
Eating Healthily for $3 a Day - miketuritzin
http://www.miketuritzin.com/writing/eating-healthily-for-3-a-day/
======
mmaunder
My wife and I tried to do this recently on $1.70 per person per day. We didn't
last our intended 28 days. A few observations we found:

Meat and organic food was too expensive.

Fruit is crazy expensive so we bought OJ from concentrate with no additives as
a cheap source of Vitamin C.

Eggs were are very expensive, but we needed the protein and nutrients, so
rationed ourselves to 3 each per week.

We had to remove all sugar to save on cost and sugar crashed badly.

We decided that Costco was cheating due to the $70 membership fee and so we
alternated between Safeway and Walmart.

You quickly learn the difference between broccoli florets and stems. [Stems
are cheaper]

Baking your own bread is incredibly cheap and if you're using a sourdough
starter you just need flour, salt and water. It's a great staple and adds
taste to the meal. I scraped the unused flour off the work bench and dumped it
back in the sourdough starter to save on cost.

Lentils are the most complete non-meat protein source.

Combining beans and rice give you a complete protein.

Cheese is too expensive and you can't make cheese from regular organic off-
the-shelf homogenized ultra-pasteurized milk. It just doesn't set when you add
the rennet.

You can buy coffee for $1 for a months worth of ground coffee at walmart. It's
called Master Chef and it tastes like a used catbox.

Before we did our experiment we found a few "living on a dollar a day" blogs,
but every single one bought in bulk and then calculated the cost of each scoop
they took out of the bin. They also didn't care about nutritional completeness
and basically starved themselves for the period.

After trying to do this on $1.70 and failing, I think Mike's budget of $3 is
probably a realistic per person budget if you're going to stay healthy.

~~~
orenmazor
if you want to save on coffee, buy green beans and roast. I pay around $30 for
5lbs of green beans that are extremely high quality. you can do far cheaper
than that though.

~~~
bradgessler
Where do you buy those beans at? Online or a local coffee joint?

~~~
lsc
I get mine at <http://www.sweetmarias.com> \- they have info on roasting using
a popcorn popper and other cool things.

~~~
bradgessler
Oh wow, this is awesome, they're right down the street from me. Thanks!

------
wheels
I've thought about putting together a brief founders' cookbook with a dozen or
so of the recipes for things that I survived on in the lean days that you can
make for about a buck or two and in about 20 minutes.

The real trick is not buying prepared foods at all. Things like flour, rice,
eggs, beans, pasta, potatoes, fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, yogurt,
cheese, ground beef, fish filets and chicken breasts are all reasonably cheap
and you can have a lot of variety with a relatively small set of ingredients
on hand. With some practice you get to where you know how to parallelize the
cooking steps so that you can get everything done and even cleaned up faster
than you could run out for fast-food.

Secretly I want our next office to have a full kitchen since one of the things
I miss when I'm at our office is being able to cook in the middle of the day.

~~~
shadowsun7
Have you tried the stonesoup cookbook? Premise: 5 ingredients, 10 minutes
cooking time per dish. I've tried a couple, and they seem brilliant so far.

<http://thestonesoup.com/blog/2010/06/a-free-e-cookbook/>

~~~
wheels
I have looked at it actually, and it's pretty neat, but for the way that I do
things it has a fatal flaw: the ingredients are exotic (i.e. where I live
they're expensive and you'd need to go to a specialty shop for some of them)
and don't overlap much between recipes.

From the looks of things, he's a much better cook than me. The stuff I make is
far more ghetto, but revolves around like 15 ingredients or so that I
basically buy every time I go to the grocery store. That keeps me from having
to actually plan meals. I usually cook in the opposite direction -- I look at
what I have on hand and figure out what I can make from that.

