The Great CFC Low Income Food Experiment Challenge!

[Zelig]

I gave you my values, what do you want me to say? You will note there is a delta between the "maintain weight" and "lose weight" value meaning any value between them will maintain your weight.

No, any value between them will lose weight more slowly.

Another site referencing 1600 as the lower end:

Right, 1600 is the lower end for older women.

"Sedentary men, who get little or no exercise, should consume only 2,200 to 2,400 calories per day."

"Sedentary adult women should consume no more than 1,800 calories per day, and older women need between 1,600 and 2,200 calories per day depending on how active they are."

 

[Patroklos]

No, it gave a value for losing weight, anything above that is maintaining or gaining weight,

Are older women not a demographic of the poor? Actually, they are an over represented demographic of the poor. When I average 1800 are you going to make me factor in all the old women poor gaining weight?

This experiment is not about me, my values are notational only. The point is to hit an average. And regardless of anything the AHA is the standard.

 

[Zelig]

2000 is the generally the consensus agreed-upon average daily Caloric requirements for people.

If you go by the livestrong site, the mid-point of their range is 2200 Calories.

Picking the lower end of the range seems disingenuous at best.

 

[Patroklos]

Then post a source that holds more weight than the AHA.

The live strong site caters to people that idolize a dude who won (sort of) seven tour de France titles, their average is not relevant. What is relevant is even the likes of them will post 1600 as a healthy intake for a large demographic targeted by the experiment.

Btw, 75% of impoverished families have a head of house hold that is a women. Keep that in mind when thinking about the average you want to use for the poor.

 

[Zelig]

You linked to the livestrong site, I'm just using the sources you made available...

I can't find any Calorie values from the AHA, just their weird fat calculator which lists an estimated Calorie intake... for a sedentary 30 year old male of average height/weight they give 2480 Calories per day.

 

[Mise]

1600 isn't average though, that's the point we're making. I mean, yeah, your diet works for sedentary old women, but it doesn't work for the average person, poor or not. 1600 is even at the very bottom of the old women scale. It's literally the lowest number on the entire page, so I'm not sure in what way 1600 is "hitting the average".

Again, I'm not knocking the experiment, and I still think that there isn't much difference in cost between a 1600 calorie diet and a 2000 calorie diet. It's just rather frustrating because you're insisting that 1600 is an "average" number, when in reality it is an exceptionally low number.

You're very close to actually meeting the challenge with a healthy caloric intake, and it's frustrating to see you fall short by what amounts to a bowl of muesli with whole milk in the morning.

 

[Patroklos]

I never insisted 1600 was an average number (I never said this at all) simple that 1600-2000 was the range provided by the AHA which was the goal set.

I think my average will be well above 1600 anyway (thanks to your input). That's the hitting the average I was talking about. 1600 is the minimum.

@Zelig

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...s-from-Each-Food-Group_UCM_318186_Article.jsp

I linked this in the OP specifically to avoid ambiguities in the standards used.

 

[Mise]

That link doesn't say that 1600 is a goal, or that it's something to aim for, or even that it's healthy. 1600 is a good number for children; 2000 is a good number for adults. I suspect that this is what the intended use is: to show a number for children and a number for adults, so that people can plan for their families.

[PDF] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/Chapter2.pdf

In table 2.3 of that pdf there is a table of how many calories you need at different ages, activity level and gender. See where 1600 falls!

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...101/My-Fats-Translator_UCM_428869_Article.jsp

That calculator, again from the AHA, lets you put numbers in and gives you caloric intake back out. To get to 1600 I had to make myself a 4'9", 100lb woman. If your experiment is trying to prove that a 4'9" 100lb woman can live off $20 a week, then fair enough, but I would hope that the scope is somewhat more general than that.

You seem to have gotten it into your head that 1600 calories is "the low end of normal". It absolutely is not. It's extraordinarily low for an adult, and you should really just drop it entirely as a goal, lest this experiment become undermined by using a ridiculously low minimum threshold for caloric intake. 2000 should be the goal; if all you can get is 1600 then I think it's fair to say that the poor can't live off $20 a week (unless they are short old women living sedentary lifestyles). However, as I've said, you absolutely can get 2000 calories with very little extra money spent, so it would be a shame for you to throw that all away by insisting that 1600 calories is a healthy intake for an adult.

 

[Patroklos]

Until you can undermine the AHA site which makes no suggestion about 1600 being for children I see no reason to set it aside.

1600-2000 is listed under their nutrition goals, and if 2000 I'd the high end then somewhere between 1600 and 2000 will probably get you a value that will work for pretty much anyone.

I am not the one getting hung up on 1600, it was the MINIMUM goal, I don't want to just hit minimums. I should hit right in the middle of that range.

I took your advice inboard and am eating carbs to get the calories up, I will have the final day posted and you will see the daily average will be nowhere near 1600.

