so, the starting calorie counts of these items, in order, are:

avocado - 240

ice cream - 224

vector - 217

all bran - 150

soy milk - 130 

banana - 121

-------------------

mango - 60

strawberry - 48

kiwi - 45

flax - 37.4

yeast - 11.25

why not put them in the list as i clarify?

avocado

avocado is a highly versatile fruit that could contribute to the totals of many nutrients, even if it frequently gets upstaged, in the end, or at least for now. it's high calorie count is certainly a drawback. but, an accepted truth on my behalf is that b5 sources are high in fat, and this is amongst the best sources of b5. it is simply not clear how i would meet my b5 requirements should the amount of avocado be halved or otherwise reduced. as such, avocado must remain static at 2*75, all 240 calories and all.

i've also been weighing the avocados, and while the range runs from 65-105, 150 has been an acceptable low ball for two - because if i get one that's a little low, i can get one that's a bit bigger to balance it out.

so, the avocados are permanent, as they are.

end avocado calorie level - 240 

ice cream

the ice cream comes in at the next highest total calories, at 224. with the introduction of the avocado, i no longer need the saturated fat for absorption and other things. but, i still need it for the retinol & it's the only component for the natural b12, which i had to jump through a loop to get to.

x*.355 > .3 <----> x > .3/.355 = 0.84507042253. so, i could reduce it by 15% at the most.

200*.85 = 170, and i'm not even sure how to measure that.

maybe i should clarify how i even calculated that. i know that a 2 L container of ice cream lasts 10 days, from experience. so, the amount that i take, which is a heaping 2" scoop, and which is not otherwise measured, is just 2,000/10 = 200 ml. it's not a careful calculation at all, and there's a lot of variation around it.

so, i could reduce that by 15% on paper, but i don't expect i'd be any more careful about it, and i consequently don't really see the point. most of the time, it's probably somewhere in between, anyways. 

we'll leave this as it is, then.

end ice cream calorie level - 224 

vector

i had previously calculated the result of reducing the vector by 25%, but with the all bran in, this is a different game. what do i need the vector for? while it is a substantive source of many things, only a, b5, b7 & b15 would go under the requirements if i removed it altogether. 

for a, the maximum amount i can reduce it by is 6% of the rdi, which is a 40% reduction of the amount, leaving me with 60% of it. is this a good source of retinol? in truth, there aren't many choices for a vegetarian, even if the options are fairly good. i could boost soy milk, instead. let's carry through, first...

for b5, i could reduce it by 9% of the rdi, which is a 47% reduction. and, again - i could boost the soy to compensate for further reduction.

for b7, i could reduce it by 58% of the rdi, which is a 67% reduction in the amount of vector, leaving me with only 33% of it. if i removed the cereal entirely and doubled the soy milk instead, i would just barely get over 171%, but i'm relying on an estimate as well.

for b15, 

.136 + .3 + 1.05 + .375 + 2.048 + 1.21 + 129.6 + .217 = 134.936

165 - 134.936 = 30.064

30.04/93.5 = 32%

so, it seems like the minimum threshold is 35%, as boosting soy milk won't produce much extra betaine. 

that would force me to increase the soy by 50% to compensate for a & b5.

so, how many calories is that, now?

1) starting point: 130 + 217 = 347

2) ending point: 130*1.5 + .35*217 = 270.95

347 - 270.95 = 76.05

and, if i can find the light natura, that's even better.

so, that's the purpose of this update

1) reduce the vector to 35% of 55 g, which is 19.25 g. let's say 20, which is 36%.

2) increase the amount of soy to 375 ml from 250 ml, to compensate for a & b5, as well as for b7.

i was noticing that the meal was a little dry with the added all bran, so it's something i maybe wanted to do, anyways.

note that i made a mistake in the previous calculation, as i calculated the amount of all bran with milk. oops. that's a 50 calories saving, immediately.

total calories, for bowl with normal natura:

60+ 121+ 32*1.5+ 240 +61*.75+ 130*1.5 + 140*200/125 + 3*60/16 + (20/55)*217 + 100 +37.4 = 1161.30909091

....& for light natura:

60+ 121+ 32*1.5+ 240 +61*.75+ 60*1.5 + 140*200/125 + 3*60/16 + (20/55)*217 +100+37.4 = 1056.30909091

that's in my ideal range of around 1000.