My gut sense is that that would be more approachable for folks that are
transitioning from fast-food and frozen pizzas.

~~~
kd0amg
_the ingredients are exotic (i.e. where I live they're expensive and you'd
need to go to a specialty shop for some of them) and don't overlap much
between recipes._

I had a housemate who kept a copy of the Wycliffe International Cookbook. It
was originally meant for overseas missionaries, written with the expectation
that the user would have trouble getting access to the wide variety of
ingredients specified by most cookbooks (which also made it useful for a
college student kitchen).

------
b3b0p
I'm sorry, but I really disagree with any sort of dieting advice articles
appearing on Hacker News for multiple reasons. Reading this thread only backs
up my own thoughts and reasons why I dislike these articles.

First of all, everyone has their own idea of healthy.

Second, there are so many different diets, fads, foods, etc to eat or follow
that's it ridiculous to even argue one way or another. Some eat lots of
protein, some eat lots of fat, some eat low fat and high carbohydrates and
everyone believes their method or means of eating is healthy. I'm sure no
matter which way anyone argues there is a book, article, pubmed article to
back up your ways. Making statements such as that can't be healthy, or you
need to eat vegetables, fats, a certain amount of calories, and other similar
statements is only someone else's opinion or belief and everyone is different.

Go with what makes you feel good. The best diet is the one you can follow.
Listen to your body.

I would down vote this, but I can't down vote yet.

I'll probably get down voted for all this text, but I feel that strongly about
this.

Frankly, what else bothers me is that almost any time someone expresses
disagreement, they get down voted. Thus, people who disagree often times
probably end up never posting.

~~~
jessriedel
> First of all, everyone has their own idea of healthy.

> Second, there are so many different diets, fads, foods, etc to eat or follow
> that's it ridiculous to even argue one way or another...

> Go with what makes you feel good. The best diet is the one you can follow.
> Listen to your body.

Don't mistake the presence of disagreement as evidence for there being no fact
of the matter. It's of course difficult to make strong claims about complex
machines like people without large, expensive randomized studies, leaving the
door open for people to argue for whatever preconceived ideas they have. But
that doesn't mean there is no answer, nor that you should just do whatever
makes you feel good.

That said, yes, these threads are largely useless.

> I would down vote this, but I can't down vote yet.

I don't think anyone can downvote posts (aka articles, links). (At least I
can't with 1.6k of karma.) It's just comments you can downvote after you get
<s>200</s> 500 karma or so.

(Edited in response to BoppreH's comment.)

~~~
b3b0p
Thanks for replying. I figured people wouldn't read into it like that, but
what I have learned is that one has to state very explicitly on Hacker News.

I agree with you and I was hesitant to state what I did about that.

Off Topic: I really wish one could not up or down vote anything without
requiring a comment in reply stating your reasoning. I think it could lead to
much more active and interesting discussions breaking out.

Maybe I was a little harsh stating I would down vote the submission.

Edit: Spelling and grammar stuff.

------
colanderman
As a vegan on a limited budget, this approximates many of my meals (though I
could stand to eat more nuts and seeds and fewer grains), and I can attest
that any day I eat roughly this mix of foods is a day I feel superbly healthy.

I would suggest replacing the low-fat dairy milk with a non-dairy alternative
such as soy or almond milk. Although this would up the cost to $3.50ish/day,
non-dairy milks are usually fortified with more calcium than dairy milk
contains naturally, and are often fortified with B12 as well.

~~~
samatman
If one can afford to invest in a soy milk maker, or persuade family to buy it
as a present, making soy milk is extremely cheap. Also, what comes out of a
soy milk maker is massively better than what you can get in a box.

I use a combination of soaked soy beans and ground coconut, for a grand total
of about 15 cents a quart, including a bit of salt, vanilla, and a tablespoon
of sugar (optional). It's a major dietary staple for me. I use the Joyoung
CTS1048, reviewed here: <http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/004154.php>

Such a device pays for itself in a month or two, if one is a regular soy/nut
milk aficionado.

~~~
pyre
* That isn't fortified with calcium + B12 (and all the other stuff like vitamin A and D) like the store-bought stuff.

* If you really want to be simple, you can make cashew milk in a blender with: 1 cup cashews + 3 cups water. (Works better than making almond milk as there is no pulp to strain out)

------
henryw
Wow, the amount of protein in this diet is really low. And all those carbs may
not be for everyone. This diet may be cheap, but not healthy.

If you are the type of person who puts on weight easily (like me), than I
would suggest doing 50% to 60%+ of your calories from protein and 20% or less
from carbs. The easiest source of protein are white eggs (in a carton),
chicken (pre-cooked), beans (get low sodium), and protein shakes (whey during
the day and casein at night). All these foods can be prepared with just the
microwave.

Eating carbs is the easiest way to gain extra pounds. Removing carbs also
removes any food coma you may experience after eating a meal, allowing you to
be more productive.

I lost like 30 lbs without trying that hard by eliminating carbs and focusing
on protein. The degree to which I'm in shape one day is correlated to how much
carbs I have avoided in the previous few days.

And of course, take vitamin supplements. Throwing in some veggies for the
fiber, or take fiber supplements.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Back when our diet was 54% carbs and 12.6% fats & oils, we were a lot thinner
than today (43% carbs, 24% fats & oils).

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usda.gov%2Fpublications%2Ffoodsupply%2Ffoodsupply1909-2004report.pdf)

