# Eating Garbage Before Ride



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I remember one day a few years ago I went on a ride with my buddy who was much faster than me. All I had eaten was milk and three donuts. I felt like crap and puked on the way up the climb. I have learned to eat better foods before a ride. Greasy fried stuff tends to make me ride like I am hungover from a night on the town. Apples tend to give me lots of energy on semi-long rides. I usually keep one in my bag. I am realizing that eating two hours ebfore a ride is ideal for me (most rides anyway). It is not weighing me down and I am not yet hungry. No cramps either. Any preferred foodstuffs before your rides?


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

Night before any long rides I stuff my face with whatever (pasta, pizza, etc) and wash it down with a few beers. Morning before I always eat oatmeal with almonds, fruit, and skim milk. If my ride isn't for another few hours after breakfast I may down a bagel with cream cheese or a poptart with peanut butter or something like that. Works well for me.


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

It's all about shapes. Before a ride I eat round things, during a ride I eat squares and rectangles, after a ride it's all triangles - the Geometry Diet. Works great.


----------



## manbeer (Oct 14, 2009)

I have a soft spot for candy, particularly chuckles and orange slices. All my friends make fun of me and say i eat old man candy but it's cheap and it works


----------



## IamtheYeti (Aug 11, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I remember one day a few years ago I went on a ride with my buddy who was much faster than me. All I had eaten was milk and three donuts. I felt like crap and puked on the way up the climb. I have learned to eat better foods before a ride. Greasy fried stuff tends to make me ride like I am hungover from a night on the town. Apples tend to give me lots of energy on semi-long rides. I usually keep one in my bag. I am realizing that eating two hours ebfore a ride is ideal for me (most rides anyway). It is not weighing me down and I am not yet hungry. No cramps either. Any preferred foodstuffs before your rides?


yeah 2 hours is ideal depending on the size of the meal. If its within 2 hours, I try to stay away from slow digesting foods with anything high in protein or fiber. Fruits are great pre workout food since they have a good amount of natural sugar and arent heavy foods.

I would say your milk + 3 doughnuts is close to one of the worst pre workout meals.

One thing I have done is had half a regular snickers bar and a banana about 10-20 min before hitting the trail and it has worked well for me. Snickers isn't of course good for you but provides a sugar hit and with a small amount, shouldnt impact your performance. Idea came to me when we used to have a snickers bar and banana during half time of our football games....


----------



## manbeer (Oct 14, 2009)

^ I like snickers too! going to try this 

Is there any reason to avoid proteins before riding? I know very little about this stuff but i always tried to have as much protein as possible whenever i had the chance. If i should cut it out while riding i will though


----------



## steammachine (Apr 17, 2012)

cutthroat said:


> It's all about shapes. Before a ride I eat round things, during a ride I eat squares and rectangles, after a ride it's all triangles - the Geometry Diet. Works great.


word.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

I used to ride with a guy who was over 60 and he ate 2 McDonalds cheeseburgers on the way to the ride after work. I think he did it to slow down and not humiliate the rest of us younger folks.

My wife is convinced that half a Baby Ruth bar before a ride gives her wings. I ate the other half the other night and maybe it was psychosomatic but I felt great riding.


----------



## owtdorz (Apr 26, 2012)

For me:
No dairy before ride.
banannas, apples, oatmeal, snickers and juice with chia seeds.
Chocolate milk after ride.


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

mornings are tough. if i eat breakfast, then there is a ton of climbing right at the beginning of the ride, then i start to feel pukey. it doesnt really matter what i eat or how much. 

during rides, i have a mixture i put in my bottle that helps. i'm not divulging.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

NicoleB28 said:


> mornings are tough. if i eat breakfast, then there is a ton of climbing right at the beginning of the ride, then i start to feel pukey. it doesnt really matter what i eat or how much.
> 
> during rides, i have a mixture i put in my bottle that helps. i'm not divulging.


Inquiring minds wants to know!


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

oh, nothing special, just a mix of juices, coconut water, and cocaine.


ok, only two of those is true.


----------



## gabe0807 (Jan 26, 2004)

NicoleB28 said:


> oh, nothing special, just a mix of juices, coconut water, and cocaine.
> 
> ok, only two of those is true.


I use cocaine and coconut water too!


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

preride has always been more about good sleep, eat and hydration a couple of days before for me. oatmeal with raisins if i remember, otherwise, some sorta granola bar en route or pop-tart has done the job. amen to chocolate milk post ride. great recovery treat.
chewing gum is my flow-finder on the trail though!


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

gabe0807 said:


> I use cocaine and coconut water too!


Simplify your life and just use cocaine water.


----------



## jkidd_39 (Sep 13, 2012)

MSU Alum said:


> Simplify your life and just use cocaine water.


Works for Charlie Sheen


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

jkidd_39 said:


> Works for Charlie Sheen


Does Charlie Sheen mountain bike?


----------



## Le Pirate (Aug 12, 2012)

Toast with peanut butter and Jelly, couple hours before the ride.


I can't eat anything within that 2 hour window or I'll puke all over the damn place.

On the ride, I'll eat some of those sport beans about once an hour to keep up the energy, sometimes a banana...but sometimes the banana makes me puke too. I puke a lot.

Road riding is different, I can eat a good meal, then hit the road no problem.


----------



## IamtheYeti (Aug 11, 2012)

manbeer said:


> Is there any reason to avoid proteins before riding? I know very little about this stuff but i always tried to have as much protein as possible whenever i had the chance. If i should cut it out while riding i will though


other than fiber, its one of the slowest digesting items in food. I wouldnt say it needs to be avoided altogether but just not high amounts. Sometimes I will have a cliff bar about 30 min out and I am ok...

protein is great to have and you will definitely need it. I would just keep it to an hour and a half out. One big thing is that people think carbs and fats are the enemy but are an important part of a balance diet...you just cant overdo them. Of course with the fats, you should try and stick to healthy fats as much as possible (avocadoes, peanut butter, nuts, etc.).


----------



## manbeer (Oct 14, 2009)

I don't have a problem with puking, but i get some nasty heartburn if i eat within a half hour or so


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

MSU Alum said:


> Simplify your life and just use cocaine water.


Substitute whiskey for water and you've got Eric Clapton's magic performance enhancer.

I've got killer smoothies that I have before I ride:
3-4 tbs hemp hearts
1 tbs almond butter or other natural nut butter
1 tbs agave nectar
1 tbs coconut oil
2/3 cup of frozen fruit - normally 1/3 cup of berries and 1/3 of something else (strawberries and mango this morning)
1/2 cup of yogurt
1/2 cup of almond milk

Agave and fruit sugars for the first few hills, good natural carbs for the sustaining power, tons of protein to make your muscles feel better. Normally drink one of these on the way to the trailhead or down it before I leave the house and feel great for the first 15-20 miles.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

That apple helps boost your body for a bit by restoring sugars you're burning. Riding a bike helped me tune in to differences in how my diet effects my bike because hey, when you ride any trail, especially one you've been on over a hundred, times you start to notice differences in performance. My body is picky too. It drives a lot of my motivation. Consistently eating poorly not only will make me gain weight, but it makes me lose my drive to get out there on the trails whether my reason for riding that day is for fun or fitness. 

Eating right promotes a healthy body and leads to healthy choices. 

There are exceptions, I met a vegan who for the past decade will go out every two months and binge on crystal meth. I don't recommend that.


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

ehigh said:


> There are exceptions, I met a vegan who for the past decade will go out every two months and binge on crystal meth. I don't recommend that.


Does your vegan friend drink beer? Most beers arent vegan but also make great ride-fuel.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

No beer. He's surprisingly clean cut. He mostly rock climbs and does honest work.

I can't say he's a friend. Just know him a bit.


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

smoothie right up to ride and a halfie, gets ya in the zone. almonds, cacao nibs and goji's for a boost if needed during. post, high carbs then good hour from ride, high protein. carbs will help fuel the digestion of the protein. i avoid all animal proteins as much as poss. oh then the remnant half staff.


----------



## Barheet (Jul 13, 2012)

I have to eat protein before I ride. Some lean meat and some carbs, and some light veggies or fruit like apples or bananas. So it might be a turkey sandwich with spinach, an apple and a banana. Dessert would be fig newtons. Then after a ride, it's a tall glass of milk, and maybe a bowl of chili and a baked potato.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Doesn't matter for me if I eat good or bad before a ride. What does matter is the I do indeed eat something before a ride. But it must not be any less than one hour before the ride, otherwise I feel weighed done and boggy. 

If I do not eat anything at all before a ride, I am noticeably weaker and slower.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I never eat before a ride, so I can't get
in trouble. About all I'll have is some coffee
and water.


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

I was vegan for a couple years, and I have a really sensitive stomach, so I got really good at finding what my body needs.

One of the best morning pick-me-ups is hemp powder, UNSWEETENED soy or almond milk (the sugar makes my stomach do a backflip in the morning), a banana, and a bit of pure caffeine powder (looks like coke, might as well be considering ). Blend. All day energy, don't get hungry, and nothing sits in my stomach.

If you are a ***** about taste and the sugar doesn't bother you, I also recommend the 'Kashi GoLean' meal bars (not the rolls, those are nasty), the south beach diet meal bars (the ones with the crunchies, not the ones with the soft protein mush), Cliff Mojo bars (not the rolls), and Special K meal bars (not their silly snack bars). All of these have a low glycemic index and super high protein, and taste EONS better than protein mush bars. They taste closer to a granola bar, especially the Cliff Mojo ones, which are my absolute favorite but are more expensive than the rest I mentioned. All are easily found online and at grocery stores. Perfect to stick in your bag! Most of them don't have some sort of chocolate coating and are made like a granola bar with solid chunks, and therefore don't melt


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

I got really good at finding out what my body needs too... two hardboiled eggs, three maple sausage links, an english muffin, maybe a yogurt, and a brisk car ride to shake it all down. But that was years ago. I also used to bike with no water and certainly no clif bar. Anything I wanted with me on the trail I had to bring in my digestive tract (aside from the multi-tool and inner tube).

