logoalt Hacker News

quesomaster9000today at 2:56 AM2 repliesview on HN

Sure, any kind of non-veg protein adds up quickly, especially if you're doing 3 meals a day.

Most local Indian places will do you a solid 1500 calorie meal for £10 if you know what to look for.

Versus, go to supermarket... get stuck in a routine every day of "buying stuff", wanting snacks, meat, and so on adds up quickly to the point where sticking below £10 a day becomes a constant battle. It's the routine and constant food noise that really got to me, and when even a chocolate bar can be 10% of your budget for a day the decision fatigue is real.

So by breaking the routine, sticking to OMAD, I lost weight, had much less decision fatigue, and no constant food noise - that was the major change that saved me a load of money, time & effort.

For example yesterday I found a tiny cantonese place, got wonton soup and some duck, vegetables and watermelon for about £8


Replies

NoLinkToMetoday at 5:35 AM

I don't understand the point. Supermarket food is cheaper than restaurant food, virtually without exception.

But the 'routine of supermarket shopping' creates 'noise' that makes you want to eat more / more often? How does that work.

I tend to go to the supermarket once a week and make this buying decision on a full stomach. I've not bought snacks or soda during this type of shopping since I was a teenager, I simply refuse to buy these things, like cigarettes or alcohol. There is no decision fatigue, the decision was made once and stuck to.

The discipline required is about 30 minutes a week. The rest of the time I'm not at the supermarket, and travelling to the supermarket to buy a snack just isn't worth the trouble. This way sticking to the decision becomes easy: I only shop once a week.

Then I have to cook the food (I only buy ingredients). I'm not a big fan of cooking, so I wouldn't go out of my way to cook more often than I need or want, and overspend in this way.

This seems like a lot less noise or fatigue than going out for food 3 times a day and being presented with ready-made menu's of tens or even more than a hundred food options per day, and making a healthy and budget-friendly decision 21 times a week, on an empty stomach -- there's no way I could ever spend less at restaurants than cooking.

I get eating out, I've been doing it solely for the last months due to travel and I love it. But I'm absolutely not spending less or eating more healthy.

show 1 reply
apparenttoday at 7:27 AM

Very interesting, it's like the Steve Jobs black turtleneck approach to eating: don't spend any time shopping/preparing/cleaning up, just go to a restaurant once a day. I can see how this would yield a favorable calculation when time and money are taken into account.

Restaurant food is generally much less healthy than food one cooks at home, but perhaps if it's just one meal that's outweighed by the disciplined calorie control.