~~~
Evgeny
_Back when our diet was 54% carbs and 12.6% fats & oils, we were a lot thinner
than today (43% carbs, 24% fats & oils)._

I'd say there's too much fixation on "carbs" and "fats" and too little on the
source. Would you agree that eating a fresh apple gives a different effect
compared on eating a couple of teaspoonfuls of white sugar, even if the carb
and caloric content is equal? I wish there was a breakdown for the source of
micronutrients somewhere.

And of course, the total amount of calories and sedentary lifestyles
contribute greatly to people being overweight.

But what does contribute to the growth in rates of cancer, diabetes, heart
diseas and other "diseases of civilisation"? This is not so easily answered by
just breaking down the food by carbs/fats/protein.

------
D_Alex
Can I ask: What is the motivation of trying to limit the cost of your food to
such a low (for first-world) amount? I am really weirded out by the number of
me-too responses, the philosophy of such extreme saving on food is alien to
me.

For me, delicious food is near the top of my priority list. I really do not
stint at all, my grocery bill is abt $40/day for 2 people... that is $15k/yr,
such a bargain considering: rent+utilities on my modest apt is $35k/yr, 2 cars
(Subaru+Toyota... not fancy) abt $20k/yr all up (I live in Australia).

Good food is such a bargain.

~~~
joshuacc
A few things.

1\. Perhaps they have substantially less spending money than you do. (I never
understood cutting back on food expenses until my wife and I went through some
tough financial times.)

2\. Perhaps they don't value food as much as you do. I enjoy good food, but
I'd never say that it is near the top of my priority list. I'd much rather
have cheap food and a better broadband connection than the reverse.

3\. Perhaps they are trying to scrape together every bit of money they can to
put towards their startup. There is a reason that PG uses the phrase "ramen
profitable."

~~~
maxhs
I'm scraping together every bit of money towards my startup... but not
skimping on food at all. Perhaps that's because it's a food startup and I'd
feel hypocritical eating ramen everyday! But, really, it's more because I
think there are better things to skimp on than food.. i.e. the fuel that makes
us who we are and sustains us _everyday_.

Besides I've got 3 years of data to show that it's possible to eat cheaply and
still get great food.. you just have to do a few things:

1\. buy in volume 2\. cook for yourself/others, don't eat out 3\. cut back on
meat 4\. waste as little as possible!

The startup is foodia, btw. More to come soon...

------
dirtae
Broccoli crowns are on sale this week at Lucky (in the Bay Area) for $0.57 /
lb. This should allow the OP to shave at least $0.50 per day from his food
budget. :-)

<http://www.anyleaf.com/product/broccoli-crowns>

As the co-founder of AnyLeaf, I talk to lots of people about saving on food
and groceries. Some people "trade down" to save money, e.g., by replacing meat
with beans. My personal strategy is to determine the diet I'd like to eat and
that I consider healthy (the Paleo Diet, in my case) and then plan my shopping
around the weekly sales offered by grocery stores. The variation in the price
of a given item at a given store throughout the year is huge. Almost
everything goes on sale for at least 50% off at one time or another. Also,
every week there's almost always a good sale being offered on some product in
every category (meat, seafood, fruit, vegetables, etc). A typical meal for me
is meat or seafood with some vegetable and some fruit for dessert. If there's
a great sale on chicken breast, I'll have chicken breast. If the sale is on
ground turkey, I'll have ground turkey. Likewise with fruit and vegetable
choices. Shopping this way is a low-effort (if you use AnyLeaf) way to save
substantially without trading down and compromising your nutritional goals.

------
beagle3
He follows (old) USDA dietary recommendations, which stipulate no saturated
fat, and 60% carbs. That is really, really bad. The ultimate reference is
"Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes - it is meticulously researched
and referenced, and is likely 40 years more up-to-date than your nutrition or
medical professional.

~~~
xiaoma
Gary Taubes is a journalist, not an expert in nutrition. He also has a track
record of questionable academic honesty. He's an excellent writer who has
cashed in fabulously on fad diets, particularly the Atkins craze 10 years ago.
Follow his advice at your own risk.

<http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake>

~~~
beagle3
I've started reading this hit piece, and saw, e.g.

