one of the scandals in the election was around a candidate that suggested that taxpayer-funded contraception was a eugenics program, and he was rightly laughed out of the room for it. wilkinson reacted by pointing out that he, too, supports taxpayer-funded contraception.

but, his base in rural bc sure doesn't - which is who that candidate was accurately representing. they don't support abortion rights either, fwiw.

again: the data is too minimal to present a clear prediction. but, how this turns out is going to have a lot to do with how that coalition holds, and you just wouldn't have a good grasp of that by reading the media reports, which largely report like there isn't a right in bc, at all.

this is also from that poll released today:

the bottom line is the undecided vote in the rural regions. the second line is the liberal vote total in those regions - the area the liberals usually win in.

now, do you think they're undecided between the ndp and the greens out there, in the old socred heartland? or is it more likely that the liberal numbers have caved on the right, to the undecided faction? some of these ridings don't even have green candidates...

what i think is that they're trying to figure out if they're going to vote for that pinko wilkinson, or finally bolt and vote conservative.

we'll see, soon enough.

just to chime in on the last minute analysis before the polls close...

i'm not saying that the online "polling" is wrong, what i'm pointing out is that if you're not sampling then you're not polling. it could turn out that one of the online "focus groups" (and that is what they are doing - not polling) is the most accurate in the pile, but it would just be by sheer luck. 

so, you can tell me i'm not doing any math, but i keep telling you that your data is useless - and the theory says that it has no predictive value, whatsoever.

there was one other actual, real poll released by mainstreet today and while the headlines say one thing, the data says another:

that's about consistent with what i pulled out of the leger poll regarding the ndp, although it has the liberals coming in a lot lower. the only way to make sense of that is to conclude that the liberals are deeply restless on their right flank, right now. the "another party" line is mostly the bc conservatives - but the undecided is going to be either the furthest right or the furthest left. the swing vote in the centre in canada is very, very small - a truth that holds at every level, in every region.

according to the media, the bc conservatives don't exist. but, they're a major factor in the liberals trying to hold their base, which would be considered conservatives almost anywhere else, in canada.

if they're not afraid of horgan (because he's not very left-wing), or think that wilkinson is basically the same as the rest (and he is.) then it opens up huge levels of uncertainty as to how that coalition holds itself together. that is more likely to determine the outcome than anything else - including restless environmentalists trying to make a balanced choice.

my position from the start is that we have almost no data to base any meaningful projections on. the "online polling" is not math, and not useful in making predictions. we had one poll, and i pulled what i could from it.

this poll backs up the basic analysis, but opens up some greater levels of uncertainty and some wider error bars.

i wish i had more data, but there isn't much, and you shouldn't be surprised if the outcome is a surprise.

ultimately, students that demonstrate a consistent inability to understand context when necessary should be failed and told to focus on something less intellectually demanding, in their lives.

i hope the school takes the right position, but i suspect they'll cede to the money involved, unfortunately.

i'll let him explain it.

so, you tell me you're "offended".

and, i'll tell you that if you can't handle having an adult conversation using adult language then you should go sit at the kid's table for a while and come back when you've grown up.

words have meanings, and are never used incorrectly, in the proper context.

those who would seek to eliminate words from the language, or implement a newspeak of sanitized terms, must be resisted - and doing so must be of exceedingly high priority.

the first step to allowing the state to determine how you think is to let them control the language. 

it is the first step towards fascism.

it's always good to make time for the classics.

the issue's been dealt with, and they should just expel anybody that keeps whining about it, under the argument that they're defaming the school and are not intellectually mature enough to attend a university.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-oct-23-2020-1.5772694/students-call-for-systemic-change-in-wake-of-n-word-controversy-at-university-of-ottawa-1.5774034

mitch mcconnell doesn't look to me like he's suffering from a health condition - although that kind of bruising may be a side effect of chemo, or of steroids - so much as he looks to me like he got in a fight.

gotta wonder if somebody got sent to rough him up.

leger released a last minute poll. it's one of those wonky split sample things, but at least there's some sampling.

and, this is what i expected to see:

those are the actual numbers. 

the survey companies then assume that the 14% of people that answered in some non-standard way are equally likely to vote for any of the parties and reweight the outcome, accordingly. but this is always the primary source of error in polling, in canada. i keep yelling at them to stop doing that, and they keep doing it.

the undecideds are never truly randomly distributed, in the end. the data companies need to be neutral, so it's up to somebody like myself to try to read the polls and figure out what they actually say.

the balance of the data - however sparse it is - suggests that there are two major swing blocks in bc right now:

1) rural voters trying to choose between the liberals and conservatives. they may rather vote conservative, but i suspect they'll mostly actually vote liberal.