so, i'm sending an email to natura, looking for distributors in windsor, and i'll order it from somewhere if i have to. those are the calorie savings i want, in the place i need them - the processed component.

i'm not a calorie counter, i'd rather remain active, but i want to get this right, too.

note that i retain the option to remove the vector altogether in favour of a further boost in soy milk & a boost in all-bran, but there are some reasons  - cost, enjoyment - why i'm being apprehensive about this. i still have enough vector to think it through. but, if i can find some light soy milk at cost, for example, i could switch it up.

i got the email back and natura claims minimal distribution in southwestern ontario. so, i'm going to make a request at the local grocery stores; for now, it looks like i'll have to order it from toronto. i've also asked about ordering it directly, and they said they won't do it. if i can save the markup cost by buying 100 at a time or something, it will make sense to take the vector out entirely. if i have to pay shipping costs, it will make sense to stick with the vector, at least for now.

so, here's my new, if somewhat temporary, calorie list:

avocado - 240

ice cream - 224

banana - 121

all bran - 100

soy milk - 90

vector - 79

-------------------

mango - 60

strawberry - 48

kiwi - 45

flax - 37.4

yeast - 11.25

===============

1055.65

i'm going to fill in the data first for the soy & vector and then look at the banana. i like bananas. but, how necessary is this?

one thing at a time.

vitamin a:

soy = 10*1.5 = 15%

vector = 15*20/55 = 5.45454545455 ---->5%

so, that's -5%.

r: 15 + 13 + 5 = 32

b1:

8*1.5 = 12  (+4)

20*20/55 = 7.27272727273--->7%   (-13)

===========

-9

32 + 12 + 155 + 7 + 60 = 266

b2:

25*1.5 = 37.5 (+12.5)

24*20/55 = 8.72727272727---->8.5% (-15.5)

=============================

-3

b3:

10*1.5 = 15% (+5)

36*(20/55) = 13.0909090909--->13% (-23)

======================

-18   (all fortified, which opens up space for later)

b4:

19.3*1.5 = 28.95

2.2*(20/55) = 0.8

(1.632 + 0.75 + 15.9 + 28.95 + 2.59325 + 49.38 + 0.8 + 1.44)/75 = 135%

so,  +11%

b5:

15*1.5 = 22.5 (+7.5)

19*20/55 = 6.90909090909--->7 (-12)

==========================

-4.5

b6:

6*1.5 = 9 (+3)

25*20/55 = 9 (-16)

====================

-13

b7:

9.984*1.5 = 14.976

(30*20/55)/35 = 31%

(.8 + 1.904 + 1.2 + 7.95 + 1.05 + 14.976 + 2.86 + 6.012 + 2.52)/35  = 1.12205714286---->112%

112 + 45 + 31 = 188

b8:

20.09*1.5 = 30.135

2.75*20/55 = 1

(99 + 19.5 + 69 + 102 + 30.135 + 9.9 + 14.85 + 1 + 98.64  + 13.65)/1000 = 0.457675--->45.5

so, that's a minor .5% boost.

b9:

i seem to have added this up incorrectly, last time. that's incredibly frustrating, given that the point was to double check. but, it demonstrates the value of having somebody else check your work for you.

6*1.5 = 9 <----n+3

34*20/55 = 12.3636363636 ----> 12 <-----f-22

============

t:-18

(43 + 27.2 + 36 + 122 + 18.75 + 5.5 + 6.09)/400 = 0.64635---->64.5%  (not 65, as stated - i'm rounding down.)

but, then i need to add the amount from the soy milk, which was 6 and is now 9. i skipped that, somehow.

so, n: 73.5

f is the cereals & yeast added up, which is 35.5 + 12 + 10 = 57.5.

that's then 131, which is less of a decrease.

if there's any more mistakes, let's hope i find them.

b12:

50*1.5 = 75%

0*20/55 = 0.

but, note that i still need the ice cream for the natural b12.

b13, 14: no change

b15:

2.048*1.5 = 3.072

93.5*20/55 = 34

(.136 + .3 + 1.05 + .375 + 3.072 + 1.21 + 34 + 129.6 + .217)/550 = 0.30901818181---->31%

yeah, you know, i want this a little higher. the vector numbers were always funny. i'm going to boost the all bran regardless, i think. next update...

b16:

61.44*1.5 = 92.16

10.45*20/55 = 3.8

(7.6 + 13.3 + 8.55 + 21.3 + 5.85 + 92.16 + 28.6 + 12.3 + 3.8 + 17.64 + 5.51)/550 = 0.39383636363----> 39%

b20:

.14*1.5 = .21

.825*20/55 = .3

c

0*1.5 = 0

25*20/55 = 9.09090909091---->9%

d

45*1.5 = 67.5

6*20/55 = 2.18181818182--->2%

e

36*20/55 = 13

f1:

note that i'm swapping out the normal for the light.