I've since found that a camelbak has considerably better capacity. Six, eight, ten hour rides were real rough without it.


----------



## breckenridge (Jul 14, 2012)

If I'm at home, eating garbage before a ride = getting lazy and ride not happening. This happens after work sometimes.


----------



## Bakudan (May 19, 2011)

I try not to eat before riding. I usually only ride between 1-3 hours anyways. The only times I'll eat before a ride is if I try to squeeze one in before work. For those early morning pre-work rides I'll eat some oatmeal and a banana for no reason other than it's there and it's quick to prepare on short time in the mornings.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*garbage in... garbage out!*



manbeer said:


> ^ I like snickers too! going to try this
> 
> Is there any reason to avoid proteins before riding? I know very little about this stuff but i always tried to have as much protein as possible whenever i had the chance. If i should cut it out while riding i will though


the body doesn't use protein for fuel, so there's no need to load up on it pre-ride.

eating things with a low glycemic index will give you sustained energy and promote endurance.

high glycemic index foods are better for bursts of energy after long exertion and/or recovery after strenuous exercise.

back to protein. if you're talking about animal based protein then yes there's a reason to avoid loading up on it period -- it's damaging to the body. plant based proteins, however, do no damage to the body irrespective of the quantity consumed.

prior to an endurance ride the ideal diet would be low glycemic index foods prior along with high glycemic boosters for mid ride like gu, shot bloks, cyto-max, etc. (or a couple fun size snickers!). follow the ride with a combination of mid to high glycemic index foods and plant based protein for recovery.

to get the most out of your rides endurance wise stop eating dead animals (meat, poultry, fish) and their glandular secretions (i.e. dairy) -- but that's another thread entirely...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

IamtheYeti said:


> One big thing is that people think carbs and fats are the enemy but are an important part of a balance diet...you just cant overdo them. Of course with the fats, you should try and stick to healthy fats as much as possible (avocadoes, peanut butter, nuts, etc.).


yup. it's not that carbs/fats in general are bad but rather it's the _processed_ carbs/fats like enriched flour products (white bread, tortillas, bagels, most cereals, pretzels, potato chips, etc.), table sugar, high fructose corn syrup, pastries, candy bars, white rice, pasta, and so forth.

refined and processed carbs/fats are high glycemic index foods and cause a rapid spike in blood sugar caused by a crash shortly thereafter. additionally, many of the products have additional detrimental effects on the body as well. for example, enriched flour products basically turn to glue inside your body. (remember paper mache? white flour and water!)

instead, stick to unrefined, unprocessed, unrefined carbs from natural plant based sources. it's possible to overdo natural carbs/fats but you'd really have to go out of your way to do so, very unlike with their refined counterparts.


----------



## Scott O (Aug 5, 2004)

I find a few Powersauce bars before, during, and after the ride give me all the energy I need.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

The good: natural PB & honey on wheat, 1.5 hrs before ride and maybe a banana 30 minutes before.

The bad: Giant greasy nacho platter intended for two. Followed by a ride that starts with 30 minutes of climbing :arf: Only time I've ever wished I stayed home.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

Snickers.

Nimblewill Nomad used to rate hiking trail ascents by the number of Snickers bars it took to reach the top. They are the same stuff as in the expensive snob bars, but they taste good. All those snooty "energy bars" are just carbs on a stick, and they mostly taste like medicine. Snickers are original power bar.

Edit: Carbs and fat on a stick. Forgot the peanuts.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

DavyRay said:


> Snickers.
> 
> Nimblewill Nomad used to rate hiking trail ascents by the number of Snickers bars it took to reach the top. They are the same stuff as in the expensive snob bars, but they taste good. All those snooty "energy bars" are just carbs on a stick, and they mostly taste like medicine. Snickers are original power bar.
> 
> Edit: Carbs and fat on a stick. Forgot the peanuts.


i'm not trying to start a personal argument with you, so don't take it as such, but nothing could be further from the truth.

to begin with, most energy bars are relatively the same cost as a snickers bar. the average energy bar is around $1.25-$1.75 depending on where they are purchased and can be found as low as $.99 in some locations. also, if they are bought by the box (which most serious athletes do) the price often comes down to below a dollar as well. the average cost of a snickers bar is around $.99-$1.39 again depending on location.

so cost is certainly not an issue since the "designer" energy bars not dramatically more expensive than a snickers bar.

now, let's take a look at the nutritional facts of each using a clif bar as an example since it is one of the most popular on the market.

nutritional facts (grams) CLIF BAR SNICKERS
calories 240 280
fat 7 14
total carbs 41  35
sugars 21 30
protein 10 4
fiber 5 1
sodium (mg) 200 140
size (gm) 68 58.7

so despite being 10 grams lighter it has more calories, more fat, around the same carbs, and more sugars. to the uneducated eye it would seem that the snickers is a more efficient fuel in a smaller package. let's take a closer look though...

although they appear on the surface to be similar they are not. the carbs and sugars in the snickers are empty, refined carbs that the body burns very quickly and then has nothing. this is called a high glycemic index (HGI).

the snooty energy bars, on the other hand, are designed to be used a fuel rather than a tasty snack or candy. to that end they are designed to have a low glycemic index (LGI) in order to deliver a slower and more steady stream of energy.

conversely, a snickers bar is a high glycemic index snack that will shock the body by slamming a huge bolus of energy that will be quickly used and dissipated causing a subsequent crash.

this is one of the reasons it would take multiple bars to summit. eat a bar and crash shortly thereafter. the remedy? eat another bar. high glycemic index foods are similar in both their use and effect to cocaine. a short, intense burst of energy followed by a low crash. want to prevent the crash? keep dosing up on cocaine. the exact same principle applies with high glycemic index foods.

just as with cocaine when using HGI foods one has to keep eating them to avoid the crash; whereas one can eat a LGI food and it will last and not require "refueling" as often. this puts less of a load on the body allowing more energy exertion because it is not diverted to the digestive and endocrine system to deal with the empty HGI garbage that is being constantly shoveled in to keep from crashing.

plus, unlike low glycemic index foods, there is not a shock to the pancreas when it has to go into overdrive producing insulin nor is there a shock to the rest of the endocrine system (or body, for that matter) as well.

the snooty, snobby energy bars are designed to meet the nutritional needs of body in the capacity of fuel whereas snickers bars are simply designed to taste good. to that end, snobby bars are a far more effective fuel because they better meet the energy needs of the body while simultaneously allowing the body to work less to have to process what has just been eaten.

the snooty bars in general also do not have dairy in any form, something that should also generally be avoided when looking for an endurance food for a plethora of reasons i won't even begin to address at this point.

further, a snickers bar does not provide as much protein or fiber which also helps the body deal with "energy calories" in the most productive and efficient manner nor does it have as much sodium, potassium, and other electrolytes essential for high output endurance exertion and optimal neural transmission and muscular function.

nor does a snickers bar contain even a fraction of the micro-nutrients, micro-minerals, and phytonutrients that the snobby bars contain. again, vital for optimal energy utilization and output.

lastly, the ingredients in the snooty bars are generally whole, organic, unprocessed or minimally processed. in contrast the ingredients of a snickers bar are mostly all highly processed and produced to much, much lower standards including using ingredients containing GMOs, dairy containing RBGH and BGH along with a whole host of other hormones, vaccines, and antibiotics (all of which are passed along in the milk), along with partially hydrogenated soybean oil -- NONE of which are found in energy bars.

so let's look at partially hydrogenated oils.

hydrogenated oils are oils that are often healthy in their natural state, but are quickly turned into poisons through the manufacturing and processing they undergo. healthy oils such as palm, kernel, soybean, corn oil or coconut oil which are healthy in their natural state are taken and heated anywhere from five hundred to one thousand degrees under several atmospheres of pressure.

afterwards a catalyst such as nickel, platinum, or aluminum is injected into the oil for several hours. as it bubbles up into the oil the molecular structure changes. its density increases and its molecules are rearranged so that instead of a liquid at room temperature what is now had is either a semi-solid or solid oil. this is how either partially hydrogenated or fully hydrogenated oils are created.

here's where it get's really interesting because the molecules in this new product are now closer to cellulose or plastic than to oil. in fact hydrogenated oil is only one molecule away from being plastic!!!!

but it get's worse... when you eat anything containing this material, just as the oil is now thicker and more viscous (dense), so too does your blood become thicker and more viscous right along with it. in turn the heart now has to work much harder to pump blood throughout the system. this is why consuming hydrogenated oils contributes to high blood pressure.

so, when you're exerting a bunch of energy and need your cardiovascular system to operating at peak performance and efficiency why would you put something in your body that increases the work load and lessens the efficiency of the heart? makes ZERO sense.

this is why the snickers bar has TWICE the fat as the clif bar. plus, the fat found in the clif bar is a healthy, naturally occurring fat that the body needs and can efficiently utilize whereas the fat in the snickers bar is basically plastic and is highly detrimental to the body.

also, the highly refined and processed sugars in a snickers bar (and other HGI foods) shuts down the immune system of the body as well whereas LGI sugars do not. so when loading up on snickers bars and other "foods" with processed sugars one is actually placing themselves at greater risk for infection and incubation of pathogens.

so in the end a snickers bar cannot even BEGIN to compare to a snooty energy bar in any category save one --- garbage junk food. in this category the snickers is the clear and uncontested winner by a HUGE margin.

as with any machine or equipment... you put garbage in and you get garbage out.


