so, i'm going to try the sunflower seeds just a half-hour before the fruit bowl this time and see what happens.

we're going to make sure that donald trump's twitter feed is archived somewhere for historical record-keeping before we let twitter delete it, right?

that's his presidential library. it must be preserved.

if they have the votes, they should go ahead and impeach trump, now. sure. the election's been run, whatever that really means, nowadays. i have no principled objection to interfering with the will of the voters; they technically have a mandate to do it, even, i'd suggest. 

it's largely meaningless, but at this point, whatever - he wants to put on a show, go ahead and play along.

the left tells itself the lie that the populist movement was rooted in purer ideals and the way to win votes in the rural midwest is to refocus on those purer ideals, which are the ideals of the left.

if it was honest with itself, it would realize that the democratic policy in the south was always deeply racialized, and that the republican tactics in the south, post-nixon, are in truth exactly the same as the democratic tactics in the south during the late 19th century. the existing concept of a pan-racial working class is simply an anachronism when applied to that stage in history, and trying to see ourselves in any movement of the era is consequently almost impossible.

can we start looking forwards some time soon?

i think you need to understand the curfew as essentially a hefty tax. see, they could raise corporate taxes or something, but that's heretical to the prevailing neo-liberal dogma, which is that the middle class needs to pay all of the taxes. so, you'll get tracked down and acosted for a tax donation for the crime of walking your dog after dark. the real crime is making yourself available to be taxed; it's like declaring open war on the citizenry, decreeing that anybody who gets captured by the government's agents has to pay the tribute. 'cause they need the cash.

so, realizing that, what do you do?

you want to disobey. that's the natural reaction to a bullshit law; you ignore it. but, by doing so, you're just giving them what they want - a tax revenue source.

if enough people get together and say "no", it will crumble. but even relatively large protests are just a great revenue source, for the state.

one way to beat the curfew, i guess, is to start everything before dark, and then let it go late, until the morning.

i bet quebec's going to pull in a lot of lost revenue as a result of fines levied as a result of the curfew. how long before there's riots in montreal?

i'm torn between advocating for mass disobedience and telling you to avoid giving the cops such an easy opportunity to exceed their quotas.

i don't expect that montrealers will react well to this.

DragonSlave49

Ok what does Jen Pan think Populism is? I have never found any populism that did not support totalitarianism instrumental to their ends. Even if those ends are some form of Democratic society, the immediate goal of populism is never Democratic expression.

deathtokoalas

almost every expression of populism, going back to the roman period, has been reactionary. that, i might argue, is actually a defining characteristic of populism, that the movement is intrinsically rooted in a desire to undo the injustice of the present and instead reconstruct something that existed in the past, which is always seen as superior. the mass of people is consistently a barrier, rather than an enacter, of change, which just demonstrates the importance of mass consent for the viability of any movement. that's not to argue for a vanguard, exactly, as mass consent is still necessary to enact meaningful change, so much as to remind everybody that the process of building consent is continual, and constant outreach is perpetually necessary. people, if left unagitated, will drift towards conservatism, and populism is the consequence of allowing that to happen.

head crusher

Read "The People, No" by Thomas  Frank. True populism represents the economic interests of the working class and, as such, is reliably detested and rejected by the upper classes .  Populism is neither left nor right, and is necessarily the opposite of totalitarianism. 

Trump was elected to the most powerful office in the world. His victory  happened thanks to the Electoral College, an anti-populist instrument from long ago, but this irony quickly receded into the background. Although Trump had not actually won over a majority of the people, the Democracy Scare(the idea that regular people have too much democracy) developed into a kind of hysteria. Across the world panels and convenings and academic elites dedicated themselves to analyzing and theorizing and worrying about this falsely labeled right wing populism.

An example of real populism in America.In the 1880s,  farmers started signing up by the millions for a cooperative movement called the Farmers’ Alliance. To such people the Alliance made a simple proposition: let’s find out why we are being ruined, and then let’s get together and do something about it. Southern White democrats and Northern black republican farmers and many more joined the Farmers Alliance. The formed a polical party that united under the banner of The Peoples Party, and  coined the term "populist" to describe members of there movement. At the time of its premiere, “populist” was a term without ambiguity. It referred to economic radicals like Leopold and Henry Vincent, the two brothers who ran the American Nonconformist. Populists were those who supported a specific list of reforms designed to take power away from “the plutocrats” while advancing what the Vincent brothers called “the rights and needs, the interests and welfare of the people.” In the same issue of the paper, the Nonconformist spelled out the grievances of the People’s Party: it protested poverty, unbearable debt, monopoly, and corruption, and it looked ahead to the day when these were ended by the political actions of the people themselves.

Where are we now? 2021

Without true economic populism as a central component of the Democratic message, much of modern liberalism, according to Frank, amounts to what he characterizes as “scolding.” For example, scolding Trump voters for being bad, ignorant, unenlightened people. Scolding the left for failing to adhere to the liberal consensus that political change, if it can happen at all, must happen only gradually and in ways that do not threaten the wealthy or the powerful. 

The totalitarianism of Trump or Obama is not populism.  Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer and the Squad eating icecream and explaining why we can’t really change much of anything is as dangerous in the long term as right wing anti-elite faux populism. It only delays the inevitable: more phony anti-elitism posing as populism from the right, and further erosion of whatever remains in this political system and government that is worth saving.

deathtokoalas

that history is horribly whitewashed and broadly flat out wrong in terms of assigning motives to the various actors. frank is a cheerleader for the fake left, a talking head on tv and not a reliable source of accurate historical information. i'll leave it at that.

the way you're marketing populism is very fitting, though; once upon time, many years ago, in a purer time than exists today, america had a real left

it's fundamentally what populism is - a conservative yearning for the past. always was. and, it's why the kind of "leftists" that are attracted to the concept of populism are also the kind that dabble in the left when they're young because they're attracted to the idea of community, without holding many actual left-wing ideological positions, and end up religious conservatives in the end, once they realize that what they're really looking for is on the right.

one way that they misconstrue the history is by presenting it as a coalition of black and white farmers. in fact, while the various unions did align on various issues, the unions were segregated, and there was a distinct tension between the northern union and the southern union, which refused to integrate, as well. so, by presenting this history as a broad "populist movement", the idea of a common front is established - and that obscures the actual history of a series of racially segregated groups that, while sometimes working together over class interests, also had very viciously competitive streaks, which were very much rooted in ethnic allegiances. it's not an exaggeration to label that a lie.

my point is simply this: if the premise is that trumpism is fundamentally different than 19th century populism, i think that premise needs to be revisited. while there are certainly striking differences between trumpism and 19th century populism, the overwhelming similarities really tip the balance. if we maybe like the economic ideas of the 19th century populists a bit better, or feel they were rooted in a more honest place of middle class reform, we shouldn't allow that to blind us to the similar shape of the electorate during both periods, and maybe question with some sobriety what a william jennings bryan presidency would've really been like. further, i'm just uncomfortable with the idea that the actual population control measures brought in by the descendants of the populists, and out of populist ideological origins, are somehow irrelevant, while stupid red hats are the mark of the devil; that seems utterly backwards. trump accomplished nothing; look up what harry laughlin did in california. that balance is bizarre. rather, we should recognize the white supremacist continuity in thought throughout the history of populism (and progressivism) and condemn the whole thing from the start, from farmers in kansas rising up against the jewish usury to donald trump's fear-mongering around crime rates in immigrant communities.

head crusher

thanks for your opinions.  You should  re-read Thomas Frank. He is not a "TV personality" or "cheerleader"of the left. Love him or hate him he is a serious writer that is highly critical of the left. He  cataloged the history of populism for many years,  until he began to write serious books about it.That  Thomas Frank has sparked our conversation is testament to  his value as a writer and historian, no? Thomas never takes a nostalgic look at history, he takes a brutally honest look at American history, warts and all.  Racism, classism, elitism, its all there in his books. Thomas Frank teaches us to move forward, recognize our mistakes and learn from them,  so that maybe we can create a better existence for all.

I found my copy of "The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism

For you. Thomas Franks final thoughts on Populism.  I'll cosign these thoughts.

“THE LAST POINT I want to make is this: populism wins. Not only is populism the classic, all-American response to hierarchy and plutocracy, but it is also the naturally dominant rhetorical element in our political tradition. I make this claim even though the Populists themselves didn’t get what they were after for many decades, even though the labor movement in the thirties never organized the South, even though Martin Luther King never saw the Freedom Budget enacted into law. Still, populism has a power that technocracy and liberal scolding and Trumpist bullshit do not because populism is deep in the grain of the democratic personality. Americans do not defer to their social superiors: we are natural-born egalitarians. Populism is the word that gets at our incurable itch to deflate pretentiousness of every description.”

Good night.

deathtokoalas

yeah, that's the false history that frank seems intent on writing for the purposes of erecting a creation myth for the fake left, alright. but, it's bullshit through and through. in fact, the farmer's alliance had major overlap with the kkk, and all the same trumpist bullshit was there in the populist movement from the start. sorry.

the leader of the populist party after 1904, thomas watson, once even formally called for the re-establishment of the kkk (which had been disbanded in 1871), in response to criticism about a lynching that occurred in georgia.

they even based their flags on the confederate flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_Alliance#/media/File:Farmers-Alliance-Banner.jpg

head crusher

thnx 4  the good info. I just Read Tom Watsons wikipedia.  The People's Party advocated the public ownership of the railroads, steamship lines, and telephone and telegraph systems. It also supported the free and unlimited coinage of silver, the abolition of national banks, a system of graduated income tax and the direct election of United States Senators. As a Populist, Watson tried to unite the agrarians across class lines, overcoming racial divides. He also supported the right of black men to vote. The failures of the Populists' attempt to make political progress through fusion tickets with the Democrats in 1896 and 1898 deeply affected Watson. 

Shifting racial views

Watson had long supported black enfranchisement in Georgia and throughout the South, as a basic tenet of his populist philosophy.[10] He condemned lynching and tried to protect black voters from lynch mobs. However, after 1900 his interpretation of populism shifted. He no longer viewed the populist movement as being racially inclusive. By 1904, he was engaged in attacks on blacks, believing them to be little more than pawns of the Democratic Party. By 1908, Watson identified as a white supremacist and ran as such during his presidential bid. He used his highly influential magazine and newspaper to launch vehement diatribes against blacks.

Tom Watson rebranded as a racist to fit in with the 20th century Democrat party.  That'd disgusting. It's also not much different than Joe Biden. Segregationist Joe Biden joined the Democrats by opposing federal busing. Jim Crow Joe Biden was mentored by KKK member Robert Byrd. 