1.4*1.5 = 2.1

1.2*20/55 = 0.43636363636--->.44

f2:

.2*1.5 = .3

.2*20/55 = 0.07272727272--->.073

the ratio comes down to 2.66.

k: 

7.68*1.5 = 11.52

.546*20/55 = 0.19854545454---->.198

that comes in at 70 - which is a max for me.

so, we'll move to the next item, next.

disclaimer:

i've gone to town with a few things - i'm not making up vitamins but rather filling things in. i mean, there's all these "missing vitamin names". what were they, exactly? it also gives me an excuse to work in a few things like choline that are hard to otherwise define as they are essential in some amount but not technically vitamins.

note that these numbers are scavenged and should be interpreted approximately. that's partly why i'm aiming to overshoot on most of it.

	fruit bowl (12:00)												pasta salad bowl (20:00)										fried eggs (4:00)							coffee
	man go raw cut 1 100 g	ban ana raw cut 1 136 g	str awb err ies raw cut 5-8 150 g	avo cdo raw cut 2* 75 g	kiwi raw cut 1 75 g	van soy milk 1.5 cups 375 ml	che rry ice crm 1 big scp 200 ml	nut yst 1 med tsp 3 g	fort crl 1/3 cup 20 g	all bran 1/2 cup 36 g	grd flax seed 1 tbsp 7 g	sum	red pep per raw cut 1 200 g	dur um wht fet 55 g + h20	med chd chs raw cut 60 g	car rot raw cut 1 110 g	beet raw cut 1 82 g	hull hemp seed 1 tbsp 10 g	yog urt	nut yst 1 med tsp 3 g	lime raw cut with pith 1 67 g	sum	frd egg 2* 70 g	med chd chs raw slic 30 g	mar gar ine 2 tsp 10 g	whl wht brd w/ grm + flax raw 1 s 37 g	nut yst 1 sml tsp 2 g	jce typ grp frt 250 ml	sum	brw cof fee 700 ml	chc soy mlk 100 ml	sum	total	ul
raison d'etre	b5,8 b9 b20 c	b5 b16 b20 c	b5 c	b3,5 b7,9 b16 b20 c,e f1 k	b5,8 b20 c k	a b3,4 b5,7 b9, 12 b15,16 b20 d f1,f2	a b5,7 b12 b13 b16 b20	b1,2 b3,4 b6,7 b9 b12 b20	a b3,5 b7,9 b15 b20 e	b3,5 b7,8 b9 b15 b16 b20 f1	b7 f2		b3,4 b8,9 c	b3,8 b9	a b12 b13	a b3	b9 b15	b3 o-3	b5 b12 b16 d	b1,2 b3,4 b6,8 b9 b12	b8		a b2,7 b12 b16 d	a b12 b13	d	o-3	b2,7 b12	c		caf fei ne
calories	60	121	48	240	45	90	224	11.25	79	100	37.4	1055.65	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
a retinol (900 μg rae)	54 μg	4.08 μg	1.5 μg	10.5 μg	3 μg	15 %	13 %	0	~ 5 %	0	0	41 r:33 c:8	314 μg	~ 1.15 μg	30 %	918.5 μg	1.64 μg	0	-	0	1.34 μg	167 r:30 c:137	r:29 % c:6.9 μg	15 %	10 %	0	0	-	55 r:54 c:1	0	4 %	4 r:4 c:0	267 r:121 c:146	r:300 c:-
b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	.028 mg	.042 mg	.036 mg	0.1 mg	.02025 mg	12 %	.0451 mg	~ 155 %	~ 7 %	60 %	.115 mg	266 u:32	.108 mg	~ 46 %	.0174 mg	.0726 mg	.025 mg	.1275 mg		~ 155 %	.02 mg	232 u:31	0.06 mg	.0087 mg	0	10.5 %	~ 103 %	-	119 u:5.5	0.1 mg	3 %	11 u:8	628	-
