What I Eat in a Day: 2024, Part 2

Modeling cost effectiveness of beef, organ meats, snacks, and supplements.

Part 1 of this series looked at cost-effective and calorie-effective sources of nutrients. Based on that information, I made some changes to test a new model for one week to see if “super” foods are really a thing and if / what supplements are worth your hard earned money (and calories).

Figure 1 recaps Part 1. “Model” refers to the original “pyramid” template I adapted from Jamie Seemen (@doctorfitandfabulous) while the calorie, cost, and nutrients are from the first actual data set that I’ll be calling “Model-0” for the remainder of this post.

Figure 1

In summary, that data and analysis from Part 1 tell us the following:

Model-0:
Total Cost: $22.26 / day
Snack Cost / Convenience Charge: $5.85 (66% increase)
Supplement Cost / Convenience Charge: $7.16 (24% increase)

If we were to remove alcohol and count that as entertainment rather than a grocery, our supplement category cost drops significantly.

Model-1:
Total Cost: $16.33 / day
Snack Cost: $5.85
Supplement: $3.23

Let’s also remove the supplements (“pleasure and performance” items) that I’m no longer using. As we’ll discuss below, I go back and forth on whey protein, we’ve already removed alcohol, and sleepy time tea lost its effectiveness after several weeks of use (like other sleep aids I’ve tested).

Model-2:
Total Cost: $14.90 / day
Snack Cost: $5.85
Supplement Cost: $1.80

Finally, because Model-2 would leave me a little short on calories, and wanting a pre- or post-training snack, let’s add 7-10% to the “beef” cost to get the ~200 calories / 30g protein I was getting from the whey.

Model-3 (hypothetical):
Total Cost: $9.68 / day
Snack Cost: $0.27
Supplement Cost: $1.80

Rather than try and estimate hypothetical models, I decided to collect a second set of data (N=7) to compare real-life examples of Model-0 and Model-3.

Figure 2

The real-world Model-3 gives us:

Model-3 (actual):
Total Daily Cost: $12.35
Snack Cost: $0.50
Supplement Cost: $2.31

We can also make several interesting observations about Figure 2. First, we can see that the cost ($), calories, and nutrient contributions from the “Staple” category significantly increased due to their proportionate increase after “Snacks” were mostly removed — note the significant decrease in Cost-Snack.

Likewise the cost, calorie, and nutrient contributions from “Supers” all went up slightly, again because of their proportionate contribution increasing.

The cost of “Supplements” also went down significantly most notably due to the removal of alcohol from this category. In Model-0 alcohol accounted for over half of the total “Supplement” cost.

So-called “Super” foods also become a lot less “super” when I (mostly) removed “Snacks” from my diet.

Figure 3

The point of this series is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of these different categories, not just in terms of dollars, but also calories. The “Odds Ratio” for Model-0 was pretty straight forward. “Snacks” had an OR of 1.66 and “Supplements” had an OR of 1.24; which means they had a “convenience charge” of +66% and +24% respectively.

The method of computation is described in Part 1 (link)

But, what do the negative numbers mean? In short, they mean that in Model-3 “Snacks” and “Supplements” were more effective than “Staples!” That doesn’t mean I’m telling folks to live on butter and supplements. It means that I’ve chosen my supplements wisely and that they provide valuable (specific) nutrients per calorie and dollar in concentrations greater than “Staples.”

For example, in Model-3 “Staples” accounted for 69% of the cost, 84% of calories, 60% of total nutrients, and 29% of magnesium. Compare that to my magnesium supplement which was ~2% of my cost, 0% of calories, and 67% of magnesium. Additionally, magnesium was 1 / 8 (or 12.5%) of the nutrients tracked — sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, folate, zinc, Vitamin D, and omega 3. So, contributing 67% to 12.5% of nutrients is a significant impact overall.

Super foods don’t look nearly as stellar when the backdrop of nutrient inefficient (in terms of calorie and dollar) foods (i.e. “Snacks”) are removed.

---

Tangible Takeaways:

I’d suspect that a lot of people have come to this post looking for a menu or a prescription and I have, until this point, resisted. However, be warned, this is not a prescription or recommendation. It’s simply a different visualization of what’s represented in Model-3 above.

Figure 4, February 2024

This data was collected in late winter 2024, so the sodium (Na) content is relatively low compared to full-swing-southern-summers where 8g / day isn’t unreasonable. “Salting to taste” is sufficient in cooler months, but seasonal climates matter. In the case of summer grappling, the 2-3g of additional sodium would be largely concentrated around training sessions, not spread out throughout the day.

Similarly, with Vitamin D, 5,000 IU / day year-round is a good baseline. Throughout winter I’ve cranked that up to 10,000 IU / day until D-Minder estimates my blood level at ~80 ng / ml which is where the benefit to testosterone production plateaus (ref.). Then, I can drop it back down to 5K supplemental and rely on the sun for the rest.

Key Takeaways:

• Stop snacking!

  • This was a hard lesson I had to be honest with myself about. Being in a hurry once or even twice per week, that’s a snack. Every day is a waste of money.

• Whey or No-Whey?

  • This was a decent sized expense in Model-0. Production contamination and other concerns aside, it’s far from the worst thing you’d find in an average office environment. Keeping a tub at your desk, or on reserve for late-nights probably isn’t a bad idea. However, see “Snacks” above.

• Are organ meats “worth it?”

  • If you like them, you’re only getting benefits.

  • If you don’t like them, you’re probably not missing out so long as you’re eating copious amounts of meat and eggs.

• Are supplements “worth it?”

  • This depends greatly on your needs. How calorie restricted do you need / want to be? How much are you willing to pay for convenience? Does data support your need (vs. sales pitch narratives)? Does your investment pay off in data-driven performance (vs. belief and speculation)?

Hopefully this post has helped dispel some of the mystique around so-called “superfoods” and brought recognition to the fact that the real “super” foods are the staples of your diet that provide the most cost-effective nutrient density not just in relative terms, but also in gross value.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you you “need” supplements or organ meats. There’s plenty of evidence here and elsewhere on this site for you to make the case one way or another. The catch is that you’ll have to do it yourself.

If you’re truly strapped for cash and resources, scrambled eggs and ground beef go a helluva long way. On the other hand, if you can’t swing $3 / day — less than a morning latte — for some basic supplements that could have a profound benefit to your performance with virtually no risk, your commitment to the cause is suspect.

---

Data Availability and Disclosures:

Raw Data: https://gitlab.com/savagezen/research
Annotated Data: https://tinyurl.com/carnivoretests

Note: There may be discrepancies between calorie reports, nutrient density, macronutrient ratios, etc. based on rounding and categorical pricing. The listed price categories are the most common and there isn’t an entry for every literal item.

Nutrients Excluded from Analysis:
Vitamin D - Dietary sources for me range between 300 and 600 IU / day. The vast majority comes from the sun / supplements (5,000 - 20,000 IU / day)
Vitamins B2, B3, B5, B6, B12 - Again, not an issue when eating large amounts of meat, usually 2-3x the Cronometer suggested RDA. Additionally, the free version of Cronomoeter can only highlight 8 nutrients at a time.

---

---

Bonus Content: What do my dogs eat in a day?