>>16608461Yes. About 10, just now. Plus a couple other times lately where I ate just a bit over 10.
And each of those times, I wanted a loooot more. It wasn't even nearly adequate. I was actually angry because I couldn't have any more of them, and I would've went out to get some if I just knew where from. That's why I figure 10 is a bullshit number, there's no way that's enough for anybody who likes eating almonds. They really are just one of those things that the more you eat, the more you want. Until you just can't take it any more.
So, anyway, since 10 is way too little, 20 can't be enough either.
Hell, I think we can rule out 20 from experience, because on one occasion I must've had just about that much, but even that wasn't enough. Not even close.
From that, I guess we can figure that 30 is also not really it? It would be somewhat satiable I think, but, eh. Not quite.
That's why I thought 40. Which, I might actually go back to. 50 does seem like a bit too much now that I imagine having that many, but honestly, I could still do it if I tried. But would I feel like having 50?
Probably. Almonds are just that good. I see them like sunflower seeds, you would have a bowl full of them and finish it all over the course of an hour or a bit less. Chances are that I would get done with them before I even noticed, and possibly want more?
But, 50 does sound like a lot still, I have to be fair. Maybe it'd just fill my belly and get it to that point of not being able to take any more. Especially if I had an okay meal before, instead of something like cereal for dinner.
Hm. I'll call it at 40. Although that still feels like a bit of a cop-out. Maybe something in-between, like 45. But that also just feels like being too specific, which is kinda bad, yeah.
I don't know. I need somebody's else's opinion on it, somebody who likes almonds as much as I do.
You sound like you're about to start preaching, so, you tell me.