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

Clif bars, Snickers, they're both just sugar bombs. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I like Fig Newtons myself - nice squares.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2005)

Chicken Fried Steak, hashers, eggs and rye toast. Or an 8 ball and a Dew. Either or.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I won't eat two hours before a ride (if I can help it). Maybe something light if I am hitting the trail after work. If it's an epic ride I will throw in a poor boy sandwich and an apple.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

and I can't do soda before a ride. Messes with blood sugar for me and makes me bonk way early.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

this tread gives me the vurps 

Sj


----------



## cutthroat (Mar 2, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> Chicken Fried Steak, hashers, eggs and rye toast. Or an 8 ball and a Dew. Either or.


Hell yeah! Only problem is the grease spot on my jersey pockets from the chicken fried steak and mashers, otherwise it's all Dew in the Camelback. Why is the inside of the drink hose all black and chunky by the way?


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

couple of those dollar double cheeseburgers from mickey d's on the way to the trail have worked. clif bars and bananas too.

the other day i had to hustle to get to ride, had a meeting to go to after work and got out as the rain was moving in. still hadnt eaten, so i stopped at a speedway and grabbed a maple-glazed cinnamon roll, and a monster khaos to wash it down. ate a banana as i was getting my shoes on, too. i rode like a maniac and cleared the trail in its entirety for the first time ever.


----------



## mikeridesabike (Feb 16, 2009)

Bojangles sausage and egg biscuit on the way to the trail. Hot dog with chili on the way home. I eat enough veggies and other good stuff during the week to allow myself a little indulgence on Saturdays.


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't eat garbage before I ride because I'm usually in a hurry and don't have time to pick through the maggots, baby diapers, etc. to get to the good stuff.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## kubikeman (Jun 4, 2010)

Not sure if it was just destined to be a good riding day or it was breakfast but I stopped at a Wawa and got the veggie version of their breakfast wrap. It had scrambled eggs, cheese, fresh spinach, pico, and avocado. I felt like I had bottomless energy that day. I now make the same thing at home, with slightly better ingredients, before any morning ride.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Anonymous said:


> Chicken Fried Steak, hashers, eggs and rye toast. Or an 8 ball and a Dew. Either or.


This guy's my hero.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I was the king of garbage in the past. Now, before a ride, I eat my homemade energy bars and FRS. What a difference.


----------



## BigRuckus (Jun 5, 2010)

monogod said:


> although they appear on the surface to be similar they are not. the carbs and sugars in the snickers are empty, refined carbs that the body burns very quickly and then has nothing. this is called a high glycemic index (HGI).
> 
> the snooty energy bars, on the other hand, are designed to be used a fuel rather than a tasty snack or candy. to that end they are designed to have a low glycemic index (LGI) in order to deliver a slower and more steady stream of energy.
> 
> conversely, a snickers bar is a high glycemic index snack that will shock the body by slamming a huge bolus of energy that will be quickly used and dissipated causing a subsequent crash.


Much of your reasoning is sound. However, this statement is only partially true. The number one ingredient in most Cliff Bars is brown rice syrup. While it is a natural ingredient, the sugars in this syrup (mostly maltose), have a higher GI than table sugar. Yet, it is true that most (good) sports bars contain a mix of HGI and LGI carbs. Energy for now and later (Monogod did stress this in an earlier post).

Despite some beliefs, there is a place for HGI carbs and that is during, or shortly after endurance exercise. As glycogen levels in the muscle and liver start to deplete, the body stops or limits insulin response. Remember, the brain only runs on glucose and it won't let the endocrine system neutralize blood glucose when glycogen levels start to get low. When glycogen runs low, it is important to replace it the fastest way possible or bonking can occur. HGI carbs are the fastest way to replace glycogen.


----------



## bad andy (Feb 21, 2006)

I like Fiber One bars. They give me an extra turbo air boost... like every couple of minutes. 

Also keeps people far and away from breathing down my neck if I'm not going fast enough for them


----------



## axisofoil (Aug 21, 2012)

Anonymous said:


> Chicken Fried Steak, hashers, eggs and rye toast. Or an 8 ball and a Dew. Either or.


I've found that combining the Trucker's Breakfast with the 8 ball and Dew gives optimum results.

You get super-high energy now... high energy soon after... mid-high energy after that and can sustain that for a long time.

The additional food slows your body's processing of the 8-ball/dew and evens it out a little bit.


----------



## morgan1819 (Dec 31, 2004)

Pinole, Almond butter ... washed down with a smoothie consisting of: 
Coconut water, spinach, banana, avocado, maca powder, cacao powder, bee pollen.


If I am traveling, and don't have access to the fancy foods: 
Peanut butter on wheat, with an apple and banana works fine. Eat the fruit first.


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

monogod said:


> back to protein. if you're talking about animal based protein then yes there's a reason to avoid loading up on it period -- it's damaging to the body. plant based proteins, however, do no damage to the body irrespective of the quantity consumed.
> 
> to get the most out of your rides endurance wise stop eating dead animals (meat, poultry, fish) and their glandular secretions (i.e. dairy) -- but that's another thread entirely...


The majority of elite athletes have sustained on the good stuff. How many vegetarians have won world titles?


----------



## morgan1819 (Dec 31, 2004)

bad andy said:


> I like Fiber One bars. They give me an extra turbo air boost... like every couple of minutes.
> 
> Also keeps people far and away from breathing down my neck if I'm not going fast enough for them


Word. I swear I got a batch of Fiber One bars that had an abnormally large amount of chickory root in them, it was insane ... and I can eat beans, lentils, etc., and be relatively gas free.

Fiber One bars create havoc in almost everyone I know who has tried them... :thumbsup:


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

If I am really hungry on the trail I might just harvest a deer. What I don't eat will go back to scavengers and such. You know, like the circle of life.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

BigRuckus said:


> Much of your reasoning is sound. However, this statement is only partially true. The number one ingredient in most Cliff Bars is brown rice syrup. While it is a natural ingredient, the sugars in this syrup (mostly maltose), have a higher GI than table sugar.


thanks for a coherent, intelligent response!

not sure if you're aware but brown rice syrup has a GI (glycemic index) of 25 while table sugar's is 64 and pure glucose is 96.

brown rice syrup is composed of 3% glucose, 45% maltose, and 50% soluble complex carbs. even though individually glucose and maltose have a HGI on their own, the high amount of soluble complex carbs lowers the GI of brown rice syrup by slowing their absorption. hence the LGI of 25.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*ignorance of truth does not negate it*



Lemiwinks said:


> The majority of elite athletes have sustained on the good stuff. How many vegetarians have won world titles?


ever hear of a guy named carl lewis? or dave scott? (6 time ironman winner)

"sustaining" and "excelling" are not synonyms. one can sustain life on twinkies and rootbeer, but one will not thrive and excel on them.

more and more professional athletes are moving to a vegetarian/vegan diet because they want to thrive and excel rather than just sustain.

when you heat animal protein over 120 degrees (i.e. cook meat) it renders the protein basically useless to the body and creates an acidic environment whereas the body likes an alkaline environment. cancer thrives in an acidic environment but cannot in an alkaline one.

look at the largest and most powerful mammals on the planet and you'll find they're vegetarian. gorillas? vegan. elephants? vegan. all beasts of burden? vegan. the cow you eat because you mistakenly believe it's impossible to get protein from plant sources? VEGAN.

with all due respect, your post is one made from ignorance of the facts combined with an predetermined agenda irrespective of what the data reveals. (aka - closedmindedness)

more and more athletes, including body builders, are going vegetarian and vegan because it has been proven through study after study that the closer one adheres to a plant based diet the better their performance, endurance and shorter and more complete their recovery.

countless pro cyclists are going vegetarian and vegan, and many of the ones who are not have seriously limited dead animals in their diet and completely and have eschewed red meat all together.

here's a few more elite vegetarian athletes and world champions, world record holders, and olympic gold athletes....

Jack Lindquist -- 2007 Puma Velocity winner and world class cyclist
Adam Myerson -- 50km Ultramarathon champion
Brendon Braizer -- 50 km Ultramarthon champion 
Ridgely Abele -- Winner of eight national championships in karate
Surya Bonaly -- Olympic figure skating champion
Joe Namath -- legendary quarterback and NFL Hall of Fame member
Brendan Brazier -- Professional Ironman triathlete 
Peter Burwash -- Davis Cup winner and professional tennis star
Andreas Cahling -- Swedish champion bodybuilder, Olympic gold medallist in the ski jump
Chris Campbell -- Olympic wrestling champion
Nicky Cole -- First woman to walk to the North Pole
Ruth Heidrich -- Six-time Ironwoman, USA track and field Master's champion
Keith Holmes -- World-champion middleweight boxer
Robert Parish -- Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players ever. NBA Hall of Fame member
Desmond Howard -- Professional football star, Heisman trophy winner
Billie Jean King -- 12 Grand Slam titles and 16 Doubles titles, defeated former men's Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs.
Peter Hussing -- European super heavy-weight boxing champion
Scott Jurek -- Ultramarathoner, Course Record Holder at Badwater and Western States
Debbie Lawrence -- World record holder, women's 5K racewalk
Sixto Linares -- World record holder, 24-hour triathlon
Cheryl Marek and Estelle Gray -- World record holders, cross-country tandem cycling
Ingra Manecki -- World champion discus thrower
Bill Manetti -- Power-lifting champion
Ben Matthews -- U.S. Master's marathon champion
Dan Millman -- World champion gymnast
Martina Navratilova -- Champion tennis player
Paavo Nurmi -- Long-distance runner, winner of nine Olympic medals and 20 world records
Bill Pearl -- Four-time Mr. Universe
Bill Pickering -- World record-holding swimmer
Stan Price -- World weightlifting record holder, bench press
Murray Rose -- Swimmer, winner of many Olympic gold medals and world records
Art Still -- Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs MVP defensive end, Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame
Jane Wetzel -- U.S. National marathon champion
Charlene Wong Williams -- Olympic champion figure skater

Aside from athletes history is FULL of great individuals (einstein, schweitzer, wald, etc.) who were vegetarian/vegan. Here's a list of over 800 vegan/vegetarian elite and world famous individuals -- linky


----------



## BigRuckus (Jun 5, 2010)

monogod said:


> thanks for a coherent, intelligent response!
> 
> not sure if you're aware but brown rice syrup has a GI (glycemic index) of 25 while table sugar's is 64 and pure glucose is 96.
> 
> brown rice syrup is composed of 3% glucose, 45% maltose, and 50% soluble complex carbs. even though individually glucose and maltose have a HGI on their own, the high amount of soluble complex carbs lowers the GI of brown rice syrup by slowing their absorption. hence the LGI of 25.


