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

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

supplementsos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

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

#71

Post by maratd »

columbo wrote: post #53
maratd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. The majority of people don't live next to a market that has proper fresh produce, but demand drives supply and there's a reason they don't. Most upper and middle class fa…

> This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.a... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Po... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k... > 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Nearly half of a…

> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf).

Exactly how is being poor the most common situation? Are you under the impression that everyone is poor?

What?

Read my post. My point is that you don't have to be poor to lack access to fresh produce and in fact, if you're poor, chances are you have better access to it.

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

#72

Post by nazgulnarsil »

TillE wrote: post #23
skrause wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with canola oil?

Absolutely nothing. It's really strange that HN is filled with people who think they're experts on nutrition, even though their beliefs are often directly contradicted by scientific research. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-and-cholest...

There are absolutely no scientific citations in what you posted. The link between saturated fat and heart disease has been debunked repeatedly. Ancel Keys, the originator of the saturated fat = bad meme has repudiated his own early research.

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

#73

Post by ajays »

VLM wrote: post #6

Lets flag last time's discussion of v0.1 ahead of time, so we can move on and advance rather than rehash. 1) A little too much oil/fat to be politically correct, a bit too little to be nutritionally correct. Canola oil? I wouldn't put that in my car. Eat half as much olive oil if you have to, but don't eat that rot. 2) Carbs about right to be politically correct, WAY too much grains/carbs to be nutritionally correct.…

"The guy . . . . could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker."

If you just throw beans into a slow cooker without boiling them, you can risk haemagglutinin toxicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaseolus_vulgaris#Toxicity

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

#74

Post by cboppert »

maratd wrote: post #71
columbo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.a... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Po... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k... > 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Nearly half of a…

> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Exactly how is being poor the most common situation? Are you under the impression that everyone is poor? What? Read my post. My point is that you don't have to be poor to lack access to fresh produce and in fact, if you're poor, chances are you have better access to it.

I think this may be a little off. In fact a lot of poorer urban areas have relatively little access to fresh produce and have been dubbed "food desserts".

See: http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deser...

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

#75

Post by Hytosys »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18
mitchi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

314 carbs is around what a bodybuilder eats when he's bulking up. But bodybuilders eat 4 times this amount of protein (55 g). This diet is designed for a normal/small person obviously! How much would it cost to throw a multivitamin in there? Get some zinc, magnesium, fish oils in there since there's no meat at all. Zinc is obviously important if you're a man since you need it to produce testosterone.

...what a bodybuilder eats when he's bulking up. But bodybuilders eat 4 times this amount of protein (55 g). A midget bodybuilder. The rule of thumb is 0.75-1g protein/lb bodyweight, 0.5g for maintenance.

55g is the amount of protein referenced in the article. OP is suggesting bodybuilders eat 4 * 55 = 220g of protein a day.

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

#76

Post by ctdonath »

cboppert wrote: post #74
maratd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 47.6 percent The nation’s poorest kids primarily live in households headed by a single female (pdf). Exactly how is being poor the most common situation? Are you under the impression that everyone is poor? What? Read my post. My point is that you don't have to be poor to lack access to fresh produce and in fact, if you're poor, chances are you have better access to it.

I think this may be a little off. In fact a lot of poorer urban areas have relatively little access to fresh produce and have been dubbed "food desserts". See: http://newsone.com/1540235/americas-worst-9-urban-food-deser...

What does one do if in a desert, with nigh unto no food available and conditions oppressive? MOVE.

Most of these "food deserts" are that way because harsh socioeconomic conditions (to wit: disinterest in quality products, coupled with prolific theft) made commerce in suitable foods untenable. Complain about "food justice" all you want, but the next meal is just a few hours away as is the next bus ticket. Demanding someone provide a balanced meal is both unproductive and unfair, so figure out a near term solution.

BTW, some of us are trying to help by finding what is viable at low costs in nearby stores. Strange how many deride the attempt to help.

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

#78

Post by Nrsolis »

maratd wrote: post #50
columbo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 br…

> 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. This is just as disingenuous as the parent and isn't even close to representing the most common situation. The majority of people don't live next to a market that has proper fresh produce, but demand drives supply and there's a reason they don't. Most upper and middle class fa…

I'm sorry....but I'm going to call B.S. on this one.

Whole Foods doesn't have fresh food selection? Really? They don't have fresh chicken? They don't have any vegetables?

Please kindly supply me with the address of such a place.

When you make blanket statements like "Most upper and middle class families have largely abandoned the concept of fresh produce" I have to question your information. I live in CT, in Fairfield county, which could claim as residents some of the wealthiest people in the world. Yes, the world. Think Steven Cohen kind of money. The Winklevoss Twins have a rowing club not far from my home. Do you think they're eating Chef Boyardee from a can? KFC?

I'm willing to believe that the fresh produce section will not be as varied in the smaller towns in the poorer areas of the country, but absent isn't something I'm willing to believe.

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

#79

Post by VLM »

quantumpotato_ wrote: post #45
Kurtz79 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many ways cooking is a form of "hacking" and creating, a form of human ingenuity that has very concrete and practical applications... You take raw materials, in themselves nutritious but unappetizing, and create a final product that looks and feel completely different, and manages to be satisfying in addition to being functional and necessary to survival. Making something like bread starting from flour, yeast and…

Yes, but programming vs cooking maybe has some left brain vs right brain going on?

Only if you're cooking and programming wrong.

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

#80

Post by VLM »

ajays wrote: post #73
VLM wrote: post #6

Lets flag last time's discussion of v0.1 ahead of time, so we can move on and advance rather than rehash. 1) A little too much oil/fat to be politically correct, a bit too little to be nutritionally correct. Canola oil? I wouldn't put that in my car. Eat half as much olive oil if you have to, but don't eat that rot. 2) Carbs about right to be politically correct, WAY too much grains/carbs to be nutritionally correct.…

"The guy . . . . could never have spare the five minutes to throw some beans in a slow cooker." If you just throw beans into a slow cooker without boiling them, you can risk haemagglutinin toxicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaseolus_vulgaris#Toxicity

That was very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I've never owned a cheap slow cooker that didn't end up boiling the product, so if ten minutes of boiling is safe, then 5 hours or whatever of boiling should be safe. I can see where a much more expensive theoretically "better" wanna be sous vide rig of a slow cooker could actually poison you by not getting hot enough due to extremely accurate temperature control. Its always interesting to see a scenario where doing a "worse" job is surprisingly "better".

I once read that a slow cooker that doesn't boil/simmer was dangerous and assumed with no evidence it was because of chicken salmonella and the other usual undercooked contaminated protein problems but that rule may have actually been due to this bean toxicity.

This could be a serious issue for people fooling around with sous vide rigs. I have not taken that plunge yet.

Post reply on HN