b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	.038 mg	.099 mg	.033 mg	.195 mg	.01875 mg	37.5 %	.264 mg	~ 144 %	~ 8.5 %	10 %	.011 mg	250.5 u:50.5	.17 mg	~ 22.5 %	.2568 mg	.0638 mg	.033 mg	.0285 mg	-	~ 144 %	.013 mg	209.5 u:43	.684 mg	.1284 mg	0	3 %	~ 96 %	-	161.5 u:62.5	.54 mg	10 %	51.5 u:41.5	673	-
b3 niacin (16 mg)	.669 mg	.904 mg	.579 mg	2.61 mg	.25575 mg	15 %	.1276 mg	~ 65 %	~ 13 %	25 %	.216 mg	151.5 n:33.5 f:118	1.958 mg	~ 36 %	.0354 mg	1.0813 mg	.274 mg	0.92 mg	-	~ 65 %	.134 mg	128.5 n:27.5 f:101	.114 mg	.0177 mg	0	6.5 %	~ 43 %	-	50.5 n:1 f:49.5	1.36 mg	4 %	12.5 n:8.5 f:4	343 n:70.5 f:272.5	f:200 each
b4* adenine (75 mg)	?	1.632 mg	0.75 mg	15.9 mg	?	28.95 mg	2.59325 mg	49.38 mg	0.8 mg	1.44 mg	?	135	31.8 mg	2.2 mg	4.92 mg	0.77 mg	?	?	-	49.38 mg	?	119	2.24 mg	2.46 mg	0	4.514 mg	32.92 mg	-	56	?	7.7 mg	10	320	-
b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	.197 mg	.454 mg	.1875 mg	2.08 mg	.13725 mg	22.5 %	.6391 mg	2.25 %	~ 7 %	8 %	.069 mg	114.5 u:75	.634 mg	.23705 mg	.246 mg	.3003 mg	.127 mg	.056 mg		2.25 %	.145 mg	37 u:35	2.292 mg	0.123 mg	0	5 %	1.5 %	-	54.5 u:48	1.808 mg	6 %	42 u:36	248	-
b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	.119 mg	.499 mg	.0705 mg	.386 mg	.04725 mg	9 %	.0528 mg	~ 133 %	~ 9 %	10 %	.033 mg	232 u:71	.582 mg	.0781 mg	.0396 mg	.1518 mg	.055 mg	.06 mg		~ 133 %	.029 mg	191.5 u:58.5	.255 mg	.0198 mg	0	3.5 %	~ 88 %	-	107.5 u:16	~ 0	2 %	2	533	5882
b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	.8 μg	1.904 μg	1.2 μg	7.95 μg	1.05 μg	14.976 μg	2.86 μg	45 %	~ 31 %	6.012 μg	2.52 μg	188 u:112	6.6 μg	.22 μg	1.038 μg	5.5 μg	~ 0 μg	2.73 μg		45 %	.335 μg	92 u:47	~ 58.33 μg	.519 μg	4.5474 μg	3 %	30 %	-	214 u:181	0	~ 11 %	11	505	-
b8* inositol (1000 mg)	99 mg	0 mg	19.5 mg	69 mg	102 mg	30.135 mg	9.9 mg	14.85 mg	1 mg	98.64 mg	13.65 mg	45.5	114 mg	41.25 mg	5.4 mg	13.2 mg	9.84 mg	-		14.85 mg	129.98 mg	33	12.6 mg	2.7 mg	~ 16 mg	52.54 mg	9.9 mg	-	9	-	-	~ 0	87.5	-
b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	43 μg	27.2 μg	36 μg	122 μg	18.75 μg	n:9 f:0 %	5.5 μg	~ 35.5 %	~ 12 %	10 %	6.09 μg	131 n:73.5 f:57.5	92 μg	~ 39 %	16.2 μg	20.9 μg	89.4 μg	1.1 μg		~ 35.5 %	5.36 μg	130.5 n:56 f:74.5	70.5 μg	18.1 μg	0	5 %	~ 23.5 %	-	48 n:24.5 f:23.5	3.5 %	2.5 %	6 n:6 f:0	315.5 n:160 f:155.5	f:400
b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	75 %	.858 μg	187.5 %	0	0	0	298 n:35.5 f:262.5	0	0	.66 μg	0	0	0	-	187.5 %	0	215 n:27.5 f:187.5	1.338 μg	.33 μg	0	0	125 %	-	194.5 n:69.5 f:125	0	20 %	20 n:0 f:20	727.5 n:132.5 f:595	-
b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	~ 17 mg	-	-	-	-	170	-	-	~ 37 mg	-	-	-	>	-	-	370	-	~ 18 mg	-	-	-	-	180	-	-	-	720