2) ndp/green fence voters that want to vote green but don't want the liberals to win. if the headlines are telling them an ndp majority is obvious, they may be more likely to vote green. oops.

there is a third, smaller block:

3) upper class voters in the downtown core may opt for the ndp instead, this time, instead of their preferred liberals. this will likely have an effect on the popular vote, without affecting the outcome much.

so, i strongly suspect that that 42% is about where the ndp will end up, in the end - a modest bump. they may get 43, 44 - something like that. suggestions that they're running over 45% do not appear to be grounded in meaningful evidence.

further, that 14% should distribute partly to the greens and mostly to the liberals, who will likely end up somewhere above 35.

so, i'm going to produce a wide popular vote projection, after all:

ndp: 40-45

liberals: 35-40

greens: 15-20

and, as stated, trying to predict a majority or minority from that is foolish.

no, seriously, though.

how would the government react if i got arrested and told them i was only going to negotiate with the queen?

"sir, your rules are bourgeois and the force of your officers is of no legal consequence. you exist only to uphold capital. so, i will only communicate with the queen, or with her direct representative. bring me to her at once."

they'd put me in the fucking crazy house.

these people think they can conduct polling without sampling.

it's madness.

the liberal party in bc is a very strange vehicle, in that it came out of the social credit movement, which started off as a type of right-wing collectivism, but ended up as a christian conservative movement. they ran the province for decades, and then morphed into the liberal party. so, you have this weird reality in bc where the liberals are the political vehicle for the most right-wing voters - and nobody likes it, not the liberal party and not the voters that support them. it's a sort of a conservative-liberal coalition to defeat the "socialists", but it's success really relies on how scary the ndp is - otherwise it falls apart.

if you look at the data closely, it seems like the ndp are pretty much flat - they may have picked up a point or two on both sides, but it's not a big swing.

the liberals, on the other hand, have dropped 15 points, and the recipient seems to have initially been the bc conservatives, and now may be nobody at all.

so, i don't have any data....

....but, i wonder if the shape of the curve is defined by quiet right-leaning liberals ducking out, which would inflate the ndp vote by decreasing the sample size. you couldn't tell with online polling, because they don't sample.

i also mentioned the effect of strengthening ndp support in the downtown core, which is unlikely to flip many seats.

again: i'm not making a prediction based on essentially nothing.

but, everything says "the ndp numbers are inflated" and you should expect a closer result than is being broadcast. i don't feel confident suggest consequences from that closer result.

this is a very weird graph.

are the liberals actually bleeding support primarily to their right?

so, what do i think of the polls in bc?

i don't think there's been many, honestly. or, at least, i don't think there's been many good ones.

the thing about online polling is that it comes with a pretty hefty bias towards young people who bunch up in specific places, so when you have a party like the liberals in bc that draws mostly from rural voters and is a cycle or two away from dying off, you have to work in that bias. it kind of follows that if all the online polls suggest the ndp is up five-ten points from where they were, there's not a lot of evidence towards movement at all.

what do the telephone polls - that use mathematical sampling techniques - actually say?

there hasn't been one since the end of september, which doesn't help anybody right now.

so, what i'm going to tell you is that i don't have any data to work with, and i consequently can't help elucidate something that doesn't exist - except to suggest to you that the metrics that we have seen would be expected to skew highly towards the ndp, and you should probably expect a close result than is being projected. there is also a weak signal suggesting that the liberal party's right may be disinterested at the moment and being underpolled; if they show up after all, we could see a surprise.

i don't have enough data to predict a majority or minority. 

sorry.

it's really a reflection of the juvenilization of society that young adults in university are having debates over saying bad words. i don't want to hear a debate about "academic freedom", i want to address the issue as one of intellectual maturity, and send the whiners back to elementary school.

it makes me cringe every time i see an adult revert to the mind of an eight year-old as they mutter the phrase "the n word", like they're afraid they'll get their mouth washed out with soap.

all you niggers out there need to grow the fuck up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/university-ottawa-n-word-controversy-1.5772409

you know that jim henson was a massive zappa fan, right?