There seems to be some debatable science regarding the GI of maltodextrin. On its own, maltodextrin has a very short gastro emptying time indicating a high GI. This is curious of course because maltodextrin is a long chain polysaccharide or a complex carb. Most GI charts list maltrodextrin with a GI as high as 105, although I have seen lower. There are studies indicating that it may act differently, however, when combined with other carbohydrates, achieving lower GI numbers in those instances.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> Charlene Wong Williams -- Olympic champion figure skater
> 
> Aside from athletes history is FULL of great individuals (einstein, schweitzer, wald, etc.) who were vegetarian/vegan. Here's a list of over 800 vegan/vegetarian elite and world famous individuals -- linky


I find these megalists to be essentially useless. About as useless as statistics made-up (as opposed to relying on credibility of some widely-recognized source of stats) But plausibility is somehow added here by offering all the individual items enumerated, as if to say, "here, try and do your own due diligence, I dare ya"

History of Vegetarianism - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

This is just one example. Am I going to go through it all? Clearly not. I'm just going to regard it as 50% disingenuous. I made up that 50 part.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

50% insanity and 50% intellectual debate; what a great thread.

I read something about crystal meth earlier, wasn't really paying attention; I think I'm going to try that.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

BigRuckus said:


> Most GI charts list maltrodextrin with a GI as high as 105


impossible. the standard glycemic index is a 0-100 rating scale.

i'm certainly not disputing it's value is 100, the highest index rating possible, because it is! and yes, i know there are some who try to place maltrodextrin and other items above the rating of 100 but it is impossible to do so using the standard GI scale.

the simple fact that the non-standard rating systems fluctuate from 105 to over 150 for maltrodetrin shows a serious discrepancy in the various non-standard indexing criteria.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Being a vegetarian wont help me if I cannibalize my riding buddy after he injures him self and I smell his blood... I... NEED... MEAT.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Lemiwinks said:


> The majority of elite athletes have sustained on the good stuff. How many vegetarians have won world titles?


who cares about performance that steak looks delicious 
Mmmmmmmm COW

Sj


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> I find these megalists to be essentially useless. About as useless as statistics made-up (as opposed to relying on credibility of some widely-recognized source of stats)


it is an objective rather than subjective list.

it is what it is... like it or not.


----------



## 4nbstd (Apr 12, 2012)

I love vegetarians. More meat for me.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

4nbstd said:


> I love vegetarians. More meat for me.


I love vegetarians, too. They're delicious!


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Vegetarians wrapped in bacon


----------



## nOOky (May 13, 2008)

If I have time before a ride I eat a large cinnamon roll with lots of icing, and wash it down with a large Diet Dew. It works well for me.
All that nasty healthy stuff will just slow you down.


----------



## GiantMountainTroll (Mar 27, 2012)

I had a Redbull and a honey bun before a ride one time... i was throwing up all morning lol


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

SlowerJoe said:


> who cares about performance that steak looks delicious
> Mmmmmmmm COW
> 
> Sj


Wrap that cow with some thinly sliced pig, and we have a winner!!!


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

monogod said:


> ever hear of a guy named carl lewis?


Dude grew up eating meat. Ate meat while training for olympics. Actually won the olympic bacon eating competition in 1988.

So many great athletes you listed. Most switched vegan after building their muscles with cooked animal meat.










:eekster:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Lemiwinks said:


> Dude grew up eating meat. Ate meat while training for olympics.


then went veg and performed better than he ever had previously. (his own words) 


Lemiwinks said:


> So many great athletes you listed. Most switched vegan after building their muscles with cooked animal meat.


better to pull one's head out of their rectum late than never. :thumbsup:

we're still waitin' on you...


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

Keyword for this thread is BEFORE.. after a ride everything is fair game in my book.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

OCtrailMonkey said:


> Keyword for this thread is BEFORE.. after a ride everything is fair game in my book.
> 
> _~image of carcinogenic animal carcass snipped~_


mmmmm..... cancer!

studies have shown* when meat of any kind (beef, pork, poultry, fish) is cooked a plethora of carcinogens result, most notably heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs, which are produced in even higher volumes when grilling and/or smoking, are also found in cigarette smoke and car exhaust. research has shown* that the ingestion of HCAs and PAHs directly correlates to colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, and other forms of cancer.

cancer doesn't care if you come calling before or after your ride. it's an equal opportunity killer.

*sources:

Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 2004; 44(1):44-55.

Jägerstad M, Skog K. Genotoxicity of heat-processed foods. Mutation Research 2005; 574(1-2):156-172.

Moonen H, Engels L, Kleinjans J, Kok T. The CYP1A2-164A-->C polymorphism (CYP1A2*1F) is associated with the risk for colorectal adenomas in humans. Cancer Letters 2005; 229(1):25-31.

Anderson KE, Sinha R, Kulldorff M, et al. Meat intake and cooking techniques: Associations with pancreatic cancer. Mutation Research 2002; 506-507:225-231.

Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Cross AJ, Silverman DT, et al. Meat and meat-mutagen intake and pancreatic cancer risk in the NIH-AARP cohort. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2007; 16(12):2664-2675.

Cross AJ, Peters U, Kirsh VA, et al. A prospective study of meat and meat mutagens and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Research 2005; 65(24):11779-11784.

Sinha R, Park Y, Graubard BI, et al. Meat and meat-related compounds and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort study in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology 2009; 170(9):1165-1177.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

^haha.. NOT this


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

OCtrailMonkey said:


> ^haha.. NOT this


typical monkey... throwing poo from his cage and howling at the higher primates.


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

More flies.

Honey.

Etc.

Just sayin'


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

You need to chill out, monogod. I get it.. you are passionate about being a vegan. Good for you. You will outlive my cancer ridden butt. In the meantime I will enjoy all sorts of delicious animals that will cause me a slow but wonderful death. But you should change your avatar as I am sure the dude would not agree with you. Loosen the skinny jeans up a bit, will ya?


----------



## R+P+K (Oct 28, 2009)

ambassadorhawg said:


> I love vegetarians, too. They're delicious!


I find them a bit sinewy and the righteous gland is not pleasant.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> it is an objective rather than subjective list.
> 
> it is what it is... like it or not.


Except it isn't what it is, that's my point. Arguments often hide their weakness in the premise. We take a sound argument, direct all attention at the argument, and maybe people might not notice the "facts" aren't facts after all. And if the "facts" don't speak for themselves, the more and more you preach about them being objective rather than subjective, the more it seems we might want to look into that. I'm sure you've heard of a guy named Carl Lewis.


----------



## Somis (Aug 19, 2012)

I am all for the science based facts. No need to be rude or hate on anyone for their personal opinions on diet. I agree that it is a terrible choice to eat mcdonalds and ice cream everyday. But I think everything in moderation is the best. Our bodies have developed over thousands of years based around eating greens and red meats. I'll agree that red meats have been proven to be terrible, but I dont think that eating red meat once or twice a week will kill you. I am also a hunter and come from a family that hunts as well. And we have a vegetarian in the family and she doesnt try to throw her ways upon us. We respect her opinion and in return she respects ours. She doesnt complain when were loading up the bbq with dove.

I love that monogod is trying to educate and help other people make healthier choices. I just turned 20 in September and just this past year I have started taking notice to the side effects of poor diet. I try and steer my friends away from junk food and at work i discourage people from purchasing soda and offer them water. But most people dont like to be preached to. 