> "One can lose weight on a low-calorie diet if it is primarily composed of
> fat calories or carbohydrate calories or protein calories. It makes no
> difference!"

Quoted from one of the "experts" refuting taubes. And yet, research by Robert
Israel and Michel Cabanac (full list of references in Roberts' "What Makes
Food Fattening" bibliography) shows that this is completely untrue - even
flavor makes a huge difference, let alone "caloric intake". (BTW, if anyone
can point me to any peer reviewed paper that validates "calories in-calories
out" theory, I would be thankful. It appears to be an argument of faith, not
of science, as far as I can tell).

Good Calories Bad Calories is meticulously referenced. You may disagree with
the content, but as far as science writing goes, it doesn't get any better or
more rigorous.

(And that's less of a compliment to Taubes, and more an indication of the sad,
sad state of science writing).

Taubes is a scientist and a journalist. The fact that nutrition is not his
original field doesn't change much.

~~~
eavc
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.

~~~
beagle3
> 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 stayed the same weight, and one third gained
weight, depending on how exactly the diet was composed.

Yes, you will lose weight, regardless of diet composition, on less than 800
kcal/day. Is that "low calorie"? "too low calorie"? "moderate"?.

No, you will not necessarily lose weight on more than 800 kcal/day. You
probably will if your diet was not specially crafted to make you keep your
weight on 800 kcal. When you get up to the 1200-1500 range, there is a non-
negligible probability of "accidentally" gaining weight (or at least not lose
it) by randomly stumbling on a bad diet composition.

One of Cabanac's (If I'm not mistaken) experiment was able to make rats gain
weight for 3 weeks on a diet of water+chalk (caloric value 0) for a while, by
feeding them water+sugar+chalk for a while, and then dropping the sugar. Sure,
it was water gain - but the calories in - calories out theory fails so
miserably in this case (and countless others) that it cannot be taken
seriously. (For only 3 weeks for a rat; it might not hold for a human for a
few months in similar conditions).

The calorie accounting is an approximation at best, which possibly takes
several months to a year to average out reasonably, whereas a lot of the
research focuses on results over 3 months or less.

~~~
ajslater
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.

~~~
beagle3
> 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.

~~~
ajslater
So, for the uninformed peanut gallery, beagle3 is just plain wrong. Probably
not intentionally, he's likely also fooling himself. But you locked him in a
room and measured his food for him and _really_ only fed him 1200kcals per
day, even at a fairly sedentary level of exercise, a 220lb man would lose a
lot of fat mass over several weeks. And no beagle3, human bodies tend to be
very greedy with calories and do a good job absorbing them regardless of what
you smell.

What likely happened is that reducing carbs reduced beagle3's appetite and he
ate less. Unless...

...unless beagle3 has a magic body that has never once been seen in any
controlled experiment. But he probably does, since every dieter who has
problems believes they have a special body that science can't explain. So they
buy a book and a program from someone who tells them what they want to hear.
And if their guru is on their game they sell very very expensive supplements.

Because its a well known scientific fact that the first law of thermodynamics
applies to everything in the universe except a disgruntled dieter.

------
photophotoplasm
> 6\. Keeps saturated fat to a minimum

In case anyone's interested, this recommendation is long outdated.

You should be keeping trans fats to a minimum and trying to increase your
polyunsaturated fats, but saturated fat is neither here nor there.

~~~
brady747
Bingo. We all must point out this saturated fat fallacy when it shows up in
society since it is so dominant and the belief in it leads to so many bad
choices and outcomes.

~~~
photophotoplasm
It's not true, but I don't think it's disastrous or anything like that.
Saturated fat is practically impossible to cut out completely, and our body
can produce it anyway. The more dangerous belief IMO is that fat in general is
bad.

------
chollida1
> Maintains the standard caloric ratios: 20-30% of calories from fat, about
> 10% from protein, and the rest from carbohydrates

This is the weirdest breakdown I've ever seen.

If you are at all concerned about lean muscle mass, and you should be if you
want to be even the slighest bit athletic, then the minimum amount of protien
you'd want is a half gram per pound of body weight.

Most people who work out or play sports try for closer to a 1 to 1 ratio.

This diet is severly messed up.

~~~
Shorel
Yes, but the blogger is right: that's the accepted medical and dietarian
wisdom, and it is backed by government programs like the one from Michelle
Obama.

