I eat pretty much exactly the same thing every day. Throughout the day I eat a pound of tofu, broccoli, bell pepper, mushrooms, onions, whey, nuts, and I eat eggs about every other day. This comes out to about $65 a week. I honestly have no idea whether that's a lot or average but it seems pretty high to me, spending almost $10 a day on food. I probably spend $3 a week on beverages.

This seems low to me. There were a few years in college where when you factored in alcohol consumption I was spending a bit more than $1000 a month.

Now I spend about $15 a day on the low end and about $25 a day on the high end. A lot of this goes to caffienated beverages: sugar-free Rockstar and tons of tea. Also, I drink a gallon of water a day which I buy in bulk, bringing the cost to about $1 a day just for water.

Good lord! And to think I complain about spending around US1000 a month for 4 people!

I believe your diet is very unbalanced. I think you need to add some chips, burgers, kfc, sausages, spare ribs and large amounts of alcohol to ensure that you are getting a balanced diet.

The Tony Fisher food pyramid:



(For those of you not in the US, here kids are taught about healthy eating using a "Food Pyramid")

I think our family spends about $200 a week for 5 people. It's so cheap mostly because we don't eat out hardly at all and I'm sure that cooking for several people is cheaper per person than for a cooking for a single person because you can buy more things in bulk and stuff.

Party at Tony's place. I'll bring some hot apple pie and ice cream, we need some dairy and fruit. After we eat, we can play with all those cool puzzles. I'm bound to leave a few pounds lighter, well at least in the wallet.

I am deeply offended by that image. Get it right please!

I have no idea. I tend to be bad with planning expenses but,
I will comment on the "healthy food" branch of this topic.

I go by an simple formular when choosing foods:

Proteins, Fibers and Vitamins.
On top of that you need a bit of fat (from plants)
and VARIATION. You need to eat something you didn't eat yesterday.

Stuff to avoid is: White bread (weat based) and ,in general, carbohydrates.

Ok being serious for a minute. You comment about Carbohydrates is very misleading. It's only recently that low carb diets have been trendy for losing weight. Carbs are a hugely important source for energy in a balanced diet-

"Don't be misled by the blanket pronouncements on the dangers of carbohydrates. They are an important part of a healthy diet. Carbohydrates provide the body with the fuel it needs for physical activity and for proper organ function. The best sources of carbohydrates—fruits, vegetables, beans, and whole grains—deliver essential vitamins and minerals, fiber, and a host of important phytonutrients"

I've been on the Atkins diet for about four weeks and I've lost over 20lb. This isn't the kind of weight that will return when I stop because this diet has helped me eliminate carb cravings and honestly it's the easiest diet I've ever done, and the only one to show me real results. I hope to get down to 170 by mid-september

Statements like this are why science is hard and why medicine requires repeatable, statistically significant double-blind tests.

I lost 70 pounds in 11 months (232 pounds to 162 pounds) purely through eating less. It too was easy because I did it through careful portion control which became habit pretty quickly. There was no exercise involved. My point is eliminating carbs is not necessary to lose weight. Also, considering our bodies, metabolism, and dietary need all evolved with no notion of carb counting or Atkins, I'd be wary of any diet that promotes an unnatural eating strategy.

Finally, you're losing weight too fast. 20 / 4 == 5 pounds per week. At that rate you'll lose muscle and bone mass at the same rate you lose fat so you won't actually be changing your body fat % and you'll weaken your bones.

The idea behind atkins is that all that weight lost is just water weight and fat.

More importantly, we actually did evolve to eat a diet without a lot of carbs because there wasn't bread, pasta, or rice 12,000 years ago.

There is a big difference between grain and processed grains and carbs in general. Sugar is a carbohydrate. Atkins lumps fruit in with high carb foods and eliminates them.

A lot of studies have been done trying to measure the evolution of diet and nutrition in humans an our ancestors. This is a pretty good summary article and it cites all of it sources:
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

If Atkins were a clearly good diet strategy studies would have shown that by now. Instead the results are mixed and a lot of the Atkins claims are disputed or probably false. I'm all for losing excess weight but do it in a more balanced way.

You're only eliminating carbs temporarily. You're supposed to limit yourself to 20g of carbs per day for "Phase 1" where you just get carbs from vegetables and protein rich foods. Then in Phase 2 you can add nuts and berries, then Phase 3 allows fruits and legumes, then Phase 4 allows breads and grains.

http://www.atkins.com/Program/Overview/How-and-Why-Atkins-Work.aspx

Source: atkins.com
Article: How and why Atkins Works

Not only is this a biased source, it doesn't provide any supporting evidence for any of the claims and doesn't list any side effects.

I want to mention that I am not trying to loose weight.
I am keeping my weight as it is. I am 1m86 and weighing 70 kilos, which is on the low side of having an optimal weight (BMI).
Avoiding carbohydrates completely is impossible (and is not what we want). But keeping it on the low side is deffinatly healthy.
You are right in saying that carbohydrates are essential in a daily, healthy, normal diet.
But eating white bread sandwiches with butter, mayo and high fat% sausage is the worst thing you can do. That's the essence in my filosophy.
You want to eat often during the day. And eating proteins and fibers will keep you full for the longest, thus creating a low end transient blood sugar pattern.


A piece of danish grain bread.

http://general.utpb.edu/FAC/eldridge_j/ ... rotein.pdf

Does the American Journal of Cardiology suffice as an academic source?

This explains why there is drastic weight loss during phase 1, and how after the weight loss starts to plateau, the important thing becomes caloric restriction more than carbohydrate restriction.

"Reducing caloric intake by 500 kcal/day should result in a 0.45- to 0.9-kg weight loss each week. However, low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets typi- cally produce a 2- to 3-kg weight loss in the first week. This added weight loss is not due to the miracle of “switching the body’s metabolism over to burning fat stores.” It is due to a diet-induced diuresis. When carbohydrate intake is restricted, 2 metabolic processes occur, both of which simultaneously reduce total body water content. The first process is mobilization of glycogen stores in liver and muscle. Each gram of glycogen is mobilized with approximately 2 g of water. The liver stores approximately 100 g of glycogen and muscle has 400 g of glycogen. Mobilization glycogen stores result in a weight loss of approximately 1 kg."

This is not why I made this topic

One thing that bothers me about diets is that for the most part, everyone assumes that each person is equal. This couldn't be further from the truth. Different genetics/environments will change the way one's metabolism is. For lots of people, the low fat diet will work. For others, it will only leave them hungrier and not losing any weight. Others will find different things work better than others. I'm noticing more and more calories in does not necessarily equal calories out. In some people it does, but in others certain ones seem to pack on more pounds than others.

Then whenever meta studies are done, they tend to show that calories in equals calories out, which on a whole I would say is true, but for the people that isn't true with, they sort of cancel each other out. Like for some, protein won't pack on as many pounds as carbs. For others, fat may not pack as many pounds as protein, etc.

So my point is, there is no magic bullet diet that will work for everyone. In the future, diets (hopefully) will be tailored towards ones metabolism.

Back on topic. We spend way too much, but we've been too lazy to cook at home that much.

-d