Weezl's phase 1- recipe testing and frugalisation- come one, come all!

System

weezl74 wrote: »

Everything of note has one feature that makes it just a little bit different. Subsistence is our special feature.

If it isn't too blunt to put it like this, I think the current menu plan has moved away from the idea of subsistence except in the sense that it is budget-restricted. I deliberately haven't commented on the ethos before now because I signed up to help, if I could, not to bend the project to my will. My interpretation of what a subsistence plan should involve has no bearing on what you should do with your plan. Please don't take what follows as a suggestion that you change your focus. But you seem to think that there is a general misunderstanding about the scope of your project, and I fear that this misunderstanding will arise again when you launch the finished product. In preparation for this, I assume that you probably want an idea of the range of expectations out there.

So, clear that this is my own belief and not a criticism or change request...

A true subsistence diet is sufficient merely for existence. You could probably manage it on porridge alone, although I remember a news item 25 years or so ago about a student who did this and got rickets (presumably not enough sunshine in northern Scotland).

A healthy subsistence diet is a different matter. To be described as healthy, I think it must meet the various published government guidelines for healthy eating (whether they are right or wrong, complete or incomplete). This means that it should do all of the following:

• Meet calorie requirements.
• Meet protein recommendations.
• Meet fibre recommendations, with insoluble as well as soluble fibre.
• Meet RDA guidelines, where they exist (for example, for calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc, folic acid, and vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B12, C, D and anything else that I don't know about).
• Provide a minimum of five F&V a day, including fruit, drawn from a wide range and variety.
• Provide one serving of oily fish a week (or vegetarian equivalent).
• Go easy on the processed white things (rice and flour) and include wholegrains.
• Go easy on the salt and sugar.
• Take a balanced view on fat intake, avoiding trans-fats and limiting natural saturated fats.
• Focus on foods with high nutritional content, not high-calorie empty padding. (This means, for me, cutting cakes and biscuits and things. If it is subsistence, they shouldn't be eaten on a daily basis -- maybe as a weekly treat for the whole family, but not as a matter of course. The money is needed for basic nutrition instead.)

I don't think the "colours" thing is much more than a gimmick to grab research funding and media column space, although I am perfectly prepared to believe that different coloured F&V contain different antioxidants. And I haven't seen it as a government recommendation (have I missed something?). Yes, I am cynical. Why? Because purple things are expensive and scarce, and not a major part of a traditional diet in our northern climes (with the exception of blackberries, which are seasonal, and beetroot, which I understand is fairly unpopular so not very widely eaten). If anyone is still talking about colours in twenty years time, I will admit I was wrong.

And a comment on implementation... In a cost-restricted regime, I think it is important to have one "feature meal" a week which is not as spartan as the rest, to avoid feelings of deprivation, to give an opportunity for family time, and to provide an occasional sense of abundance. If you want cake, this is the place to have it. My men seem to like sponge pudding and custard. The meal doesn't have to be a roast -- moussaka is good, or lasagne (veggie or meat versions), or fondue. If you're short of fresh veg, salad and fresh fruit become special. And it doesn't have to be expensive -- just normal-ish.

As I said, not a request for change; just an attempt at clarification of expectation.

Allegra

Avocet wrote: »

A true subsistence diet is sufficient merely for existence. You could probably manage it on porridge alone, although I remember a news item 25 years or so ago about a student who did this and got rickets (presumably not enough sunshine in northern Scotland).

I hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in and playing the devil's advocate a bit here, Avocet I have been thinking a lot about the meaning of "subsistence" since Weezl started this project, and I have come to the conclusion (although I appreciate that no dictionary will bear me out on this) that "subsistence", like "frugal", "thrifty", "cheap" and, yes, even "healthy" can not ever be absolute terms - their relativity is almost proscribed, as it were, by variables almost beyond count.

Subsistence, as you so rightly point out, is traditionally defined by simply keeping body and soul together and staving off starvation. The way I see it (or the way I strive to bend the world to my will, lol), this definition has no place in a developed, peace-time country of 21st century, such as this delightful island I am proud to call home Subsistence, in the here in now - and this is my understanding of Weezl's aims, so if I'm way off the mark, Weezl please shout me down - has to be a diet that meets all the mimimum nutritional requirements to keep a person in full health.

So, in short, while your diferentiation between subsistence and healthy subsistence is certainly acurate in a traditional mindset, I for one believe that this is one tradition and one mindset has to be left behind - that in the here and now, "subsistence" has to include, by (new and improved) definition the "healthy" attributes.

Please do not think that I am picking on you, or trying to start an argument - I have just "hung" my post on yours because you have so eloquently expressed your point of view and thus enabled me to try and further the debate to include my views :j

Allegra

Avocet wrote: »

Snacks, yes -- but cakes and biscuits, not too often. [snip] But in general it's always fairly healthy stuff, not crammed with fat and sugar. We have biscuits and cakes as treats, not as standard. But maybe we're weird.

I would tend to agree with this - and another thought to add - if my DD (or me, for that matter) snacks on sugar-laden stuff, it does give her all the calories she needs, but they are "crash and burn" rather than slow-release calories, which means that she will be hungry again much sooner and end up eating far more than she needs. Not to mention behavioural difficulties caused by the blood sugar shooting up and down all the time.

If she had no fresh fruit to snack on (and have you seen the price of her drug of choice - fresh grapes - recently ? Jeez ! I would not like to be in Bob and Shirley's shoes !), wholemeal toast would be my first choice, plus home-popped popcorn for those times when she is not necessarily hungry, just at a loose end and needs something to chew on to keep her busy....

emlou2009

I started reading this thread a week ago, and finished this morning!! :eek:

Weezl (and everyone else testing etc) you've done such a fab thing here! My OH is one of the pesty ones that refuses to eat a meal without meat so I havent been able to test a lot, but I have made the weetabix loaf several times now - in the last batch I made, I used
125g sugar
200g mixed dried fruit
260g flour
pinch of cinnamon
180ml milk
50ml water!