No wonder why so many people has weight issues.

~~~
chollida1
> Yes, but the blogger is right: that's the accepted medical and dietarian
> wisdom

I'd disagree with this statement.

you can go look and find pretty much any percentage from an accepted medical
expert.

Saying there is one accepted answer is just plain wrong:)

------
latch
I've mentioned it before, but anyone serious about this type of thing should
get familiar with quinoa. It might be more expensive than rice, but it also
contains a balanced set of essential amino acids - which is pretty rare for a
plant. Most meals that call for rice can generally use quinoa instead, and
you'll be much better off.

~~~
westicle
I tried quinoa for the exact reasons you mentioned, but didn't find it nearly
as palatable as more "traditional" staples. Compared to rice I found it didn't
gel together when cooked, had a stronger (slightly unpleasant) flavour and a
gritty texture.

In the end I couldn't justify the cost to eat something I just didn't enjoy.
More power to those who enjoy it.

~~~
jswanson
If you still want to give it a shot, it's great in soups. An easy Chicken
Quinoa soup with carrots and celery, and a healthy dose of lime and pepper, is
healthy, flavorful and fairly easy to make.

~~~
khandelwal
If you don't like the mostly dry quinoa that's so popular in the US, try it in
a soup. That's how the Peruvians make it, and it's a world of difference!

------
credo
The post doesn't explicitly mention this, but this $3/day diet is also a
vegetarian diet (with milk being the only non-vegan item in it).

~~~
nandemo
But that's because the limit is too low. Meat is relatively expensive, but
it's not necessarily unhealthy. If the limit was, say, $5/day then he would
probably have included meat.

------
malkia
Back in Bulgaria we used to have a farm (almost anyone had) at the "village" -
e.g. the house that most city people would had at certain near rural place.

Mushrooms, chickens, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. Now can't be certain how much
it cost supporting, and also water, transport, etc. - but salaries were (and
still are) very little compared to US. Granted some things are ten times
cheaper, but then others reach the price of US (absolute prices, not average
salary relative).

Homebrew alcohol (wine, liquior), preserved tomatoes, salads, fruits, etc.
Homemade ketchup kind of like stuff was (and I guess still is) very popular.

Some people even made cheese from milk (for feta you need bulgaricus
bacilicus, for cheese I think not). And off course milk from the cow.

------
eyeareque
If you live in Mountain View (or the bay area for that matter) go to 99 Ranch.
It's an asian supermarket that smells like fish due to their huge live seafood
section. If you can get past the smell you will be able to buy fruits and
vegetables for extremely low prices. I can't believe how low their prices are
some times. It is by far cheaper than Costco, Farmers markets, Safeway, and
Nob Hill (from my experience).

~~~
silencio
A lot of asian markets have great deals and are worth going out of your way
for deals if there is one near you. Everyone else is talking about fruit being
expensive, but I go to Korean markets in LA that currently sell 5-10lbs of
oranges for 99 cents and pineapples for $2 on weekends, just to start things
off. $2/lb sliced ribeye, 20 cents for a small bunch of scallions, $4.99 box
of mango...you get the idea. It's entirely feasible to eat tons of fresh fruit
and even meats and pricier veggies on a tight budget if you know where to
shop.

------
orenmazor
as somebody who exercises a great deal (and consumes over 3000cal a day), I
can't recommend egg whites enough. for $4 (canadian) you can get almost a
liter at costco. construct your menu right, and you can easily consume a great
deal of healthy food for very little.

another tip: while YMMV, stay away from most beans other than black or
chickpeas. those are the ones that tend to cause the least disturbance in the
force.

~~~
rottendevice
Just curious: why do a lot people recommend only the white of the egg, and not
the whole thing?

~~~
icegreentea
Nearly all the fat and cholesterol in an egg is in the yolk. Egg white is
pretty much just protein.

~~~
r0s
All the B12 is in the yolk.

------
Dramatize
My wife and I lived off $2.80AUD a day while she was finishing her last year
of Uni. It was really rough and Lucy end up developing iron deficiencies.

~~~
TeHCrAzY
Where where you living at the time?

I am from Sydney, and I have been told by friends from other states that the
food prices here are much higher than anywhere else: even Melbourne (for non-
aussies: a similarly sized city - 4 mil inhabitants vs 4.5 mil in Sydney).

~~~
jms
I don't know about other states, but food is crazily expensive here (Sydney)
compared to the UK.

For some reason, eating out or takeaways is relatively cheap though.