(this song is actually about drug addicts)

but, wait!

so, this is the study that the previous study i linked to sources:

http://oa.fins.uns.ac.rs/oa/bitstream/handle/123456789/80/Kojic%20et%20al.%202017%20Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=n

The majority of the food samples analyzed in this study have been obtained from the local market and food stores in Novi Sad (Serbia). Wheat grain (Triticum aestivum), all durum wheat (T. durum), triticale (Triticosecale), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and rye (Secale cereale) samples were obtained from the collection of samples of the Laboratory of the Institute of Food Technology. 

so, that study was collecting durum wheat samples from a lab, which had been sitting there for who knows how long, and fucked with who knows how many times and how many ways. we all may like seconds of pasta, but these second are sloppy, indeed.

i'll stick with the usda numbers, meaning i'm ok with betaine in the pasta bowl, after all.

but, wait.

if you go back with the pasta, what i typed was:

pasta - 188*.55 = 103.4 (c)

i must have misread the data as 188 mg/100g, in which case 55% of that is 103.4.

but, the data is 188 μg/g which is 188 μg/g*(1 mg/1000 μg) = .188 mg/g = 18.8 mg/100g.

then, 18.8*.55 = 10.34.

but, the usda source (see previous posts) has the data for spaghetti, dry, enriched listed at 140 mg/100g, and then 140*.55 = 77 mg is the correct calculation, and actually enough to not require a supplemental source.

so, what is the right answer? that's a big spread.

i dunno.

i'll think this through soon.

so, the question i need to ask myself with the bran is how much i need to get enough betaine, and in the process i found a conversion factor error with the pasta - it should say 10.34, not 103.4. so, i need to do a comprehensive review of the data entries to make sure i'm sure that everything is right. i'm also not clear what the right answer for the pasta bowl is, as that puts me back in the orange. i've done a few of these self-reviews, and i'm sure i'll do a few more. it's a part of the process.

right now, i need to know how much i need in my fruit bowl, and the answer is:

165 - (.136 + .3 + 1.05 + .375 + 2.048 + 1.034 + 45.2925 + .217) = 114.5475

so, i need 125 mg or so in the fruit bowl.

the usda survey of choline suggests that the brand i bought (kellog's all bran original) has 360 mg of betaine per 100 g of cereal.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/data/choline/choln02.pdf

that is about on par with the 320-410 mg/100g data presented here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324113089_Betaine_in_Cereal_Grains_and_Grain-Based_Products

360x = 125 <---> x = 125/360 = 0.34722222222

so, 35 g should be sufficient. as it is, the serving size is 36 g. i'll just stick with that.

i am going to prepare this meal now - i'm a little behind from running around the last few days. but, in that 36 g i'll also get:

60% b1

10% b2

25% b3

8% b5

10% b6

10% b9

0% c, d & e

while i clearly will still need the vector, i may be able to reduce the amount of some ingredients, with this.

for the first meal, at least, i'm going to throw it in and then get to adding everything up. i will do my review of the data as i enter in the bran, so the next update should be triple-checked, for the fruit bowl, at least. i'll do a similar review for the past bowl when i enter in the sunflower seed data.

how much betaine do i need for the pasta bowl, now?