 

[Zelig]

@Zelig

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...s-from-Each-Food-Group_UCM_318186_Article.jsp

I linked this in the OP specifically to avoid ambiguities in the standards used.

It doesn't really avoid any ambiguities, since everybody other than you assumed 2000 Calories would be the baseline.

Calculator for Calories from the same website: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...101/My-Fats-Translator_UCM_428869_Article.jsp

See Mise's reply for the type of person 1600 Calories is sufficient for.

 

[Patroklos]

You didn't read the rules, posted for all to see a week before the start of the event. That's not my fault.

Miss has his site, I have the AHA. The AHA is a highly respected expert on health in this country, you have to undermine them, not provide an alternative.

And you objection is irrelevant, how many times do I have to tell you 1600 is not my daily value?

 

[Zelig]

That calculator is the AHA site.

And your average daily value so far is 1616.

 

[Patroklos]

DAY SEVEN

BREAKFAST

ITEM| SRV| CAL| FAT CAL| PRICE
4 TBSP PEANUT BUTTER| 2| 400| 280| .28
2 SLICES WHT TOAST| 2| 120| 15| .14
1 CUP APPLE CIDER| 2| 120| 0| .37
TOTAL| 5| 640| 295| .79

.

Peanut butter toast and some cider.

LUNCH:

ITEM| SRV| CAL| FAT CAL| PRICE
8 TBSP PEANUT BUTTER| 4| 800| 560| .28
2 SLICES WHT TOAST| 2| 120| 15| .14
2 CARROT| 2| 60| 0| .18
1/4 CUP RAISINS| 1| 130| 0| .17
1 GL MILK| 1| 90| 0| .33
TOTAL| 4| 1200| 575| 1.10

Peanut butter sandwich with some carrots and raisins with some more peanut butter. Yeah I know peanut butter overload but actually it was a good lunch and the milk made it all go down!

DINNER:

ITEM| SRV| CAL| FAT CAL| PRICE
2.25 CUPS RICE| 3| 450| 0| .24
.25 CN GREEN BEANS| 1| 20| 0| .15
1/4 CUP RAISINS| 1| 130| 0| .17
TOTAL| 9| 600| 0| .56

Left over rice from yesterday into the same recipe minus the carrots because I needed to save ten cents.

RESULTS:

SRV TYPE| GOAL| ACT
GRAIN| 6| 7
VEG| 3-4| 3
FRUIT| 4| 4
DAIRY| 2| 1
MEAT| 3-6| 6
FAT| 2| 0

Same as yesterday, abused peanut butter instead of rice today, a consequence of my inexperience the first two days.

CATEGORY| GOAL| ACT
CALORIES| 1600-2000| 2440
FAT CALORIES| - | 870
PRICE| 2.90| 2.45

Cheap and high impact as far as calories. Not how i wanted to finish the experiment but as the recent posts in the thread show I was too low in calories so I had to focus on bang for my buck these last two days.

I will post my thoughts on the results tomorrow.

 

[Patroklos]

That calculator is the AHA site.

And your average daily value so far is 1616.

I posted the link Zelig, you can see the posted AHA values as much as I can. If you have an issue with their separate calculator take it up with them.

There are new numbers one, the average is above 1700, the minimum has been exceeded by quite a bit. It would be an absolute blessing to get our obese population to police themselves to that value.

 

[Zelig]

I posted the link Zelig, you can see the posted AHA values as much as I can. If you have an issue with their separate calculator take it up with them.

You're the one who seems to have an issue with their calculator.

Nobody other than you (including the AHA) has at any point claimed that 1600 or 1700 Calories is a reasonable average to use.

There are new numbers one, the average is above 1700, the minimum has been exceeded by quite a bit. It would be an absolute blessing to get our obese population to police themselves to that value.

Lowering Calorie expenditure to 1700 isn't something obese people should do more than temporarily, what they need is permanent lifestyle changes.

It's quite disingenuous to use an average of less than 2000 Calories for daily requirements.

 

[Patroklos]

You're the one who seems to have an issue with their calculator.

Nobody other than you (including the AHA) has at any point claimed that 1600 or 1700 Calories is a reasonable average to use.

Did you go to the link in the OP? I will provide it for you again:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...s-from-Each-Food-Group_UCM_318186_Article.jsp

Explain those numbers on that exact page. You are simply incorrect.

Lowering Calorie expenditure to 1700 isn't something obese people should do more than temporarily, what they need is permanent lifestyle changes.

It's quite disingenuous to use an average of less than 2000 Calories for daily requirements.

It's quite disengenuous of you to disregard out of hand the perfectly acceptable source I have supplied you. Especially with you claimingdairy isn't a food group, something I didn't feel the need to harp on you about despite it easily being proven wrong.

