Results of a healthy diet experiment and cost

[username79]

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

This. Or at least that was the intention. I enjoy reading about the OP's experience, but I will admit the whole thing seems a bit misguided. It is as if there is some suggestion that results he has achieved is due to the "high quality" of the food he is eating. The "results" are pretty much exactly what I would expect of any relatively slender dude eating 500 cal below maintenance, regardless of food quality. It's one thing to love filet, it's another to say you are 6% bf because of filet vs top sirloin.
I don't think I ever said that. Merely specified a preference for it. Although I will say it is easier to eat 500 cal below maintenance if you don't spend 1500 calories in one meal on a ribeye. What I wanted to do, in order: - Improve cooking technique - Cook delicious foods in healthy ways - Eat high quality naturally delicious foods because I can - Eat healthy (e.g. no processed foods) - Lose weight Weight loss was actually a very secondary goal. I got more into it when I started looking in the mirror each morning and realized how much of a change I was experiencing. Again, there seems to be a lot of people saying "I could do the same thing at 1/X the cost!!" My answer continues to be, good for you, so could I! But what the **** is your point?

 

[Fallen Angels]

Originally Posted by Crane's

It has nothing to do with being critical or hating on anyone. I personally think it's ludicrous to spend 11K a year on supposedly healthy food per person. It's done in rural America everyday for a lot less money and that's without gardens, hunting or fishing. Plain and simply people get caught up in things that really make no difference in food quality and then buy into it lock stock and barrel at ridiculously inflated prices.
this isnt being critical? you are clearly criticizing how someone spends his money. everyone has their own way of spending their money. people buy what makes them happy, even if they have to spend a little more. not much different from buying workwear thats supposedly of better quality from some country store. a lot of people can criticize the spending habits of users here the same way. not everyone lives in rural america. not everyone has the same resources as you.

 

[Hartmann]

Originally Posted by Fallen Angels

man, why are you guys being so critical over this and trying to chop this guy down? it's his life, it's his diet, it's his choices and preferences. i dont see the need to be arguing and hating here.

anyway, username. good job man. that's great that you set a goal and went for it, and succeeded. must feel great to know its paying off. i hope one day i can learn to have a healther diet and lifestyle.

There's no such thing as a healthy diet, just degrees of unhealthy ones. Also, I doubt you'd be as indulgent towards the op's "choices" and "preferences" if he were eating Twinkies all day.

In any case the op is living a luxury consumption lifestyle which is just cloaked in a veneer of "healthiness", as db_ggmm noted the supposed health benefits can be achieved with a cheaper but similar diet.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

I see nothing wrong with Luxury consumption.

There is one excellent take away from this and that is that Username79 obviously considers his health enough to spend a bit of money to get sustainably affordable good food (affordable is relative and thats affordable for him). I think this country would be less overweight if more people put a higher value on quality food. Rather they substitute quality for calorie counting and wonder why eating less garbage doesnt help improve their health or looks.

I was critical because I felt it unfair to find value in this pursuit, but no value in my pursuit where I also prefer to overspend, and may not be getting exactly 100% real value for my money. I dont care because I can see the improvements and value that more then spending less and possibly delaying results.

 

[kwilkinson]

I don't get all the talk about the money. Dude can obviously afford it, otherwise it's doubtful he'd be spending it. And he doesn't mind spending the money to get the best product he can. It's really strange that on a site where people pay 10 grand on a suit or $300 on a pair of jeans, someone is giving someone hell for a money choice they made. This guy is eating a hell of a lot better on 10k a year than most of those guys look in their 10k suits.

 

[Hartmann]

I see nothing wrong with Luxury consumption.

Me neither.

 

[username79]

Originally Posted by Crane's

It has nothing to do with being critical or hating on anyone. I personally think it's ludicrous to spend 11K a year on supposedly healthy food per person. It's done in rural America everyday for a lot less money and that's without gardens, hunting or fishing. Plain and simply people get caught up in things that really make no difference in food quality and then buy into it lock stock and barrel at ridiculously inflated prices.
Have you considered that your perspective may be a bit skewed due to the fact that you are from the bustling cultural epicenter and metropolis that is Williamsburg, MO?

