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

Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

miketuritzin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 361 posts

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#341

Post by ajslater »

beagle3 wrote: post #311
eavc wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I imagine you have a more nuanced point, but the statement you quoted is clearly true taken for what it actually is saying. You are right, of course. Without quantifying (how low is "low calorie"?) these statements are useless. There was an experiment in Mass General some 15 years ago, in which they were able to get people with similar lifestyle/activity on 1500 cal/day diet. About one third lost weight, one third…

I'd bet a fair amount that your Mass General study used self reported calorie intake.

800kcals a day is typically enough for a 100 lb person to lose nearly a half a pound of fat a week. That's low calorie by most people's measure. Certainly mine at 200lbs

When most people are talking about 'losing weight' they mean losing fat. At least losing actual body tissue. Anyone can gain or lose 10% of their body weight in a few days by controlling for carbs. But its just water.

Try to ignore rat studies if you possibly can. Their metabolism, particularly their capacity for denovo lipogenisis is very very different than that of human beings.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#342

Post by lsc »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #337
lsc wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait, what? first, I didn't downvote you. Even if I could, I would not; and I can't. the downvote button doesn't exist for posts that are responses to mine. Next, I'm not arguing that caffeine is not a habit forming drug. It obviously is habit forming. What I'm trying to say is that because the side effects are so mild, it's not that big of a deal that it is habit forming. Next, I'm not saying people who use a certai…

You're defending caffeine use. Please show me one place where I suggested he should stop or sad that using caffeine was bad. In fact, I've gone out of my way half a dozen times to suggest the opposite. All I did was ask why, rather than replace coffee with caffeine, he didn't simply kick caffeine all together. Heh, legal dangers aren't probably as severe a concern as dangers during acquisition. I would suggest that a…

>You're defending caffeine use. Please show me one place where I suggested he should stop or sad that using caffeine was bad

At the beginning of this thread, you wrote:

>That's quite an addiction you have. Have you considered kicking it?

Which I interpreted to mean that you thought this caffeine addiction was a bad thing, and that he should try to kick it. Of course, it's possible that you were asking if he had withdrawal symptoms when he stopped or perhaps something else entirely, but that's why I was defending caffeine use.

>I am curious now though, when you say "heavy users tend to have long-term loss of productivity", is that even when at work, not high? Is that even after they've stopped smoking for long periods of time?

Honestly, I don't know if the people I've known with those problems were high at the time or not; Either there was some sort of lasting effect, or the people in question chose to continue using when it was clear that they were damaging their career.

I mean, like I said, I know far more people who use every now and then and seem to be fine with it, but for some people, it can be (or, at least contribute to) a problem.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#343

Post by beagle3 »

ajslater wrote: post #341
beagle3 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I imagine you have a more nuanced point, but the statement you quoted is clearly true taken for what it actually is saying. You are right, of course. Without quantifying (how low is "low calorie"?) these statements are useless. There was an experiment in Mass General some 15 years ago, in which they were able to get people with similar lifestyle/activity on 1500 cal/day diet. About one third lost weight, one third…

I'd bet a fair amount that your Mass General study used self reported calorie intake. 800kcals a day is typically enough for a 100 lb person to lose nearly a half a pound of fat a week. That's low calorie by most people's measure. Certainly mine at 200lbs When most people are talking about 'losing weight' they mean losing fat. At least losing actual body tissue. Anyone can gain or lose 10% of their body weight in a f…

> I'd bet a fair amount that your Mass General study used self reported calorie intake.

99% of nutrition studies are, but this one wasn't. I can't find the reference now, though.

Personally, I've been on a ~1200kcal/day diet for years (for some of that time, I did very detailed tracking), and stayed at my 220lbs. Which, of course, makes no sense, and it didn't to my girlfriend at the time who was an MD - so she decided she'd show me how wrong I am by eating the same as me. She lost weight quickly and started blacking out (apparently some form of malnutrition) within a few days, and stopped after a week with a SEP field resolution ("Contradicts everything I know, so I'm just going to ignore it").

Then, 12 month ago, on essentially the same diet, I started gaining weight - slowly but surely. And then I decided to cut away wheat, and lost 30 pounds within a month. (In retrospect, I also noticed that my gain weight coincided with going from pure-egg protein powder to egg-and-wheat protein powder).

There are about a thousand more variables than calories, and the body can change its efficiency.

Ignore the rat studies if you like, but cabanac has similar experiments with humans -- basically, people fed through a nose tube lose weight almost independently of the amount of calories you put in their stomach. Body just doesn't use the food unless proper signaling (apparently, scent related) happens.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#344

Post by zach »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #318
zach wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I think this is good data and commend you for going back to the numbers to make your point. It's not perfect data - as the report says, by nature it's overstating actual consumption - but for short-term trends it is valuable. But I don't see where gross carbohydrates are decreasing in Table 1. It seems like they went from 420g in the 80's (from under 400g in the 70's) to 480 or so a decade ago.

Sorry, I meant a decrease from 1909-1919 to the present. I was definitely unclear, sorry about that. You are right, total carb consumption did increase since 1980. But if carbs were the issue, shouldn't we have been fat in 1909-1919, thin in the 80's, and fat again?

I think it's troublesome to compare general disappearance data from so long ago. There can be long-term trends of things like waste and changing methodologies that mess things up.

