Weezl and friends Phase 2 -giving it a whirl for Shirl! Testing meal plan for a month

*zippy*

Sorry off topic, but my husband was just earwigging at a couple looking at our chickens, one was admiring them and the other piped up they aren't chickens, they are african birds :rotfl:They are normal looking chickens.

ceridwen

Avocet wrote: »

If you really want to persuade people to drop these prejudices, and if that is a specific goal of this project (rather than just an ideological wish/hope on the sidelines), then surely your next step (after rolling out the vegan/veggie plan that is near completion) is to present what you truly believe these people should be eating, at whatever price point that works out to be. Ignore their so-called non-negotiables, and show them the way. The Weezl Way.

<cough> - I know I'm not on this thread anymore:silenced: - BUT...errr....:eek: at the thought of telling people "We simply don't care about your non-negotiables. We think you're daft - or worse. Forget about them - everything is negotiable...." People are entitled to have whatever-they-please as a personal non-negotiable.

....walks off thinking "I'm not going to be popular - again - for stating this....oh well...needed to be said...."

weezl74

LOL at those chickens *zippy* :rotfl:

ceridwen

weezl74 wrote: »

DH is concerned.

He thinks we are in the majority in being willing to think 'ah but what is the point of the 5 a day? If it is to deliver enough vits, and we can do this with fewer, then why not?'

He thinks most people will just think:

5 a day good

9 a day excellent

2 a day bad.

#

D.H. is correct in that assumption - and some of us will be thinking "Why do I feel like being described as "middle class" sounds like a bad thing to be to some?"....

weezl74

when are people wanting the next skype meeting, for those who couln't make the last one? I'll post some possible times

Sian would you like the transcript?

System

weezl74 wrote: »

would you risk putting the hardcore month on the same website and risk losing the shirls and kitty's who only read you cos of 5 a day ness?

Having opened this can of worms, I now feel obliged to comment! :-) If it were my web site, and if that plan were something I truly believed in, then I would do it. (I can't speak for you, though, and only you know how fragile you might feel in the face of criticism that might result.) BUT I would position it so that people had to actively choose to click through to it and couldn't just land there by accident, and I would preface it with an explanation so detailed that it brooks no argument. Something along the lines of:

We are all different. We have different values and different tastes, and we make different lifestyle choices. Sometimes we know deep-down that these choices are superficial (nobody "needs" to eat goji berries, after all!) and sometimes our dietary restrictions are deeply rooted in medical, ethical or religious considerations. It is impossible to design a plan that fits everyone's personal rules.

But we were interested in the idea of what would be possible if we set these rules aside -- what is the minimum cost-point that we could achieve for a subsistence diet to sustain our family's health through a prolonged period of extreme financial emergency, while still providing tasty, varied meals that we can be proud to serve to our loved ones?

As our other plans show, we know that all meals throughout the day contribute to a healthy menu plan, and that any individual recipe is only part of a larger picture. It goes without saying that we like good food, so we want meals that are delicious. And we want a healthy diet, so our menu plan must include all the nutrients that we are advised are essential, and must deliver them in the right proportions. But what if we are more flexible about how those requirements are interpreted?

For example, the government recommends that we eat five or more portions of a varied selection of fruit and vegetables a day. In fact, every country interprets the guidelines in a slightly different way -- recommending a total daily weight, or a different number of portions, or measuring portions by hand size rather than by weight, or including potatoes. In essence, the UK's 5-a-day guideline is intended to make it easy for people to ensure that nutritional requirements are delivered daily, without making everyone learn about which fruit and vegetables provide specific levels of nutrients. We wondered what would happen if we went right back to basics, and focussed on the individual nutritional requirements rather than on advertised mechanisms intended to simplify the calculation process. And the result is this plan, the Weezl Way. (or whatever you want to call it, obviously!)

Here are the current UK nutritional recommendations, as we understand them:
Insert table 1 of nutrients etc, fully referenced

Our hardcore menu plan, the Weezl Way, delivers these requirements and more, at a cost of XXX. So that you can make your own comparison with the guidelines, here is the nutritional breakdown for this plan, assuming that you follow it for the entire month, exactly as written:
Insert table 2 of nutrients etc, for menu plan

As you can see, we meet or exceed all our nutritional targets. You won't find any goji berries, but you will find good, honest food that delivers everything we are told we need.

Of course, we know that this particular plan has minority appeal. As we said before, everyone is different, and not everyone will be attracted to a menu plan which has more apparent restrictions than our other plans and which is so unlike anything presented by TV chefs. It's fair to say that we see this as a baseline plan, intended as a rock-bottom safety net for people in dire straits. But we thought you might be as curious to see the results as we were, even if your circumstances are fortunate enough to allow a more conventional diet.

We find it reassuring to know that, should the worst come to the worst, we are equipped to feed our families for £XXX a month, without fear of damaging their health. We've tried all the recipes, and you know what? We like them. And we hope that you like them, too.

Or something like that. But it has to be detailed. If you don't deliver the detailed nutritional information, then you invite criticism.

artybear

OMG ............think I may be having palpertations.....and that goal was SO IN. Will come back and be serums about frugalness in a bit!!!!!!!!!

weezl74

excellent post avocet, clear, logical and thought-through, and you've obviously been following our debates

good food for thouht

twinkle_star_2

I'll admit I'm seriously suspicious of a meal planner with much less than the 5-a-day fruit and veg but I'd be willing to give it a go if I felt there were definitely enough vitamins, minerals etc.

My big query is where are all these vitamins and things coming from if not from the veg. I know we relied on some supplemented foods on the vegan planner, and to be honest, I'm wasn't too sure about that anyway. If we were relying on more supplemented food rather than naturally occurring nutrients then it feels a bit like you might as well eat whatever you fancy and take a vitamin pill.

If, however, they can come from the foods (e.g. potatoes full of vitamins but not counted in five a day) then all power to the super frugal plan.

Allegra

ceridwen wrote: »

#

D.H. is correct in that assumption - and some of us will be thinking "Why do I feel like being described as "middle class" sounds like a bad thing to be to some?"....

I would be interested in finding out why two a day would be seen as a bad thing if it was shown that all the vitamins and minerals are present in sufficient quantities. I could understand it as a knee-jerk reaction "they say we have to have five, I am scared to have less" - but if it is then shown that there's nothing to worry about and all the nutrients are still there, why would they still think the planner is deficient ?