You had the rules given to you a week ahead of time, you are the one who failed to read them.

You can either refute the source I provided of or you can't. So far you haven't. Last time I checked I didn't just starve to death (or lose any weight at all actually), reality is staring you in the face.

Imthink the way forward is to just agree to disagree

 

[Zelig]

What is there to explain about that page? There is nothing on the page to indicate that 1600 Calories is appropriate for a normal adult. Just go to their other page where they actually explain how many Calories are necessary for people of various heights/weights.

By "source" do you mean just that specific AHA page, and not anything else on their site? Because again, that specific page has nothing to refute about how many Calories per day are needed, and the page on their site that does have that information clearly says that 1600 Calories are appropriate for a 4'9" 100 pound woman.

I read the OP, you never made any mention of 1600 Calories being reasonable, nor did any of the links in the OP.

I didn't claim dairy wasn't a food group, I claimed it wasn't a legitimate food group. Including it as a food group is absurd, it's a very small subset of food that contains no exclusive nutrients. It's pretty much like including "eggs" as a food group.

You can't tell if you've lost a pound of weight in a week, your weight is like +/- 10 pounds depending on hydration levels and what you're wearing.

I think everyone here will agree that you're clearly wrong, I guess you can disagree with that if you like.

 

[Mise]

The calculator on the AHA's website is here: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getti...101/My-Fats-Translator_UCM_428869_Article.jsp

That calculator gives you an estimate for how many calories you need per day. Why don't you just use that calculator on what you consider an "average" person and tell us your results. Do it on yourself, too, and see how far off 1600 it is.

These are my results: http://www.heart.org/myfats/fats_re...ght=137&heightfeet=5&heightinch=8&activity=1&

And, again, this is the AHA's website we're talking about. This is the AHA website literally telling me that: "Based on your input, your average daily intake is calculated to be* 2330 calories". That's with a sedentary lifestyle. The asterisk says this: "*Note: These results are based on your input if you intend to maintain your weight."

Again, AHA's very own website tells me that. It tells me that, based on my height, weight, gender and activity level, I need 2300 calories. What values do you need to put into that calculator -- the AHA's own calculator, on the AHA website, that the AHA links to on its Diet and Recommendations page -- to get to 1600 calories?

 

[Patroklos]

Again, explain the site linked in the OP.

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

That site clearly states 1600 and 2000, it is directly linked under their "getting healthy" tab and "nutrition center" sub tab under the heading "Suggested Servings from Each Food Group."

You don't get to simply ignore this, you need to explain it. As for the AHA calculator it is specifically for regulating fats. It gave me a BMI of 25.8 calling a 5'6" 160 person overweight, or in other words it's giving you calories to maintain an overweight lifestyle assuming a ridiculous BMI. Seeing as I took my Navy PFA not even a month ago they would be interested to know I apparently should have failed it despite obviously passing.

http://www.navy-prt.com/bodyfat.html

So when given the choice to go to "nutrition center" or "fats and oils" to get your information you chose the latter, I chose the former. My choice is obviously the correct one.

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

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.

 

[nc-1701]

Again, explain the site linked in the OP.

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

That site clearly states 1600 and 2000, it is directly linked under their "getting healthy" tab and "nutrition center" sub tab under the heading "Suggested Servings from Each Food Group."

You don't get to simply ignore this, you need to explain it. As for the AHA calculator it is specifically for regulating fats. It gave me a BMI of 25.8 calling a 5'6" 160 person overweight, or in other words it's giving you calories to maintain an overweight lifestyle assuming a ridiculous BMI. Seeing as I took my Navy PFA not even a month ago they would be interested to know I apparently should have failed it despite obviously passing.

http://www.navy-prt.com/bodyfat.html

So when given the choice to go to "nutrition center" or "fats and oils" to get your information you chose the latter, I chose the former. My choice is obviously the correct one.

A quick reading if the page shows no indication anywhere that those are suggested diets.

From the page you linked it says

This table shows the suggested number of servings from each food group based on a daily intake of 1,600 or 2,000 calories. There is a right number of calories for you, depending on your age, physical activity level and whether you are trying to lose, gain or maintain your weight. Use our Fats and Sodium Explorer tool to get your personal daily calories.

If you need fewer calories than shown below, decrease the number of servings and increase the servings if you need more calories.

Bolding is mine, it clearly says the 1600 and 2000 calories are just examples and you should use the calculator to find the value for any individual person. When I input my values into the calculator I get 4000 calories required to maintain (2850 if I choose sedentary). The point is the page nowhere claims that 1600 or 2000 is a healthy diet for any particular person. It only offers servings for those diets and tells you to adjust the number based on how many calories you are supposed to be eating. If you follow the link in the page you posted and enter a fairly average value 5'10", 165lbs, sedentary it gives you a maintenance level of 2610.