I am actually in the same boat as Thremp in that I don't believe a meal without meat is really a meal (I basically have either steak or chicken for every meal with the rare bit of lamb or pork maybe 2-3 types a month). The same goes for cold food like sandwiches. A preferences argument could be made except that at least on a macro scale an increase in wealth is strongly correlated with an increase in meat consumption.

Further, part of doing nothing all day is that the individual is going to have the time to finally start working out and taking fitness seriously. I don't believe that would actually happen for 99% of the people who would do this on $30k but for the sake of argument lets assume they do. The desire for meat in your diet will go up considerably.

Also I think having time to kills will make you want to have more elaborate meals. When you talk to people they mostly express this desire as they throw their frozen processed breaded chicken product into into the oven. So if you start making appetizers, side salads, sauces from scratch, extra sides, having wine and sparkling water, etc that is a very different meal than what someone who eats well makes after a ten hour day. Like I said I think people who claim to be able to do this on $30k might not have the same desire but for most people the ability to have Sunday dinner type food every day would be desirable and with their days free they can.

So I am prohibited from capitalizing on my home "investment"? I cannot grow a tree in the back and sell the fruit?

lol

No. What would give you the idea that a retired person would continue working?

Who is working?

I wasn't aware that a Mexican seasonal worker could be called retired. Thanks for sharing.

Apparently my property manager is unemployed as well. I wonder if he's aware of this.

Becoming fit doesn't require eating more meat. First of all, it's not difficult to eat 150g+ of protein each day on a vegetarian diet, and any diet I've put forth isn't vegetarian, especially considering protein supplements. Second, most people who are trying to get fit don't need to eat that much protein anyway. I know several people who boulder V12 and are vegetarian or vegan. I don't know how many world class climbers are vegetarian or vegan, but Lynn Hill has stated (http://www.thecleanestline.com/2007/...train-p-1.html) that she ate mostly a vegetarian diet while training for some of her most difficult climbs.

Hitting the gym and bulking isn't the only way to get fit, and eating tons of meat is not necessary for fitness.

EDIT: By the way, when I had a lot of free time during summer/winter breaks over the last few years and become more interested in fitness, I actually began eating a more varied diet that consisted of less meat than I had previously been eating. I don't understand how someone who apparently has such an interest in fitness doesn't believe a real meal can be lacking in meat.

Epic fail. As if "retired" people cannot watch their fruit trees grow. But heck, I'm not living forever so maybe the resident idiot knows something everybody else in the world does not.

Some nutritionists don't agree with your contention of protein supplements being a decent substitute. In addition the idea about protein on a vegetarian diet is disingenuous at best as its significantly more difficult and there are virtually no suitable sorts of diets for predispositions people may have. Low carbing is virtually impossible as a vegetarian and some people do better on these diets. In addition caloric density is very high in meat whereas this is only really replicated in nuts which have a higher fat content among vegetarian friendly food. Milk/cheese would be a decent substitute but are still going to be poor substitutes as they'd already be consumed in decent quantities in a normal diet and they'd need to be rapidly ramped up if replacing meat.

Anecdotes that run counter to most research regarding nutrition and body composition is pointless and dumb. Vegans are noob idiots who eat an unsustainable diet because they're idiots. Without Marmite or vitatmins they'd go insane and die. It'd probably be for the best. Regardless, most people who are trying to get "fit" are really trying to attain the "i want to look better" goal which does require higher amounts of protein to support LBM/diets/blah blah blah.

Read some of the research that is done. Alan Aragon writes a research review and Lyle McDonald is an expert. Both have either very cheap or free resources (I'd even agree that you could afford AARR on a 30k a year budget).

It depends how you define fitness. You're taking a definition that is counter to what many people think of as "fitness" (IE looking gooder). The idea of "bulking" is pretty standard for attaining suitable levels of LBM among men or women is pretty standard in physique enhancement circles. But whatever. You're being ridiculously biased. Most people pursue looks as a significant portion of their goal. Even famous powerlifters such as Doug Young wanted to look the part.

You should probably try better sources. Meat is the nuts as far as health. It provides a ton of nutrients, tastes great, and is easy to consume. Every nutritionist worth a damn realizes that meat makes up a significant portion of a "healthy" diet for anyone with performance based goals.

You sure can watch em'. But sell them? GMAFB. You wanna grow fruit trees and eat some apples... great.

lol selling backyard fruit = "a job". GTFO

And whatever you do, don't "sell" these while growing in your backyard.

I mean, why stop there? Why not clean someone's toilets too?

If getting more fit and healthier means looking better, then yes, I'll take your word on meat and tons of protein as being the nuts. I don't see how I'm being "biased" by taking a definition of fitness that isn't so incredibly shallow.

For me, being fit would mean being able to climb harder (and for others it would mean being able to run faster or longer or to be better at whatever physical activities they enjoy), and eating healthier would mean lowering my risk of heart disease, cancer, etc. in the long term and providing the nutrients to get in better shape for climbing. There have been plenty of studies showing that cutting down on meat consumption lowers risk of heart disease and many types of cancers. I think that this definition of fitness is more applicable to the majority of people who aren't entirely shallow.

