anyone taking up the live below the line challenge?

Miss_Penelope

I have just read this article. He was a little bit useless with his choice of foods. More pasta and rice would have been more filling than a cheese sandwich.

I don't think a week was long enough though. Not too much of a challenge!

jackieglasgow

We have thread on here where those of us taking up the challenge discuss it (well they all do, I just lurk and drool at the ideas)

Ilona

If they had asked an older person to manage on £1 a day for food, they would have been able to do it easily, I know I could, because I do it now. People generally eat far too much anyway, and they get really stressed out if they cannot get the food they crave for.

You need to ask yourself what is food for anyway. The way I see it is that I eat food to keep my body alive and in good working order, it is a fuel I can't exist without. I don't go shopping with a list, because I don't know what will be reduced or on special offer that day. I am willing to change my diet and eat whatever I find which is cheap and nutritious. I also don't shop with my eyes. Looking for something you fancy can often mean spending more money. I scan the prices on the shelves, and look for anything which is less than £1. My foraging takes place in the supermarkets.

To exist on £1 a day you have to have some knowledge of food nutrition, if you eat all the wrong things you can do yourself a lot of harm. Doing it for a week won't have any long lasting effects, because you can fast for that length of time and not die.
Ilona

valk_scot

Well, it's harder for one person on £1 per day than say four people on £4, or £28 for a week. Less flexibility. I agree totally with the idea that to do this long term the person doing the shopping/cooking needs some basic knowledge of nutrition though. I've read weekly menus here that made me wince...fine for a week but hopefully not longer! Also, on £1 a day you can't afford to be fussy about likes/dislikes...you have to eat for health.

PasturesNew

I know nothing of nutrition, I'm not dead yet. I eat cheap stuff and junk ... I'm still here.

valk_scot

PasturesNew wrote: »

I know nothing of nutrition, I'm not dead yet. I eat cheap stuff and junk ... I'm still here.

Cheap doesn't necessarily mean junk, have to say. Junk is often more expensive than cheap healthy food anyway! And if you eat a range of different foods then you will probably cover all the nutritional bases. It's just when finances dictate a really budget method of eating, you have to get maximum nutritional value per penny. Sure, it might not do you too much harm short term but long term you will be risking a lot of health problems...anaemia and osteoporosis are the two most obvious ones that spring to mind, but there are plenty more, including upping your risk of different types of cancers.

Also if there are kids in the family they've got to get the nutrients to allow them to grow and develop properly. Anyone here old enough to remember rickets and second teeth coming in already crumbling? Stunted growth in kids? These sorts of nutritional deficiency diseases are starting to make a comeback, apparently. And we're hardly a third world country.

xangeleyes

Thank you - I like this thread

I hope they put it on TV Any ideas if this will be??

I'm thinking of pulling out the nettles in my garden and boiling them..........Might give them to hubby first to see what he thinks hahahaha

ceridwen

I tend to think that making a habit of eating as cheaply as humanly possible is "Penny wise and pound foolish" - as resultant healthcare for illness that could have been prevented by sound nutrition probably means not nearly as much money as anticipated has been saved in the long run.

Also - the quality of life factor - ie the worse ones health, then the worse the quality of ones life is by and large.

Food is also something that is meant to be pleasurable - cooking it, eating it, etc and its a shame to just regard it as only something to take away hunger pangs and thats its sole function.

Having said that - I am obviously well aware that there are people who really have cut all "luxury" spending to the bone...no running round in cars unnecessarily/no cigarettes/no "consumer" spending/all bills as low as they can be and little or no debt from previous "consumer" spending and still dont have enough money to eat a reasonable diet (eg childless people on the Dole - a position I've been in myself - so can sympathise - though my time on Dole was back before there were massive cuts to that Dole for peeps in that position). But - if one can possibly manage to avoid it - if need be by dint of cutting every other expense to the bone - then food is THE absolute last thing to economise on if at all possible.

I DO think that this "live on £1 a day" thing might have the beneficial side effect of making it clear to the Government that there are some people who (not due to any factors under their control) simply honestly arent being paid enough income to eat properly (eg childless people on the Dole - as before mentioned).

Sophietate

There may be a misunderstanding on packet sharing for single people. The US rules state that you do not need to count the cost of unused portions in packets. Also the UK rules state that you can share your packets with pther people doing the challenge. If you are doing it alone, i think if you divide the food between 4 or five people and store away the food that is not going to be used you are doing the challenge the same as a family would or a group of friends and you are sticking to the rule of budgeting for whole packets and only consuming one pound per day. Please dont make yourself ill.

zippychick

As this has dropped down the board, ive merged it with the thread on the below the line challenge to keep the like discussion together

Zip