Che Guevara   banned music, burned books, hated blacks, was an anti-semite, murdered those who disagreed with him, personally oversaw execution squads, and was in charge of a system that imprisoned gays solely for the crime of being gay. 

AOC and the Squad won't fight for Med4All during a pandemic. 

So many inconvenient truths. 

Goodnight.

deathtokoalas

but, we condemn authoritarian leftists like stalin and guevara pretty much reflexively. on the other hand, we jump through mental gymnastics to protect our leftist origin myth, in america. but, watson was the leader of the populist party in this period, so the idea that he was changed by the democrats isn't particularly convincing. he's ultimately just one example, but that kind of overlap was relatively common in the farmers alliance and you want to multiply that example by however many people to really understand what this movement was like, in the sense that it was a movement mostly dominated by white farmers that felt left out after the end of slavery. i hope the link to the confederate flag made it through the spam filter.

again: i'm just casting doubt on the idea that these old 19th century populists were less racist, less xenophobic and less imperialist than the existing trumpists. the reality is that they weren't, even if they supported some other policies that you or i may have had some broader agreement with. the xenophobia, the racism, the romanticized gaze towards the past - these are all fundamental characteristics of any incarnation of populism that's ever been.

head crusher

What will  future gens say about you me and everyone we know? There is no ideal "ism". There is a crack in everything.  That's how the light gets in.

deathtokoalas

well, that kind of thinking ought to lead to deductions of honesty in analysis, not in the erection of and adherence to myth, to cover the history up. i would hope that future generations can break me right the fuck down, and make light of my searing contradictions. that's how we figure shit out.

i'm going through and fixing up posts where i tried to post links that got censored. there was a link to the southern farmer's alliance's confederate flag  here, which is at the "farmer's alliance" wiki page. it's right there on the side. you can also look up "Sectionalism, Nationalism, And The Agrarian Revolt, 1877-1892" by benjamin houston turner purvis for more information on the white supremacist foundations of the populist movement, and the links between the farmer's alliance and the kkk.

so, now they storm the capitol.

fuck, we've been trying to get them to do that over substantive issues for years, and what manages to get them to actually do it? some kind of mass hypnosis by a bad con artist, sending out instructions via some alternate reality rpg. i bet if you did a careful analysis of the people involved in this protest, that is the commonality amongst them - they are all gamers. and, while not to tar the broader gaming community too viciously, although i don't care for it myself, that is no doubt the right way to understand what just happened.

is there a lesson there in trying to manipulate people? is the conscious use of gaming platform style "reality augmentation" a useful means of generating mass movements? and, if so, could the left develop a simulation that could actually succeed in sweeping them into power?

there might be, but it's not clear that such tactics would lead to sustainable shifts in how power is used. i mean, it just sounds like a formula for brutality. the fundamental problem on the left has always been that it's always been unpopular, which we delude ourselves into thinking is a fantasy by speaking of "popular movements". but, if we fucking wanted communism then we would have it. so, we insist that the social revolution must come first, because we simply can't have socialism unless we change how we think, first. brainwashing people using what is at it's core military training technology may be effective in generating armies, but it's not so clear that it will be effective in changing how people think.

...except that it might be, if it's written to be.

i'm bringing this up because the utility of the tool is a legitimate open question. everybody's talking about cyberwarfare as something foreign actors do. but, the left should be embracing it as a tool of insurrectionary change, as a way to organize people, both to influence how they behave and, perhaps more importantly, to influence how they think. 

if the next iteration of the republican party adopts these kinds of augmented reality game tactics as standard, the left will simply find itself at a tactical disadvantage should it disavow it's use. worse, the centre is pushing it's own augmented reality game with the russiagate thing. the question really ought to be about responsible use, rather than about use at all.

but, that's my takeaway, watching this - they got them to storm the capitol. finally. fuck.

you know, i've been scathing in my criticism of elizabeth warren's presidential run, but i'll concede she'd be a useful park in the attorney-general's position, as she'd have to actually implement some policy, or at least fail dramatically in doing so. she played nicely in the end, right? she should get a spot in cabinet?

and, what did we get for attorney-general?

merrick fucking garland.

i warned you about the return of merrick garland, i told you it was coming. you know he'd have been the pick for supreme court if they'd have managed to block the confirmation of amy coney barrett. but, it looks like they'll have to wait until another spot opens up, and they've parked him at attorney-general to wait for it.

continuity in governance provides confidence for the business community. stability ensures predictability. 

and, mitch?

go home.

it took me quite a bit of evasive manoeuvring around google, which has become such a barrier to finding information, but it turns out that schumer was re-elected democratic senate leader on nov 10, 2020.

so, it goes to schumer, automatically.

so, can bernie run for senate majority leader?

or does that automatically go to chuck schumer?

we had an intellectual revolution in the enlightenment that put aristotle in his place, and we should not be looking backwards in an attempt to undo that.

artistotle was the single biggest retarding force in the history of the west, as well. it's not exactly his fault, but he's not somebody you should look to for guidance, either - he was wrong about everything, including morality.

btw, kant was a fucking idiot. that fact needs to be stated before he's cited in any context, whatsoever. 

see, i couldn't be in deeper disagreement with something like this.

our elected representatives are not intended to be role models, or to be held to a higher standard. they're regular, normal people that we elect to represent our self-interests. this is a fundamentally right-wing way to approach this problem, that ordains a hierarchy in the state and assigns it special privileges. our system of government was designed to do away with this kind of thinking. there's consequently a deeply counter-revolutionary line of thinking embedded in this article.

i think that our elected representatives should be expected to follow proper quarantine procedures should they decide to travel. but, i don't think that we have a collective right to tell our elected officials what to do, and i think they retain s. 6 mobility rights, like every other individual in society.

the rule of law requires that government follow the same rules put in place by everybody else. but, that means setting clear rules and abiding by those clear rules. they have the right to clarity in the law, as well. if the law provides guidelines around travel, then following those guidelines is sufficient. i expect nothing more - but nothing less.

that is our history. that is our government. those are our laws. they come not from any religious book or system of moral guidance, but from the feeble minds of human beings. and, those human beings have rights like everybody else.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/philosophy-covid-travel-politicians-1.5862586

the romans were a pretty vicious civilization. i speak in turns about them in defense of the empire and in solidarity with their ruin; do we want to be really looking at these guys for inspiration, or what?

well, it's less about what you want to be and more about what you actually are, right? and, we're a product of the forces that shaped our history. rome is where we get our laws, our system of social organization and most of our actual culture, periodically interwoven over fragments of time; to an extent, that's the definition of "multiculturalism" in the broader west, just tolerance towards different stages and expressions of historical roman civilizations. it's inescapable.

so, i speak in terms of these broad civilizational struggles, but please understand that i do so solely observationally. like, i'm not picking a side, here. there's certain components of certain civilizations that i don't like, but i'm ultimately on the side of cultural evolution and greater convergence towards common understandings, based on broadly accepted concepts of basic human rights. i'll push hard for cultural change, but i don't want to wipe anybody out.

unless they're nazis. nazis need to go. sorry.

don't misinterpret my respect for russia's place in history with some kind of romanticization of it. i mean, i grasp what exists in russia, politically. i think vlad's been miscast, and he's really a force of stability, but i know he's a rough, mean guy. part of building a democracy exists in people generating an interest in democratic governance; you can't gift russia with something it's never really wanted. russia's gotta figure that out. and, the thing is that russia's actually pretty good at figuring that out, it just does so in a less centralized, more anarchistic sort of way. that's the trick of russia - beneath the authoritarian veneer, it's truly largely a lawless wasteland. people truly govern themselves, without much need for participating in a system of representation. this is the irony of russia's stunted development, now and a hundred years ago - it can't grapple with representative democracy because it's still mired in direct, tribal democracy, arguably a purer and more kinetic form of democracy. you just stay away from those mob bosses in the limos that stay in the palaces.

and, i'm hard on the muslims, but, fuck. they're awful. they gotta get better.

and, the chinese scare the hell out of me, but it's something that's resolvable with the right policies. they're only aggressive because it seems logical to them to be aggressive, which was perhaps a failure in broadcasting an approach, from our perspective. we should have perhaps been more culturally aware of the perception of weakness in asian societies, and been less oblivious to how weak we've been perceived, for how long. projecting some respectable strength is long overdue and the proper way to build a respectful relationship with an asian power. it's just how it is.

these groupings and forces are real things, and i'm just pointing them out - critically, and with opinions, but not rooting for or in support of any particular faction, except the abstract and post-national faction of the forces of the left.

i actually agree that it's likely that trump won georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes.

but, you'll never prove it - just like you'll never prove that he lost pennsylvania by hundreds of thousands of votes in 2016.

he got outcheated, and he got upstaged. the deep state likes the other guy better.

these races in georgia are both too close to predict and will likely be decided by realities on the ground.

jimmy doesn't know what the rule of law means. ahahahahaha.

the rule of law refers to the premise that the government is itself also bound by rules and must be held accountable to the law. this is widely misunderstood by plainly stupid people to refer to a law and order type agenda. but this is just simple ignorance of basic legal language. the rule of law is the basic idea underlying the historical process that produced parliamentary government, and a central tenet of any system of liberalism, in broad or general meaning.

btw, what do i think of the idea that assange can't go to jail in america because he's too retarded?

well, it's intriguing. assange didn't used to come off as autistic, but who knows what spending that much time alone can do to you. rather, it may be an example of a judge coming up with an excuse to avoid doing something she felt was unjust for other reasons. certainly, she didn't seem to agree with many of assange's arguments, or at least not in an official capacity.

this is such a strange fiasco, all around. there's certainly a history of the british state taking particularly hard lines on what it considers to be dissidents, and a resulting history of official state apologies, after the fact. assange may have been played for a fool, but to suggest it assigns him some kind of developmental disorder is perhaps stretching credulity. 

so, what do they do, now? do they assign him a social worker, and put him on disability? do they put him in a minimum security prison for the rest of his life? this is what they seem to want to do. but how long can the charade be upheld...?

again: i think it's better that mr. assange is out of the public focus. while there is a place for principled lawyerly critique and defenses of journalistic freedom, the reality is that no empire in the history of the world would have let him get away with that and that he had really become a liability, due to being played like a patsy. he really should have been more careful, and he had no exit strategy once he got caught, so it was just a matter of time. it's important that these arguments are made, but, at the same time, everybody is being delusional about the set of possible outcomes, here. 

so, what are my options?

