Jolt Country

Does anyone here know about nutrition? Probably not since we're all either 500 pounds or are the size of nine-year-old girls.

But I'm curious:

Assuming a reliable water supply, what are the fewest different canned foods you'd need to survive indefinitely in a bunker after the nukular war, let's say.

Can you survive ONLY on canned beans?

Canned beans and canned peaches?

I'm looking for the simplest possible diet.

If it makes it easier, let's say we also have enough rice to last the rest of our lives. But if not, even better.

Why are you doing this? Is this a diet / weight loss thing or are you stocking up for when Tdarcos is made an Admin of this forum?

Why are you doing this? Is this a diet / weight loss thing or are you stocking up for when Tdarcos is made an Admin of this forum?

The short answer is no... UNLESS:

You want scurvy, beriberi, be malnourished or otherwise feel like shit. See the following sites for actual breakdowns on nutrient needs and what you should be eating -

http://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-he ... rough-diet

http://www.realsimple.com/health/nutrit ... t-vitamins

Eating one or two foods is a terrible idea (unless its Soylent, then I have a case I'll sell you if you want it) as a diet or general life choice. See below -

DIETING RULE NUMBER 1:

Don't alter your existing diet too heavily. This cold turkey stuff is complete and utter bull and will lead back to the old shitty habits. Change one meal you like to something healthier, yet keeping the same thing. Then slowly add more every few weeks.

This dieting thing is only meant to last the rest of your life, so rush the fuck out of it, right?

Also rice (white entirely, but also mostly brown) contains fuck all except sugar, calories and carbs. There is no nutrient value AT ALL in white rice and brown has major issues (though the husk is intact, so it is at least somewhat better for you.)

I'd like to point out that Retro's answer to "what is the fewest number of canned goods you can live on?" was "no".

Does anyone know the actual answer to the actual question, or can we just split this thread and let it be for Retro to go Tdarcos all over it on diet advice?

pinback wrote:Assuming a reliable water supply, what are the fewest different canned foods you'd need to survive indefinitely in a bunker after the nukular war, let's say.

Zero. You can survive on beans and rice. Together they are a complex carbohydrate and supply the necessary amino acids that your body can't manufacture. Coincidentally, this was the primary diet of most of Asia where people routinely lived past 70 and longer, before we started moving in with our form of "healthy nutrition" in the form of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and Dunkin Donuts. Which provided our contribution to the world's health status, such as cancer, heart disease and stroke.

Can you survive ONLY on canned beans?

Nope. You need rice to complete the complex carbohydrate. It's like taking calcium supplements. Examine any decent one and you will find if you check the ingredients it includes vitamin D of at least 50% of the calcium, because it's been determined for calcium to work - for our bodies to absorb it - we have to have Vitamin D of at least that much. This is why calcium in milk can be absorbed because milk also has D.

Alright, TDR says you can survive on canned beans and rice.

Retro says "no".

FIGHT!!

Tdarcos wrote:Zero.

Also, I know trying to get you to understand anything is a sysiphean task, but I was asking the minimum number of canned goods you'd need if all you had was canned goods.

I'm aware it's possible to survive without eating any canned goods. It was done for quite a while before the can was invented.

Yes, you can live off of rice and beans (just make sure you are eating more beans than rice and your rice is brown.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/201 ... ut-many-do

Add a few cans of green beans, random vegetables and maybe a low sugar fruit and you're golden.

RetroRomper wrote:Yes, you can live off of rice and beans (just make sure you are eating more beans than rice and your rice is brown.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/201 ... ut-many-do

Add a few cans of green beans, random vegetables and maybe a low sugar fruit and you're golden.

"Yes, you can live off only rice and beans, as long as you also eat vegetables and fruit."

Why... why must you be so difficult? You're approaching Paul levels of Asperger's lately.

pinback wrote:Assuming a reliable water supply, what are the fewest different canned foods you'd need to survive indefinitely in a bunker after the nukular war, let's say.

Can you survive ONLY on canned beans?

Canned beans and canned peaches?

I'm looking for the simplest possible diet.

If it makes it easier, let's say we also have enough rice to last the rest of our lives. But if not, even better.

Hahah. Good point. When the rice goes, I go.

I have no way of knowing the TRUTH but I'm gonna go with this as my first attempt:

1) Canned peaches
2) Canned red beans
3) Canned potatoes somehow.

If this is a nuclear war, we need the iodine in the potatoes. The red beans are the best beans. The canned peaches because eating a real peach gets that juice all over your hands and makes you want to die (also because canned was a requirement).

What vitamins are we missing? Besides, as a user base, Vitamin D.

pinback wrote:

Tdarcos wrote:Zero.

Also, I know trying to get you to understand anything is a sysiphean task, but I was asking the minimum number of canned goods you'd need if all you had was canned goods.

Then you should have phrased it that way. So the answer now is obviously two, canned beans and canned rice. Maybe rice pudding because you're going to have one big problem: sugar hunger.

When you've been on a Western diet, you'll notice that as a big problem. Except for plain vegetables, look at how many foods around that have either sugar or sugar equivalents ("high fructose corn syrup.") Even with non-fat (skim) milk they make it palatable by adding milk sugar / nonfat dry milk That's why people who are dieting or want to reduce sugar intake should use 2% rather than skim.

Sugar hunger is one of the reasons it's necessary to change one's diet slowly in order to wean oneself off excess sugar. Going cold turkey only works - except when you've been hit with a life-changing event and willing to accept the necessary changes - when you're not able to get to the addictive substance or you're prevented from doing so. Whether its sugar, cigarettes, narcotics or booze, people will do almost anything to get their fix if it's reachable.

So, with this, I should be good to go, yes?

Tdarcos wrote:Whether its sugar, cigarettes, narcotics or booze, people will do almost anything to get their fix if it's reachable.

I'm just glad to hear that you can comment on addictions you have absolutely no idea about. Guess in the long run, we'll all be happy that you've stopped free basing corn syrup.

pinback wrote:So, with this, I should be good to go, yes?

/elbows way to front of the line

Yeah I think that if you go with that, you got 90% of whatcha need down. You gonna do a row of canned peaches as well with that, pallie?

pinback wrote:So, with this, I should be good to go, yes?

As long as it's organic, you're golden.

RetroRomper wrote:

Tdarcos wrote:Whether its sugar, cigarettes, narcotics or booze, people will do almost anything to get their fix if it's reachable.

I'm just glad to hear that you can comment on addictions you have absolutely no idea about.

Excuse me, I do. I have my own addictions I deal with, my mother, father and sister smoked; my sister quit, later my mother did but my father died of lung cancer. My sister is an alcoholc and I know some of the rest from personal experience.