165 - (.2 + 10.34 + .42 + .44 + 106+ .088) = 47.512

360x = 50 <---> x= 50/360 = 0.13888888888. so, i'd need 15 g of all bran in the pasta bowl...

it's an idea i should consider.

for now, i need to make some cereal.

so, i just urinated and it was a mellow yellow.

i don't seem to have iron issues, then - which is something i'd have a reasonable concern about. but, it seems fine, for now.

you can imagine this creeped me out a little, but it only took a few seconds to figure it out.

https://www.annaliisakapp.com/2016/01/how-to-test-your-bowel-transit-time-a-k-a-beet-test-why-its-important.html

i haven't urinated much at all in the last 24 hours, but it took me a lengthy amount of time to consume a meal with 160 g of beets and it passed on the first movement, within about ten hours of consumption.

that meal had 500 g of red peppers, 220 g of carrots & 130 g of lime as well, so i'm comfortable with it passing quickly.

i've been pooping orange since i switched to carrots; beets are going to be a normal part of my diet, now, so the purple shit is something i'll need to get used to.

.....and, actually, that was a very fast comparison - mangoes blow them both away across the board.

so, i'm going to replace the nectarine with the mango, which seems to be quite plentiful in the stores, here - even more so than peaches or pears.

that will floor the c, as well - enough that i could reduce the strawberries a little. it will also introduce a supplemental source of beta-carotene.

i'm going to do this tentatively, though, and not update the data right away. i need to carefully check things like cost and weigh the mangoes and whatnot. i think mangoes are the better choivce all around, but i'll need to do some shopping in early november to be sure.

for now, it's going to be nectarines for a week and a bit, anyways.

why am i insisting on nectarines? why not get peaches? aren't they really the same fucking thing?

well, the data i've been able to find suggests there is a difference in inositol, but i'm wondering if it's really substantive.

i posted the source:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a4fe/6e428501f09d5bf283459527b87dbf432aa3.pdf

it's pretty clear:

nectarines - 1.18 mg/g

peach (fresh) - .58 mg/g

i've found further examples of this data in multiple published sources (including a few published textbooks at google books), so it seems like it's well regarded, at least. i've then found multiple claims that inositol is virtually undetectable in peaches.

but, they're the same fucking thing.

i know - it doesn't make sense. it's been published many times, but i'm questioning the source. is it about how they're grown? was that a specific grower? at a specific time?

i kind of want to take a step back from it, regardless, for two reasons:

1) the nectarines i found were kind of expensive, and trucked or (hopefully not.) flown in from california. that seems very silly. i can call on ontario growers to produce more nectarines, but i can't imagine them out of thin air.

2) the data that i penciled in - 129 g - seems to be far smaller than anything i'm going to find in a store. the average fruit of this type seems to be more like 175-190 g.

so, if i'm given the choice between peaches and nectarines, it seems like i want to pick nectarines - even if i'm skeptical about the truth of the whole thing. but, if i don't have the choice, i need to ask if i should make due with what exists, and ponder if a peach is good enough.

so, i want to extract as much goodness as i can, but how much do i actually need?

300 - (19.5 + 69 + 102 + 20.09 + 9.9 + 14.85 + 2.75 + 13.65) = 48.26.

so, i only need 50 mg to meet the requirements; the 150 from the nectarine is exorbitant.

then, how big does a peach need to be to make it worthwhile?

.58*x = 50 <---> x = 50/.58 = 86

it seems, then, that peaches are indeed good enough.

other fruits i could plug in:

- mangoes: .99 mg/g

- pear: .73 mg/g

so, i'll need to do a three-way comparison for these three items - mango, pear, peach - to determine which is the better stable source of inositol, as well as b5 & choline.

for now, i've got ten relatively large nectarines to enjoy.

...& i need to crunch some numbers for the fibre add - how much fibre do i need to meet the betaine requirements?

you'll notice that the federal government doesn't tend to say much about an actual land claim in caledonia, though - not when property is the prime consideration. 

none of the parties in parliament would stand up against real estate developers in southern ontario; they're not an easy target, like the fishing union out east is.

while i would like to see a solution that upholds the primacy of egalitarianism and ensures everybody's rights are respected, i'm primarily an environmental activist, not an indigenous rights activists, and i don't really have a horse in this race. the thing in caledonia is truly complicated, and i don't want to get into it. neither side of the debate is absolutely right, and they're going to have to find some way to co-exist. but, there isn't an explicitly environmental concern, and my interest is consequently rather minimal.

but, i'm upfront and honest about it - i don't talk out of whatever side of my ass i think is going to give me a poll bump this week.

the indigenous groups in canada know that the political establishment is full of fickle friends. the politicians are only fooling themselves.

but, it's no coincidence that they tend to align on the side of capital, and only care about the indians when they have a buck that can be made from doing so.