- boost vector

- sunflower seeds

- almonds

- hazelnuts

- some kind of nut spread - hazelnut, peanut, almond, etc. look for high omega-3s, low sugar, etc.

the vector is probably the most nutritious, but it comes with a lot of calories. i may want to increase the amount, anyways, which would undo the reasons behind decreasing it. the sunflower seeds are probably the most cost effective, but it comes with a high omega-6 and i'm not sure if i'm allergic to it or not. the almonds & hazelnuts don't really have an upside besides making the math work. and, the nut spread would be the tastiest option - if i can find a healthy enough product that i want to commit to it.

so, let's work these ideas out.

option 1: boost vector

i'm deciding i need at least 15% more e in the fruit bowl. so, i'd want to triple the amount of vector cereal to get to that, which would increase the amount to 45 grams and put it on par with the all bran in terms of quantity. that would substantively increase the amounts of vitamin a (+9%), vitamin b5 (+14%), vitamin b7 (+42%), vitamin b9 (+30%) and vitamin b15 (+9%), as well. however, the omega-6 increase would not be enough to meet the new requirement of 50%. the cost increase would be $0.28, and the calorie increase would be 120.

option 2: sunflower seeds

15% is 2.25 mg. 35.17x = 2.25 <---> x = 2.25/35.17= 0.06397497867. so, 7 grams of sunflower seeds should be sufficient. a big teaspoon would be about 8 g. if i use data for dry kernels, that would contribute 2.8136 mg of vitamin e (+18.5%), 0% vitamin a, 1.5% vitamin b5, 18.25% vitamin b7, 4.5% vitamin b9 & .5% b15 increase. omega-6s would increase by 1.84 g, which would put the total around 49.5%. the calorie increase would be 46.72, while the cost would be $8.05/kg, which works out to 8.05*.008 = $0.0644.

the sunflower seeds dominate the nuts on e, so they're the preferable option if i can handle them, and i've done some shopping on spreads and come to the conclusion that they're just going to mix the nuts with flax or chia - and i'm just as well off doing it myself, and will save a lot of money if i do. so, we're down to two options.

the initial reason i brought in the sunflower seeds for the pasta bowl was actually to boost the b5, but i'm stepping away from that. the b5 data for sunflower seeds at the usda has dramatically different numbers for cooked and raw sunflower seeds in a way that doesn't make much sense to me; b5 degrades in heat, so the b5 numbers for roasted sunflower seeds should be less than the b5 numbers for dried sunflower seeds, and yet are upwards of 5-8x higher. when you go to the usda site instead of the self site, the usda doesn't show it's work in how it got to the higher numbers for roasted seeds, but does indicate that it's lower numbers for dried seeds are based on direct measurement (albeit only two measurements...). so, i'm left to speculate that the numbers for the higher measurement are potentially screwy. what that means is that the justification for sunflower seeds in the pasta bowl is now shifted to e, and i may decide i don't like the fatty acid ratio. but, that just means it's more important to boost both the and the b6 in the fruit bowl, if the pasta bowl ends up being the weak link.

further, the reason i cut the vector was that i want to keep the number of calories under 1000, and the new requirements mean i actually want them to be between 1000-1200. the acceptable cost of the item also increased to $6.00.

i'm going to consequently opt for a combination of the two options, i think. if i boost the vector by 150%, i'll get several more of the vitamins that should now have higher footprints, a few more calories and minimal increases in omega-6s. then, if i add a teaspoon of sunflower seeds, i should get up over the requirements for e, over the requirements for omega-6 and even get a nice shot of b7.

and, as i do so, i'm going to increase the amount for the fat solubles from 30% to 40%.

so, there's a big, total update coming. and, hopefully it's the last one.

so, i seem to have convinced myself that i kept the sunflower seeds down this time, despite there being some concerning rumblings. i have to label this test as inconclusive.

what i'll have to do is test it for a few days. and, if this trick of eating the sunflower seeds separately allows for better digestion then maybe i'll adopt it, long run. i dunno. for now, if it helps me get some extra vitamin e without throwing out a couple of kilograms of sunflower seeds...

but that's not the only consideration, here. let me do the math and see what makes more sense - trying to find a way to work nuts or seeds into the breakfast, or boosting the vector cereal by potentially as much as 200%.

etymological discussions are interesting and everything, but they're ultimately reconstructive guesswork, and you have to approach them with a large dose of skepticism. i'm more interested in looking at the issue from a comparative religions, syncretic studies or origin of religions type perspective, and tracing the influence of the amen cult on the obscured origins of hebrew religion is something that's well grounded. so, you can put up your etymological dissent if you must, but i find the premise of the maintenance of an amen chant through the ages to be the more convincing explanation as to why humans get together and sing this word in community with one another. i see no convincing reason why we would sing statements of affirmations to each other, but i see very good reasons why we would chant the name of the creator deity, as a form of sympathetic magic. it's just a question of looking at these two arguments and deciding which one is more compelling.

so, i mean, i don't have an answer for the critical linguists, other than to suggest there doesn't have to be one. these derivations are possible, but not necessary; there's no reason that reality has to conform to the tidy math. 

further, if you consider how the word would have ended up in the hebrew language if it was loaned from egyptian, a concept of transliteration is more likely than a conversion from hieroglyphs. so, pointing out that they have different starting letters isn't that convincing, if you consider the likelihood of transliteration in the loan process. i mean, these are the kinds of debates you have - the proposed etymology is a possibility, sure, but there's no causal implication around it, and if other evidence suggests otherwise then it's possibly just wrong, despite making absolute sense, as a deduction from the theory.

awoman is indeed silly.

the term "amen" likely entered hebrew from the egyptian, where it refers to the hybrid creator-fertility deity, which was also a sun god. this cult was preferred by a specific pharoah, which gave it primacy in the egyptian empire. as such, it became a monotheistic religion in the egyptian cultural region, which canaan was a protectorate and pseudo-colony of. evidence for the existence of an independent jewish religion, or even a substantive independent jewish state, really does not exist until after the captivity, but the language at least traces back through to an egyptian hegemony period, in a canaan that may have had almost no resemblance to the one depicted in the hebrew scriptures, at all. the archaeology suggests that there was a very ancient, stagnant, backwater culture in this region that was transitional between deeply rooted egyptian tradition and the neighbouring phoenecian/carthaginian culture, and which disappeared around the period of assyrian and babylonian hegemony, only to be reconstructed in deeply altered form during the persian period. further, it seems that any memory of this was eliminated during the purge of history that occurred following the carthaginian genocide, leaving the (largely unreliable) hebrew scriptures as the only remaining historical source. and, perhaps they were spared destruction precisely due to their unreliability.

amen was a virile, hyper-masculine deity. a gender inclusive addition would have been to say "amen, and amunet".

i'm a canadian, so i guess i can separate myself from the situation a little bit more cleanly.

and, if you ignore the potentially scary, if highly unlikely, ramifications of his behaviour, it really comes off as an intriguing display. that's how i'm interpreting it - i'm not really taking it seriously, and wondering if anybody else really is, either.

so, trump has legitimately gone mad, it seems. he'll get gadget next time (no he won't. and, i've cited this previously as the value of empirical analysis. according to his own crackpot theory, dr. claw always catches gadget next time. but, an empirical analysis of the evidence suggests this is nonsense - that, in fact, dr, claw never catches gadget at all. so, be wary of theoretical predictions - and, if you get confused, just remember the dr. claw example. call it the parable of empiricalism as a rule of thumb.). 

but, i'm not convinced. see, trump's such a damned showman, you have to wonder if he's milking it, andy kaufman style or something. i've been skeptical about the whole thing the whole time, and really suspect he's a front for an anti-clinton operation, you see.

so, i don't know - maybe he's legitimately lost his mind.

or, maybe he's just going down in mad cat style to make you talk.

no vicious reaction, so far.

actually, we've barely had any winter here at all, so far.

so, the update on the saga of the pasta bowl is that i've added garlic, lime & yogurt back without further consequence, clarifying the point with the sunflower seeds - either that was a bad batch of sunflower seeds, or i'm reacting badly to something in the sunflower seeds. i guess i could be reacting to the phytic acid (although i thought the phytic acid was in the hulls...), i could be reacting to the high fat content, i could be reacting to rancid fat in the seeds or i could be having a mild allergic reaction.

or, i guess, i was sick and it's completely passed. but, i don't think so. i think i've demonstrated to myself that i wasn't sick at all. like i knew i wasn't.....

the last test is this: i've eaten a tablespoon of sunflower seeds just alone. it's been a few hours since i ate anything previously and i won't eat for a few more. so, let's see what happens. if it results in violent diarrhea, i guess i'll have to throw them out. if it doesn't, i'm going to be looking at a way to get the e requirements up and it may involve adding a tablespoon to the fruit bowl. the e requirements are now 240% over the three meals, which is 120% of 150% (a day and a half's worth) of the 20 out of 15 mg total. that's 36 mg of e to find. i've boosted the per meal to 60% to do it, meaning i need 15% more in the fruit bowl, even with the high amounts in the margarine, eggs & various spices in the other two bowls.

i don't like the omega-6:omega-3 ratio in sunflower seeds, but options for non-supplemental e (and, supplemental e has some red flags attached to it) without high omega-6 or high k1 levels are pretty scarce and a small amount might just get me into the requirement zone for omega-6, anyways. sunflower seeds are just about the most targeted form of e out there, and they have tons of other useful stuff like b5, too. it would be better if i didn't react so terribly to them.

but, if i do react terribly then i need to accept the facts and move on with it.

i could bring the vector back up, i could bring in something like almonds or highly fortified peanut butter (if i can find it) or i could keep looking for something with a better polyunsaturated fat ratio. but, that needs to come up, one way or the other.

woahwoahwoah, let's make sure we understand what i'm saying, here.

while i identify as a socialist and a communist and an anarchist, and seek eagerly to seek out like-minded people to organize with, i completely denounce and reject anything to do with progressivism, anything to do with religion, anything to do with tradition, anything to do with fiscal conservatism, anything to do with the "middle class" and anything do with ethnic nationalism. you don't need to tell me i'm not in your club - i will tell you i'm not in your club. i don't want to be in your club, and you can't ban me because i stormed out. 

we do not have common cause. and, i am not on your side.

but, i am not going to cede ground on the left - i am not going to go away. rather, i am going to win this debate and drive you and your progressive conservatism into the fucking sea.

got it?

no, i've actually made the argument in the past that india is a natural ally for canada, being that we're both commonwealth nations. and, i want to challenge the veracity of the idea of canada as a colonial power here, so i don't draw the commonwealth comparison in a superior tone, but rather with the legitimate intent to draw a commonality. i've been critical of canadian attempts to repartition india; that was painful, if necessary, let's not do it again. while colonial interests have no doubt operated in canada, a sober analysis indicates that they operated in canada in a way that was, in truth, very similar to the way they operated in india. canada is more of a colonized state than a colonial one, and the high growth rate in the indigenous community suggests some upcoming demographic renewal in the colonized population. the future of canada, as well as of australia (and new zealand), may intertwine quite substantively with that of india, in a more sinocentric world. we may find ourselves in economic convergence due to those shared histories as a colonized state more so than a colonizing one.