I think your point -- that overall carbs are not the issue -- is right on, though. Looking at wheat data from Statistics Canada going back about as far, people seem to have been eating a ton more wheat a hundred years ago than they do today, like 30% more. And yet in those days obesity had a I think that's not inconsistent with fingering particular carbohydrates (and even the way they're consumed) as the cause of modern weight problems. That is, I don't think that falsifies the Sunny Delight hypothesis I proposed earlier. There's a reason the Kool-Aid Man is that large -- as mentioned by others, it seems like fructose is the trans fat of carbohydrates.

And, I would say, food disappearance data doesn't help at all in answering the question of the best way for the obese to lose fat. After all, in the 1910s, there almost weren't any obese people! Now that over a third of Americans are statistically obese, this is its own highly relevant issue.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#345

Post by robflynn »

martinshen wrote: post #322
martinshen wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think general approximation could work. I'm not looking for something that can get me to $3 exactly... Really if someone could make an application that gave me a list of menus (that I could swap out) for the week and the corresponding grocery list, I'd use that all the time.

I've decided that on my next available weekend I will build this. (aka probs not until the fall).

General approximation is what I was going to use. I don't care if it's exactly some set price. Reasonably close is good enough for me.

A bit of magic in the system would be nice, as well. For example: I'm picking the menu(s) the items that I would like to eat next week. While "chicken burrito" may not normally cost me too much, it just so happens that none of the ingredients for the chicken burrito are shared amongst the ingredients for the other 5 or 6 days. This may push my week's allowance too high. Finding things with like/shared-staple ingredients would be nice. Obviously, we wouldn't want a Taco Bell scenario where everything uses the same five or six ingredients, but watching your overall supply/intake could help.

I suppose, additionally, being able to specify some things that you have on hand could help with the process.

I've thought about this off and on enough that I fear I may be over complicating it at this point.

Anyway, if you get around to working on this sometime this fall then feel free to hit me up as I hope to have some free time by then.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#346

Post by Evgeny »

georgieporgie wrote: post #331
Evgeny wrote: post #327

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. I would say the difference between addiction and supplementation is not in what you take , but rather what happens if you do not take it. I'm supplem…

Now would you be able to forget your caffeine? Yes, of course I can, and do. Why would you assume that I'm somehow dependent upon caffeine?

Yes, of course I can, and do. Why would you assume that I'm somehow dependent upon caffeine?

It's a substance known to cause addictions and I personally know a number of people who claim that they "need" it - nothing personal here.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#347

Post by infinite8s »

pacaro wrote: post #70
tejaswiy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can +1 with my anecdotal evidence too. Indian vegetarian diet is pretty heavy on lentils. They're not that bad :)

One thing that the Central/South American and Indian diets add to this baseline set of ingredients is Spices! These add little difference nutritionally, but make the world of difference in whether this diet seems bland or repetitive; with care they don't need to add a huge cost either, stored well they can be bought in bulk and the cost amortized.

Not only for taste, but a lot of the spices (such as ginger, garlic, and especially asafeotida - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asafoetida) used in india cooking are meant to aid in digestion.

If you want to buy cheap spices you can't go wrong buying whole dried spices (they keep their flavor much longer) from an indian grocery store. I've always found one near where I've lived (mostly east coast, but I did spend a summer in Albuquerque and I found a few there).

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#348

Post by eel »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #254
jasonlotito wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a nutritionist. My understanding, however, is that sugars are the culprit. When you look at what has changed over the years, that's the big one. Sugar: The Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM There are lots of other articles concerning this, but I felt this was the best one for pure information. He's not alone in discussing this, so I don't have to just take his word for it. But like I sai…

Actually, if you look, you'll discover fats and oils have increased more than sugar. Consumption of fats and oils increased 90% (from 12.6% of diet to 23.9%), while sugar consumption only increased 34% (from 12.9 to 17.3%). (By "increase", I mean from 1909-2004. See table 4 of my link.)

If between fats and sugars, one is "bad" and the other is not, then any increase in the one that is bad will have negative effects regardless of how much the non-bad one is increased. Nutrition and human biology is obviously more complicated than just this, but I'm just pointing out that data like this provides as much evidence for Jason's argument as it does for your argument.

Also, FWIW, I have seen the video, and to me the main message was that fructose is bad when fiber consumption is too low.

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#349

Post by infinite8s »

Klinky wrote: post #93
miketuritzin wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny - I (the OP) go to El Castillito a lot, actually, because my co-founder and I work a couple minutes walk away from there. You are right about preparation time, though you can cut down on prep time a lot if you cook a bunch of food at once and then reheat it when hungry over the next few days. That can actually be even faster than walking to get a burrito on the days you reheat.

It can be quicker, but does it taste better & is the total time invested lower in the long run? You do have to spend a good portion of time planning out what meal you're going to make, go shopping for the ingredients then prepare & package the meal properly so it's ready to reheat later. Also things like diced fresh veggies do not hold up well in the fridge, freezer or microwave.

Some things taste much better the next day (like soups and stews which have had time to meld their flavors).

Re: Eating Healthily for $3 a Day

#350

Post by infinite8s »

limedaring wrote: post #300
bdclimber14 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Except there's evidence that the soluble fiber in fruit helps moderate the fructose absorption in your gut (this is completely separate from the GI index, which is about how it affects your blood sugar levels). Unfortunately a lot of studies only look at macronutrients in isolation and ignore the (for example, vitamin C help calcium absorption).
Post reply on HN