Do you assess food storage by "meals" or "calories"? - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Food and water Discussion on food and water storage, water purification and related topics.

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So...about that "accuracy", "reliability", and "stopping power" thing. Heckler&Coke Military Weapons Forum 127 10-08-2016 12:52 PM
Pelican™ Double-rifle Case 50.5"x13.5"x5" - $149.99 after code "SN365" + S/H apps47inc For Sale 0 04-11-2015 08:41 PM
Best info resource "How To" for bulk food storage. freeman1000 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 2 06-17-2012 08:01 PM
"Looming food crisis showing on our shelves" (from "The Age" Australian news) Kipper Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 7 04-02-2011 08:30 PM
"It's in the Bag:A New, Easy, Affordable, and Doable Approach to Food Storage" PistolPackingMama Book Reviews 3 03-17-2011 02:02 PM
"Feel the Future" Big Current Storage Food Discounts & FREEBIES - thru August JC Refuge Safecastle 4 02-16-2011 01:15 AM
"Everyday Food Storage" site KaBar67 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 0 02-10-2010 07:38 PM
Long Term Food Storage "(Grain)" Corwyn Farming, Gardening & Homesteading 11 09-14-2009 12:20 AM
"Short term" food storage Dorsai Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 1 11-18-2008 08:15 AM
Long Term Storage food "kits" Suppliers Jericho Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 1 10-01-2007 09:59 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2012, 03:49 PM
hayes31 hayes31 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,222
Thanks: 1,095
Thanked 2,642 Times in 1,172 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freek314 View Post
You do not understand the concept of percentages, do you?

10% of 150lbs looks different depending on height and frame, but it is the same amount.
Ok, one more time.

Let's say you have two people. One is 20 feet tall and one is 2 feet tall. Both weigh 30 pounds. You're telling me that height doesn't matter?

You may know the strict definition of a percentage, but your application of it is severely lacking. Common sense is one of the most important parts of math, and logic dictates that someone 5'10", 150 pounds, and in shape doesn't have a whole lot of extra weight on them.

I would know. That was my height and rough weight in high school, and since I was a wrestler, I always knew my body fat, weight, and height. If you're 5'10" and 150 lbs, your body fat is very much likely under 15%.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 03:50 PM
hayes31 hayes31 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,222
Thanks: 1,095
Thanked 2,642 Times in 1,172 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PIGEON View Post
Does age come into it too?? Would a 50 year old burn more or less?

I'm intrigued..
Age comes into it as well. There are good calculators on the Mayo Clinic website or WebMD, but it should be noted that it's just an extremely rough estimate.

To specifically answer your question, though, you usually burn less calories as you get older.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 04:17 PM
BuellerBueller's Avatar
BuellerBueller BuellerBueller is offline
Prepped and Done!
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,517
Thanks: 2,785
Thanked 4,512 Times in 1,707 Posts
Default

I keep a spreadsheet.

Spreadsheet lists
Total Calories,
Total Fat Calories,
Total Carb Calories,
Total Protein Calories.

As well as:
Percentage of calories from fat, carbs, and Protein.

From total calories I have a calculation that tells me how many days storage I have.

I update it every time I put away a bucket or box of canned food.

Sadly, I only have about 11% protein content.
I've found protein to be the hardest thing to put away in quantity.

When it comes to eating the stuff, we'd just have to do calculations on the fly and make sure we're consuming everything in the proportions that we have stored, primarily so that we don't run out of protein early.
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-17-2012, 04:42 PM
Perkolady's Avatar
Perkolady Perkolady is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 371
Thanks: 521
Thanked 241 Times in 155 Posts
Default

I couldn't make heads or tails out of this issue when I first got serious about food storing. At the beginning, I was leaning towards the calorie side. But, then I realized that for my family that wouldn't really work too well. For example, something might be high in calories, but if it seemed like it was a very small portion, my husband would likely feel like he was starving to death, lol.

