The Great CFC Low Income Food Experiment Challenge!

[Mise]

The calculator on the AHA's website is not "assuming fatties", it's using the standard formula for calculating BMI.

But whatever, like I said, it's pretty easy to go from 1600 to 2000 by eating a bowl of muesli with whole milk in the morning, so it's not like your weird and baffling insistence that 1600 calories is "normal" makes any substantial difference to the experiment.

 

[Patroklos]

I took your criticism to heart as my last two days show and my results post will include that. Basically I made some poor choices on day one and day two, eating dairy that was too expensive and not includings including foods like rice/peanut putter/muesli/oatmeal.

I would assume if I was living this lifestyle for an extended period of time I would have discovered these, the learning curve for one week and only seven days to average out a mistake is difficult.

 

[Zelig]

Again, explain the site linked in the OP.

You need to refute that source, not just provide an alternative.

There's nothing there to refute, the only AHA source which gives recommended daily Calories clearly says 1600 Calories are appropriate for a 4'9" 100 pound woman.

http://www.my-calorie-counter.com/calorie_calculator.asp#
2028 to maintain
1528 to lose one pound a week

http://www.healthycalculators.com/calories-intake-requirement.php
2015 to maintain
1515 to lose a pound a week

Right, those sources all confirm 2000 Calories per day to maintain weight.

Sorry, bur it's clear the AHA calculator you are using is assuming overweight fatties, which is exactly why you found it where you did.

It takes trivially fewer Calories to maintain a higher weight than a lower weight, so if you're trying to make the point "You can lose weight until you're down to 100 pounds for a bit more than $20 per week", you're almost there.


I agree with Mise otherwise, I don't think getting 2000 Calories is difficult, so I don't see why you're insisting on 1600 Calories as being in any way a reasonable benchmark.

 

[Mise]

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

Male/160/5'6"/no exercise (which describes the poor accurately)

Maintain: 1750
Weight Loss:1401
Extreme Weight Loss: 1280

BTW is this what's causing confusion here? I put those exact numbers in (Male, 160lb, 5'6, no exercise) with an age of 30 and I got completely different numbers:

Maintain: 1956
Fat Loss: 1565
Extreme Fat Loss: 1280

I don't know how old Patroklos is but to get 1750 as my maintenance level I had to put my age as 64.

 

[Patroklos]

Because you are not refuting the source I gave you which clearly, unequivocally, gives both 1600 and 2000 as their RECOMENDED daily values with serving requirements linked to those values to boot. It's also inside their nutrition center tab.

I provided the link since day one, you continue to ignore it despite being provided with it several times since.

In suppose my annoyance with you comes from challenging these values 5 days into the experiment despite them still being specifically linked and referenced as the goal in the unedited OP. The whole point of me providing them a week early was for you to challenge them then before I went through the effort of actually doing this experiment.

Those calculators I just posted clearlty show you need a sub 1600 diet to lose any weight of significance, so basically you are quibbling over a 1700-1800 diet or a couple hundred calories.

BTW is this what's causing confusion here? I put those exact numbers in (Male, 160lb, 5'6, no exercise) with an age of 30 and I got completely different numbers:

Maintain: 1956
Fat Loss: 1565
Extreme Fat Loss: 1280

I don't know how old Patroklos is but to get 1750 as my maintenance level I had to put my age as 64.

I just did it again and got the same thing, I must have fat fingered it the first time.

However, it still shows you need a sub 1600 diet to lose weight.

Which is besides the point as I agree with you, 2000 should be the upper end ideal i just don't see being a couple hundred below that as unhealthy (especially given the source I am using for servings). The Point was to healthy via correct servings too, not just pack in empty calories.

 

[Mise]

Any calorie deficit will result in weight loss. The bigger the calorie deficit, the more weight you lose. There isn't a magic number below which you lose weight (well, there is -- it's the maintenance caloric level of ~2000). If you need 2000 calories to maintain your weight, but only eat 1800 calories, then you will have a calorie deficit of 200 calories, and you will lose weight: approximately (200/3500)*7 = 0.4 kg per week.

The point we're making about 1600 calories is that, if you do your experiment and you can only manage 1600 calories per day, it means that poor people cannot live healthily on $20 per week. Because if they do that, they will become unhealthily underweight due to the persistent caloric deficit. A persistent caloric deficit of ~400 calories is very unhealthy in the long run! Diets like that are supposed to last maybe a couple months, over which time you will lose ~7kg (~15lb).