the colonizing nations - which includes the united states, as well as the european powers, including russia - will have a different role to play in the overseeing of the transfer of wealth, which countries like australia and canada have really only ever been colonial outposts of, more like india in terms of scope than the homeland. we shouldn't be too confused about ethnicity when we talk about empires. america only became a colonizing power by brute force, something the other colonies have quite distinctly avoided. we're for sale, in the end, although the americans may also find themselves aggressively interested in determining the buyers. whether the money flows outwards to one continent or the other, canada still remains colonized, in the end.

and, that's the difference between colonized and colonizer, whether the money comes in or out. canada was a colony of france and then of britain, meaning that profits found their way back to owners in europe, particularly in england or a little slice of germany that the ruling family in england descended from. canada has long served the purpose within the empire of transforming raw canadian resources into products for export, to generate taxes and revenues for the elite in britain. everything went out of canada, nothing came into it, except people. for that reason, canada actually has an argument that it deserves reparations from the british state, for all the wealth it extracted from the country. that puts us on the same side as a country like india in these international negotiations, rather than on the side of the colonizing states. i wish that was better understood.

in canada, we've actually tended to have a stable four party system, with a fourth party on the far right. for most of the twentieth century, that fourth party was the social credit party, which started off promoting a type of right-wing collectivism but merged into a christian right party and eventually emerged as the neo-liberal reform party. a libertarian party existed in canada as a moderate sized protest party for most of the 80s and 90s, before emerging as the core of the federal green party and shifting first to the centre and then to the left. this historical fourth party was recently reconstructed as the pseudo-libertarian populist party, which is a ragtag collection of nonconformist conservatives with a wide array of wacky positions - something that was also true of social credit, which, amongst other things, got a reputation for associating with neo-nazi groups in quebec.

this fourth party has at times represented upwards of 10% of the population, but it generally only holds a handful of disconnected seats at any given time, often as a result of members of the conventional conservative party leaving or being thrown out for being too extreme. they do not exist in large numbers in any specific place, thankfully. but, they're about as right-wing as you can get.

by siphoning out these voters into a fourth party, their influence is kept out of the mainstream conservative movement. this balance was upset when the reform movement took over the right, but it has since been re-established and we (thankfully) escaped any serious consequence from it. by keeping these voices isolated, their influence is minimized when the conservative faction does take over power. and, their ideas are rarely considered for legislation by the ruling party, so they are generally kept outside of the dialectic.

the fifth faction is the green party, which i want to imagine will evolve into a new left, but is frustrating me so far. with the longterm realities of post-industrialization setting in, the concept of the left as a voice for industrial unionism needs to undergo some reanalysis. we don't want to bring the jobs back, we want to mechanize local production. so, what does a left look like in a post-worker society? and, i have to deduce that it accepts some heavy concepts of redistribution, such as in the form of a gai, and is laser-focused on the needs for sustainability in development. that has to be the new left - a libertarian, ecosocialist left. as such, the greens may be replacing the ndp as the traditional third party, the party of leftist opposition, the party of new ideas.

while it may seem natural to expect the greens to merge with the ndp, it is actually more likely that the ndp will be absorbed by the ruling party. that's what actually tends to happen to historical lefts that get left behind by the mode of production. just ask the liberals in britain.

the sixth faction in canada is the nationalist francophone party, represented by the bloc at the federal level and three ideologically different parties at the provincial level. quebec actually has the full spectrum of separatist parties, now - the caq on the right, the pq in the centre and the qs on the left. what these parties all have in common is that they support some kind of devolution relationship with the federal government. the bloc were initially a faction of the conservative movement, before becoming a socialist party, and then eventually reorienting to a more centrist position. as this faction is not tied to any place on the spectrum, they exist outside of the dialectic at the level of federal politics, and fully realize it - they prefer to operate from a distant point of critique. but, canada has a competing three-party dialectic at the subnational level, with quebec as thesis, alberta as antithesis and ottawa as synthesis. via this dialectic, quebec has contributed ideas like national daycare to the federal policy discussion. so, this faction is intentionally obstructing at the parliamentary level but contributes to the erection of federal policy via this other mechanism. and, perhaps there may be a similar potential role for the hispanic caucus, as hispanic culture is legitimately distinct from eastern puritan culture, in the united states.

sometimes, the best way to start a third party is via a schism.

and, the obvious unstated truth is that the american voting public needs to participate in a three-party system or it won't succeed, as well - and that itself may be the larger barrier to adoption. my arguments about the nature of decision making would not appear to be convincing to most americans, who seem to insist on the superiority of a strong executive power. it is, after all, a system with an elected supreme military leader. and, if that is the case then the country is perhaps doomed to it's own cultural demise; it perhaps has no potential way forward but collapse, without altering itself to the point that it's no longer itself. but, america has already reinvented itself before, hasn't it?

i don't think it's a deep prediction that following the status quo in america is a path towards inevitable, irreversible decline. and, if i'm right about the two party system being a fundamental barrier to the enaction of substantive change, a rapid adoption of a three-party system may be a necessary and overdue shock to the gridlocked system. 

so, discussions about the role of a third party in america need to be seen with a longer lens view than whether any specific motion passes or not.

the role of a third party on the left is not to pass legislation, but to put forward ideas. it expects it's proposals to be roundly rejected, at least on first pass. it does not expect to rule, does not expect to govern and ideally has no realistic path to governing, either. those attracted to the role are consequently dedicated to the ideas they are promoting, and not their career paths.....because they don't have realistic career paths, and wouldn't walk down this path if they wanted them.

the role of an opposition party on the right is both to oppose the ideas presented by the left and to continually propose new ideas of their own. it does not expect to govern, either and is generally representative of minority interests in society - be they christian, muslim or whatever else. however, it will govern from time to time as the ruling party needs a break from government, a role it is better suited for than the left party because it is fundamentally conservative in nature, and will hold to the status quo until another round of synthesis can begin. when left parties take over instead of right parties, it signifies a rapid collapse in the fabric of society, perhaps brought on by the application of capitalist economic doctrines. mitch mcconnell actually does an outstanding job in this role, he's just missing any sort of balance.

the role of the ruling party in the centre - which is potentially the democrats - is to actually write legislation, by looking at all available data, including that presented by the two other parties. it needs to be the serious party, both idealistic in scope and yet grounded firmly in fiscal realities. it needs to actually understand the math, because it's writing the rules. as it will adopt a quasi-judicial role, and it is writing actual legislation, it needs to also explicitly rely on the judiciary for interpretation whenever possible.

it is only by separating the three parties into these specific roles that the aspirations of young politicians can be kept in check enough to prevent them from being captured. even so, a flow of capable policy wonks would be expected to migrate from both the left party and the right party to the ruling party in a fairly regular stream, and this should be seen as something to slow down rather than as something to prevent.

so, i was going for a walk and i realized that the force the vote thing ties into my idea about a three party system being preferable to a two-party system due to it providing for the possibility of a synthesis in the centre. maybe i should go over that briefly.

so, when you have a two party system what you see in observation is a pendulum-like effect, where both parties kind of shuffle around a shifting centre that fluctuates like a centre of gravity, through a moving field. it's an entangled system; it moves together, and it morphs, but it just pulls back and forth. so, ideas end up overwriting each other as the pendulum moves back and forth within a kind of closed, broken system.

this wasn't the intent surrounding the construction of the two party system. it was proposed that a two party system would allow for a vigorous debate of opposing ideas, followed by decisive action, as an executive power could be maintained. it was seen as a useful middle point between authority and democracy. yet, because it's nature is cyclical, as it operates like a pendulum, it has simply held the status quo in place, as the whole political architecture reduces to a series of two-person games with predictable outcomes. the two party system is really a hindrance to any movement at all, in any direction whatsoever, and a formula for exactly the kind of gridlock you see in the system right now. nobody can do anything because nothing will last more than a cycle, anyways.

perhaps the problem is in fundamentally misunderstanding how decisions are made collectively. if this system was meant to ensure some balance between authority and democracy, it seems to have fallen too far on the side of authority, and in the process just created a conflict with democracy. for, that is not how decisions are made collectively - we don't convince each other that one idea is superior and rally around it, we need to find common ground and work out compromises. so, perhaps the system is suffering from a serious design flaw, with this two-party hegemony. 

when you have a three party system, on the other hand, you don't get that kind of pendulum motion, where the center floats back and forth and re-emerges in the ruling party, continually sputtering all motion in place. rather, you can allow for two fundamentally opposition-style parties - a thesis on the left and an anti-thesis on the right - to introduce ideas from complete opposite sides of the spectrum, with the intent for them to synthesize in the party of the centre, which becomes a ruling party. while the opposition parties may form government from time to time, they do so as opposition parties, and such a rare occurrence signifies a collapse of the centre and construction of a new one. even in a stable three party system, the centre will need to collapse and reform every few decades; that's healthy for democratic renewal, and it ensures that an exchange of ideas is actually happening. when parties stay in power too long, they will stagnate; it's a necessary process.

so, the way debate happens in a three party system is that ideas are introduced on the fringe and sort of linger there for a while, either building support or dissipating out. eventually, if enough support builds on the fringe, motions are introduced that will be supported by one opposition party or the other - and vigorously opposed by the other. so, you end up with a much more direct debate around the value of any issue, because you have proponents of opposite ideologies hashing it out. in canada, this has looked like the ndp getting into debates with the conservatives over free trade, for example - something that found an eventual synthesis in the ruling party, albeit after a rightward shift to the centre brought in by the harper government. in the united states, this might look like the tea party republican faction getting into a debate with the progressive house caucus and really hammering away at issues from their respective positions.

as the government (either the ruling party in the house of commons, or the house or senate majorities) will of course oversee all of this, it has the opportunity to analyze it and try to work it through. and, see, that provides it with a very specific role - to synthesize a position from the thesis and antithesis positions that eliminates the contradictions and results in stable, longlasting policy that actually solves problems and puts sustainable systems in place to solve future ones. it would be useful if it understood that role in those terms. in canada, the ruling liberals have sort of accidentally stumbled upon that by trying to set up expert committees on everything, and delegating a lot of responsibility to the civil service. that is, the way that the liberals govern and have governed for a long time now works huge amounts of wonkish analysis into any decision being made. it's not a purposeful application of dialectics, but it's about as good of one as you could hope a government to stumble onto by accident.

