Actually eat healthily for £1 per day

I've seen lots of people complaining about not having money to pay the rent (or mortgage)/food/textbooks for kids but going on holidays (or skiing, or binge drinking) every possible moment. It's not general, there are lots of people making as best as they can with the resources they have. But there are also a lot of people who don't even try and just say they can't.

I have neither included transport cost nor sales nor waste.

If you live in the UK you might immediately know what including these in that completely unrealistic article would mean.

(1) You have to go to one of the superstores to get these prices - Tesco Express, Sainsbury's Local e.a. almost never store the cheapest goods and normally mark up all other goods by a substantial amount (30%+). Next cheapest goods on the list are often 100%+ more than the prices used in the article (that's the superstore price of course) - most extreme (from my own experience) with rice - the cheapest rice you most likely find in a Tesco Express is £4+ vs. 40p quoted, that's 1000%.

(2) Getting to a superstore can be rather costly - assuming about £3.2 for bus tickets (that's £6.4 per week uups just doubled your weekly budget by only adding the transport cost) - you might alternatively walk about 10-16 miles each time (both ways, can be more if you live on the countryside) - guess that's the healthy part of that diet - walking 32 miles each week (you should than of course also adjust you calories / fat / vitamin intake which gets us to about e.g. £12 actual vs £7 and 12 hours spent walking).

(3) To use sales most effectively you have to have a budget to vary your diet, buy larger quantities when available etc - neither of this is possible in the constraints of this assumption - hence I also did not use sales prices.

Go with chicken thighs instead. It's cheaper and better tasting. Just takes a tiny bit longer to cook.

Fair enough about your point about the cholesterol.

However, I'd challenge you with this. Go back and look at how the cholesterol error was made. It's a instructive microcosm of how we got to having such bad advice about health, where a tiny little sample of the vast multidimensional space of health was taken because we happened to develop a test that could see cholesterol, and we radically, radically over-interpreted the results. (Arguably without even doing the test we could have done right then, which is to directly ask the question of whether eating cholestThen ask if you're really, really sure that's the only time that happened, in our set of health advice that largely was created in the same era (if not a decade or two before) and hasn't changed since. Because I do agree that consensus hasn't changed much over the past 50 years; what I am saying is that change is inevitably coming, and if you know where to look you can already see its shape.

"Salt is still harmful, btw."

There are significant studies that suggest it's only harmful if you already have hypertension. There's also some serious question in my mind about how salt can be harming the population when studies can also show that people actually maintain a very constant level of salt intake and have historically maintained that same salt intake for as far back as we have records that can reasonably answer that question.

"Calm dieticians have been suggesting that people cut down fats, but not replace those with weird sugar-foods."

And I still think this is revisionism. I've been reading recommendations from the government and other sources for my entire lifetime and I've only recently seen anyone making the point that replacing fat with sugar is a bad thing, and it is usually still people not in the scientific mainstream until very recently. (Sure, Atkins said it in the 1970s, but I'm sure you wouldn't count that.) The government has been pushing low-fat everything for a long time. If perhaps the point was being made in some academic journal somewhere, I don't really care, I'm talking about what the general population was told. The idea that low-fat itself might be bad can probably be dated to when it finally broke through that transfats (margarine) was worse than what it was replacing (butter), which was a relatively recent development (~10 years ago), and that's when it finally became politically viable to even ask the question of whether low-fat foods were actually better for you.

And I could quibble further (the badness of red meat is highly dubious from what I can see, fruit's virtues seem oversold), but it doesn't matter. The change is coming, because the advice we've been given for decades is unbelievably awful, "our grandchildren will ask us how we could believe that" awful. It won't stand, and when the authorities try to rewrite history to claim nothing has changed I will not forget that it's not what they told us.