If the only way for people to eat off $20 a week is with a calorie deficit of 400 calories, then it is fair to conclude that people can't live off $20 a week.

 

[classical_hero]

According to the AHA website, my calorie count should be 2600.

 

[Silurian]

I think everyone has forgotten these posts.

It serves a double purpose, I need to lose some pounds before my wedding this summer so I will be aiming closer to the 1600 level on the calorie range!

If you are intending to live on 1600, rather than 2500 calories, that will allow you to save money. At this time of year it is cold in most parts of the northern hemisphere, 4C in Norfolk VA today. Poor people often cannot heat their homes adequately and so eat more calories too keep warm. When I was working in Bahrain, up to 47C, I found that I ate a lot less than I do in the UK due to the heat. You should really start your diet on the 16th, after you have enjoyed your steak on the 14th.

 

[dutchfire]

So, what was your total Patroklos?

I think you're all focussing a bit too much on the calories. As long as you don't fill hungry, you're okay in my book. People getting too little calories isn't really a thing, unless you are homeless. And even then, getting vitamins is more challenging than getting calories, since calories are very cheap.

BTW Patroklos, there's a mistake somewhere in your last day, you have 4 and 8 table spoons of peanut butter for the same price.

 

[Patroklos]

I hope to have my results tabulated today but I am finishing my honey due list right now.

Thanks for pinging out that error. That sucks because that puts me over the 20.00 by .27 cents. I would have compensated during dinner if I had realized this. Don't judge me to harshly!

 

[Mise]

I think everyone has forgotten these posts.

I haven't forgotten that -- the fact that 1600 will result in weight loss is exactly the "problem", as I've been at pains to explain.

 

[Borachio]

There's a much easier way of doing this though.

How about just weighing all the food and drink you are going to eat? Then weigh all the waste products you produce, including nail clippings and hair removal (though you could grow a beard). And then subtract one from the other, and that will tell you very nicely how much weight you've either gained or lost.

Mind you don't sweat too much though, as that might skew the result.

 

[Zelig]

You lose a very significant amount of water through sweating and breathing.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Reading the last two pages while I eat a delicious bacon, eggs, vegemite toast, coffee and juice breakfast at 11am is only adding to the pleasure.

 

[Borachio]

You lose a very significant amount of water through sweating and breathing.

This is true.

So you need to live in an air tight cubicle for a week. Weigh the whole thing with you in it at the beginning, and again at the end. That should do it. Sort of.

A lot simpler than adding up what you eat and its calorific value, at any rate.

 

[Mise]

Living in an airtight cubicle might be harmful to your health for entirely different reasons.

 

[Borachio]

Depends on the size of the cubicle. A planet sized one might not be particularly noticeable in the short term.

 

[Silurian]

.

What temperature did you heat your apartment to during this experiment

 

[Gori the Grey]

Depends on the size of the cubicle. A planet sized one might not be particularly noticeable in the short term.

I don't think it's realistic to expect that the poor will be able to afford planet sized air tight cubicles.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Although I guess that this challenge is pretty commendable, it won't do much in the way of debunking the notion that poor people can live healthier on their meager budget. Why? Because poor people don't have access to the same information that you, a CFC poster, do.

Here's what I mean: We have access to more-or-less reliable, high speed internet. We can look up deals and do all the research to figure out the most cost-effective way of buying things. Poor people don't unilaterally have internet access. The poorest are limited to the 30 minutes time they get at the closest public library, if there are even any public libraries around them any more.

Poor people also don't have the connections from which to hear about ways to make their spending more cost-effective. Even if you consider yourself a pretty frugal person, you probably got help from other people who "figured it out" before you. Poor people don't have any such network to draw on.

Lastly, poor people don't always have the means to get around to X grocery store 15 miles away to buy Y healthy ingredients in bulk. In fact, the earlier point made about buying things in bulk is a very good one; when you literally don't have the comfort of knowing that you can fall back on enough money, you won't go for the rationally safer decision. Combined with the aforementioned point about information asymmetry when it comes to finding out where to get healthy groceries, poor people will opt for the "safe," guaranteed enough-calorie fast food places all the time.

So in sum, while I back any campaign to make healthy eating a viable option for poor people, I think this thread needs some insight into why it's currently not.