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

this update has taken far longer than i wanted it to, because i tried to avoid sleeping last night to get nectarines in the morning (done.) and then had to wait until the afternoon because it was raining and then had to actually sleep. on top of that, the disgusting pigs upstairs are back at it again, after having stopped for a brief while. it's frustrating, but there's no use in cleaning in here until that issue is dealt with - and it could be quite a while, it seems.

i don't know why they keep starting and stopping, except...

it doesn't seem to be the main dude cop that smokes but some kind of female sidekick, and the dude cop at the least tolerates it in ways i never will and don't want to. i keep calling on the pigs to send me a cop that doesn't smoke, please - if they have to continue to monitor me while i harmlessly type into my computer. fucking idiots....

let me just finish this up before i catch up on breakfast.

the purpose of the lime is inositol (10%+ the rdi), but it's also another decent shot of c. there are more obscure benefits to limes that i'll get to later; this add wasn't random. but, i put it in now to get to the 30% inositol levels, and that now closes that problem in the first two meals. a glass of citrus juice with the eggs will get me up over 1000, total.

limes are cheap and plentiful, and i intend to eat them with the pith, but not the peel. i wish i could get better data, but it's assumed in this culture that you're wasteful. so, i'm undershooting it and i know it.

maybe i'll make a video in the end showing the world how i do it, but for now i'm gong to update the chart a little to specify how i'm eating certain things.

and, i'll just dump the data in....data from usda unless otherwise noted, as always.

vitamin a: 1.34

(918.5 + 314 + 1.14583333333 + 1.64 + 1.34)/900 = 137%. still.

b1: 0.02

(.108 + .0174 + .0726 + .025 + .1275  + 0.02)/1.2 = 0.30875---->31%

that's +2%.

b2: .013

(.17 + .2568 + .0638 + .033 + .0285 + .013)/1.3 = 0.43469230769--->43%

that's +1%

b3: .134

(1.958 + .0354 + 1.0813 + .274 + 0.92 +.134)/16 = 0.27516875---->27.5%

that's +1%.

b4: as before, this is both unclear and relatively unimportant.

b5: .145

(.634 + .23705 + .246 +.3003 + .127 + .056 + .145)/5 = 0.34907--->35%

+3%

b6: .029

(.582 + .0781+ .0396 + .1518 + .055 + .06 + .029)/1.7 = 0.58558823529--->58.5%

+1.5%

b7: .5*.67 = 0.335 <---data for lemons

source: http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data4h.html

(6.6 + .22 + 1.038 + 5.5 + 2.73 +  .335)/35 = 0.46922857142--->47%

+1

b8: 1.94*67 = 129.98

source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a4fe/6e428501f09d5bf283459527b87dbf432aa3.pdf

(114 + 41.25 + 5.4 + 13.2 + 9.84 +  14.85 + 129.98)/1000 = 0.32852--->33%

that's green territory, which is the purpose of the add.

b9: 5.36

(92 + 16.2 + 20.9 + 89.4 + 1.1 + 5.36)/400 = 0.5624 ---> 56%

that's + 1

b12: 0

b13: 0

b14: 0

b15: .088 mg

i had to use the "lime juice" entry at the usda, and it might at first seem like an underestimate. but, my other sources put oranges and grapefruits around .11-.13 mg/100g, so .12*.67 = 0.0804, which is about right. i'm going to stick with the .088.

(.2 + 103.4 + .42 + .44 + 106+ .088)/550 = 0.38281454545, which is no further change in the chart.

b16: 3.42

(11.2 + 8.25 + 9.9 + 9.68 + 4.92 + 12.3 + 3.42)/550 = 0.10849090909--->11%

+1%

b20: ?. it should be low to zero.

c: 19.5 mg

(255.4 + 6.49 + 4.02 + 0.05 + 19.5)/90 = 3.17177777778--->317%

+21.5%

d: 0

there was a typo in the amount of vitamin c in kiwis that's been corrected. i dropped the '6' in '69'.

i've also got some sunflower seeds for this bowl, but i need to add the fibre for the fruit bowl in first as the next add.