~~~
photophotoplasm
Food and Agriculture in Australia and New Zealand isn't as heavily subsidised
as it is in Europe and America. That's one possible reason.

~~~
jms
It does interest me as to why this is. I think it's this and maybe the
geography/population making the mega supermarkets less viable.

I sometimes play with the idea of a food co-op to bring prices down, but
haven't got far.

~~~
photophotoplasm
I think there is also some concern that the Coles/Woolworths duopoly is
driving prices up. I usually avoid big supermarkets, but I haven't noticed any
significant difference in price when I have visited them.

------
davidmathers
_Golden Produce, a local shop_

A few doors down from Golden Produce is El Castillito, the source of my staple
food: the super carne asada burrito. At just over $8 it sounds more expensive,
but OP doesn't mention how long his staple meal takes to prepare.

Preparation time is definitely a cost if you'd rather be doing something else.
Like taking a walk to buy a burrito. So I don't think the $3 figure is
entirely accurate.

This does make me curious about how my meal stacks up in terms of
carbs/fat/protien/calories.

~~~
miketuritzin
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.

~~~
Klinky
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.

~~~
miketuritzin
True. I think it's all about how important saving money is to you. Everyone
has a price-effort curve that depends on their financial situation and how
frugal they are.

------
jhuni
The real problem with this diet is it doesn't contain any fruits (Avocados,
Cucumbers, Olives, Bananas, Grapes, Berries, etc). Our ancestors lived
primarily on raw fruits so they are definitely the healthiest natural/uncooked
foods for humans.

~~~
jrockway
Fruits cost more than $3.

I think the real problem, though, is that the whole "sugar is poison" has gone
to everyone's head, and it's now socially unacceptable to recommend anything
containing sugar.

The problem is that fruits have a lot of fiber wrapped around that sugar,
while soda does not. Have a cup of blueberries with breakfast, an avacado and
some tomatoes at lunch, and strawberries for desert. A few servings a day of
healthy sugars is not going to make you fat.

~~~
shareme
It only works if thin, if slightly overweight or overweight one has to reduce
all sugar intake and carbohydrates to re-adjust the body's insulin trigger
levels.

Simple test ..consume some carbohydrates..if one-half to one hour later you
get sleepy to the point of napping you should have your health checked..

~~~
jrockway
Reduce, yes. That doesn't mean "don't have blueberries on your cereal". It
means "don't have a slice of cake and wash it down with a coke".

------
papa_bear
I feel like this might be a good time to plug my project: <http://swole.me/>

It's a diet generator I made over the past few weeks that promotes adhering to
certain proportions of macronutrients. I'll probably make a full post about it
when I add some more features/food choices, but so far it's been a great way
to learn to program. If you use it, let me know if you have any feedback!

~~~
mikle
I bookmarked it. This seems like a great resource, when it will get more foods
(even though the list now looked good, and gave me a good overview of what I
should expect of my upcoming workout / diet phase.).

One thing I noticed is that the checkboxes overflow the text in "Customize
food choices" (Tofu is on the text below it, mangling everything). I'm using
firefox 3.6.

~~~
papa_bear
I'm glad that you think it's useful! I'm going to try to rework the foods box
in the next few days to have a bunch more foods. I thought I fixed the
spillover, but hopefully changing the whole thing will take care of it.

------
nanoanderson
This quote struck me as funny and sad:

"I’d rather buy the cheapest grains and vegetables than buy the cheapest meat.
Bargain basement meat is likely produced in atrocious factory farming
conditions and pumped up with hormones."

What gave him the idea that bargain basement vegetables are produced in any
better conditions… or that they produce any better product (nutritionally
speaking)?

------
nickpp
No omega-3 oils. No greens. No fruit.

That can't be healthy...

~~~
shareme
over loading on fructose, sucrose, etc in combination with high fat high
carbohydrates diets are not healthy.\

The beans have a low glysemic index(spelling) compared to other carbohydrates.

As far as greens, maybe romaine lettuce as lettuce wrap dishes..such as mix
beans, tofu, low amount of lean meat, and herbs to taste..

~~~
nickpp
Greens like spinach, salads, kale, cabbage. Leafy greens. Have low carbs but
lots of nutrients and fiber. You think they can be absent in a healthy diet?

Fruit - who said overloading? Maybe a few every few days. Our ancestors did
eat then when they could find them.

Omega3s - I never heard anything bad about them.

------
code_duck
That's about what I eat: home cooked beans, brown rice, random vegetables,
some bread, nuts, olive oil, occasional cheese and milk, plus a vitamin.

