I'm pretty sure I can do this with less than 60 seconds of attentive time, the rest can be spent catching up on tech stories, pull requests or whatever.
Frying it all would be even easier, too. Heat pan, put steak and eggs in, leave for a couple of minutes. Turn steak, leave for a couple of minutes. Slide everything onto a plate, eat.
I refuse to live a life where I regularly cannot find time to boil water. That's just absolute insanity.
> but it takes a solid 4 minutes cook time and 10 minutes rest time to make a proper steak, that's not fast.
If we're comparing it against eating soylent, then I don't think resting it is going to be vital. An unrested steak is still tasty, which means we're talking about 4 minutes.
Maybe we've got vastly different ideas of "quick".
That's fine for you; others don't want to have to take that time just to refuel. We don't all think of eating as an event or a treat, it's often just a burden of being biological.
> An unrested steak is still tasty, which means we're talking about 4 minutes.
Then we seriously disagree about the proper way to make a steak. :)
Boiling a kettle is so burdensome it's only done by those looking for a treat or some special event?
I'd understand if we were talking about preparing a roast (I still think that takes very little time out of a day), but boiling a kettle or frying a steak? These are things that can be done while thinking, reading, playing air guitar.
I mean seriously we're talking about very small parts of a day here.
> Then we seriously disagree about the proper way to make a steak. :)
Well we're talking about people who seem to find boiling an egg such an ordeal they're giving up food altogether as it's a "burden of being biological", I don't think the difference is going to be a deal-breaker.
> Well we're talking about people who seem to find boiling an egg such an ordeal they're giving up food altogether as it's a "burden of being biological", I don't think the difference is going to be a deal-breaker.
Yes it would be, eating a meal replacement doesn't change the way I like my food prepared and an un-rested steak is just awful IMHO.
The original question was "I have not been able to find a breakfast food that's quick, tastes ok, and isn't high in carbs.", not "What can I make in less than 20 seconds?". You introduced that
I'm saying if you're regularly in such a hurry then you're doing things wrong. This is an extreme hurry. Yes, yes, every so often you'll sleep through an alarm and need to run out of the door but if you're always doing this then something is very wrong with your schedule.
> Yes it would be, eating a meal replacement doesn't change the way I like my food prepared and an un-rested steak is just awful IMHO.
Well then you might have to plan in an entire 10 minutes of reading or coding into your schedule. Shocking I know, but such is the terrible price of haute cuisine.
I really don't get how this is such a terrible thing. Read HN? Steak on, read a couple of stories, take steak off, go through a docker tut or read more, eat. That's the amount of time required to have steak for breakfast. Or start reading your emails, or coding, or ...
Or cook something other than steak. Bacon and eggs on toast, or just bacon and eggs. You can even take it with you if you don't have time to eat at home.
Guess what, some of us don't like other people that much either and can't stand the idea of having to regularly eat meals with them. Michael Pollan is a foodie and an English major, he has no credentials with which to say what is or isn't psychologically healthy. His "opinion" on the matter is just that, an opinion.
I'll agree that Soylent is healthier fast food than McDonald's. I just won't agree that eating Soylent on a regular basis is as healthy as taking your time and sharing non-McDonald's meals with your friends and/or family. Everyone has friends and family. I guess I feel like Soylent is encouraging social isolation, and helping people to deprive themselves of the physical pleasure of eating.
I'll also agree that spending hours a day preparing food sucks. That's for professional chefs and stay-at-home spouses to choose. But a maximum average of an hour total per day is pretty reasonable in my opinion.
Assuming you're an extrovert. I'm an introvert and I eat alone. Most days, it's the only time I get to be alone and recharge.
I guess I feel like Soylent is encouraging social isolation, and helping people to deprive themselves of the physical pleasure of eating.
Not everybody is wired the same. I know plenty of people who get no physical pleasure from eating. They look at those with food addiction and simply don't get the appeal. They'd rather be doing something productive/social/physical/recreational. I'm personally not one of those people, but I can understand where they're coming from. For some people, running marathons gives them a high bigger and better than any drug. I look at those people and simply don't get the appeal. :)
And you're a bit disconnected from reality, no everyone does not have family and friends; you should think really hard about why you think they do and about how insensitive it is to presume that. Tons of people have no family left, and tons of people are friendless either by choice or not.
For me, it's an hour, tops. That's lunch and dinner, I don't eat breakfast. It's probably the single highest cost/benefit ratio activity I engage in on a daily basis.
Saying that preparing and eating real food is "not psychologically healthy" is the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time. If you're an extrovert, eat with other people. If you're an introvert, eat alone and think. If you think that's psychologically damaging, how do you feel about meetings? Or maintaining other people's code? Or paying taxes?