I can't believe we have snow over here and you don't--it's so often the reverse.

Well, it's been a season for the backwards, that's for sure...

Gah. I got woken up this morning by an instructor calling me to come in and train with an out of town group.

I kind of don't want to, at least today. But I can't help but feel I should take advantage of not having a migraine.

Still, breakfast is yet to be sufficiently digested for exercise, plus job hunt followups need to happen.

I declare this to be Dietary Snow Day!

I've got a job interview this afternoon. I've never felt so ambivalent about a job interview in my life. I am hoping the interview itself clarifies things. But I'm definitely going into it with more of a sell-the-job-to-me attitude, rather than a sell-myself-to-the-job.

We'll see if playing hard to get works.

In other news, my sister and my Dad are both coming out for Matilda's baptism on Saturday. I haven't seen my sister in about six years so that'll be fun for her to get reacquainted with Emmett, meet the baby and meet JZ. Also it'll be good for my Dad to get some snuzzling time with Matilda since he's legally blind now (very blurry vision) and can't really see the pictures we send.

Wow, according to the internets, it's only a little warmer in the Bay Area than it is here in Boulder. Huh.

I'm totally tired of scraping ice off my windshield in the morning. This is California! Come on!

Why can't pregnant women and kids eat marlin?

If a person feels healthy with an adequate intake, then huzzah to that person. My point was -- maybe we can do better than "adequate." Or, maybe "adequate" isn't really "enough" for some people.

Sure, adequate doesn't necessarily equal optimal.

(I still COMMed amych's 'by definition', though, because there nearly was a coffee/monitor incident).

Some think that the "minimum daily requirements" are too low.

Didn't say anything about USDA recommendations. Said "adequate" - which, by definition, means you're getting enough. And that's a complicated picture which can vary in a lot of different circumstances, but we've got a hell of a tendency in this culture to think "I'm getting enough, but 200 times more would be even better!" And we've got a lot of people who love making big money off of marketing to people's susceptibilities.

For example, (IIRC) the minimum daily requirement for vitamin C is the smallest amount you have to eat to avoid scurvy

I'm having a bit of trouble putting my finger on the level of vitamin C that's needed to prevent scurvy -- however, I will note that the recommended amount in the UK is less than half the US or Canada recommendation, so I don't think we're in any great danger over here.

That said, vitamin C is quite harmless in larger doses, so ehh... waste of money is better than toxicity any day.

Bad man! Green beans taste not like ass, but in fact like deliciousness!

You're welcome to any stray ones that make it onto my plate, then. I can only stomach the stuff in soups where the tomato-ey taste of the stock completely masks the beans' actual flavor.

I'm totally tired of scraping ice off my windshield in the morning. This is California! Come on!

I'ma blame this nasty cold winter on you, P-C. You brought it with you when you moved out here.

If a person feels healthy with an adequate intake, then huzzah to that person. My point was -- maybe we can do better than "adequate." Or, maybe "adequate" isn't really "enough" for some people.

I'm sorry, Tep -- I didn't mean to come off as snarky as it looks in retrospect (and didn't even know it was commed). I was going after a different target, which was the idea of "we get enough, but maybe you should go ahead and have WAY MORE" that's implicit in a lot of supplementation arguments. But I mis-aimed.

On edit: Cindy, would you please remove the COMM post? It was (a) not very funny and (b) caused pain to Tep, whom I love.