesn't have to be a source of entertainment.

It doesn't have to be, but for many it is. I greatly enjoy making and tasting food. The true value of something is a combination of its physical and emotional cost to the purchaser. I think that gets lost in many budgeting articles.

Of course, if you're truly on a tight budget like this article proposes, luxury and entertainment aren't even parts of your budget. But if not, you're going to be miserable unless you can do things you enjoy, and often times those things take a bit of financial support (obviously not everything, again).

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#55

Post by Shorel »

DanBC wrote: post #34
venomsnake wrote: post #8

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.

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 dressi…

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.

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#56

Post by MarkMc »

king_jester wrote: post #29

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 s…

From a book called Rework [1]:

"When you want something bad enough, you make the time - regardless of your other obligations. The truth is most people just don't want it bad enough. Then they protect their ego with the excuse of time."

I think virtually everyone in the UK has the means to eat healthy if they really want to.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Rework-Jason-Fried/dp/0307463745

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#57

Post by Shorel »

frou_dh wrote: post #21

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.

If they share 40% of the economy, then your diet should be 40% of their product.

Think of the economy!

/sarcasm

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#58

Post by msandford »

lenazegher wrote: post #50
nkozyra wrote: post #14

Ah, the unquantifiable "healthy" designation.

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

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.

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#59

Post by rahoulb »

MarkMc wrote: post #56
king_jester wrote: post #29

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 s…

From a book called Rework [1]: "When you want something bad enough, you make the time - regardless of your other obligations. The truth is most people just don't want it bad enough. Then they protect their ego with the excuse of time." I think virtually everyone in the UK has the means to eat healthy if they really want to. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Rework-Jason-Fried/dp/0307463745

37Signals also sprinkle their stuff with "this works for us, we're not saying it's for everyone". They are outliers, and much as I love and am inspired by them, if what they said was so easy, why aren't we all working four day weeks from home, whilst racing multi-million pound sports cars?

Re: Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

#60

Post by dgabriel »

frou_dh wrote: post #40
ryeguy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with butter, oil, or dressing in moderation. If it makes a rather boring dish more interesting, it's worth it - none of those things up the calorie count too much.

I'd say satiating meals is a better goal than interesting meals. If you're completely satiated by reasonable portions then your energy levels will be solid and you'll lose/maintain weight without needing to think about calories at all.

We all have different goals, but interesting meals are certainly near the top of my priority list, especially since I eat with my family and meal times are more than just a way to fill a hole.
Post reply on HN