We try to eat well-rounded, mostly 'healthy' meals. So, in keeping with trying to store things as closely as possible to the way we eat now, I took a close look at portion size as well as the calories. Sure, there'd be a bit of a different ball game in a shtf situation, but I also know that feeling somewhat satisfied is also important.

One thing that really helped me to know what exactly to start storing was to first sit down and write out as many meals as I could come up with that could be as close to foods we normally eat that could be translated from 'stored' food. Then, I considered what would be a good compromise between our family members idea of a portion (maybe someone wants 1.5 cups of greenbeans rather than potatoes, etc.) and the calories that a meal would roughly add up to.

By listing those meal ideas along with 'our' portions, I was able to figure out how many cans of chicken, amounts of rice (or whatever) I would likely need for a month...

Variety became a real priority for us after a trial run on stored foods. Certain foods (such as rice and beans) can really get old after a while.

I have a variety of canned goods (both commercial and home-canned), freeze-dried, home dehydrated, and some mre meals. Whatever works for your storage space and conditions, along with any dietary needs (some prepackaged things have TONS of salt for example) and your preferences will all come together as you go. Sometimes it's easier to break things down into weeks, then they add up to months, then years.

One more thing to consider... my daughters and I are all thin. We can't afford to lose much weight. Don't forget to factor in things that can be added to a variety of meals to add more calories if needed, or even provide the means for a treat now and then. Gravy mixes, nut butters, baking mixes, maple syrup, etc. Sometimes we just gotta have something sweet and gooey!

Whatever you decide would work best for you and yours, all the best to you!
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 05:03 PM
Freek314's Avatar
Freek314 Freek314 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 694
Thanks: 729
Thanked 474 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayes31 View Post
Ok, one more time.

Let's say you have two people. One is 20 feet tall and one is 2 feet tall. Both weigh 30 pounds. You're telling me that height doesn't matter?

You may know the strict definition of a percentage, but your application of it is severely lacking. Common sense is one of the most important parts of math, and logic dictates that someone 5'10", 150 pounds, and in shape doesn't have a whole lot of extra weight on them.

I would know. That was my height and rough weight in high school, and since I was a wrestler, I always knew my body fat, weight, and height. If you're 5'10" and 150 lbs, your body fat is very much likely under 15%.
Dude, are you not reading? It doesn't matter if the person is 20 feet tall or two feet tall. 15% of 30 pounds is the same either way. The only difference is in the appearance.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 05:19 PM
hayes31 hayes31 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,222
Thanks: 1,095
Thanked 2,642 Times in 1,172 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freek314 View Post
Dude, are you not reading? It doesn't matter if the person is 20 feet tall or two feet tall. 15% of 30 pounds is the same either way. The only difference is in the appearance.
Dude, are you not understanding? I'm astounded that this hasn't reached through to you yet.

I will say this one final time: if you're a 5'10" male weighing in at 150 lbs, you don't have a lot of spare mass on you. If you're 5'10" and 150 lbs, and in shape, you're probably not 15-18%. If you're 5'5" and 150 lbs, it's very much possible. But probably not at 5'10".

Early in high school, when I was 5'10" and wrestling at 145, I was extremely skinny and was at 6% body fat. I didn't even have a lot of muscle on me. It would have been almost physically impossible for me to be at 15-18% while keeping my weight at 150 unless I was very much out of shape, especially once I matured into a fully grown man. My friend wrestled at 152 and was the same height as I was, and our coaches were worried that he was anorexic. You can go on and on about percentages and tell me I don't understand until you're blue in the face, but not only have I taken pretty advanced math, I was a wrestler for many years when I was younger and we got measured very, very often.