and, that's the real answer as to why canada has all of these nice, shiny things; we avoided a two party system, and allowed for a broader exchange of ideas as a result of it. it's not specifically because of any one party, and in fact even the conservatives had a role to play in developing our universal health care system. rather, it was the ability to present the full spectrum of debate, between a left and a right, that eventually led to the ruling liberals deciding on the socialist nhs as a model to build a single-payer system around, due to heavy pressure by the awkwardly pseudo-left prairie gospel ndp.

so, the debate around forcing a vote on healthcare is about whether it will pass or not, but the fact that that's what the debate is about is exactly why systemic democratic change is impossible in america. you have to have a debate before you can win it! trying to externalize all of the actual democracy into back channel negotiating (and that's actually what aoc is advocating for) just throws it into the firepit. have the debate, yell it out, and come to some understanding about it; it's only as a process of these debates that a workable dialectic can arise. failing should be welcomed, for now.

but, you'll never hear that from aoc or any other politician affiliated with the democratic party because the logic of the two party system annihilates any potential of actual democracy. you've heard her say it - it would be "career suicide". and, she's right. but, if she was in a third party, she wouldn't be concerned about her future cushy career in the democratic establishment, and it wouldn't be a check on her behaviour. so, debate gets stamped out, thesis are not being presented, and workable legislation is not synthesized from them. there's no way forward, so long as the duopoly persists.

to state an obvious truth that does not need to be stated, but perhaps does need to be stated, ms. ocasio-cortez is an autonomous individual, and she's under no obligation to provide a medium for anybody to live vicariously through. if she's concerned about her career, that's her prerogative. but, the lesson here needs to be how impossible it is to get anywhere in a two-party system, and the absolute need to build a third party if there's any hope to get anything at all done. 

hopefully, there aren't too many errors.

it refocuses what the remaining concerns are. i'll need to carefully analyze a number of components when i finish with the fruit bowl.

so, back to that.

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.