b14* taurine (100 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.09 mg	0	0	0	0	6.5	0	0	0	0	0	-	~ 5 mg	0	-	-	0	0	>0	0	0	0	-	0	>0	-	-
b15* betaine (550 mg)	0 mg	.136 mg	.3 mg	1.05 mg	.375 mg	3.072 mg	1.21 mg	0	34 mg	129.6 mg	.217 mg	31	.2 mg	77 mg	.42 mg	.44 mg	106 mg	-	-	0	.088 mg	33	.414 mg	.21 mg	.01 mg	~ 74.522 mg	0	-	13.5	.7 mg	.8 mg	0	77.5
b16* choline (550 mg)	7.6 mg	13.3 mg	8.55 mg	21.3 mg	5.85 mg	92.16 mg	28.6 mg	12.3 mg	3.8 mg	17.64 mg	5.51 mg	39	11.2 mg	8.25 mg	9.9 mg	9.68 mg	4.92 mg	-	-	12.3 mg	3.42 mg	11	438 mg	4.95 mg	1.1 mg	9.99 mg	8.2 mg	-	84	18.52 mg	24.576 mg	8	142	200
b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	.8 mg	.272 mg	0 mg	1.95 mg	.15 mg	.21 mg	4.4 mg	.072 mg	.3 mg	.72 mg	.0357 mg	31	?	.43175 mg	2 mg	.44 mg	~ 0 mg	?	~ 12.2 mg	.07335 mg	?	-->	.56 mg	1 mg	.105 mg	.2997 mg	.0489 mg	-	-->	~ 0 mg	~ 0 mg	-->	92	t:162 < 35 each
c ascorbate (90 mg)	36.4 mg	11.8 mg	88.2 mg	15 mg	69.525 mg	0 %	0 %	0 %	~ 9 %	0 %	.042 mg	254.5 u:245.5	255.4 mg	0 %	0 %	6.49 mg	4.02 mg	0.05 mg	-	0	19.5 mg	317 (all u)	0	0	0	0	0		0	0	0	0	571.5	-
d calciferol (15 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	d2: 67.5 %	d3: .22 μg	0	d3: ~ 2 %	0	0	71 u:1.5 d2:67.5 d3:3.5	0	0	d3: .36 μg	0	0	0		?	0	2 u:2 d2:0 d3:2	d3: 3.03 μg	d3: .18 μg	d3: 30 %	0	0	-	51 u:21 d2:0 d3:51	0	d2: 18 %	18 u:0 d2:18 d3:0	142 d2:85.5 d3:56.5	666
e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	.9 mg	.136 mg	.435 mg	3.1 mg	1.095 mg	0 mg	.33 mg	0 mg	~ 13 %	.432 mg	0.022 mg	56 u:43	13	1	1	2	.033 mg	7	-	0	.22 mg	24	9	.5	20	1.5	0		31	0	0	0	111	6666
f1* linoleic acid omega-6 (17 mg)	.014 g	.0626 g	.135 g	2.534 g	.1845 g	2.1 g	.3025 g	0	~ .44 g	.7056 g	.414 g	6.8922 g 40.5%	.0738	.540	.3462	.0828	-	2.87	-	0	-	3.9128	3.23	.1731	1.5	.5	0	-	5.4031	~0	.8	.8	16.45
f2* alpha linolenic acid omega-3 (1.6 mg)	.037 g	.0367 g	.0975 g	.165 g	.0315 g	.3 g	.1958 g	0	~ .073 g	.054 g	1.597 g	2.5875 g 161.5 %	.041	.024	.219	.0014	-	.93	-	0	-	1.2154	.228	.1095	.5	.75	0	-	1.5875	~0	.12	.12	5.45
f1:f2 ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2.66	-	-	-	-	-	-	2:1	-	-	3.22	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.40	-	-	-	3.02	4:1
k (fat sol) (120 μg)	4.2 μg	.68 μg	3.3 μg	31.5 μg	30.225 μg	11.52 μg	.33 μg	0	~ .198 μg	1.872 μg	.301 μg	70	10	1	1	12	-	0	-	0	-	24	9	.5	10	.5	0	-	20	0	2	2	101	<70 each
q1* coenzyme q10 (mg) (30 mg)	-	.272	.075	-	.0375	.625	.0308	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
q2* pyrrolo quinoline  quinone (mu-g)	-	3.536	-	-	2.025	.063	.2101	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
s* salicylic acid (mg)	-	~0	~1	-	~ 0.375	~0	~0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