 

[Crane's]

Originally Posted by username79

Have you considered that your perspective may be a bit skewed due to the fact that you are from the bustling cultural epicenter and metropolis that is Williamsburg, MO?

Not at all. I think you just don't like the fact that I pointed out you could do exactly what you are doing for far less money.

 

[NoStyle14]

QFT.

The majority of people are usually guilty of being dogmatic; spitting opinions as facts.

 

[Lowndes]

Originally Posted by Crane's

Not at all. I think you just don't like the fact that I pointed out you could do exactly what you are doing for far less money.
I don't find this too be exactly accurate. I remember you mention that you can go fishing, hunting, etc. to get what he is doing for cheap. As an avid hunter and fisherman it isn't always cheaper to do it yourself. And there is some time value to money. Hunting and fishing are fairly time consuming and not everybody enjoys those activities. Take an Elk hunt for example. I justify the expense to myself because its fun but its extremely expensive (I actually like to myself when calculating how much the food cost by leaving out everything except the processing fees). My most recent elk hunting trip (no guide and shot an elk) cost around $4000. Out of that I got about 200 pounds of meat. Comes out to about $20 a pound. Not that cheap but well worth it. Obviously elk hunting is extremely expensive but take deer hunting or any kind of hunting it still isn't that cheap, extremely time consuming, and there is no guarantee you will get something. Also, in a lot of states you need access to a place to hunt which isn't necessarily easy in some states today. Fishing can be cheaper but that assumes that you like fishing, want to eat the fish you can catch in your area and again have the time to do it. Some people would prefer to pay for the convenience of not doing everything themselves. I release almost all the fish I catch as I simply prefer eating things like tuna and salmon. And for hooking up with a local farmer to supply your produce and meat. That seems like a hassel. I just assume walk the 2 blocks to a farmers market and get what I need. It's pretty darn cheap. I'll pay for convenience over spending all my time looking for food. If I had a ton of time on my hands I might feel different. But I don't.

 

[username79]

Originally Posted by Crane's

Not at all. I think you just don't like the fact that I pointed out you could do exactly what you are doing for far less money.
Really? As I've said numerous times, I am VERY aware I could have achieved some of the same results (e.g. weight loss, etc.) for the same cost. I could eat a 500 calories deficit on $2-3 dollars a day. Yes, but how many times do I have to say this: that was not the ******* point!. You cannot eat the same foods that I do for "significantly less cost" because you fail to factor in anything but the end cost of the product. You said that you kill and or grow all your own food. Good for you. This is not practical where I live. Where you live, the nearest and most significant attraction for miles is the interstate. There are other things to do here, and the opportunity cost of not participating in them is far greater than missing an evening of moose watching and western grip handjobs. Then you suggested that people should grow their own tomatoes on a window sill, etc. Yes, I can spend $30 (or more) on soil, water, seeds, fertilizer, insecticide, a planter, etc. and have a yield of ten tomatoes in a several months and hope they taste good. Or, I can go to the market and spend less on the same amount of tomatoes in five minutes. You cannot compete with economies of scale of a supermarket when you factor in time, convenience, and distance traveled. It is enormously reductive to simply compare one factor (oh, they're now "free" six months later because I planted them). Therefore for many of the things I eat I am coincidentally paying the lowest cost based on my location and effort. Do you have access locally to the following foods that I've eaten in the last week, for significantly less prices then I paid? Wild Alaskan Salmon Halibut (fresh caught, never frozen) Rockfish (fresh caught, never frozen) Chilean Sea Bass (from a sustainable Georgian fishery) USDA graded prime filets Fresh Lobster from Maine off the boat the same day Certified organic milk A lobe of Foie Gras from Hudson Valley A flat of strawberries Fresh tropical fruit (Kiwis, Mangos, Pineapples, Papayas, Bananas) I very much doubt it. You have no point. I could drive into the country, shoot a deer (I'd have to borrow a gun or maybe pick up of those axes in Tribeca and attempt to throw it at the deer), somehow put it in the partially functional back seat of my coupe, attempt to cut it up and eat. But I don't want to. I have no interest in doing so. I own none of the equipment to do so and the cost of purchasing said equipment would quickly eliminate any value proposition. I certainly respect that you a) own the equipment to do so b) have the interest in doing so c) have the skills to do so d) have the time to do so. A, B, C, D aggregate to make genuine cost, which for me, would be far more expensive than what I am spending now. Finally, there is the element of social responsibility. I actively seek to support venues which place an emphasis on fair employee compensation, proper benefits, community involvement and outreach, etc. I have no problem paying more for an identical product sold in a place that treats its employees fairly. I know that for fruit, I pay approximately 25% more than I would down the street at the store where employees are paid approximately half and are not eligible for benefits. Not sure how many times I can say it: cost was NOT the point.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by username79