So you can stop telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about

Anyways, if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, just stop. Every time I say something you've just gotta chirp it up. So just drop it so we can get this thread back on topic.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 06:09 PM
MikeK's Avatar
MikeK MikeK is offline
Walking methane refinery
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 56
Posts: 63,941
Thanks: 129,389
Thanked 152,762 Times in 44,507 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Member 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freek314 View Post
2k a day planned lasts HALF as long at 3k a day consumed, not 2/3.
Dunno. 20,000 calories lasts 10 days at 2,000 calories a day. It only lasts 6.6 days at 3,000 calories a day. That looks a lot closer to 2/3 than 1/2 to me. Maybe I just have eyestrain.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-17-2012, 06:10 PM
Precise_Disarray's Avatar
Precise_Disarray Precise_Disarray is offline
Heart of Darkness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western New York
Posts: 539
Thanks: 545
Thanked 530 Times in 307 Posts
Default

I've had it easy most of my prepping life in that I only had to really be concerned with myself. I would stock as I went along, and figured I had a large (and varied) store of food for myself, or a shorter one if there are others I found myself suddenly feeding. Now there is two of us, and I/we haven't quite figured out the best way to stock and keep organized regarding what to buy and when. Fortunately we like the same foods!

So my initial answer to whether I stock based on calories or meals is, well, both.

Here are my thoughts, my approach when out shopping and, advice to anyone early in the food storage:

If just starting out, or if one finds themselves in a position to have to quickly stockpile food, then calories is the way to go. Build a foundation of life sustaining calorie laden/nutrient dense foods then add in a variety of layers to create "meals". Same with replacing as inventory is used. I'd rather make sure I have a surplus of calories.

That does not mean that all I want are bags of rice and beans. It means I won't be storing canned peas and tuna until I have the higher calorie "foundation" items on my shelves.

That being said, 2000 cals a day per person for storage is the minimum. Much more may be consumed on some days, and much less on others.

Ballpark figure is:

uncooked:
1, 1 lb bag of Rice=1600 cals
1, 1 lb bag of Beans (15 Bean assortment)= 1800 cals
1, 1 lb bag of Barley= 1400 cals
1, 1 lb bag of Lentils (RED) = 1620
1, 1 lb bag of Lentils (GREEN) = 560 cals (big difference from Red Lentils)
1, 1 lb bag of Pasta= 1680 cals
Ramen Noodles --4 bricks = 1520 cals

A "quick and dirty" calorie/meal determination minimum (yet likely overestimating) when stocking for two people for me is: 2 lbs of above item (but can be split up for variation), plus as many cans of food needed to make up rest of calories. Most cans of food typically range in 120-300 +/- cals for entire can, such as a vegetable, meat, soup, sauce, etc. So this should add up to 2000+ per person. 2 lbs= @ 3200 cals plus eight cans (960-2400 cals) = 4160-5600 (for two) or 2080-2800 (for one). If a lot less calories are needed, then the more food there is. I feel comfortable keeping this in my head when shopping or looking at what we have. By no means is this the only what I store or how I approach nutrition needs. Which brings me to..

Varied tastes, textures, volume, overall nutritive value, etc, would change this basic "schedule", so canned/dried fruits, meats, nut butters, jams, other grains and cereals, spices, sauces/gravies, pre cooked beans & pastas, also fresh made stuff when possible and, so on, would also be added to the mix, and alter nutrition and calories.

Again, at the very least, the "foundation" foods are kept track of.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Precise_Disarray For This Useful Post:
Old 01-17-2012, 06:40 PM
CanadianPrepper's Avatar
CanadianPrepper CanadianPrepper is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South-Western Ontario
Posts: 300
Thanks: 269
Thanked 490 Times in 163 Posts
Default