* not really.

complete requirements

- a: 120% of pre-formed + 100% of convertible rae, total daily. 30% + pre-formed per meal. <300% pre-formed, daily.

- b1 (thiamin): 125% w/ each meal. no upper limit..

- b2 (riboflavin): 131% w/ each meal. no upper limit.

- b3 (niacin): 125% w/ each meal, but not more than 200% in fortified sources.

- *b4 (adenine): 75 mg w/ each meal. excess (ie carnivore diet) could potentially trigger gout, not of concern to myself.

- b5 (pantothenic acid): 110% w/ each meal. no upper limit.

- b6 (pyridoxine complex): 118% w/ each meal. no meaningful upper limit - it's set at 5882% of the rdi.

- b7 (biotin): 171% w/ each meal, with 857% total as a goal. no upper limit.

- *b8 (inositol): 300 mg w/each meal, 1200 mg total. no upper limit.

- b9 (folic acid): 100% w/each meal, but not more than 400% from fortified sources, per day.

- b12(cobalamin): 250% w/each meal, including 30+% pre-formed w/each meal. 120% pre-formed per day.

- *b13 (orotic acid): 10 mg w/ each meal

- *b14 (taurine): 30 mg w/ each meal, 120 mg total <----subject to review, may opt for 120 total, in the end.

- *b15 (betaine): 165 mg w/ each meal, 660 mg total

- *b16 (choline): 30% + per meal, 120% total

- *b20 (l-carnitine): at least 29 mg per day total, but no more than 47 mg per day. < 10 mg/meal, ideally.

- c (ascorbic acid): 234% w/ each meal, 700% total.

- d (calciferol): 40% + per meal, 150% total. 120%+ d3, total.

- e (alpha-tocopherol): 30% + per meal, 120% total

- f1 (omega-6s):

- f2 (omega-3s): 

- k: 30% + per meal, should not exceed 70%/meal, >120% & <200% total

incomplete requirements legend:

>300% without meeting 100%/meal

+75<=100% each meal    [=+200%<=300% total]

+50<=75% each meal   [=+100<=200% total] 

<=50% each meal    [<100% total]

specific brands used:

- natura vanilla soy milk (light)

- chapman's black cherry ice cream

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- kellogg's vector cereal

- kellogg's all bran original cereal

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- selection brand pasta [metro/food basics]

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- irrestibles brand olive canola oil [metro/food basics]

- dempster's whole grain double flax bread

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- natura chocolate soy milk

- no specific brand or type of coffee

diet options:

daily:

- algae oil for dpa/eha.

 2 ) pasta salad bowl:

- yogurt is high in b5 and b8 and b12 and choline and d.

- one tbsp of imitation bacon bits (isoflavones, maybe)

- garlic cloves (probably for phytonutrients)

- oregano & pepper (probably for phytonutrients)

- red clover (if locatable or foragable, for phytoestrogens)

- alfafa?

- rice bran is similar to sunflower in b5, but lower in omega-6 and lower in choline. also, less e. it would be better if i find myself strictly concerned about b5, but in the pasta bowl. this seems unlikely.

- dried whey is a little lower in both b5 & higher in choline, but also has a little b12 & has almost no fat. it's almost like the missing part of the yeast. i'm having trouble finding it though and don't think the isolate available at bulk barn is comparable. it seems to be largely seen as a waste product in yogurt production. it may be broadly useful across plates.

3) eggs:
- salami (45 g) (25% b1, 12% b3, 5% b5, 11.5% b6, 0% b9, 20% b12)

- rice (100 g) (60% b1, 35% b3, 4% b5, 6% b6, 69% b9)

- soy meat () <----only choice, really

- orange juice (1 cup) (15% b1, 4% b2, 5% b3, 5% b5, 5% b6, 19% b9, 207% c, added e?)

