Comment by wtvanhest | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtvanhest | Hacker News Reader

If you want to save some money, save some time and eat healthy, try this:

Go to the grocery store, buy these 3 items:

1 bag of frozen vegetables.

3 chicken breasts

1 bag of dried lentils.

Sunday night:

Cook lentils in water, don't add anything Slice chicken breasts down the side, add seasoning, no oil, just seasoning, don't bread it etc. Bake the chicken breasts

Monday for lunch:

Microwave a bunch of the vegetables, grab your chicken breast, and precooked lentils mix lentils in with vegetables and throw the chicken breast on top, cook together.

Repeat that 4-5 days a week. Your energy will be higher, you will start loosing weight, and you will save money. Its the only meal I have found that does all three.

[it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well just grab a burger or some Chinese food]

[ADDED] I am not advocating this be your only meal. Its just a meal that replaces the normal garbage that I would eat if I didn't have a good, low-cost, delicious alternative.

If you are fully aware of your diet and are in good shape, then by all means, add whatever you think you want to make it taste better, but this meal really doesn't need it.

My comment about not adding butters/oils etc. is aimed at people who think they are eating healthy by having a salad with blue cheese dressing.

Also, for those of you in your early 20s who think you know how to eat well, prepare yourself. Once you get to your late 20s, early 30s, it starts getting much tougher.

> it should go without saying, but there is no dressing added, no butters, oils etc. once you start adding that stuff you might as well ...

Fear of butter and grease is an anomaly from the 1980s.

My tips: get split, hulled lentils. Soak them in water for at least 20 minutes, washing and draining till the water runs relatively clear. When cooking, place them in boiling water and scoop off the the froth that bubbles up. This will reduces the saponins that some say are associated with leaky gut syndrome. For bonus points use a pressure cooker to destroy the phytate and lectins that are considered anti-nutrients by the paleo community.

I'll try that trick of scooping off the froth.

I'm probably going to avoid buying a pressure cooker for a while since I'm in Boston though.

There is nothing wrong with butter, oil, or dressing in moderation. If it makes a rather boring dish more interesting, it's worth it - none of those things up the calorie count too much.

I'd say satiating meals is a better goal than interesting meals. If you're completely satiated by reasonable portions then your energy levels will be solid and you'll lose/maintain weight without needing to think about calories at all.

We all have different goals, but interesting meals are certainly near the top of my priority list, especially since I eat with my family and meal times are more than just a way to fill a hole.

For most people, I imagine a decent-sized subset of appealing meals can be very satiating at the same time.

p.s. wtvanhest: Not sure what you have against blue cheese. Hopefully not "dietary fat makes you fat because it's calorie dense" because that would again be anomalous 80s thinking that ignores satiety effects and runs with a 1-dimensional model for something as complex as nutrition and aggregate consumption behaviour.

Calorie dense food "hiding" in salad needs small amount of caution.

So long as you're aware of what you're eating it's fine.

If you can't understand why you're still 17 stone you might want to look at whether you're having a blue cheese dressing on a salad but counting that snack as 0 calories, which is something a surprising number of people do. They have their 3 meals, which come to something like 2,000 kCal per day, but they don't count all the other snacks they eat.

Satiety is important, but it's still calories in vs calories out.

Yeah, and that's exactly why "calorie excess" is nowhere near the conversation ender it's so often used as. At best it's a conversation starter to use on those dummies to which it is not self-evident. The thorny part of overconsumption is WHY one is compelled to do so, not simply that one does.

I agree. I for one get a lot of joy and happiness out a great meal. It seems a lot of people in this thread are taking a very utilitarian approach to food, but for a lot of us, food is more than fuel. It's an experience to be enjoyed.

Some oils are better than others.

Palm and coconut oil are much better than sunflower or corn oil, in part because of something called the smoke point.

And calorie count is not that important if you eat the right things.

http://nusi.org/

Help me understand. What does the smoke point itself have to do with the oils being bad for you? Assuming all the oils you mentioned are unrefined, their smoke points are all over the map, so it isn't clear whether you're saying that a low smoke point is bad or that a high smoke point is bad (palm: 455°F coconut: 350°F, sunflower: 437°F, corn: 352°F)[1]

What I do know is that the more refined an oil is (and therefore less rich in flavor and nutrients), the higher its smoke point will be. The implication being that you should pick virgin/cold-pressed/unrefined versions when you don't need the high smoke point for your cooking. Is that what you were getting at?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point

This is more suited to someone with regular working hours that needs a fast lunch, is someone who can eat meat, and has basic cooking skills and equipment. Hourly workers, those working multiple jobs, and those that do not have the money to purchase kitchen equipment would be hard pressed to follow this advice.

Go with chicken thighs instead. It's cheaper and better tasting. Just takes a tiny bit longer to cook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com