Im no nutritional scientist, but my 2 cents are to consciously make an effort when selecting your meal. Whether its choosing chicken over beef, or a salad over the chicken. I hope to get into a nutritional education class in college next semester and I urge everyone else to educate themselves on what they are cramming down their pie-holes.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*if ya can't take it then don't dish it out*



OCtrailMonkey said:


> You need to chill out, monogod. I get it.. you are passionate about being a vegan. Good for you. You will outlive my cancer ridden butt. In the meantime I will enjoy all sorts of delicious animals that will cause me a slow but wonderful death. But you should change your avatar as I am sure the dude would not agree with you. Loosen the skinny jeans up a bit, will ya?


personally i don't care what you eat, i'm simply kickin' it joe friday style.

truth be told, meat/dairy consumers contribute to my job security in the medical field. it's pretty interesting that people lambast the "health nuts" but then when they've just undergone a 4x CABG (coronary artery bypass graft) or had a massive MI (otherwise known as "the cow's revenge") they all the sudden get real interested in this kind of information.

so a slow, lingering, excruciating demise from cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, etc. is what you call a wonderful death? uh..... ok. if you say so. :skep:

without exception i can say that none of the countless people i've ever cared for who've died like that enjoyed it.

chill out, you say?

hint: when you post on a public forum you invite public responses. you chose to insert your pro-garbage comment (which you clearly thought was very clever) in a thread about not eating garbage so don't get all butt-hurt when it (or your subsequent "cleverness") gets responded to in kind and you get one-upped. 

calmer than you are...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*reading comprehension 101*



EmTee said:


> Except it isn't what it is, that's my point. Arguments often hide their weakness in the premise. We take a sound argument, direct all attention at the argument, and maybe people might not notice the "facts" aren't facts after all. And if the "facts" don't speak for themselves, the more and more you preach about them being objective rather than subjective, the more it seems we might want to look into that. I'm sure you've heard of a guy named Carl Lewis.


with all due respect you might wanna review objective vs. subjective. 

the list was in response to the statement that no world title holder was vegetarian. my argument was that there were, in fact, a plethora of world champions and other accomplished athletes who were vegetarian/vegan. thus, the list did not detract from soundness of the argument, but rather WAS the foundational soundness of the argument.

when you OBSERVE that a world champion athlete is a vegetarian/vegan, placing them on a list of "vegetarian/vegan athletes" makes it an objective list. hence, your objection is not valid either on the face of your statement nor upon your subsequent elucidation of it.

the list is objective and it is what it is... like it or not.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

And you know what, let's dismantle this other bit that you go on about too... you notice these particular damaged proteins and amino acids are "carcinogens" but you don't elaborate beyond that. Do you know what are also carcinogens? Human hormones. In the right (wrong) concentration.

I think the problem is in your inductive step. A lot of things at the right concentration can kill you. It's thought that trace amounts of arsenic can be good for you. It's all in the concentrations. I bet you'd find that many of the things listed in those meats we're exposed to, grilled or not. And I can find "carcinogens" in your beloved plants. Try Benzoic acid. Add ascorbic acid, maybesome citric acid, and it makes benzene. To what extent does it make benzene? Especially in natural fruit juices? Stupidly small.

I'm not saying that burning the crap out of your meat won't give you cancer. I'm saying, until you make a (supported) quantitative argument, I'm not listening to qualitative inductive reasoning.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> I'm saying, until you make a (supported) quantitative argument, I'm not listening to qualitative inductive reasoning.


that's why i provided reference studies. 

but chances are you won't listen to any argument no matter how well made or what supporting facts/studies or empirical evidence is provided. you seem to be more agenda based than fact based, which makes any kind of coherent dialog pretty much impossible and an exercise in utter futility.

however, truth is not dependent upon your approval of it.

like it or not the evidence has been shown for centuries that the closer one adheres to a plant based diet the more healthy, vital, they are while simultaneously enjoying far greater longevity and quality of life than those whose diet lies on the other spectrum of the scale.

throughout history heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancers, and heart attacks were considered diseases of affluence. now that even the poor can afford to eat atrociously by gorging themselves on meat/dairy they too get to share in these diseases of affluence.

lucky them...


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> with all due respect you might wanna review objective vs. subjective.
> 
> the list was in response to the statement that no world title holder was vegetarian. my argument was that there were, in fact, a plethora of world champions and other accomplished athletes who were vegetarian/vegan. thus, the list did not detract from soundness of the argument, but rather WAS the foundational soundness of the argument.
> 
> ...


No it's not objective. Einstein was a vegetarian? Okay so I was a vegetarian, because I had a salad for lunch. I was a vegeterian for 4 hours, but I WAS a vegetarian, trufax.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> that's why i provided reference studies.
> 
> but chances are you won't listen to any argument no matter how well made or what supporting facts/studies or empirical evidence is provided.


The studies you've included are not satistical studies with large populations, sampling, control, and dietary habits. They are establishing a mechanism by which the contents of meat can be carcinogenic. The rest is added by you.

"Nitrite (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.51) and nitrate (HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.61) intakes were associated with advanced prostate cancer. There were no clear associations for fatal prostate cancer. Red and processed meat may be positively associated with prostate cancer via mechanisms involving heme iron, nitrite/nitrate, grilling/barbecuing, and benzo[a]pyrene."

So let's look at that then. This article supports a caution toward red meat and grilling. but it also adds in other variables like the nitrites and nitrates. Certainly some products have more of that added than others. Secondly, there are studies showing nitrites and nitrates are helpful for fighting off infection. Again, if there was a control, and if the products they were eating were controlled, I would pay much more attention to it. Perhaps the people that reported they were eating large amounts of meats were also eating inexpensive meats which were preserved, hormonally treated, who knows.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

"Consumption of more red meat was associated with being married, being non-Hispanic white, being less educated, being a current smoker, having a higher body mass index, being less physically active, and not having undergone a PSA test in the past 3 years. Men consuming more red meat also had higher intakes of processed meat, total calories, α-linolenic acid, and selenium and lower amounts of white meat, calcium, vitamin E, and alcohol."

In the absence of a control then, this is what they do... they try to estimate the confounding variables and subtract them. Many compounded estimations.

Here's the kicker though: suppose they've established that maybe burning your meats is bad, and that maybe red meats are bad. I would've stated the former myself before hearing anything from you. But perhaps you should go look into burning toast and whether that's carcinogenic. Meats are bad because you can burn them?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> No it's not objective. Einstein was a vegetarian? Okay so I was a vegetarian, because I had a salad for lunch. I was a vegeterian for 4 hours, but I WAS a vegetarian, trufax.


as i said... go review objective vs. subjective.

a vegetarian is one who adopts a diet and lifestyle free of the consumption of meat, while a vegan takes it one step further and eschews all animal secretions and unfertilized embryos.

skipping meat for a meal doesn't make you a vegetarian any more than sticking feathers up your butt makes you a chicken. :thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> They [the studies referenced] are establishing a mechanism by which the contents of meat can be carcinogenic.


um... yeah. that was exactly my point. your grasp of the simple is underwhelming.

aside from containing high amounts of carcinogens meat (and all animal proteins for that matter) cause the body to become acidic, an environment in which cancer thrives. so in addition to providing a mechanism for carcinogens to be introduced into the body meat also creates an environment favorable to cancer grow and flourish.

perhaps you'd explain why cultures which do not eat meat/dairy have extremely low cancer rates while cancer rates are corollary and virtually proportional to meat/dairy consumption in non-vegetarian cultures?

and the answer is not ethnicity, for when members of these cultures adopt a western lifestyle full of animal products their associated cancer rates skyrocket. conversely, when members of the "high meat/dairy" cultures move towards a plant based diet their cancer rates drop proportionately.

there is a reason that coronary artery disease, heart attacks, bypass grafts, and most cancers are called "lifestyle diseases".


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> Meats are bad because you can burn them?


no. that was not my point at all. and just when you were doing so good!

just a few reasons meat consumption is detrimental to the body is because:

cooking meat creates a plethora of carcinogens
humans do not have a digestive system appropriate to properly and adequately digest it
meat causes an acidic environment in which cancer thrives
meat and dairy cause the body to pull calcium and other buffering minerals from it's stores (i.e. bones and teeth) to correct the altered pH
meat packs the rugae of the digestive tract with it's remnants leading to colorectal cancer, diverticulitus, and a host of other GI issues
the systemic acidity caused by meat is very favorable to gout
meat is a poor source of protein

there are quite a few others but i won't bother listing them because you're clearly arguing from a pro-meat platform agenda rather than a willingness to consider facts.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Also, resorting to argumentum ad hominem is not usually indicative of a position of strength. If your support cannot be picked at without you flying off the handle, then perhaps you're right that it's futile to argue with me.

If I truly had an agenda, rather than trying to get you to tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole, I would start trying to praise meat, and bash your vegetarianism by alarming people with stuff like Effects of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency on brain development in children

And you'll note that I've provided a convenient link instead of pretending I've just written some kind of thesis. But that sounds dangerously close to ad hominem, doesn't it?


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> skipping meat for a meal doesn't make you a vegetarian any more than sticking feathers up your butt makes you a chicken. :thumbsup:


So then Einstein, who adopted vegetarianism for the last year of his life, well after all his great acheivments, was simply, "a vegetarian".

Carl Lewis, who from infancy through adolescence (formative years, physical and mental development) ate plenty of meat, was "a vegetarian"

So basically, a vegetarian is anyone who you say is, and not anybody who you say isn't. AND THAT'S A FACT!

You have a wide array of disorganized arguments, some of which are fairly demonstrably true, one of which is that one can maintain a vegan/vegetarian diet without interfering with athletic performance. On the other hand your hyperbolic statement "all meat is poison" isn't really supported by your own citations. You've really gone out on a limb and extrapolated there.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> So then Einstein, who adopted vegetarianism for the last year of his life, well after all his great acheivments, was simply, "a vegetarian".
> 
> Carl Lewis, who from infancy through adolescence (formative years, physical and mental development) ate plenty of meat, was "a vegetarian"


prior to becoming vegetarian he extolled the virtues of it. it simply took him a while to practice what he preached. in fact, it took both of them a while to get their heads out of their butts, but they finally did. so on that note, there's great hope for you!



EmTee said:


> So basically, a vegetarian is anyone who you say is, and not anybody who you say isn't. AND THAT'S A FACT!


um... no. the word is defined as someone who, as a lifestyle and practice, doesn't include meat in their diet. now you're just being obtuse, asinine, and blatantly argumentative for the sake of being a jerk.