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
	nec tar ine raw cut 1 129 g	ban ana raw cut 1 136 g	str awb err ies raw cut 5-6 150 g	avo cdo raw cut 2* 75 g	kiwi raw cut 1 75 g	van soy milk 250 ml	che rry ice crm 200 ml 1 scp	nut yst 1 med tsp 3 g	fort crl 55 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	marg 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
raison d'etre	b5,8 b16 c	b5 b16 c	b5 b16 c	b3,4 b5,7 b8,9 b16 c f1,k	b5,8 b16 c k	a b3,4 b5,7 b12 b16 d	a b5 b12 b13 b16	b1,2 b3,4 b5,6 b7,9 b12 b16	a,e b3,5 b7,9 b16 c	o-3		b3,4 b8,9 c	b3,8 b9 b15	a b12 b13	a b3	b9 b15	b3 o-3	b5 b12 b13 b16	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
a retinol (900 μg rae)	21.9 μg	4.08 μg	1.5 μg	10.5 μg	3 μg	10 %	13 %	0	15 %	0	42.5 r:38 c:4.5	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	268.5 r:126 c:142.5
b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	.044 mg	.042 mg	.036 mg	0.1 mg	.02025 mg	8 %	.0528 mg	~ 155 %	20 %	.115 mg	217 u:34	.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	579
b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	.035 mg	.099 mg	.033 mg	.195 mg	.01875 mg	25 %	.253 mg	~ 144 %	24 %	.011 mg	242.5 u:49.5	.17 mg	~ 22.5 %	.2568 mg	.0638 mg	.033	.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	665
b3 niacin (16 mg)	1.45 mg	.904 mg	.579 mg	2.61 mg	.25575 mg	10 %	.1276 mg	~ 65 %	36 %	.216 mg	149 n:38 f:111	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	340.5 n:75 f:265.5
b4* adenine (75 mg)	?	1.632 mg	0.75 mg	15.9 mg	~ .339 mg	19.25 mg	.9735 mg	49.38 mg	?	?	117.5	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	302.5
b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	.239 mg	.454 mg	.1875 mg	2.08 mg	.13725 mg	15 %	.6391 mg	2.25 %	19 %	.069 mg	112 u:76	.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	245.5
b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	.032 mg	.499 mg	.0705 mg	.386 mg	.04725 mg	6 %	.0528 mg	~ 133 %	25 %	.033 mg	230 u:66	.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	531
b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	?	~ 3.212 μg	~ 1.646 μg	5.4 μg	?	~ 10.069 μg	2.86 μg	45 %	86 %	2.52 μg	204 u:73	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	521
b8* inositol (1000 mg)	152.22 mg	0 mg	19.5 mg	69 mg	102 mg	20.09 mg	9.9 mg	14.85 mg	2.75 mg	13.65 mg	40	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	82
b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg dfe)	6.45 μg	27.2 μg	36 μg	122 μg	18.75 μg	n:6 f:0 %	5.5 μg	~ 35.5 %	34 %	6.09 μg	131 n:61.5 f:69.5	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:148 f:167.5
b12 [t] cobalamin (2.4 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	50 %	.858 μg	187.5 %	0	0	273 n:35.5 f:237.5	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	702.5 n:132.5 f:570
b13* orotic acid (10 mg)	-	-	-	-	-	-	~ 17 mg	-	-	-	170	-	-	~ 37 mg	-	-	-	>	-	-	370	-	~ 18 mg	-	-	-	-	180	-	-	-	720
b14* taurine (100 mg)	0	0	0	0	0	-	2.09 mg	0	0	-	6.5	0	0	0	0	0	-	~ 5 mg	0	-	-	0	0	>0	0	0	0	-	0	>0	-	-
b15* betaine (550 mg)	.258 mg	.136 mg	.3 mg	1.05 mg	.375 mg	2.048 mg	1.034 mg	0	~ 45.293 mg	.217 mg	9	.2 mg	103.4 mg	.42 mg	.44 mg	106 mg	-	-	0	.088 mg	38	.414 mg	.21 mg	.01 mg	~ 74.522 mg	0	-	13.5	.7 mg	.8 mg	0	60.5
b16* choline (550 mg)	8 mg	13.3 mg	8.55 mg	21.3 mg	5.85 mg	61.44 mg	28.6 mg	12.3 mg	6 mg	5.51 mg	31	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	134
b20* [I] l-carnitine (29 mg)	2.0769 mg	.272 mg	~ 0 mg	1.875 mg	?	~ 0 mg	4.4 mg	.07335 mg	.825 mg	?	-->	?	.43175 mg	2 mg	.33 mg	~ 0 mg	?	~ 12.2 mg	.07335 mg	?	-->	.56 mg	1 mg	.105 mg	.2997 mg	.0489 mg	-	-->	~ 0 mg	~ 0 mg	-->	92
c ascorbate (90 mg)	6.97 mg	11.8 mg	88.2 mg	15 mg	69.525 mg	0 %	0 %	0 %	25 %	.042 mg	238 u: 213	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	555 u:530
d calciferol (15 μg)	0	0	0	0	0	d2: 45 %	d3: .22 μg	?	d3: 6 %	0	52.5 u:1.5 d2:45 d3:7.5	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	123.5 u:24.5 d2:63 d3:60.5
e alpha- tocopherol (15 mg)	.993	2	1.5	16	10	0	2	0	36	0	67.5	13	1	1	2	.033 mg	7	-	0	.22 mg	24	9	.5	20	1.5	0		31	0	0	0	122.5
f1* linoleic acid omega-6 (17 mg)	-	.1086	.09	2.534	.187	1.5	.300	0	1.2	.414	6.3336	.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)	-	.0638	.065	.165	.0319	.2	.200	0	.2	1.597	2.5227	.041	.024	.219	.0014	-	.93	-	0	-	1.2154	.228	.1095	.5	.75	0	-	1.5875	~0	.12	.12	5.45
f1:f2 ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2.51	-	-	-	-	-	-	2:1	-	-	3.22	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.40	-	-	-	3.02
k (fat sol) (138 μg)	2.84	2	1	39	38	5	0	0	-	-	85	10	1	1	12	-	0	-	0	-	24	9	.5	10	.5	0	-	20	0	2	2	131
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.