When I first started to prep it was more estimates and what felt right. My mother went by meals. A year later I'm going more by calories (1600 as a do nothing, barely not starving) and 2500 as the ultimate goal (in general, it varies for the person), and my mother goes by both calories and meal planning. I envision in another year I'll be calculating everything, with individual calculations for each person involved in our group, customized to accommodate for tastes and allergies.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-18-2012, 03:13 AM
Freek314's Avatar
Freek314 Freek314 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 694
Thanks: 729
Thanked 474 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Dunno. 20,000 calories lasts 10 days at 2,000 calories a day. It only lasts 6.6 days at 3,000 calories a day. That looks a lot closer to 2/3 than 1/2 to me. Maybe I just have eyestrain.
Relax, just trying to give hayes31 some desperately needed ammo.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-18-2012, 03:14 AM
Freek314's Avatar
Freek314 Freek314 is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 694
Thanks: 729
Thanked 474 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayes31 View Post
Dude, are you not understanding? I'm astounded that this hasn't reached through to you yet.

I will say this one final time: if you're a 5'10" male weighing in at 150 lbs, you don't have a lot of spare mass on you. If you're 5'10" and 150 lbs, and in shape, you're probably not 15-18%. If you're 5'5" and 150 lbs, it's very much possible. But probably not at 5'10".

Early in high school, when I was 5'10" and wrestling at 145, I was extremely skinny and was at 6% body fat. I didn't even have a lot of muscle on me. It would have been almost physically impossible for me to be at 15-18% while keeping my weight at 150 unless I was very much out of shape, especially once I matured into a fully grown man. My friend wrestled at 152 and was the same height as I was, and our coaches were worried that he was anorexic. You can go on and on about percentages and tell me I don't understand until you're blue in the face, but not only have I taken pretty advanced math, I was a wrestler for many years when I was younger and we got measured very, very often.

So you can stop telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about

Anyways, if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, just stop. Every time I say something you've just gotta chirp it up. So just drop it so we can get this thread back on topic.
I'm not contesting the fact that you were 6%. Anyways, onto better opponents.
Quick reply to this message
Old 01-18-2012, 09:51 AM
hayes31 hayes31 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,222
Thanks: 1,095
Thanked 2,642 Times in 1,172 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freek314 View Post
I'm not contesting the fact that you were 6%. Anyways, onto better opponents.
Your sole purpose on this thread is finding "opponents"?

That's exactly the problem. Through your atrocious inability to apply math in the real world as well as general inexperience, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Troll much?

Just for future reference: in chemistry, there is something called a limiting reagent. Essentially, what this means is that if a chemical reaction happens between two chemicals at a 1 to 1 ration, it doesn't matter if you have 5 units of chemical A if you only have 1 unit of chemical B. The 5 units is limited by the 1 unit. You'd need a full 5 units of chemical B to take advantage of the 5 units of chemical A. This concept applies in biology, too, where it is called a limiting factor. The limiting factor in this example is mass available for fat. On a 5'10" person weighing 150 lbs, most of that mass is allocated to vital organs, skeletal structures, etc. There isn't a whole lot of mass left over for anything extra like fat. It's limited by the 150 mark, which is why the 150 mark is the limiting factor. If it were a higher number, there would be more mass available for fat. But it's not.

Just had to point that out to you so you don't go around embarrassing yourself anymore.

Unsubscribing so I don't have to listen to you make an anemic attempt to tell me my chem and bio are wrong, too
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to hayes31 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-18-2012, 10:19 AM
AsianRedneck AsianRedneck is offline
Just a regular girl
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 134
Thanks: 3
Thanked 203 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Thanks everyone! Lots of food for thought.

I'm 5'0" and 111 lbs. Hubby is 6'0" and 170 lbs. Obviously, our caloric needs would seem different on the surface. Yet I eat exactly the same as him (or, possibly, even more calories per day than he does), and I don't gain weight. So individual metabolisms come into play, too.

And with two growing kids, who knows what they'll need when TSHTF? Growth spurts, age, activity level... all that will change drastically in the next few years.

I guess I'll just go with my gut instincts and take it from there...
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
calories, calories after shtf, counting calories, emergency rations, food supply, meal planning, rations, rations after shtf, rations for shtf, stockpiling food



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net