EmTee said:


> You have a wide array of disorganized arguments, some of which are fairly demonstrably true, one of which is that one can maintain a vegan/vegetarian diet without interfering with athletic performance. On the other hand your hyperbolic statement "all meat is poison" isn't really supported by your own citations. You've really gone out on a limb and extrapolated there.


if you say so.

i can only say the words, i can't make you smart enough to understand them.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> Also, resorting to argumentum ad hominem is not usually indicative of a position of strength. If your support cannot be picked at without you flying off the handle, then perhaps you're right that it's futile to argue with me.


i'm not resorting to them, i'm including them. there's a difference. :lol:



EmTee said:


> If I truly had an agenda, rather than trying to get you to tone down your rhetoric and hyperbole, I would start trying to praise meat, and bash your vegetarianism by alarming people with stuff like Effects of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency on brain development in children


and i'd respond with the fact that only a reckless and uninformed vegetarian or vegan doesn't get enough b12. b12 is stored in the body and easily obtained in a vegan diet.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> [*]meat and dairy cause the body to pull calcium and other buffering minerals from it's stores (i.e. bones and teeth) to correct the altered pH
> .


Demonstrably false. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/3/675.full.pdf

The difference in pH could perhaps have irritating effects on balance of bacteria in the intestines, but to say milk is a net negative for calcium is frankly ridiculous. Now if you're going to poop out all the milk right after drinking it then I imagine you won't get calcium from it. I suppose then you'll have to eat kale.


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

Vegetarian arguments littered with ad hominem attacks always make me think of this quote:

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"
Dennis Leary
Demolition Man.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

monogod said:


> hint: when you post on a public forum you invite public responses. you chose to insert your pro-garbage comment (which you clearly thought was very clever) in a thread about not eating garbage so don't get all butt-hurt when it (or your subsequent "cleverness") gets responded to in kind and you get one-upped.
> 
> calmer than you are...


Definitely was not thinking I was being 'clever' nor do I take this forum too serious, I have a day job to get all that out of my system. Plenty of others were posting 'clever' comments about cocaine, eight balls, mountain dew, etc. so I was part of that crowd. To be honest I skipped through all the winded posts. No hard feelings at all, my intentions were never to get into any kind of back and forth commentary about lifestyle choices.


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

monogod said:


> with all due respect you might wanna review objective vs. subjective.
> 
> the list was *in response to the statement that no world title holder was vegetarian*. my argument was that there were, in fact, a plethora of world champions and other accomplished athletes who were vegetarian/vegan.


Here's the actual statement you were responding to



> The *majority of elite athletes* have sustained on the good stuff.


Facts are facts. The majority of elite athletes have sustained on meat diets. There are thousands of elite nfl, cyclist, olympians, nba, soccer, running, and nhl champions that grew up eating meat, ate as pros, and eat meat as long living adults. I'll wait until you can produce a statistical analysis showing the percentage of vag/vegan athletes in the last 30 years and show that that number is increasing in proportion to the number of growing athlete/event pool.

The human intestinal track is a short one for a reason, because we are evolved for high fat diets. There's a reason why when I eat a spinach salad I **** a spinach salad. Ponder that...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

OCtrailMonkey said:


> Definitely was not thinking I was being 'clever' nor do I take this forum too serious, I have a day job to get all that out of my system. Plenty of others were posting 'clever' comments about cocaine, eight balls, mountain dew, etc. so I was part of that crowd. To be honest I skipped through all the winded posts. No hard feelings at all, my intentions were never to get into any kind of back and forth commentary about lifestyle choices.


pity, cuz imho your comment was quite clever. :thumbsup: that's what made it so ripe for a sardonic reply.

hard feelings? over interweb forums? none at all bro! one thing we both DEFINITELY agree on is not taking this forum too serious!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Lemiwinks said:


> Here's the actual statement you were responding to
> 
> 
> > The majority of elite athletes have sustained on the good stuff.


oops, you forgot this part... "_How many vegetarians have won world titles?_"

the clear implication with the two statements was that no vegetarians had won world titles. i was paraphrasing rather than directly quoting, using "statement" to mean his stated position. since you're straining to find anything i'll concede that perhaps i should have used "supposition" rather than "statement".



Lemiwinks said:


> The human intestinal track is a short one for a reason, because we are evolved for high fat diets. There's a reason why when I eat a spinach salad I **** a spinach salad. Ponder that...


first of all, there is ZERO proof humans evolved. that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

second, the human intestinal tract is NOT short relative to body length comparative to animals that are carnivores. other differences include the difference in the pH of digestive juices of the stomach (carnivores are much more acidic, 10x or more) as well as the saliva, plus the inside of the intestinal tract of carnivores is very smooth whereas the human's (and other herbivores)is very convoluted and full of rugae, and lastly peristalsis of a carnivore moves the contents of the GI tract through much faster than that of humans and other herbivores.

lastly, if the human GI tract were equipped to process high fat diets then why do they occlude coronary arteries, destroy the heart, harden the arteries, and cause a host of other fatal maladies in humans?

you + human a&p and physiology = EPIC FAIL


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

Cows milk is beneficial and high in Ca for, guess what, wait for it.........cows. Sure the Ca levels are extremely high. Look at how big & fast a cow grows (naturally). Humans just don't absorb it, it's a fact.

USDA wants you to believe the hype they been preaching so they can make big bucks. 

Oh, Em Tee, for the record, you'd piss out the milk not **** it....lol


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

monogod said:


> oops, you forgot this part... "_How many vegetarians have won world titles?_"
> 
> the clear implication with the two statements was that no vegetarians had won world titles. i was paraphrasing rather than directly quoting, using "statement" to mean his stated position. since you're straining to find anything i'll concede that perhaps i should have used "supposition" rather than "statement".
> 
> ...


:madman: I asked how many vegetarians won world champs and said the majority of champs are carnivores. You gave me just over a dozen world champs. I haven't looked into your list but I bet it's as thin as your einstein reference. So under 20 world champs don't eat meat. I guess that proves that not eating meat is the way to be great. :thumbsup:

Evolution is the core theme of biology.

I bet if you spent more time on the trails and less in the nurses lounge you wouldn't be so dogmatic about your beliefs on what is good for others.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MattC555 said:


> Vegetarian arguments littered with ad hominem attacks always make me think of this quote:
> 
> "I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"
> Dennis Leary
> Demolition Man.


which brings to mind this quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ evelyn beatrice hall

anyone who champions freedom of speech and freedom of choice is not an enemy of mine. though i may not agree with a person's opinions or beliefs i adamantly support their right to hold and express them. disagreeing with someone is not synonymous with trying to control, alter, or suppress the opinion of another.

likewise, though i may not agree with someone's personal choices i will vehemently defend their right to engage in that activity, even to the detriment of themselves, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. to that end i've made it abundantly clear i don't care WHAT people choose to eat (respecting their personal choice) but rather HOW certain foods affect the body (disseminating information).

see the difference?

and to pay homage to the recent obsession with logical fallacies, your post is a perfect example of a red herring and faulty generalization.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Lemiwinks said:


> :madman: I asked how many vegetarians won world champs and said the majority of champs are carnivores. You gave me just over a dozen world champs. I haven't looked into your list but I bet it's as thin as your einstein reference. So under 20 world champs don't eat meat. I guess that proves that not eating meat is the way to be great. :thumbsup:


no, that's actually not what you said. and now you want to try to qualify and quantify and limit your supposition. however, these limitations were NOT what you began with. just admit that contrary to your assertion there are in fact world champions who are vegetarian/vegan and get over it. you were wrong. it happens to all of us. it's not the end of the world.

as far as the "thin einstein reference" he realized and extolled the virtues and benefits of being vegetarian long before he finally became one. kind of the way a drug addict or smoker will extol the virtues of not using their drug of choice long before giving it up. unfortunately doing what is best does not always follow knowing what is best.



Lemiwinks said:


> Evolution is the core theme of biology.


thanks, i haven't had that good of a laugh in quite some time. not even by a long shot, pal.



Lemiwinks said:


> I bet if you spent more time on the trails and less in the nurses lounge you wouldn't be so dogmatic about your beliefs on what is good for others.


i log over 10k miles a year. you?

again you attempt to poison the well and throw out red herrings and false generalizations. we're discussion what is good for the human body and how certain things affect the human body, not a select group of "others". it's simply physiology.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> Demonstrably false. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/3/675.full.pdf


and this, which i cut and pasted from the article you provided, completely debunks the study.... "_Dietary calcium intakes were low (443 ± 230 mg Ca/d), and few children consumed substitute calcium-rich drinks or mineral supplements._"

so their *dietary* calcium intake was LOW TO BEGIN WITH because they were not eating a correctly balanced diet. had nothing to do solely with the removal of cow's milk from their diet. they had deficient diets to begin with. so to then say that it was all due to not having cow's milk is an abhorrently dishonest "study".

it is not only possible, but comically easy, to greatly surpass the body's need for calcium with a purely plant based diet.

cow's milk is designed to meet the nutritional needs of a baby cow, not a baby human.

this is a great quote from dr. frank oski*, "_The fact is: the drinking of cow milk has been linked to iron-deficiency anemia in infants and children; it has been named as the cause of cramps and diarrhea in much of the world's population, and the cause of multiple forms of allergy as well; and the possibility has been raised that it may play a central role in the origins of atherosclerosis and heart attacks._"



EmTee said:


> The difference in pH could perhaps have irritating effects on balance of bacteria in the intestines, but to say milk is a net negative for calcium is frankly ridiculous.


really? then why do the nations which drink the most milk have the highest corrolating occurrence of osteoporosis and other related health problems? if the consumption of cow's milk made strong bones then osteoporosis would be a rare occurrence in the u.s. instead of rampant.

i don't have the time to provide the correlating evidence at the moment as i'm on a short break, but i'll be MORE than glad to do so later if you so desire.

the position that milk does not negatively impact the pH of the human body and have a detrimental effect on the calcium stores of the body shows a profound misunderstanding of the affect milk has on the human body and how it assimilates and deals with milk.