Also, if you don't think there are an enormous number of diets which have all been shown to be effective for becoming healthier, you're seriously ignorant. You are claiming that these anecdotes I provided run counter to research, but that's complete bull****. There's a lot of research in favor of diets low in meat, and anyone who has done any research knows this.

You're biased because you're projecting your values onto a ton of other people. They're all "shallow" where you have some sort of secret knowledge about physically masturbating in a nonsexual manner. Congrats.

Please show me those studies. Ones that control for animal fat intake please.

lol anybody cannot think through one making money and not working.

I guess I need to hire somebody to go to the ATM. But wait! I can't do that, because hiring somebody is working, right?

Is tipping the parking attendant allowed?

I'm not projecting my values of what is a good definition for fitness on others any more than you have projected your values of what food is "fit for a pauper" onto others in your posts.

Besides, my definition of physical fitness actually coincides with the actual definition of physical fitness, while yours focuses on appearance, which has very little to do with actual fitness. This is why I say that their definition of fitness is "shallow." It is shallow because they are mistaking an appearance of fitness for actual fitness.

EDIT: Since when did people who ate steak de-fat the food before they ate it? Why do you want the study to control for animal fat intake when people don't get rid of the fat when they eat meat? If you want studies that don't control for animal fat intake, you can find them easily, from a variety of well respected journals of medicine, by simply using google. I'm sure you can find some which control for fat intake also, but it would take longer.

Do you have any empirical evidence that meat is healthy?

I've heard otherwise and thought it was actually common knowledge large quantities of meat was unhealthy if only because of the fat...

Dietary Patterns and Risk of Mortality: Impact of Cardiorespiratory Fitness: Discussion

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717063_5

In conclusion, a dietary pattern high in processed meat, red meat, added fats, non-whole grains and white potato products and low in fresh fruit was a risk factor for all-cause mortality.


http://www.omega-answers.com/omega-r...20Outcomes.htm
researchers show that patients with the highest intake of a Western-pattern diet, characterized by high intakes of red meat, sugar desserts, high fat, and refined grains, have a 3-fold increase in cancer recurrences and mortality.

According to this most forms of cooking are considered "work", so everybody must figure out another way to eat! At least it does not label a roommate as working.

Because meat doesn't cause anything you say it does. Animal fat causes it, which coincidentally is high in saturated fat. You're a fitness nub who is in over your head and spouting out bull**** to cover up for a fundamental lack of understanding.

People don't go to the gym for 2-4 hours a day to be healthier -- they do it because they want to look good.

That being said I think a big part of the problem is that there is no common definition of stuff we are discussing.

So with respect to food.

- three hot meals a day
- 85% of lunches and dinners have to be meat-centric with better quality meat (ie chicken breast not thigh).
- a meal is actually cooking which means making something not just taking something frozen and putting it in an oven or making pasta and pouring something that came out of a jar over it.
- besides the main meal there must also be at least one of either a appetizer, a salad, or a desert with dinner.
- no making big batches of **** and having the same meal four times in a row and no freezing stuff.
- no using frozen stuff, no using stuff that came out of a can or jar.

This is my definition of the minimum standards for eating well. Notice the clear absence of caviar, foie gras, and other gross but expensive stuff. I was going to add sparkling water and wine but choose not to since some people don't drink but I think a bottle of both with dinner is a requirement.

So based on this should it still be possible to eat on $10 a day?

Sigh. I'd love to condense hundreds of hours of reading basic logic into a simple sentence, but sadly that isn't possible. Those studies suck a dick though.

As I said earlier, what does "healthy mean.

I was hoping you would have better ones or atleast something. atleast off the top of your head because you have said health is correlated with eating meat. I just quoted the last time you said that.

Sigh. What is health? Doing gooder at stuff you're trying to do? Living a long time? Stay free of disease? All (well you can't pursue all gg), none, some? Diets are also analyzed as total units typically as virtually everything can fit into it rather than just saying, "Oh quinoa is good. I'll eat some." or "Oh oranges are good. I'll eat some." etc etc. Its a complex topic that people study for years. I'm not going to be able to distill it down for you quickly/easily.

www.bodyrecomposition.com
Alan Aragon Research Review

Are good resources to learn about this on your own though.

Wow Henry. You've just up'd the ante significantly with respect to the cost of eating.

eh, thats debatable and needs qualification. Oatmeal can be hot, but someone said earlier it doesn't count which is just lol. Salads sure aren't hot also, but can serve as a great lunch and with the right mix of nuts and other vegies, you get a good dose of protein too.

I agree meat should be a part of the diet, but 85% is too high IMO, with regard to OP's question at least.

prepared meal.

Totally unnecessary and a waste of $, with regard to OP's question.

thats rather LOL, especially if you're a single guy. Most people, let alone guys, don't want to go to the grocery store every day or two. If thats your thing, then hey, okay, but not most guys.

Thats kind of lol. Are you really discounting flash freezing of vegetables and things like a can of beans, pears or peaches that can last for a long time?

This thread has been hijacked and the discussion should move to Health & Fitness because its direction has shifted from answering OP's question to a debate about the cost of a "food lifestyle" with regard to a budget.

lol eating chicken thighs = poverty.