[DanBC]

> One of the things that worries me is the focus on cost as opposed to nutrition.

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.

[Nrsolis]

I sure hope no one is going to eat it either. Cooked oatmeal for breakfast 7 days a week? The author seems to be stuck in the mindset that certain foods are "breakfast" foods.

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!)

[tracker1]

For that matter, I'm a bit concerned about taking in nutrients on a per-day basis... I think having some thing to eat a few time a day is important, but that the nutrition can be averaged over a 3-4 day cycle.. you may get a bit more one thing one day, and another the next as long as it averages out.

[armenarmen]

I'm actually a huge fan of savory oatmeal at anytime of day

[Nrsolis]

Horses for courses.

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.