*dr. oski is the former director of the department of pediatrics of johns hopkins university school of medicine and physician-in-chief of the johns hopkins children's center. he also authored, co-authored, edited or co-edited 19 medical textbooks and has written 290 medical manuscripts


----------



## Haligan78 (Jun 13, 2011)

All I eat is garbage. I am fat but in good enough shape to do the activities I enjoy.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

monogod said:


> first of all, there is ZERO proof humans evolved. that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.


Simply the fact that you do not understand the meaning of theory in a scientific context voids all credibility to any of your further arguments.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Look you switch your argument every time, in some mercurial attempt to avoid being refuted. Initially you said that milk does not give you calcium, in fact it leeches it away. The article I provided directly refutes that. Take a group of people one of them has a low intake of calcium, the other has a higher intake of calcium due to DAIRY products. Now yeah, the could have been eating buttloads of spinach and kale but they WEREN'T. So to argue that if you fed the other "control" (not really a control, but much closer than studies you provided) a bunch of spinach and kale doesn't prove anything in the context of the argument of whether you can get calcium from dairy. Did I once ever say you couldn't get more calcium from something else? Did I once ever say that milk is the BEST source of calcium?

Arguing with YOU is futile.

"really? then why do the nations which drink the most milk have the highest corrolating occurrence of osteoporosis and other related health problems? if the consumption of cow's milk made strong bones then osteoporosis would be a rare occurrence in the u.s. instead of rampant."

Why is the life expectancy in India shorter than in usa? It must be because they're vegetarians. These kinds of arguments suck. Ever think that perhaps osteoperosis happens mostly to old people, and you're speaking of nations where people tend to get older. Ever think that preventing osteoperosis has less to do with just eating a bunch of calcium, and more to do with exercise, specifically strength exercise, as one ages? Ever think that in countries where they do not consume dairy osteoperosis may simply be diagnosed and reported less?


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Before








420 calories each - with tons of sugar for the quick boost and tons of fat for long-term endurance. :arf:

During








Tastes like melted orange sherbet (some of you probably will puke just reading this). I do take a bagel sometimes - although I almost choked to death on one trying to eat and ride at the same time.

After








No chemicals in that food! Pretty low fat content, too.

I can't even begin to support or refute anything that has been stated here, but every time I hear reference to some study or any statistics, it seems that whoever is stating them has them slanted to serve their own purpose. Sometimes with opposite sides citing the same data.

All the stuff about red meat, milk, veggies, dirty grill gratings, hormones, carcinogens, etc. seems to be so mired in confounding factors that no one really knows whether the chicken or the egg or the blocked artery came first.

So eat what you want with the knowledge that you have, and live as long as you can with your choices. Just make sure you have your bike along.

-F


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Fleas, just by your (extra) rep alone, I simply can't argue with your choices above ; )


...just kidding, deer tastes icky : ( (to me). Liking it, on this continent, seems like a big advantage though.


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

monogod said:


> and to pay homage to the recent obsession with logical fallacies, your post is a perfect example of a red herring and faulty generalization.


Your entire contribution to this thread seems like a red herring to me.

OP,

I prefer to load up on water heavily during the day, and eat things I know won't bother my stomach or give me heartburn. I try and not over eat either....lots of little meals.

Typically I will eat a Cliff bar about 30 minutes before the start of a ride. I love a burger and a beer afterwards.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MattC555 said:


> Your entire contribution to this thread seems like a red herring to me.


"_big wheels *small brain*_" -- yup, it's clear why it doesn't make sense to you. 

must be frustrating trying to follow along while the adults are talking...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


>


geez dude, take off your pink lacy frillies and put on your big boy pants... 



EmTee said:


> Look you switch your argument every time


um... nope. my argument has remained constant throughout.



EmTee said:


> Initially you said that milk does not give you calcium, in fact it leeches it away. The article I provided directly refutes that.


um... nope. the article you provided looked at children who do not drink milk AND have a DEFICIENCY in their DIETARY CALCIUM INTAKE.

then, typical of shady, slanted "research" designed to fear monger and poison the well they made statements like children who avoid cow milk have higher instances of fractures, and children who avoid cow milk have stunted skeletal development. said, of course, in a manner that suggest that cow's milk is an integral part of children's growth, development, and safety.

however, as i pointed out when i responded to your "refutation" the data was skewed FROM THE BEGINNING. they freely admit that the subjects all suffered from inadequate dietary calcium but then tried to say that the resulting maladies related to inadequate calcium in the diet was solely because hey eschewed milk. that's bad, dishonest science with an agenda. it's fear mongering. little kids just cut to the chase and call it LYING.

a study of this type with integrity would look at children who avoid cow's milk yet get sufficient dietary calcium from plant sources rather than animal sources.

and since we're on the topic of cows, the best description of the "study" you referenced is "bovine excrement".


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

I donate plasma, and the process displayed something that has really affected me. If you haven't had this experience yet, it involves passing your blood through a membrane to separate the blood cells from the plasma. If one eats fatty foods within a couple hours before donating there will be so much cloudy orange-yellow fat in your blood that it will clog up the filter and they will have to replace it before continuing, or you may not be able to proceed. Eat a low fat diet and all is well. I never had any issues until one day I ate a typical Burger King meal a few hours before donating. I was amazed, and somewhat disgusted, with the gunk that appeared in my blood. The tech had to change the filter twice, and the normal 40 minute procedure took nearly 1.5 hours. So, I certainly believe that what you eat, and what you eat withing a few hours of riding can have significant consequences. Check out the tail end of this video where they politely discuss the effects of eating a fatty diet.

BioLife Plasma Services


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Simply the fact that you do not understand the meaning of theory in a scientific context voids all credibility to any of your further arguments.


actually, the fact that you believe it to be a scientific theory demonstrates you lack the understanding of what defines and constitutes scientific hypothesis vs. theory vs. law. thus, by your own logic you have rendered yourself irrelevant to any further participation.

the national academy of sciences defines a scientific theory as "_a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment_."

evolution is not a "well-substantiated explanation" nor is it "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

it's a theory in the everyday definition of the word, yes. but cannot, by definition or with intellectual integrity and honesty, be accurately called a "scientific theory".


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> I donate plasma, and the process displayed something that has really affected me. If you haven't had this experience yet, it involves passing your blood through a membrane to separate the blood cells from the plasma. If one eats fatty foods within a couple hours before donating there will be so much cloudy orange-yellow fat in your blood that it will clog up the filter and they will have to replace it before continuing, or you may not be able to proceed. Eat a low fat diet and all is well. I never had any issues until one day I ate a typical Burger King meal a few hours before donating. I was amazed, and somewhat disgusted, with the gunk that appeared in my blood. The tech had to change the filter twice, and the normal 40 minute procedure took nearly 1.5 hours. So, I certainly believe that what you eat, and what you eat withing a few hours of riding can have significant consequences. Check out the tail end of this video where they politely discuss the effects of eating a fatty diet.


and then you turn around and put one through the goalposts!

BRAVO! :thumbsup:

does the same thing to the heart and arteries it does to that filter. just sayin...


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

monogod said:


> actually, the fact that you believe it to be a scientific theory demonstrates you lack the understanding of what defines and constitutes scientific hypothesis vs. theory vs. law. thus, by your own logic you have rendered yourself irrelevant to any further participation.
> 
> the national academy of sciences defines a scientific theory as "_a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment_."
> 
> ...


There is no scientific debate regarding the validity of Evolution as a scientific theory.

The National Academy of Sciences supports Evolution as a scientific theory, and since you acknowledge their authority then that should help you across the chasm. It's confusing, I understand. Lot's of places to start.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Tidbit:To date there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

Fleas said:


> Before
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you go here after your rides?
Kentucky restaurant shut down after roadkill found in kitchen | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> a study of this type with integrity would look at children who avoid cow's milk yet get sufficient dietary calcium from plant sources rather than animal sources.


What don't you understand about an experiment? If you wanted to prove that you can get more calcium from spinach, you would take the same group, same diet, substitute spinach in one, milk in the other. In this case you have a group eating similar american (bad) diet. The children in the first group HAD a calcium deficience BECAUSE they avoided dairy, you plain and simple idiot. The other group did NOT have a calcium deficiency, not because they ate spinach and kale, but BECAUSE they ate dairy, you plain and simple idiot.

Could they have eaten spinach and kale instead to get that? OF-****ing-COURSE.

You make a strong simple claim--that milk is the opposite of a source of calcium--now back it up. Why didn't dairy give THOSE kids a deficiency?

Your position doesn't require you to praise the value of vegetables--which we all get--but it also doesn't require you to scare us with your meatpoison bs.

If you were really smart--instead of just self-congratulatory--you would pick the position that there is no benefit to eating meat, and in light of all these studies you've cited which conclude with words like "may" (show a link between blah blah and cancer)--so why risk eating it? That puts the onus on meat consumers to go around and attempt to find studies praising the benefits of meat. Much harder than picking apart your absolutist position. But see, you're not that smart.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

A little Dave Mason for monogod and EmTee

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa




Sj


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Can't we all just get along!?!?!? All I wanted to do was share my barfing experience with you all!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> There is no scientific debate regarding the validity of Evolution as a scientific theory.


hmmmm... so you speak for ALL scientists on this? even the ones who publicly debate the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? even the ones who, though previously embracing darwinian evolution, have repudiated it and now openly reject it?

you're saying these guys don't exist and do not debate the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?

hmmmm.... gonna have to not agree with you on this one. you're either not very well read, not aware of what's going on in the scientific community, or just flat out intentionally lying and hope i'm a push-over and won't realize it.