- grapefruit juice is high in inositol

- cranberry juice (unsweetened. need added c, has e)

- tomato juice

need: 6% b1, 75% b3, 45% b4, 65% b5, 15% b6, 25% b8, 55% b9, 60% b12, 10% k

==========

remaining items to enter or investigate:

15 amino acids:

1) histidine
2) isoleucine
3) leucine
4) lysine
5) methionine
6) phenylalanine
7) threonine
8) tryptophan
9) valine
10) arginine
11) cysteine
12) glycine
13) glutamine
14) proline
15) tyrosine
+ measure 6 non-essential

4 fatty acids:
1) linoleic acid
2) ala
3) dha
4) epa

23 minerals:
1) calcium
2) phosphorus
3) potassium
4) sulfur
5) sodium
6) chlorine
7) magnesium
8) iron
9) zinc
10) copper
11) manganese
12) iodine
13) selenium
14) molybdenum
15) chromium
16) fluoride
17) bromine
18) cobalt
19) tin
20) vanadium
21) silicon
22) boron
23) nickel
24) lead?

carotenoids (not including pro-vitamin a)
1) lutein
2) zeaxanthin
3) lycopene
4) phytofluene
5) phytoene
6) astaxanthin
7) capsanthin
8) canthaxanthin
9) cryptoxanthin

chlorophyll:
1) chlorophyll a
2) chlorophyll b

other molecules required for proper metabolic functions:
3) lipoic acid
4) glutathione precursors
5) ergothioneine  (cannot synthesize)   <-----mushrooms

10) creatine? (avoidance? creatine increases muscle mass (which is bad.) but also improves brain function (which is good). careful.) 

glucose:
i'm more concerned about diabetes than weight gain, so...
the glycemic index is:
running total...

fiber:
i don't need many different types, i just need some. i'm not worrying about this.

& water

also, let's measure flavonoids:

anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin

flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide

flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin

flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin

isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin

i should try to measure some further phytoestrogens:
1) matairesinol
2) secoisolariciresinol
3) pinoresinol
4) lariciresinol

5) coumestrol

& finally, let's also measure:
1) saponins
2) ursolic acid (& precursors)
3) cafestol
4) resveratrol
5) ellagic acid
6) coumarin
7) tyrosol
8) hydroxytyrosol
9) oleocanthal
10) oleuropein
11) gingerol
12) phytic acid

i post this in solidarity with the right side of the debate.

and, if you're upset about it, or sympathetic to those that are, then you are wrong - and you must be defeated.

it's hard to know how to react to the situation in france - but it is a warning to other oecd countries, including this one, about the ramifications of too-generous immigration policies pertaining to people from that part of the world. there is a sizeable percentage of them that don't want to fit in, and don't want to assimilate, but rather want to convert us all to their backwards belief system.

i will reiterate my solidarity with the people of france and reassert the importance of not moving an inch, of not even considering it - of standing firm in the right to free expression, regardless of whether anybody takes offence. there is no ambiguity here - france is absolutely correct, and the muslim world is absolutely wrong.

these principles are important. they form the basis of western culture; they are worth fighting for. so, if they want a war, we'll have to have one.

as it is, i want to treat the issue as one of criminality, first and foremost. the french should be viewing this as a specific type of gang violence, and taking steps to clean up the streets. and, that might mean mass arrests, and it would be hard to criticize them for it, if they take that path. 

so, i will call for due process, but i recognize the need for serious action and the unfortunate likelihood that some innocent people may need to spend some time in custody for the benefit of the greater good.

and, btw...

there is no cabal.

see, i don't have a slave morality. sorry.

so, if i actually thought that white people were dominant everywhere throughout history, then a different truth would be self-evident - white people would clearly be a superior race. the evidence would present that as an empirical fact, and that would be the end of it.

but, it's not actually true, though - history demonstrates that no one race is more likely to assert dominance over any other for any substantive period of time, that subjugation always leads to revolt and that migration is essentially always a violent process full of conflict, not a peaceful one full of integration.

actually, one of the criticisms i have of critical race theory is that it is essentially an argument for white supremacism, and that argument isn't upheld by history.

now, i don't want to put words into the mouth of thoughtful people like angela davis that can speak for themselves. but, something you often hear from advocates of her theory, or of foucauldianism in broader generality, is that there's this consistent historical reality that white people are at the top of the hierarchy, everywhere, throughout history.

you hear the same thing from this specific breed of feminist that overlaps into foucauldianism - they argue that patriarchy is everywhere, and nothing except it has ever existed. so, they align with advocates of christian patriarchy, like colin renfrew, in loudly denouncing the evidence against it, despite it being rather overwhelming. 

