How to eat healthily for £1 per day – version 0.2

I sure hope no one is going to eat it either. Cooked oatmeal for breakfast 7 days a week? The author seems to be stuck in the mindset that certain foods are "breakfast" foods.

I've had chicken breast and broccoli for breakfast. I've had omelets for dinner. Nutritious food isn't time-specific.

BY far the biggest improvement most people could see from a cost basis is learning to cook and then actually cooking. The wife and I cook 2-3 times a week, make enough to last a few days and reheat foods as needed.

BY far the biggest improvement most people could see form a nutritional basis is the removal of food additives and taste enhancers that are designed to make food palatable for consumption while enhancing shelf-life or allowing the use of substitute ingredients that cost less. (Modified food starch, I'm looking at you!)

I read it as "supple mentos" and was, needless to say, confused how mentos fit into the "Eating Healthily" part.

It has a few issues.

1) Depends on what you're using it for. Personally I think it tastes foul in salad dressing type applications. Olive oil is the gold standard for homemade salad dressings. I would imagine if you're frying donuts or potatoes or something, you'd want the more neutral flavor of canola instead of olive.

2) Rancidity issues lead to three problems. First is massively excessive processing which turns the healthy omega3 oils into trans fats, and also contamination from processing chemicals make the oil smell/taste weird compared to a more natural/real oil. The second is failure of the extensive processing means the stuff goes rancid really quickly, meaning you either dump half the bottle making it more expensive than olive or you eat rancid oil which is really unhealthy. The third problem is you can solve post-purchase rancidity issues by getting tiny little containers and using them up quickly, but that boosts the cost per oz way beyond something tastier, healthier, and longer shelf life, like olive oil or frankly pretty much anything else.

3) Its exceedingly heavily processed compared to most other off the shelf oils. This is not necessarily bad other than as noted above, but the more they screw around with it, the more chance to screw it up. Its easier to purchase un-screwed up evoo than canola.

4) Probably all that matters is your own local shopping experience, but I'm just saying where I live pretty much only shit grade canola is widely available, but pretty good olive (and other stuff) is available. I'm willing to believe there might exist a place, perhaps where you live, where really good excellent fresh properly minimally processed canola is available and no decent olive (and other) is available, although I find it pretty unlikely. The only oil worse than canola on my oil pecking order is generic "vegetable oil". Now that's not exactly made out of cucumbers carrots and tomatoes. Very disturbing, like a package at the butchers which refuses to officially identify itself beyond "meat, animal".

Those are the real world reasons why it usually sucks compared to olive oil. Outside of the real science based world, you run into stuff like over 90% of the canola is non-organic and GMO, so people who don't know anything about science are trained by advertising to respond by freaking out about it. I'm not so worried about pseudo religious "beliefs" as I am about real world biochemistry above. Everything is genetically modified to some extent or another, and as a class of product oil is processed a lot more than, say, lettuce, so being organic probably doesn't matter as much relatively for oil as for apples.

TLDR is its overly vulnerable to rancidity, so it either is super over processed to the point of icky, or has to be consumed while rancid which is icky, or goes bad fast so small bottles are more expensive per unit volume than a big jug of something that doesn't rot so quickly.

> 3) The guy from a culture where the average TV viewership per capita is 4 hours and 38 minutes per day (per Neilson 2012) could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker. Also all home cooked meals take 8 hours to prepare because he says so. Finally multitasking has not been invented (serious, HN?) so time spent stirring a pot must be spent 100% focused on the stirring never a single brain cell firing on any other task. I honestly believe there is some kind of cooking phobia loose on HN.

This is low quality, and doesn't add to the discussion.

Here's a real case study; a mother, two children under six years old, mid-twenties, high school dropout, only has a bus pass and foodstamps. The closest grocery store is 3 miles away and she lives on government checks.

How much time do you believe it would take her to go to the grocery store to get fresh produce? How much time does it take someone with kids AND a car to get to the grocery store and back?

How much time have you devoted towards helping the poor? I mean actually sitting down with someone in the bottom 15% (not your friends-friend who's eating ramen at college or someone you heard of from high school) and how successful were you in training them to spend less money?

These topics are fine for what they are: Affluent people trying to spend less. They lose value when people look at the numbers and say "Gosh, this is so easy, why don't the poor just do this! Why don't they just buy a hybrid and save money on gas? Or maybe order all this stuff online with their macbooks to save time?".

I'm not sure if he was "caught" per-se. More like he preemptively objected to the opposition in the court of public opinion for this round using excerpts from the last round.