		pre-meal water	fruit soy shake bowl															post-meal water	coffee
		water 850 ml + tooth paste 12.5 ml	guava raw cut 1-2 30 g	banana raw cut 1 118 g	straw berry raw cut 4-8 100 g	avocado raw cut 2 150 g	kiwi raw cut 1 69 g	van soy milk light 1.6 cups 400 ml	premium cherry ice cream 1 scoop 150 ml (82.5 g)	0% cherry yogurt 2 tbsp 50 g	nut yeast 1 tsp 3+ g	vector cereal 1/4 cup 15 g	all bran 3/4 cup 45 g	ground flax seed 1 tbsp 7 g	algal oil .6 tsp 3 ml	sum	bounds	water 850 ml +  tooth paste 12.5 ml	coffee 1 cup 350 ml	choc soy 50 ml	tooth paste spit 3 tsp 12.5 ml	total
	raison d'etre	b,f,na se h20	b5,8 c s	b5  b20 c b,si,cl k	b5 c, e s b,cr	b3,5,7 b8,9,16 b20,c,e f1,k1,s b,na,k cr	b5,8 b20 c,e k1 s b,na cr	a b3,4,5 b7,9,12 b16,20 d,f1,f2 b,na, cl,ca,cu se, mo h20	a b5,7 b12,13 b16,20 k2 na,cl i	a b5 b20 na se	b1,2 b3,4 b6,7 b9,12 b16 na	a b5,7,9 b15,20 e b,na cl, i	b3,5,7 b8,9,15 b16,20 e,f1 b, na mg,p cl,k, mn,fe zn,se	b7 f2 na,si ni, se	b7 b12 f3,f4			f
	calories	0	20.4	105	32	240	42	96	168	17.5	11.25	59.7	125	37.4	6	960.25	<1000	0	0	32	0	992.25
	cost	0	.40	.15	.77	.96	.39	.99	.43	.19	.13	.14	.39	.04	.55	$5.53	<$3.75	0	.10	.12	0	$5.75
v i t a m i n l i k e c o m p o u n d s	a retinol (900 μg rae)	0	9.3 μg	3.54 μg	1 μg	10.5 μg	2.76 μg	16 %	9.6 %	3 %	0	~ 4.6363 %	0	0	0	36 r:33 c:3	30<r<150	0	0	r:2 %	0	38 r:35 c:3
	b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	0	.0201 mg	.037 mg	.024 mg	.101 mg	.019 mg	12.8 %	0.033825 mg	3 %	155.625 %	~ 4.6363 %	75 %	.115 mg	.026928 mg	282 u:31	>125	0	4 %	1.5 %	0	287.5
	b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	0	.012 mg	.086 mg	.022 mg	.195 mg	.017 mg	40 %	.198 mg	5 %	144.375 %	~ 8.4545 %	12.5 %	.011 mg	.017748 mg	253 u:4	>131	0	20.5 %	5 %	0	278.5
	b3 niacin (16 mg)	0	.3252 mg	.785 mg	.386 mg	2.61 mg	.235 mg	16 %	.0957 mg	.059 mg	65.625 %	~ 14.4545 %	31.25 %	.216 mg	.08568 mg	157 n:61 f:96	>125 f<200	0	4 %	2 %	0	163 n:65 f:98
	b4* adenine (75 mg)	0	?	1.416 mg	0.5 mg	15.9 mg	?	30.88 mg	1.9449375 mg	1.025 mg	49.38 mg	0.6 mg	1.8 mg	?	?	138	>100	0	?	5 %	0	143
	b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	0	.1353 mg	.394 mg	.125 mg	2.08 mg	.126 mg	24 %	0.479325 mg	.194 mg	2.25 %	~ 7.0909 %	10 %	.069 mg	.02142 mg	115.5 u:72.5	>110	0	18 %	3 %	0	136.5
	b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	0	.033 mg	.433 mg	.047 mg	.386 mg	.043 mg	9.6 %	.0396 mg	.029 mg	133.125 %	~ 5.7272 %	12.5 %	.033 mg	.008568 mg	222.5 u:61.5	>118	0	0	1 %	0	223.5
	b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	0	? μg	1.652 μg	0.8 μg	7.95 μg	.966 μg	15.6 μg	2.145 μg	1 μg	45 %	~ 21.03896 %	7.515 μg	2.52 μg	1.836 μg	186 u:120	>171	0	0	5.5 %	0	191.5
	b8* inositol (1000 mg)	0	30 mg	0 mg	13 mg	69 mg	93.84 mg	27.552 mg	7.425 mg	8 mg	14.85 mg	.75 mg	123.3 mg	13.65 mg	?	40	>30	0	0	1 %	0	41
	b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	0	14.7 μg	23.6 μg	24 μg	122 μg	17.2 μg	n:9.6 f:0 %	4.125 μg	1 μg	35.625 %	15 %	12.5 %	6.09 μg	.612 µg	126 n:63 f:63	>100 f<133	0	1.75 %	1.25 %	0	129 n:66 f:63
	b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	80 %	.6435 μg	7.5 %	187.5 %	0	0	0	.335988 μg	315.5 n:48 f:267.5	>250 n>30	0	0	10 %	0	325.5 n:48 f:277.5
	b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12.890625 mg	2.578125 mg	-	-	-	-	-	155	>100	-	-	-	-	155
	b14* taurine (100 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1.5675 mg	1.65 mg	0	0	0	0	~ 0	3.2	t:>180 --->	0	0	0	0	--->
	b15* betaine (550 mg)	0	0.03 mg	.118 mg	.2 mg	1.05 mg	.345 mg	3.2 mg	.9075 mg	.35 mg	0	25.5 mg	162 mg	.217 mg	?	35	>30	0	~ 0	~ 0	0	35
	b16* choline (550 mg)	0	2.28 mg	11.6 mg	5.7 mg	21.3 mg	5.38 mg	96 mg	21.45 mg	8 mg	12.3 mg	2.85 mg	22.05 mg	5.51 mg	8.8128 mg	40.5	>30	0	~ 1.68 %	~ 2.23 %	0	44.5
	b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	0	.06 mg	.236 mg	0 mg	1.95 mg	.138 mg	.24 mg	3.3 mg	2.0 mg	.072 mg	.225 mg	.675 mg	.0357 mg	?	30.5	30>s>50	0	0	0	0	30.5
	c ascorbate (90 mg)	0	68.4 mg	10.3 mg	58.8 mg	15 mg	64 mg	0	0	0	0	~ 4.6363 %	0	.042 mg	0	245 u:240.5	>234	0	0	0	0	245
	d calciferol (20 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	d2: 72 %	d3: .165 μg	d3: 7.5 %	0	d3: ~ .27272 %	0	0	d3: .4896 μg	83 u:3 d2:72 d3:11	>30	0	0	d2: 9 %	0	92 d2:81 d3:11
	e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	0	.219 mg	.118 mg	.29 mg	3.1 mg	1.01 mg	.24 mg	.2475 mg	0 mg	0 mg	~ 8.1818 %	.5355 mg	0.022 mg	0	46.5 n:38.5	>40 n>30	0	0	0	0	46.5 n:38.5
	f1* linoleic acid (17 g)	0	.0864 g	.0543 g	.09 g	2.511 g	.17 g	2.24 g	.226875 g	0	0	~ .32727 g	.837 g	.414 g	0	6.95684772727 g 40.9%	>30	0	0	.4 g 2.35%	0	7.35684772727 g 43.25%
	f2* alpha linolenic acid (1.6 g)	0	.0336 g	.0319 g	.065 g	.167 g	.029 g	.32 g	.144375 g	0	0	~ .02727 g	.0639 g	1.597 g	0	2.47904772727 g 154.94 %	>30	0	0	.06 g 3.75%	0	2.53904772727 g 158.69%
	f3* eicosa pentaenoic acid (0.375 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	120 mg	.12 g 32%	>30	-	-	-	-	.12 g 32%
	f4* docosa hexaenoic acid (0.250 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	180 mg	.18 g 72%	>30	-	-	-	-	.18 g 72%
	f1:(f2+f3+f4) ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2.5033	<4	-	-	-	-	2.5913
	k1 phyllo quinone  (120 μg)	0	.78 μg	.59 μg	2.2 μg	31.5 μg	27.8 μg	11.712 μg	.2475 μg	.1 μg	0	.136 μg	2.34 μg	.301 μg	?	64.5	30<s<100	0	0	1 %	0	65.5
	k2 mena quinone  (180 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	~ 55.85 μg	~ 0 μg	0	0	0	0	?	31	30<s<100	0	0	0	0	31
	k1+k2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	95.5	90<s<110	-	-	-	-	96.5
	s* salicylic acid (10 mg)	0	.606 mg	0	1.36 mg	.9 mg	.2208 mg	0	0.085 mg	.0425 mg	.024 mg	0	0	0	?	32	>30	0	17.5 %	0	0	49.5
e l e m e n t s	b boron (3 mg)	.17 mg	?	.12272 mg	.135 mg	1.665 mg	.1794 mg	.457624 mg	.0297 mg	.023 mg	~ 0	.18 mg	.144 mg	.112 mg	?	3.21844 mg 107 %	>100	5.67 %	3.5 %	1.9 %	0	118
	f fluorine (4000 μg)	861.25 μg	10.2 μg	2.6 μg	4 μg	10.5 μg	.69 μg	49.58 μg	12.375 μg	6 μg	~ 0	2.85 μg	12.15 μg	?	~ 0	972.195 μg 24.304875%	>30 --->	21.53 %	1.09 %	.15 %	21.53 %	68.5
	na sodium (1500 mg)	~ 6.7569 mg	.6 mg	1.18 mg	1 mg	10.5 mg	2.07 mg	48 mg	54 mg	27.5 mg	5.625 mg	~ 57.8181 mg	237.5 mg	2.1 mg	.612 mg	455.262 mg 30%	30<s<100	.45 %	.948 %	.4 %	.098 %	32
	mg magnesium (420 mg)	6.94875 mg	6.6 mg	31.9 mg	13 mg	43.5 mg	11.7 mg	32 %	11.55 mg	8 mg	0	~ 2.7272 %	62.5 %	27.4 mg	?	135.5	>30	1.65 %	5.08 %	4 %	0	146
	al aluminum (0 mg)	.2125 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	?	<2 mg	-	-	-	-	-
	si silicon (20 mg)	1.275 mg	0	5.6286 mg	~ .9916 mg	.96 mg	.1495 mg	2.32 mg	.0152 mg	.038 mg	~ 0	.325 mg	4.95 mg	16.8 mg	?	167	>100	6.375 %	2.625 %	1.45 %	>0	177.5
	si:al ratio	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2+	>2	-	-	-	-	-
	p phosphorus (1250 mg)	.5605 mg	12 mg	26 mg	24 mg	78 mg	23.5 mg	16 %	86.625 mg	4 %	3 %	~ 2.7272 %	37.5 %	44.9 mg	2.8764 mg	87	>30	.04 %	1.7 %	2 %	>0	90.5
	cl chlorine (2300 mg)	1.275 mg	3 mg	94.4 mg	20 mg	9 mg	~ 3.17 mg	~ 73.519 mg	~ 82.70886 mg	~ 42.12025 mg	~ 8.6155 mg	~ 88.5696 mg	~ 363.76 mg	~ 3.216 mg	?	34.5	30<s<100	.055 %	.023 %	.4 %	>0	35
	k potassium (4700 mg)	1.0075 mg	125.1 mg	422 mg	153 mg	728 mg	215 mg	368 mg	164.175 mg	90 mg	64.125 mg	~ 47.7272 mg	475 mg	56.9 mg	3.366 mg	2915.86 62%	>30	.02 %	7.4 %	.9787 %	0	70
	k:na ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6.3985	>2.5	-	-	-	-	6.2766
	ca calcium (1300 mg)	34 mg	5.4 mg	5.9 mg	16 mg	18 mg	23.5 mg	48 %	4.8 %	5 %	0	~ .54545 %	5 %	17.8 mg	2.0808 mg	72.5	30<s<115	2.615 %	1.09 %	6 %	>0	82
	cr chromium (35 μg)	.1445 μg	?	1 μg	3.2 μg	2.865 μg	~ 4.987 μg	~ .35058 μg	.225 μg	.447 μg	1.1 μg	2.1 μg	1.755 μg	.035 μg	?	52	>30	.413 %	.17 %	.326 %	0	53
	mn manganese (2.3 mg)	.102 mg	.045 mg	.319 mg	.386 mg	.213 mg	.068 mg	~ .149174 mg	.0066 mg	.0025 mg	0	~ .2727 mg	4.5 mg	.174 mg	?	271	>30	4.435 %	7.1739 %	2.971 %	0	285.5
	fe iron (18 mg)	.0425 mg	.078 mg	.307 mg	.41 mg	.825 mg	.214 mg	16 %	0	0	.1875 mg	~ 7.6363 %	43.75 %	.401 mg	.007956 mg	81 h:0	>50	.2361 %	.4 %	2 %	0	83.5 h:0
	ni nickel (100 μg)	6.12 μg	?	4.72 μg	4.3 μg	51 μg	?	96 μg	0	0	6.15 μg	1.965 μg	8.685 μg	119 μg	?	298	>100	6.12 %	2.52 %	12 %	0	318.5
	cu copper (900 μg)	149.6 µg	69 µg	92 µg	48 µg	285 µg	90 µg	500 µg	18.975 µg	7.5 µg	10.8 µg	~ 163.63 µg	468 µg	85 µg	1.224 µg	221	>30	16.62 %	1.66 %	6.94 %	0	246
	zn zinc (11 mg)	.0085 mg	.069 mg	.177 mg	.14 mg	.96 mg	.097 mg	16 %	.56925 mg	.485 mg	0	~ 9.8181 %	31.25 %	.304 mg	.022032 mg	82.5	>30	.077 %	1.28 %	2 %	0	86
	se selenium (55 μg)	1.7 μg	.18 μg	1.18 μg	.4 μg	.6 μg	.138 μg	7.2 μg	1.485 μg	1.8 μg	0	1.5375 μg	4.23 μg	1.78 μg	.07956 μg	40.5	>30	3.09 %	0	1.636 %	0	45
	mo molybdenum (45 μg)	3.4 μg	?	8.26 μg	9 μg	3 μg	~ 0 μg	216 μg	5.775 μg	2 μg	16.05 %	1.5 μg	4.5 μg	?	?	579	>100	7.55 %	3.1 %	60 %	0	649.5
	i iodine (150 μg)	3.4 μg	0	0	0	0	0	0	40.1775 μg	19.45 μg	0	~ 16.3636 %	4.725 μg	0	?	61.5	>30	2.26 %	.933 %	0	0	64.5
a m i n o a c i d s	h histidine (980 mg)	0	6.6 mg	91 mg	12 mg	74 mg	19 mg	140 mg	72.6 mg	71 mg	36.75 mg	-	193.5 mg	33 mg	~ 1.8467 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	i isoleucine (1400 mg)	0	27.9 mg	33 mg	16 mg	126 mg	35 mg	264 mg	160.875 mg	156.5 mg	76.5 mg	-	218.7 mg	63 mg	~ 4.14 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	l leucine (2940 mg)	0	51.3 mg	8 mg	34 mg	214 mg	46 mg	428 mg	260.7 mg	288.5 mg	116.25 mg	-	417.6 mg	86 mg	~ 11.7156 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	k lysine (2660 mg)	0	21.6 mg	59 mg	26 mg	198 mg	42 mg	304 mg	212.85 mg	257 mg	137.7 mg	-	270 mg	60 mg	~ 6.81 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	m methionine (1330 mg)	0	4.8 mg	9 mg	2 mg	57 mg	17 mg	64 mg	66.825 mg	84.5 mg	27.6 mg	-	105.3 mg	26 mg	~ 1.58796 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	f phenylalanine (2310 mg)	0	1.8 mg	58 mg	19 mg	146 mg	30 mg	260 mg	129.525 mg	156.5 mg	67.35 mg	-	267.75 mg	67 mg	~ 6.1989 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	t threonine (1400 mg)	0	28.8 mg	33 mg	20 mg	109 mg	32 mg	248 mg	120.45 mg	117.5 mg	85.65 mg	-	225 mg	54 mg	~ 4.6227 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	w tryptophan (350 mg)	0	6.6 mg	11 mg	8 mg	38 mg	10 mg	88 mg	37.125 mg	16 mg	15.3 mg	-	126.9 mg	21 mg	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	v valine (1820 mg)	0	26.1 mg	55 mg	19 mg	161 mg	39 mg	268 mg	179.025 mg	237 mg	91.95 mg	-	326.7 mg	75 mg	~ 6.081 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	r arginine (mg)	0	19.5 mg	58 mg	28 mg	132 mg	56 mg	432 mg	103.125 mg	86 mg	76.5 mg	-	489.15 mg	135 mg	~ 9.1866 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	c cysteine (350 mg)	0	?	11 mg	6 mg	41 mg	21 mg	0 mg	23.925 mg	26 mg	15.3 mg	-	166.95 mg	24 mg	~ .72928 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	q glutamine (mg)	0	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	-	?	?	?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	g glycine (mg)	0	38.4 mg	45 mg	26 mg	156 mg	41 mg	236 mg	76.725 mg	69 mg	76.5 mg	-	404.1 mg	87 mg	~ 4.5639 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	p proline (mg)	0	23.4 mg	33 mg	20 mg	147 mg	30 mg	340 mg	268.95 mg	339.5 mg	64.2 mg	-	396.9 mg	56 mg	~ 4.8933 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	y tyrosine (560 mg)	0	9.3 mg	11 mg	22 mg	74 mg	23 mg	204 mg	127.875 mg	144.5 mg	58.2 mg	-	196.2 mg	35 mg	~ 3.1994 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	a alanine (mg)	0	38.4 mg	47 mg	33 mg	164 mg	37 mg	240 mg	99.825 mg	122.5 mg	107.1 mg	-	344.25 mg	65 mg	~ 6.211 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	d aspartic acid (mg)	0	48.6 mg	146 mg	149 mg	354 mg	87 mg	664 mg	206.25 mg	227 mg	174.45 mg	-	508.5 mg	143 mg	~ 18.69 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	n asparagine ( mg)	0	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	-	?	?	?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	e glutamic acid ( mg)	0	99.9 mg	179 mg	98 mg	430 mg	127 mg	1124 mg	561.825 mg	561 mg	281.55 mg	-	1293.3 mg	283 mg	~ 20.7728 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	s serine (mg)	0	22.5 mg	47 mg	25 mg	171 mg	37 mg	324 mg	146.025 mg	177.5 mg	85.65 mg	-	307.8 mg	68 mg	~ 6.37535 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	u selenocysteine (mg)	0	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	-	?	?	?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	total (40 g)	0	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	-	?	?	?	-	>30 <125	-	-	-	-	-
i n o r g a n i c s	h2o water (3700 ml)	850 ml	24.24 ml	88.4 ml	90.95 ml	110 ml	57.3 ml	368.12 ml	50.325 ml	37.7 ml	.1524 ml	.318 ml	.954 ml	.487 ml	?	45	>30 <100	23 %	~ 9.49 %	~ 1.2436 %	~ .4 %	79
	no3 nitrate (0 mg)	2.975 mg	?	2.36 mg	~ 3.6 mg	3.9388 mg	?	21.3328 mg	.239479 mg	.065294 mg	?	.069 mg	.207 mg	?	?	>34.787343 mg <45 mg	<60 mg	2.975 mg	1.225 mg	2.666 mg	-	52 mg