why do you think women have to cover themselves up in the middle east, anyways? have you ever looked that up? and, the answer is that it's a remnant of the fertility cults, which actually lasted in the culturally stagnant areas of arabia longer than they did elsewhere, as those areas were protected from invasion by the desert. the arab women of deep antiquity were sorceresses, prostitutes, magicians - and their bodies were the source of their power. they were covered up to take away their strength. and, don't let the muslim revisionists lie to you about it.

but, let's think that through. 

if it were actually true that white people (and white men.) have been at the top of the hierarchy in every society that's ever existed, what is the empirical deduction to draw from such an observation? we take certain truths as self-evident, but that relies on the evidence upholding them; if that were really true, always, through history, it would have an obvious conclusion, wouldn't it?

as an advocate of egalitarianism, then, it actually falls on the historian to demonstrate counter-examples, to show that there have been periods of history where the white men were getting slaughtered. but, the key is not to demand grievances for it, but to present it as evidence for the actual equality of the races - which science has shown isn't even a real thing.

so, i tend to bristle against these ideas that only white people are guilty of imperialism, genocide or war. that's not racism in reverse, it's internalized racism - it's a literal statement of the dominance and superiority of white skin. but, thankfully, history demonstrates that it is wrong, that white cultures are just as vulnerable to replacement as any other.

and, that should have implications for people that think carefully.

it's important that western leaders fully understand the situation in it's historical context, before they make rash decisions regarding contemporary alliances.

when the russians offer their protection to the armenians, there is a good reason for it, and they should not be discouraged from doing so.

so, if the armenians are the actual indigenous group in the region, why are they trapped into such a small enclave?

the answer is that they weren't, always - and that there were many more of them in the region, until relatively recently.

what happened was an event called the armenian genocide, in which the kurds & turks ganged up on them to wipe them out, along with greeks, assyrians, jews and other non-muslim people in the area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

i mentioned that the sumerians looked like they came from the north...

they were a language isolate, which is usually how we figure these things out. so, we know they weren't indo-europeans (persians, greeks, russians), and we know they weren't semites (jews, assyrians, babylonians, arabs). further, all evidence is that the people we call akkadians were indigenous semites, and the sumerians were an invading class that came in from somewhere else. over time, the akkadians took over the society from the inside, and we have the historical period of ancient semitic rule, which was actually comparably short, following from that.

the persians came in after that, who were replaced by greeks and romans. it wasn't until the arabs came out of the desert that the region was re-semitized. and, as mentioned, the mongol invasions were vicious - the turks came in not long after, and are a dominant genetic contributor in the region, to this day.

so, semitic rule north of the desert has occurred from time to time, but it is by no means the historical norm. it has generally been short-lived, compared to the longer indo-europeans and turkic periods of rule. nor is it correct to argue that the areas to the north of the desert have semitic indigenous populations, as most of these areas actually don't.

so, it's not weird to point out that the sumerians sure looked white, as we state with clear certainty that they were not semites. the caucasian groups are thought to have been there, just to the north, since the ice age. it's not hard to put together a migration hypothesis, of some caucasian language isolate moving south.

but, the sumerians.....their art is hard to put in context. they really don't look like much of anybody at all, making you really wonder.

what does this person look like, to you?

that person doesn't look very semitic or very dravidian, that's for sure....although i am sympathetic to elamo-dravidian, even as i am not to sumero-dravidian. i suspect the migration flowed into india, though, and not out of it. it doesn't help us understand sumerian origins.

do they look libyan? not particularly.

that person looks slavic, to me - russian, czech. maybe even east german. 

or, how about this:

they almost look irish, don't they? but, they look kind of weird, really - unique. white, though.

this is another weird statue that looks almost british, but also looks kinda amphibious, eh?

you'll tell me i'm looking too much into it, and i'll agree to a point:

1) you can't discard the evidence outright. they clearly look white.

2) do you have a better idea? and pause before you start - i've read some of them, and don't think they're actually very good ideas.

we have this subconscious bias in western science, that we don't want to stray too far from the bible. consider the charlatan colin renfrew, for example, who built a ridiculous theory to replace the gimbutas theory that is basically just the tower of babel - and that it took decades to fully debunk and throw away. so, it's hard to imagine that the people of the flood might not have been "jews", but might have been....white.

but, we must always follow the evidence.

and, it's clear enough to me that the sumerians came from the caucusus, which us how they ended up as a language isolate.