Wild Alaskan Salmon
Halibut (fresh caught, never frozen)
Rockfish (fresh caught, never frozen)
Chilean Sea Bass (from a sustainable Georgian fishery)
USDA graded prime filets
Fresh Lobster from Maine off the boat from Maine the same day
Certified organic milk
A lobe of Foie Gras from Hudson Valley
A flat of strawberries
Fresh tropical fruit (Kiwis, Mangos, Pineapples, Papayas, Bananas)

You have great taste.

 

[db_ggmm]

Originally Posted by username79

Do you have access locally to the following foods that I've eaten in the last week, for significantly less prices then I paid?

Wild Alaskan Salmon
Halibut (fresh caught, never frozen)
Rockfish (fresh caught, never frozen)
Chilean Sea Bass (from a sustainable Georgian fishery)
USDA graded prime filets
Fresh Lobster from Maine off the boat from Maine the same day
Certified organic milk
A lobe of Foie Gras from Hudson Valley
A flat of strawberries
Fresh tropical fruit (Kiwis, Mangos, Pineapples, Papayas, Bananas)

Well look, man, I don't understand this argument. You don't think food is cheaper in Missouri than it is in NYC? His filets are probably half the price of yours. You also throw in this word "locally" and I don't think your fruit is local.

 

[username79]

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

Well look, man, I don't understand this argument. You don't think food is cheaper in Missouri than it is in NYC? His filets are probably half the price of yours. You also throw in this word "locally" and I don't think your fruit is local.
One of the points of the list you quoted is that many of those items can't be obtained locally, either to him, or to me. He's the one that claims he kills and or grows his own food. Many of the things I listed, which I enjoy eating, he can't.

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

I enjoy reading about the OP's experience, but I will admit the whole thing seems a bit misguided. It is as if there is some suggestion that results he has achieved is due to the "high quality" of the food he is eating. The "results" are pretty much exactly what I would expect of any relatively slender dude eating 500 cal below maintenance, regardless of food quality. It's one thing to love filet, it's another to say you are 6% bf because of filet vs top sirloin.
Roger drove 'The Tail of the Dragon' in a 2004 Toyota Corolla LE. Bob drove the 'The Tail of the Dragon' in a 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo. They both reached the end of the road and pulled over. The "results" were pretty much what one would expect of a person driving the same road at the same time in the same direction. They ended up at the same point! Now, how many of you wonder whether the guy driving the Corolla or the 911 had more fun while doing so? How many of you would prefer the 911 to the Corolla? How many of you CLEARLY see that the 911 would be MORE FUN and MORE REWARDING to drive on the same road, even if the outcomes are the same? So why the **** is it so hard to understand what I've chosen here?

 

[milosz]

Aside from Crane's, I don't think anyone has a problem with eating as well as you can for what you can afford.

But you're kind of jerking yourself off to show how awesome your ingredients are. People would be less unimpressed if you showed how you made your own sausage or traditionally butchered a pig and used it.