		caesar pasta salad bowl																					coffee
		durum wheat fettuccine 55 g (dry) + h20	red pepper raw cut 1-2 175 g	carrot raw cut 1-3 110 g	beet raw cut 1-2 82 g	lime raw cut with pith 1 67 g	g a r l i c	medium cheddar cheese raw cut 60 g	van soy milk .8 cups 200 ml	pro biotic yogurt 2 tbsp 50 g	c a y e n n e	nut yeast 1 tsp 3 g	hull hemp seed 1 tbsp 10 g	sun flower seed 1 tbsp 10 g	m u s t a r d	p a p r i k a r	t u r m e r i c	p e p p e r	o r e g a n o	a n c h o v y	sum	bounds	coffee 1 cup 350 ml	choc soy 50 ml	total
	raison d'etre	b3,8,9 b15 f1 fe, cu	b3,4,8 b9 c,e k,fe	a b3,8 na,k	b9,15 k,fe	b8	-	a b12,13 f1, k2 na,p,ca zn	b3,8 b12 d, f1 na,mg k,fe,zn	b12 d	-	b1,2,3 b4,6,8 b9,12	f1, f2 mg,p mn, fe cu, zn	b5 e	-	-	-	-	-	f2
	calories	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	<750	0	32	-
	cost	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.10	.12	-
v i t a m i n l i k e c o m p o u n d s	a retinol (900 μg rae)	0	274.75 μg	918.5 μg	1.64 μg	1.34 μg	-	30 %	8 %	38 μg	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	175 r:38 c:137	30<r<150	0	r:2 %	177 r:40 c:137
	b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	.55 mg	.0945 mg	.0726 mg	.025 mg	.02 mg	-	.0174 mg	6.4 %	-	-	155.625 %	.098 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	235 u:73	>125	4 %	1.5 %	240.5
	b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	~ .2912 mg	.14875 mg	.0638 mg	.033 mg	.013 mg	-	.2568 mg	20 %	~ .1143 mg	-	144.375 %	.02 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	236.5 u:72	>131	20.5 %	5 %	262
	b3 niacin (16 mg)	~ 5.824 mg	1.71325 mg	1.0813 mg	.274 mg	.134 mg	-	.0354 mg	8 %	-	-	65.625 %	0.954 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	136 n:26 f:110	>125 f<200	4 %	2 %	142 n:30 f:112
	b4* adenine (75 mg)	2.2 mg	27.825 mg	.77 mg	?	?	-	4.92 mg	15.44 mg	1.025 mg	-	49.38 mg	?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	135	>100	?	5 %	140
	b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	.23705 mg	.55475 mg	.3003 mg	.127 mg	.145 mg	-	.246 mg	12 %	~ .357 mg	-	2.25 %	.056 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	54.5 u:40	>110	18 %	3 %	75.5
	b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	.0781 mg	.50925 mg	.1518 mg	.055 mg	.029 mg	-	.0396 mg	4.8 %	-	-	133.125 %	.06 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	192 u:54	>118	0	1 %	193
	b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	2.2 μg	5.775 μg	5.5 μg	~ 0 μg	.335 μg	-	1.62 μg	7.8 μg	-	-	45 %	2.73 μg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	119 u:74	>171	0	5.5 %	124.5
	b8* inositol (1000 mg)	41.25 mg	99.75 mg	13.2 mg	9.84 mg	129.98 mg	-	5.4 mg	13.776 mg	-	-	14.85 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	32.5	>30	0	1 %	33.5
	b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	~ 155.29 μg	80.5 μg	20.9 μg	89.4 μg	5.36 μg	-	16.2 μg	4.8 %	-	-	35.625 %	14.98 μg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	136 n:61.5 f:74.5	n>100 f<133	1.75 %	1.25 %	139 n:64.5 f:74.5
	b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	.66 μg	40 %	~ .142857 μg	0	187.5 %	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	261 n:33.5 f:227.5	>250 n>30	0	10 %	271 n:33.5 f:237.5
	b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	37.5 mg	-	>	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	375	>100	-	-	375
	b14* taurine (100 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	>	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	t:>180 --->	-	-	---->
	b15* betaine (550 mg)	77 mg	.175 mg	.44 mg	106 mg	.134 mg	-	.42 mg	1.6 mg	-	-	.50	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	33.5	>30	~ 0	~ 0	33.5
	b16* choline (550 mg)	8.25 mg	9.8 mg	9.68 mg	4.92 mg	3.42 mg	-	9.9 mg	48 mg	-	-	12.3 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	19	>30	~ 1.68 %	~ 2.23 %	23
	b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	.43175 mg	?	.44 mg	~ 0 mg	?	-	2 mg	.12 mg	2 mg	-	.072 mg	?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	17	30<s<50	0	0	17
	c ascorbate (90 mg)	0	223.485 mg	6.49 mg	4.02 mg	19.5 mg	-	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	281.5 u: 281	>234	0	0	281.5
	d calciferol (20 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	-	d3: .36 μg	d2: 36 %	d3: 1 μg	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	42.5 u:6.5 d2:36 d3:6.5	>30	0	d2: 9 %	51.5 d2:45 d3:6.5
	e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	.0605 mg	2.765 mg	.726 mg	.033 mg	.147 mg	-	.426 mg	.12 mg	0	-	0	.313 mg	2.61 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	48 n:48	>40 n>30	0	0	48 n:48
	f1* linoleic acid (17 g)	.297 g	.175 g	.11 g	.045 g	.024 g	-	.3462 g	1.6 g	-	-	0	3.027 g	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	5.6242 g 33.08%	>30	~0	.4 g 2.35%	6.0242 g 35.4%
	f2* alpha linolenic acid (1.6 g)	.0132 g	.098 g	.0022 g	.004 g	.013 g	-	.219 g	.24 g	-	-	0	.902 g	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.4914 g 93.2 %	>30	~0	.06 g 3.75%	1.5514 g 96.96%
	f3* eicosa pentaenoic acid (0.375 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	.006 g	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.006 g 1.6%	>30 <	-	-	.006 g 1.6%
	f4* docosa hexaenoic acid (0.250 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	.018 g	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.018 g 7.2%	>30 <	-	-	.018 g 7.2%
	f1:(f2+f3+f4) ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.73	<4	-	-	-
	k1 phyllo quinone  (120 μg)	.055 μg	8.575 μg	14.52 μg	.164 μg	.402 μg	-	1.44 μg	5.856 μg	-	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	25.5	s<30<100	0	1 %	26.5
	k2 mena quinone  (180 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	-	115.32 μg	0	~ 0 μg	0	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	64	s<30<100	0	0	64
	k1+k2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	89.5	90<s<110	0	1	90.5
	s* salicylic acid (10 mg)	0	1.05 mg	.253 mg	.0902 mg	-	-	0	0	0	-	.024 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	16	>30	17.5 %	0	33.5
e l e m e n t s	f fluorine (4000 μg)	-	-	3.52 μg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.088	-	-	-	-
	na sodium (1500 mg)	0	7 mg	75.9 mg	64 mg	1.34 mg	-	360 mg	64 mg	~ 21.4286 mg	-	5.625 mg	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	599.2936 39.95%	-	-	-	-
	mg magnesium (420 mg)	29.15 mg	21 mg	13.2 mg	18.9 mg	4.02 mg	-	16.2 mg	16 %	~ 6.8571 mg	-	0	65.646 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	57.66	-	-	-	-
	p phosphorus (1250 mg)	103.95 mg	45.5 mg	38.5 mg	32.8 mg	12.1 mg	-	273 mg	8 %	-	-	3 %	153.033 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	63.71	-	-	-	-
	cl chlorine (2300 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.3 %	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.3	-	-	-	-
	k potassium (4700 mg)	~ 129.412 mg	369.25 mg	352 mg	266 mg	68.3 mg	-	60 mg	216 mg	100 mg	-	~ 64.125 mg	110.933 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1736 36.936%	-	-	-	-
	ca calcium (1300 mg)	~ 19.412 mg	12.25 mg	36.3 mg	13.1 mg	22.1 mg	-	400 mg	24 %	~ 64.2857 mg	-	0	6.263 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	67.36	-	-	-	-
	cr chromium (35 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	mn manganese (2.3 mg)	.50435 mg	.196 mg	.1573 mg	.27 mg	.005 mg	-	.0162 mg	-	-	-	.9 %	.766 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	84	-	-	-	-
	fe iron (18 mg)	~ 1.9412 mg	.7525 mg	.33 mg	.656 mg	.402 mg	-	0	8 %	~ .02857 mg	-	.1875 mg	1.26 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	38.88	-	-	-	-
	cu copper (900 μg)	.15895 mg	.02975 mg	.0495 mg	.061 mg	.044 mg	-	.018 mg	-	-	-	1.2 %	.142 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	57.111	-	-	-	-
	zn zinc (11 mg)	.7755 mg	.4375 mg	.264 mg	.287 mg	.074 mg	-	2.184 mg	8 %	-	-	3.75 %	.941 mg	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	56.868	-	-	-	-
	se selenium (55 μg)	34.76 μg	.175 μg	.11 μg	.574 μg	.268 μg	-	17.1 μg	-	-	-	6 %	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	102	-	-	-	-
	mo molybdenum (45 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	16.05 %	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	16	-	-	-	-
	i iodine (150 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