Not sure how that works out costings wise - I can only assume replacing some of the milk with water would make it cheaper, but adding the extra dried fruit may have made it dearer?

Will have a go at the cereal bars next!

weezl74

*weezl wonders if she has bitten of more than she (or anyone else) can chew*


NB: No-one has offended me, no-one has overstepped any marks and I'm not in a bad mood :rotfl:

Thanks all for your thoughts. An update on where I feel things are:

I think I can feed this family for a month:). I think it would be healthy (but would not meet full Omega 3:o, but would go a lot higher than 90% of the UK does right now.) It would have a little meat, quite a lot of variety (for a subsistence plan) and some treats.

I think that the feedback I'm getting though, is that what I am putting forward is still so too radically different from the norm, that even when faced with extreme hardship, UK families could not accept it.:(

I do not think anyone is saying this lightly and I trust you all.:A

And so I'm wondering if this interesting (fun, geeky, passionate) challenge may perhaps not be a worthy investment of all our time.

I am not saying this in any 'flouncing off in a huff' or 'throwing toys out of the pram' way I'd just hate to waste anyone's time on something which won't help the people I really wanted to help .

I wanted to create something which had lobbying power. My thought was that if we showed it could be done, and people did it, then we could use that momentum to attempt to say to our leadership that in order to keep subsistence healthy then the UK needs different management.

How is Shakespeare compulsory education in school and bread baking is not? Baking bread would save shirley over £120 a year every year of her life, and that's if she would only buy value bread as it's alternative.

Why are there no subsidies on the prices of fruit, vegetables, milk, pure dairy, whilst the cheapest items contain carcinogenic levels of transfat?

Why are there no guidelines available nationally to help us LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.?

In the very first post I wrote on MFW board, I said it was about 'teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.'

I feel that the feedback here is that this, (whilst worthy, interesting, fun), is not the way to do that.

I'm coming round to seeing this, although it takes a while for a mad dream to die if you are a weezl

If I do give this up though, do people feel there is anything we can salvage? Is an index to all these recipes, costings and nutrition of value here on MSE?

Any other ideas?

With very much love from Weezl x

weezl74

emlou2009 wrote: »

I started reading this thread a week ago, and finished this morning!! :eek:

Hey Em lovely to see you, sethy has changed in your Avvy, he's so lush

This time last year we were v preggers together eh? x

holliegarson

I have been reading and following this thread with huge interest. I speak from only my personal point of view when I say that I think this project should be continued. It is very very worthwhile and although there are many perameters to be considered and worked with - there is a huge benefit to so many people.

Change is difficult to so many of us and I think from what I understand that was the thrust of the 'comments' over the last day or so - imho - I agree with Ceridwens post from yesterday (sorry - can't do a link - too carp at computer links) - I also see from your pov Weezl - you must see your original idea warping and changing - so that must be hard for you.

I believe that this project has the capability to become a hugely interesting and more importantly life changing tool and that is why I think it should stay.

I x

emlou2009

weezl74 wrote: »

Hey Em lovely to see you, sethy has changed in your Avvy, he's so lush

This time last year we were v preggers together eh? x

Hugely pregnant! Does it seem odd that you're in almost the same stage of pregnancy right now that you were last year? My little man is wearing me out good and proper now that he's everywhere and into everything, I dont know how you cope, and doing this time consuming challenge as well? Have you given up work yet? And how is the DVT situation, are they still monitoring you for it?

As for the challenge, I think it would be a shame to stop now, honestly. And I'm not just saying that cos I've spent a week reading it :rotfl:
I showed OH the shopping list, and he didnt see how it could feed the two of us, let alone a family of 4! That in itself would be a challenge for me, to stubbornly make my OH see that he could survive on it without needing to get the meat sweats every night!
I also think that as others have said, if we can show it can be done, then people can add things to it. It is a very basic plan, that perhaps people would think it is radical to live on, but thats the whole point! I'm currently trying to lose weight, so if I was to get a slimming world week diet plan from a magazine for instance, yes there would be things on it that I wouldnt like, so I would subsitute those meals for something else, IYSWIM?
The plan will prove it can be done. And I dont know a single person that eats as healthily as they would if they followed this plan. Until I discovered MSE and saw things like this thread, if I suddenly had less money for food (which did happen quite regularly at the tender age of 18/19:o) I'd live on things like SP 9p noodles on toast and value oats for that month. It never would have occured to me that I could spend less on cooking properly and actually eating healthy things, and I wish there had been a plan like this I could have referenced to back then.

vandanfc

Weezl how about going right back to the original "original" plan.

It contained variety, was not unhealthy, probably healthier than B & S 's normal diet.

The plan you originally created was then tweaked to death to meet the requirements to have the "perfect" diet.

Is there ground to go for a "Feed 4 for £25 a week" diet - this gives annual spend of £1300, as compared to your original £1200 pa. ??

Raini

Hi Weezl,

I have to admit that I've not read through this thread yet but I was excited when I found it and read the first post! My immediate thought was that I would adapt whatever I found to suit me & OH - as a vegetarian I always have to adapt dietary plans anyway. But what you and the others would have very kindly given me would be a loose planner to hang my tastes on that I would know to be cheaper than what I'm cooking now.
Please don't give up - not totally anyway. I think your plan is admirable. :T

Raini x