Lonchafinismo: Living at 13.5°C and Saving Every Last Drop

Lonchafinismo: Saving Every Last Drop

A Spanish man lives at 13.5°C and wrote a manual on avoiding heating. Calling himself a 'lonchafinista,' he wears thick socks and recycles water for his toilet. His story, posted on a consumer forum, generated 167 responses and a wide-ranging debate on domestic savings.

The author describes a method, not poverty. He reduced nightlife, switched to classic razors, and uses glycerin soap. He wears a wool hat in his living room and endures 35°C without air conditioning. This paradox highlights a man who showers in a pool and removed halogen bulbs to save energy.

The Ice Cube Experiment

To justify his cold resistance, he uses an ice cube test: one wrapped in a towel melts slower. He concludes that layering clothes prevents heat loss rather than generating it. His heating threshold is 14°C; below that, he wears a wool hat.

The discussion shifted to hygiene. Some argue daily showers are unnecessary; others call it unhygienic. A historical note mentions Sándor Márai, who said bathing softened children. The debate remains open, contrasting modern norms with past practices.

Washing Machines, Water, and the Real Cost of Saving

Domestic savings get technical. Some wash clothes once a week; others face criticism for doing it four times. One participant fills the washer with just sheets, questioning the frequency. Another cleans winter covers monthly due to high energy costs.

Water usage is another front. One user notes municipalities charge a minimum fee regardless of use. Human consumption is only 20%, with industry and irrigation taking the rest. About 30% of network water is lost to leaks. The implicit conclusion: individual savings have a structural ceiling.

Savings That Don't Show on the Bill

Electricity is where amateur savers fail. One user calculates a kilowatt costs 15 cents, an LED bulb uses 10 watts, and running it for 12 hours a month costs 50 cents. The conclusion: charging a phone at work or using a dynamo flashlight saves nothing relevant. It saves only embarrassment.

The repeated criticism is about criteria, not economics. Moving from excess to voluntary misery isn't virtue but lack of personality. The middle ground is missing. If savings aren't invested or enjoyed, the effort only leads to living worse.

What to Do with Unspent Money?

The question arises frequently. One participant spends less than she earns, has an emergency fund, no debt, and invests the difference. Another quit the gym, shops at markets, and hunts for deals. A third admits spending on morning snacks he refuses to give up. Lonchafinismo isn't monolithic; each person draws their red line.

Work life is also affected. Many stopped using free time for work, leaving on time. With the same salary, they live better by cutting expenses. The underlying idea: savings reduce salary dependence. The less you need, the less you care about pay raises.

The Limit of the Joke

The original author admits his goal was also to make people laugh. "I hope my post helps someone or, at least, makes you laugh with me, not at me," he writes. He succeeds sometimes. The image of a man in a wool hat preparing rice at 13.5°C is both caricature and warning. Beneath the exaggeration lies an unanswered question: how much is savings and how much is antiestéticar?

The conversation ends without consensus. Some defend lonchafinismo as the only rational response to an exploitative system. Others argue that living this way isn't freedom but another form of slavery. The undisputed fact remains: he who spends less doesn't always have more, but almost always needs less.