		fried eggs plate
		fried egg 4* 70 g	medium cheddar cheese raw sliced 60 g	margarine 4 tsp 20 g	whole wheat bread w/ germ + flax raw 2 slice 74 g	nut yeast 2 tsp 6 g	grape fruit juice 100 ml	sum	bounds
	raison d'etre	a b5,7,9 b12,b16 f1 p,fe zn,se	b5 b13 k2 ca	d, e	b5,8 f2 mn,fe	b1,2,3 b4,5,6 b9,12	b8,c
	calories	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	cost	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
v i t a m i n l i k e c o m p o u n d s	a retinol (900 μg rae)	r:58 % c:13.8 μg	30 %	20 %	0	0	-	109.5 r:108 c:1.5	30<r<150
	b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	0.12 mg	.0174 mg	0	21 %	311.25 %	-	343.5	>125
	b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	1.368 mg	.2568 mg	0	6 %	288.75 %	-	419.5	>131
	b3 niacin (16 mg)	.228 mg	.0354 mg	0	13%	131.25 %	-	145.5 n:1.5 f: 144	>125 f<200
	b4* adenine (75 mg)	4.48 mg	4.92 mg	0	9.028 mg	98.76 mg	-	156	>100
	b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	4.584 mg	.246 mg	0	10 %	4.5 %	-	111 u:96.6	>110
	b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	.510 mg	.0396 mg	0	7 %	266.25 %	-	305.5 u:32	>118
	b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	~ 116.66 μg	1.038 μg	~ 9.094 μg	6 %	90 %	-	458 u:362	>171
	b8* inositol (1000 mg)	25.2 mg	5.4 mg	~ 32 mg	105.08 mg	29.7 mg	✓	30	>30
	b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	141 μg	36.2 μg	0	10 %	71.25 %	-	125.5 n:54.5 f: 71	>100 f<130
	b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	2.676 μg	.66 μg	0	0	375 %	-	514 n:139 f:375	>250 n>30
	b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	-	~ 36 mg	-	-	-	-	360	>100
	b14* taurine (100 mg)	0	0	>0	0	0	0	-	t:>180 ---->
	b15* betaine (550 mg)	.818 mg	.42 mg	.02 mg	~ 149.04 mg	0	-	27	>30
	b16* choline (550 mg)	876 mg	9.9 mg	2.2 mg	19.98 mg	24.6 mg	-	169.5	>30
	b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	1.12 mg	2 mg	.21 mg	.5994 mg	.144 mg	-	14	30>s>50
	c ascorbate (90 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	✓	250	>234
	d calciferol (20 μg)	d3: 6.06 μg	d3: .36 μg	d3: 60 %	0	0	-	92 u:32 d2:0 d3:92	>30
	e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	3.6 mg	.468 mg	40 %	3 %	0		70 n:70	>40 n>30
	f1* linoleic acid (17 g)	6.46 g	.3462 g	3 g	1 g	0	-	10.8062 g 63.5%	>30
	f2* alpha linolenic acid (1.6 g)	.456 g	.2190 g	1 g	1.5 g	0	-	3.175 g 198%	>30
	f3* eicosa pentaenoic acid (0.375 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	>30
	f4* docosa hexaenoic acid (0.250 g)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	>30
	f1:(f2+f3+f4) ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.40	<4
	k1 phyllo quinone  (120 μg)	15.48 μg	1.44 μg	12 μg	1 %	0	-	25	30<s<100
	k2 mena quinone  (180 μg)	17.3 μg	115.32 μg	0	0	0	0	73.5	30<s<100
	k1+k2	-	-	-	-	-	-	98.5	90<s<110
	s* salicylic acid (10 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	-	-	>30
e l e m e n t s	f fluorine (4000 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	na sodium (1500 mg)	571.2 mg	360 mg	90 mg	270 mg	-	-	1291.2 86%	-
	mg magnesium (420 mg)	35.88 mg	16.2 mg	-	70 mg	-	-	29	-
	p phosphorus (1250 mg)	593.4 mg	276 mg	-	150 mg	-	-	81.5	-
	cl chlorine (2300 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	k potassium (4700 mg)	419.4 mg	60 mg	-	200 mg	-	-	679.4 14%	-
	ca calcium (1300 mg)	171 mg	400 mg	-	75 mg	-	-	49.5
	cr chromium (35 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	mn manganese (2.3 mg)	.084 mg	.0144 mg	-	1.15 mg	-	-	52
	fe iron (18 mg)	5.214 mg	.096 mg	-	2 mg	-	-	40.5	>50
	cu copper (900 μg)	.216 mg	.021 mg	-	-	-	-	26
	zn zinc (11 mg)	3.834 mg	2.244 mg	-	1.5 mg	-	-	68.5
	se selenium (55 μg)	91.2 μg	16.98 μg	-	28 μg	-	-	247.5
	mo molybdenum (45 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	i iodine (150 μg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

		fruit soy shake bowl w/ coffee	caesar pasta salad bowl w/coffee	fried eggs plate
		sum	sum	sum	total	requirements	ul
	calories	992.25	-	-	992.25	1500	3000
	cost	$5.75	-	-	$5.75		$12.00
v i t a m i n l i k e c o m p o u n d s	a retinol (900 μg rae)	38 r:35 c:3	177 r:40 c:137	109.5 r:108 c:1.5	324.5 r:183 c: 141.5	r>180 c>150	t:- r:450 c:-
	b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	287.5	240.5	343.5	871.5	>375	-
	b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	278.5	262	419.5	960	>393	-
	b3 niacin (16 mg)	163 n:65 f:98	142 n:30 f:112	145.5 n:1.5 f:144	450.5 n:96.5 f:354	>375	f:900
	b4* adenine (75 mg)	143	140	156	439	>300	-
	b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	136.5	75.5	111	323	>330	-
	b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	223.5	193	305.5	722	>354	8823
	b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	191.5	124.5	458	774	>857	-
	b8* inositol (1000 mg)	41	33.5	30	104.5	>180	-
	b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	129 n:66 f:63	139 n:64.5 f:74.5	125.5 n:54.5 f:71	393.5 n:184.5 f:208.5	>300	f:600
	b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	325.5 n:48 f:277.5	271 n:33.5 f:237.5	514 n:139 f:375	1110.5 n:220.5 f:890	>750 n>120	-
	b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	155	375	360	890	>300
	b14* taurine (100 mg)	3.2	>0	>0	3.2	>180
	b15* betaine (550 mg)	35	33.5	27	95.5	>180	300
	b16* choline (550 mg)	44.5	23	169.5	237	>180	300
	b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	30.5	17	14	61.5	>150	243
	c ascorbate (90 mg)	245	281.5	250	776.5	>700	2222
	d calciferol (20 μg)	92 d2:81 d3:11	51.5 d2:45 d3:6.5	92 d2:0 d3:92	235.5 d2:126 d3:109.5	>180 d3>150	750
	e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	46.5 n:38.5	48 n:48	70 n:70	164.5 n:156.5	>240 n>180	9999
	f1* linoleic acid (17 g)	7.35684772727 g 43.25%	6.0242 g 35.4%	10.8062 g 63.5%	24.1872477273 g 142%	>180	-
	f2* alpha linolenic acid (1.6 g)	2.53904772727 g 158.69 %	1.5514 g 96.96%	3.175 g 198%	7.26544772727 g 454%	>180 >.25*f1	f1
	f3* eicosa pentaenoic acid (0.375 g)	.12 g 32%	.006 g 1.6%	-	.126 g 33.6%	>180	360
	f4* docosa hexaenoic acid (0.250 g)	.18 g 72%	.018 g 7.2%	-	.198 g 79.2%	>180	360
	f1:(f2+f3+f4) ratio	2.5913	3.73	3.40	3.18695754902	-	4
	k1 phyllo quinone  (120 μg)	65.5	26.5	25	117	>180	300
	k2 mena quinone  (180 μg)	31	64	73.5	168.5	>180	300
	k1+k2	96.5	90.5	98.5	285.5	>270	330
	s* salicylic acid (10 mg)	49.5	33.5	-	83	>180	14999
e l e m e n t s	b boron (3 mg)	118	-	-	118	>300	999
	f fluorine (4000 μg)	68.5		-	68.5	>180	375
	na sodium (1500 mg)	483.702 32.2468%	599.2936 39.95%	1291.2 86.08%	2374.1956 158.2797%	>150	min(230,k/2.5)
	mg magnesium (420 mg)	146	57.5	29	232.5	>180	1500
	al aluminum (0 mg)	?	-	-	-	0	6 mg
	si silicon (20 mg)	177.5	-	-	177.5	>300	150000
	si:al ratio	?	-	-	-		-
	p phosphorus (1250 mg)	90.5	63.5	81.5	235.5	>>180	360
	cl chlorine (2300 mg)	35	.3	-	35	>150	min(230,k/2.5)
	k potassium (4700 mg)	3310.5989 70.43827%	1736 36.936%	679.4 14.4%	5725.9989 121.5%	>180	-
	k:na ratio	6.2766	-	-	2.9347456	>2.5	-
	ca calcium (1300 mg)	82	67	49.5	198.5	>180	346.5
	cr chromium (35 μg)	53	-	-	53	>180	750
	mn manganese (2.3 mg)	285.5	84	52	421.5	>180	717
	fe iron (18 mg)	83.5 h:0	38.5	40.5	162.5 h:0	>180 h>75	375
	ni nickel (100 μg)	318.5	--	--	318.5	>300	900
	cu copper (900 μg)	246	57	26	329	>180	1666
	zn zinc (11 mg)	86	56.5	68.5	211	>180	546
	se selenium (55 μg)	45	102	247.5	394.5	>180	1090
	mo molybdenum (45 μg)	649.5	16	-	665.5	>300	6666
	i iodine (150 μg)	64.5	-	-	64.5	>180	1099.5
a m i n o a c i d s	h histidine (980 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	i isoleucine (1400 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	l leucine (2940 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	k lysine (2660 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	m methionine (1330 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	f phenylalanine (2310 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	t threonine (1400 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	w tryptophan (350 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	v valine (1820 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	r arginine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	c cysteine (350 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	q glutamine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	g glycine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	p proline ( mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	y tyrosine (560 mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	a alanine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	d aspartic acid (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	n asparagine ( mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	e glutamic acid ( mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	s serine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	u selenocysteine (mg)	0	-	-	-	-	-
	total (40 mg)	0	-	-	-	>100	250
i n o r g a n i c s	h2o water (3700 ml)	79	-	-	79	>120	300
	no3 nitrate (0 mg)	52 mg	-	-	52 mg	0	200 mg

*not really

specific brands used:

- sensodyne repair & protect

- colgate prevident

- natur-a vanilla soy milk (light)

- chapman's premium black cherry ice cream

- yoplait source cherry yogurt

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- kellogg's vector cereal

- kellogg's all bran original cereal

- nutravege omega-3 algal oil (strawberry-orange, or whatever)

- natur-a chocolate soy milk

- sensodyne repair & protect

- now foods microhydroxyapatite

- selection brand pasta [metro/food basics]

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- natur-a vanilla soy milk (regular)

- astro biobest plain probiotic yogurt 

- frank's red hot sauce

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- bulk barn hemp seeds

- natur-a chocolate soy milk

- sensodyne repair & protect

- colgate prevident

- 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

diet options:

daily:

 2 ) pasta salad bowl:

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

- olives?

- 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.

- broccoli?

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)

need:

==========

remaining items to enter or investigate:

carotenoids (not including pro-vitamin a): <---maybe

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:
5) ergothioneine  (cannot synthesize)   

6) pqq - .2 mg, or 400 ng, but can't find good sources

7) queuine - no rdi determined. milk, whole wheat, tomatoes.

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

11) ribose

12) "nucleic acids"?

13) don't forget about heme

14) carnosine

15) allicin

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  [rutin, troxerutin], 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