Watched Knights of Prosperity again, last night. That wasn't so good. I can't quite put my finger on it, but everything that I liked in the first two episodes seemed to be absent -- and replaced with the standard sitcom apery. Feh.

But it's okay, because it's Thursday and in just a few hours, I'll get to sit down to The Office which actually is love.

I've been doing this too and it really does work. My new thing is trying to draw my eating time out more. I come from a family of food bolters, as does Tom, so I figure it can't hurt to try to retrain myself to eat slower. My nutritionist suggested using a timer and then incrementally increasing the number of minutes.

My sister just saw a nutritionist who told her that if you multitask while eating (including reading, watching t.v., working at the computer) your intake of nutrients from your food decreases by 30%.

Does that make sense to people? Does most absorbtion take place while you're eating? I would have thought it was over many hours. Also, it seems to imply that brain activity is causing the decrease, which would then imply that even good conversation around the dinner table would have the same effect. So we should just eat and focus on eating? How depressing.

Hey Lady on the Bus,

After you maul a fellow passenger with your laptop bag apparently without realizing it or apologizing, you do not then later get to rest the laptop bag on top of her while jabbering on the phone.

Everyone else noticed that you were being an ass. Why didn't you?

omgwtf,
shrift

In conclusion: my arm hurts.

Lee, you really deserve a break from the digestive demons. Poor thing.

That sounds like shifty science to me, megan. I'd want to see studies.

I do believe that if you multitask (doing more than having a good conversation) while you're eating, you are in danger of missing the fact that you're hunger has been sated, and eating more than you need.

Does that make sense to people?

Sounds like galloping bullshit to me.

That sounds like shifty science to me, megan. I'd want to see studies.

At first I thought this was the wacky nutritionist that she was thinking about seeing, but it actually was at Dana Farber, which gave me pause. I'm so not a science person, so I have no idea.

Maybe they're trying to reference the idea that if you eat as a secondary thing to your primary activity (like TV), you're more likely to choose less-than-healthy food? (Also, what Cindy said).

I do believe that if you multitask (doing more than having a good conversation) while you're eating, you are in danger of missing the fact that you're hunger has been sated, and eating more than you need.

What Cindy said.

That sounds craxy to me. The only thing I can think that would make any sense at all is that when you eat while doing other things you might eat faster and chew less, which might result in food not being entirely digested, causing less absorption of nutrients, but it's not a direct causal relationship.