------
bdclimber14
This reminds me slightly of Tim Ferris' "The 4 Hour Body". Has anyone had any
real experience with his suggested diets? I find eating consistent and similar
meals is cheaper and healthier.

~~~
illumin8
I followed the 4HB diet for a month and it definitely does work to lose
weight. The problem is that it has no variety, and you will get extremely sick
of eating the same meal continuously over and over again.

There are many ways to eat slow carb without strictly following the 4HB diet.
For example, Tim Ferris says to stay away from anything that is "white, or can
be made to be white." He's talking mostly about wheat, flour, and pasta, but
also includes brown rice. Brown rice is an excellent slow carb so it shouldn't
be excluded. There are a lot of great grains that are slow carbs like
buckwheat, quinoa, wild rice, steel cut oats, etc, that won't make you gain
weight and are good balanced carbs.

My experience is that you can do the 4HB diet for a month or two and lose some
weight, but think about it - do you want to eat beans every meal for the rest
of your life? It's not a sustainable diet that you can stick with for a long
time, and that's what matters. In the end, you need a healthy diet that you
can stick with for an extended period of time, or you're just going to gain
the weight back.

Stick with slow carbs (all the ones I mentioned above), nuts, fruits,
vegetables, eggs, and lean meats, and you'll be fine. Stay away from fast
carbs, sugars, and foods with a high glycemic index and get some variety in
your diet. Eat breakfast every day with protein in it.

Another thing that doesn't work with Tim Ferris' diet is the "no fruit" rule.
Fruit is not that bad. Most fruit has a low glycemic index, although some like
watermelon is not that good for you (high GI). Completely excluding any fruit
from your diet is probably not healthy long term.

~~~
bdclimber14
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.

~~~
limedaring
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-...](http://www.quora.com/What-does-Tim-Ferriss-mean-by-Dont-eat-fruit)

~~~
infinite8s
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).

------
feint
more people should write posts like this so the myth of "eating healthy is
more expensive". And it doesn't need to be boring food like in this post.
Italian peasants have been spending much less than $3 a meal for centuries and
have one of the healthiest diets around.

~~~
Klinky
No, because it's not a myth. Eating healthy actually does requires a lot of
energy & in many cases does cost more. If it doesn't cost more it's because
you're going to be taking a lot out of the flavor department & you're going to
be investing a lot of time shopping, preparing, storing & tracking costs.
There is savings to be had in volume, but volume is hard to achieve when
you're cooking for just 1 or 2 people.

Stating that "Italian peasants have been spending much less than $3 a meal for
centuries" is silly on many counts. First this article is about $3 a day, not
per meal($3/meal x 3 x 30 = $270 per person per month which seems more
realistic). Second, you ignore currency inflation & the negatives of being a
peasant. It's similar to saying it must be great to be a Chinese peasant
because they can get rice for really cheap. Third, Italy is a small country
that has a long history of quality food production, there is less focus on
quality in the US & more on quantity. The US is a big country and the
environment varies greatly from place to place. You might have a great farming
community & your city might support farmers markets, but that doesn't mean
that everyone has those facilities or even if they do that the products
produced are actually cheap.

Part of the problem is that quality food has been relegated into a "gourmet"
category which demands a higher price & profit margins than industrialized
foods & even those industrialized foods aren't cheap in low volume. You will
often see higher quality tomatoes on a Burger King burger than what's at your
local supermarket going for $2.99/lb.

This is just a blog article, with one bland meal. I don't know how it even
makes a scuff as far as destroying this "myth".

------
ZoFreX
As someone who has suffered from pernicious anaemia, I heavily recommend
against this diet. Vitamin B12 is extremely important and is not necessarily
well absorbed through supplements (if you went to a doctor for B12 deficiency,
you would be given either supplements or injections well beyond the 100% RDA
amount). Eat food with it in instead, or even better, consult with a doctor or
other relevant medical person before taking such risks with your health.

------
dkarl
Doenjang and cheonggukjang (Korean fermented soybean products) are reputed to
contain B12 and other B vitamins. They might be price-competitive with eggs,
and they'd certainly add some welcome taste and variety. Unfortunately, I
can't find any source for nutrition information. One would think they would be
similar to natto, which has very impressive stats:

[http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-
produ...](http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-
products/4380/2)

However, natto apparently doesn't contain much B12. Natto would be harder to
find anyway (and harder to find _cheap_ ) since most large cities have Korean
grocery stores that cater to budget-conscious customers. If you're looking for
cheap, nutritious food, a trip to your local Korean store would be worthwhile
for the chance to buy cheap rice and check out the nutrition information on
the plastic tubs of doenjang. The cheonggukjang I've bought has not had
nutrition information on the label, but it ought to be similar to doenjang or
maybe natto.

------
martinshen
Anyone recommend a site that can build a week's menu/grocery list based on
approx budget etc.? I'd definitely use that product.

