Supplements would be an interesting v0.3 or perhaps appendix to her next plan. I am well aware of body builders consuming 500 grams of protein/day in the form of weird expensive powders. But I wonder as a supplement to the existing diet how it works mathematically to eat perhaps 5 grams instead of 500 grams of supplement "complete" protein powder per day and then maybe cheap out on the bulk plant protein by selecting some plant that's not a complete protein. Carried out to a logical extreme I wonder if it "works" financially and nutritionally at $1/day or whatever to just eat rice and pop a multivitamin and a very small protein shake every day.
One of the things that worries me is the focus on cost as opposed to nutrition. As it stands, we have relatively poor ways of measuring the nutritive value of any particular meal vice measuring the cost. We've trained entire generations to shop for food on taste and cost rather than nutrition.
If you've ever watched those documentaries on morbidly obese people, you learn that even though these people are consuming tens of thousands of cheap calories per day, they're all malnourished.
My wife started a ketogenic diet and I've largely been following her meal plan. Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home.
As a result, we've saved something like $2K per month on restaurant bills. Keep in mind that we're not making any special effort to save money.
As a bonus, my wife has greatly reduced her bf% and has seen several markers of absolute health improve significantly. I've reduced bf% and improved my lifting program along with my sleep and mental clarity.
Well, this is just an experiment to see if a nutritionally adequate diet can be made for £1 per day.
I hope no-one is going to actually eat it.
I think it could actually be useful if the author increased the amount of money available - say £2 per day. Or if the author did plans for 2 people.
I've had chicken breast and broccoli for breakfast. I've had omelets for dinner. Nutritious food isn't time-specific.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see from a cost basis is learning to cook and then actually cooking. The wife and I cook 2-3 times a week, make enough to last a few days and reheat foods as needed.
BY far the biggest improvement most people could see form a nutritional basis is the removal of food additives and taste enhancers that are designed to make food palatable for consumption while enhancing shelf-life or allowing the use of substitute ingredients that cost less. (Modified food starch, I'm looking at you!)
My point was that she set up breakfast to be a single uniform meal with no variation whatsoever. It was also a high carb meal which is certain to cause an insulin crash later in the day.
I'd much rather see a higher fat/higher protein earlier in the day with some greens, fat, and protein for lunch. Dinner should be a light meal of protein and plant carbs.
"Since the only way to guarantee that we have nothing added to our food by an sneaky enterprising chef or food processor, we cook mostly at home."
With my kids food allergies, this works out pretty well for us too. You'd think there would be a huge untapped market of "restaurants for people who like pure and relatively non-allergenic foods" but apparently no.
A midget bodybuilder. The rule of thumb is 0.75-1g protein/lb bodyweight, 0.5g for maintenance.