- b1 (thiamin): 125% w/ each meal

- b2 (riboflavin): 131% w/ each meal

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

- *b4 (adenine): 75 mg w/ each meal

- b5 (pantothenic acid): 110% w/ each meal

- b6 (pyridoxine complex): 118% w/ each meal

- b7 (biotin): 171% w/ each meal, with 857% total as a goal.

- *b8 (inositol): 300 mg w/each meal, 1200 mg total

- 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

- *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.

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

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

- e: 30% + per meal, 120% total

- f1:

- f2: 

- k: 30% + per meal, should not exceed 100%/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

- vector 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:

1) bran/fibre option for the fruit bowl will boost betaine a lot

 2 ) pasta salad bowl:

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

- beets good for betaine

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

- lemon/lime (probably for phytonutrients) 

- garlic cloves (probably for phytonutrients)
- oregano & pepper (probably for phytonutrients)

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

- alfafa?

- sunflower seeds are high in b5 & high in e, with small amounts of choline but high amounts of omega-6. it doesn't really add up here, but may be better in the pasta bowl (after i work out the yogurt). b15/dmg.

- 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

==========

the list of everything i need to get.

added are green

13 vitamins:
1) A
2) B1 (thiamine)
3) B2 (riboflavin)
4) B3 (niacin)
5) B5 (pantothenic acid)
6) B6 (pyridoxine)
7) B7 (biotin)

8) B9 (folic acid)
9) B12 (cyano-cobolamin)
10)  C
11) D
12) E
13) K

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:
1) choline (cannot synthesize properly)
2) coQ10
3) lipoic acid
4) glutathione precursors
5) ergothioneine  (cannot synthesize)   <-----mushrooms
6) pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) (cannot synthesize)   <-----kiwis
7) queuine  (cannot synthesize)    <-----cheese [made in stomach by bacteria]
8) taurine (cannot synthesize properly) 

9) betaine 

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