~~~
robflynn
I have been wanting the same thing but have too many projects going on right
now to try to do it myself.

~~~
Klinky
Where would one start on something like that? Getting local updated pricing
information would seem to be a big missing link. Perhaps crowd sourcing? That
would need a critical mass to make it useful. Maybe trying to focus on
specific cities first might make it easier.

~~~
martinshen
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.

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

~~~
robflynn
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.

------
kentosi
This is extremely awesome.

For those who feel hesitant about this (ie - not getting enough taste), I
would recommend trying this for, say, breakfast and gradually increasing the
frequency.

------
thenduks
Very interesting, almost makes me want to try it. But I'd like to see a
version that _isn't_ focused on price, but just on the 'healthiness' part.
When it comes to eating right, money is no object.

------
charlieflowers
I'd really like to see someone do an analysis like this, but including meat.
I'm a meat lover, but would like to get an idea of just how cheaply I could
eat healthily.

~~~
photophotoplasm
I live on ~9AUD per day, AUD being roughly equivalent to the USD.

$3 of that goes towards a coffee, $3 goes towards meat, and the other $3 goes
towards vegetables and other foodstuff (rough estimates).

The only issue I have is that most of the meat I buy is cheap - frozen chicken
pieces, ground beef/pork, sausages, chuck steak, etc. - and cheap meat can be
pretty horrible until you know how to cook it properly. You'll find yourself
doing a lot of pot roasts, goulashes, ragùs, etc.

~~~
adrianN
You spend 33% of your food budget just for coffee? Have you thought about
doing something about your caffeine addiction?

~~~
burgerbrain
33% of a food budget sounds like a lot.

33% of $9 hardly does...

~~~
adrianN
And yet, if 9$ is your food budget, they are the same.

~~~
burgerbrain
The point is that when you realize that the food budget is equivalent to $9,
the only way you can make the coffee expenditure seem unrealistic is to
conveniently not mention that fact and say something like "You spend 33% of
your food budget just for coffee?".

Accusing someone of having a caffeine addiction for spending a mere $3 a day
on it is just silly.

------
vipivip
Most Adventists live on this kind of diet, they are the healthiest individuals
around the nation and they live the longest, just google Seventh Day Diet.

------
puredemo
Paleo > Legumes.

------
pitdesi
Random tangential thought:

There are many areas in the world where you can eat a lot more than this for
$3 a day. I lived on $2/day in India for a year (was working in microfinance
and wanted to live like my borrowers). I got full vegetarian meals made for me
in a major city (Ahmedabad) at that price.

Something to consider.

~~~
Johngibb
This metric isn't really useful unless you can account for the different
buying power of the dollar in a country like India vs. US.

~~~
Johngibb
It looks like the average software developer makes about 7400 USD a year in
India [1]. Assuming a reasonable average is 60k in USA, that's about an 8x
salary difference, meaning spending $2/day on food in India is something like
$16/day in USA.

1: <http://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Country=India/Salary>, 328,379 rupees
is approx = 7400 USD

------
edtechre
I am surprised the author did not mention eggs. A good source of protein,
cheap, and they have a pretty good shelf life.

------
xriddle
Protein fail

~~~
rkon
I'd agree it's low on overall grams of protein (for a male, at least) but he
did manage to get the amino acids that non-meat diets usually lack... so it's
not a total fail.

~~~
kek
The grams of protein are within his dietary needs. Nobody, male or female,
needs more protein than 10% of their daily calories.

Most vegetarian diets do not lack sufficient amino acids. Protein needs are
greatly exaggerated by "pop science". Iron and B12 are of greater concern than
protein in non-meat diets.

~~~
samatman
Meat is overrated as a source of iron, unless we're talking liver or blood
sausage.

Most contemporary diets are low in iron because people don't eat their dark
leafy greens, which are, far and away, the best source of bioavailable iron.
The OP diet, which is heavy on broccoli, neatly avoids this.