Asmodeus2112 said:


> The National Academy of Sciences supports Evolution as a scientific theory, and since you acknowledge their authority then that should help you across the chasm. It's confusing, I understand. Lot's of places to start.


well first of all, i didn't acknowledge them as an authority regarding the veracity of evolutionary biology. excellent use of the strawman and appeal to authority fallacies (along with a few others) though.

secondly, i actually intentionally use their definition because it's a win for me either way.

by their own definition of what constitutes a scientific theory evolution fails the litmus test. yet instead, and demonstrating the dishonesty and slight of hand of most who support evolution as validly scientific theory, they call it scientific theory anyway.

their stated definition of what comprises a scientific theory actually lies very much in line with the 16th century definition of bacon which is:_* observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
*_
darwinian evolution completely flunks this modality of scientific method and despite claiming to operate in this fashion the NAS in reality does not -- hence demonstrating the dishonesty and disingenuous slight of hand and dishonest science that characterizes promoting darwinian (*theory* in the general sense of the word, *hypothesis* in the scientific sense) as genuine science.

behe's "irruducible complexity" completely eviscerates and demolishes at the most foundational and core level darwins hypothesis of evolution.



Asmodeus2112 said:


> Tidbit:To date there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed.


this is proof of what, exactly? that this is scientific proof bolstering the veracity of darwinian evolutionary theory? um.... no. :nono: yet more slight of hand and dishonest chicanery.

you know who else's idea was not peer reviewed and was generally rejected by mainstream science initially? galileo. he was almost killed for "going against the norm". however, the veracity of science is not dependent on popularity amongst the "in crowd" any more now regarding darwin's hypothesis than it was then when galileo correctly disputed "accepted science" of his day.

interestingly enough, darwin's theory wasn't peer reviewed either. nor, for that matter, was he even a trained scientist. both are reasons that you would refuse to consider any disputations to that theory.

in fact, were someone to operate in the scientific community as darwin did they would be soundly rejected, mocked, ridiculed, and all of their ideas unceremoniously rejected.

however, in typical dishonest fashion and slight of hand you also fail to mention that in order to be published in a peer reviewed journal an article must go through an approval process first. in the case of evolution by pro-evolutionists.

so honestly, when pro-evolutionists review and subsequently refuse to publish work which desecrates their idol and tips over their holy cow can one honestly call this "proof" that the work is without veracity or merit?

the answer to all, save the most dishonest and corrupt, is not just "no" but "HELL NO!"


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

Bible people ate meat and drank milk. Because god said so.

Gen 1:29-30
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


And judging people for eating what god gave them goes against your beliefs, Mono. Tisk, tisk!

Rom 14:2-3
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

I mean, meat is god's gift to you! How can you refuse it?

1 Tim 4:3-5
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Don't you know your own doctrine? Come on now... god made your body PERFECT and he told you what is ok to feed it! What are you doing trying to bring your pseudoscience into this? DON'T YOU LISTEN TO YOUR MONOGOD? Mono is disappoint 


I actually was going to start with your 'snipe' at evolution, but that has been covered. 

*bites tongue*

Well, fingers in this case...

AHEM.

I was raised Roman Catholic. Then I turned 11 and stopped believing in the Easter Bunny.

*cracks fingers*

So let's bring it to YOUR turf, shall we? Which is correct, your personal stance, or your religion's stance?

...aannddd GO!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

wow... the content of your post is so asinine, ludicrous, vacuous, specious, and downright ignorant on so many levels i feel like i'm punching a 2nd grade girl in the gut by responding.

but what the hey -- if you wanna pigpile then you're gonna get pile driven...


Bikemaya said:


> Bible people ate meat and drank milk. Because god said so.
> 
> Gen 1:29-30
> 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
> 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


so you're saying fruit and green herbs are meat? using meat in the common context today? :skep: you been hittin' the bong with jeffgothro or somethin???

the passage you just quoted was BEFORE sin was recorded and BEFORE death entered the world (death is required to get animal flesh) and is a record of God telling adam his food and the food of every living animal was to be every herb bearing seed and every fruit from the tree.

if you're going to use the bible to make a point perhaps it would be wise to be more well versed about it.

as i'm sure you know, the english language is dynamic rather than static, and meanings of words morph and change with time. just 50 years ago being "gay" meant you were happy, light-hearted, and full of joy. now it means you like having sex with people of your own gender. likewise, there are other words whose meanings have changed over time with "meat" being one of them.

"meat" in this context is synonymous with "food" rather than "dead animals". it comes from the hebrew word אכלה ('ôklâh) which means, literally, food. "meat" came from the kjv 1611 translation wherein "meat" did not mean in 1611 what it means today in general usage. in that time, it meant "food" rather than "dead animal flesh". in fact, very few of the modern translations (kjv, rv, and a couple others) translate ôklâh as "meat", instead the bulk use the modern vernacular of "food".

however, there are still meanings of the word "meat" in our daily common usage which do not mean "dead animal flesh" such as the "meat" of a nut. according to you it would mean that when you crack open a walnut you'll find the flesh of a dead animal. 



Bikemaya said:


> And judging people for eating what god gave them goes against your beliefs, Mono. Tisk, tisk!
> 
> Rom 14:2-3
> 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
> 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.


hmmmm.... aside from the fact you have no idea what the structure of my belief system is i've made it abundantly clear in several posts i don't condemn people for their choices nor do i look down or judge anyone for what they choose to eat. to the contrary i'm a vehement defender of free will and freedom of choice so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

if you scan back through the tread you'll see this has been my clearly stated position at all times.

as to the passage you referrenced, paul was talking about foods offered to idols in this passage rather than making a meat vs. veggies commentary. in this entire passage he was also talking about eating and fasting as well. there were those of the faith who would look down upon those that eat meat offered to idols, and it was these who paul referred to as "weak". these people who believed that it was wrong to eat meat previously offered to pagan idols would eat only vegetables eschewing the meat out of piety. so it has absolutely nothing to do with vegetarian vs. carnivore.



Bikemaya said:


> I mean, meat is god's gift to you! How can you refuse it?
> 
> 1 Tim 4:3-5
> 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
> ...


yet again you+bible=FAIL.

the greek word that some bibles translate as "meats" in verse 3 is βρῶμα (brōma) and like the passage in genesis it does not mean "animal flesh". rather, it also means "food".

since God never created animals to be used for food (see gen. 1:29,30) only the most profoundly ignorant and uninformed of the bible would assert this passage is talking about animal flesh in verse 3.

further, "creature" in verse 4 is from the greek κτίσμα (ktisma) and means "created thing" not "animal".

the reader of the kjv 1611 bible would have read "meat" in both passages to mean "food" rather than "dead animal flesh"; and would have read "creature" to mean "created thing.

with all due respect, it is the very passages you quote that completely refute your argument.



Bikemaya said:


> Don't you know your own doctrine? Come on now... god made your body PERFECT and he told you what is ok to feed it! What are you doing trying to bring your pseudoscience into this? DON'T YOU LISTEN TO YOUR MONOGOD? Mono is disappoint


hmmmm... i actually know my own doctrine very well, but i've not injected it into this thread.

as with the rest of your erroneous suppositions you seem to have erroneously assumed my username is religious in nature, which it is not. but that's ok, this blunder doesn't make you look any more blunt, obtuse, and ignorant than does the rest of your post.



Bikemaya said:


> I actually was going to start with your 'snipe' at evolution, but that has been covered.


yeah... about as successfully as you "covered" the bible stuff. :thumbsup:



Bikemaya said:


> I was raised Roman Catholic. Then I turned 11 and stopped believing in the Easter Bunny.


um... ok. i guess. :skep:

though i'm not sure what relevance this has to ANYTHING either pertaining to this thread or not, i'll say that unlike yours my parents had the integrity not to deceive me and lie to me about santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc. so i've never believed in any of them.



Bikemaya said:


> So let's bring it to YOUR turf, shall we? Which is correct, your personal stance, or your religion's stance?


both are irrelevant to the topic at hand and i have no desire to pontificate on either. instead, how about we just stick to the current topic at hand -- discussing what actually happens to the body as a result of consuming animal based foods/proteins/fats.

you may remove your foot from your mouth at your convenience.


----------



## hothands (Oct 3, 2012)

eat what you want when you want it and ride as hard as you can.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

I am a firm believer of 6 small meals a day so eating before a ride is not much of issue as I always do. 
However, I try not to include dairy in a pre ride meal.

For example, if one of my meals is a protein shake, and I am about to ride, I will opt for a protein bar instead, 

Never had a bad experience, but I just don't see a good one coming out of it. 


However, I look forward to the post ride meal the most. 
I find a couple good IPA's do the trick.:thumbsup:


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Do you go here after your rides?
> Kentucky restaurant shut down after roadkill found in kitchen | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News


^^^THIS is why I have not had take out Chinese food in years.

Besides, road kill animals are all full of pulverized bones and their entrails have been ruptured all over the place = too much prep work.

-F


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Any preferred foodstuffs before your rides?


Question posed by the OP.



monogod said:


> "_big wheels *small brain*_" -- yup, it's clear why it doesn't make sense to you.
> 
> must be frustrating trying to follow along while the adults are talking...


The question is what you eat. Not what you think I should eat. Your posts have been distracting, and have lacked direct relevance to the question posed. Your posts are red herrings.

Thanks for calling me stupid and childish by the way. :thumbsup:


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

monogod said:


> hmmmm... so you speak for ALL scientists on this? even the ones who publicly debate the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? even the ones who, though previously embracing darwinian evolution, have repudiated it and now openly reject it?
> 
> you're saying these guys don't exist and do not debate the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?
> 
> ...


Good grief. I feel sorry for you bro.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Wow, what happened? I just wanted to tell my barf story and see what people ate/didn't eat before a ride! Lulz


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Wow, what happened? I just wanted to tell my barf story and see what people ate/didn't eat before a ride! Lulz


Sorry, I get a kick out of feeding the trolls. Any bets on how many words he's typing now?

I enjoyed your barf story, thanks. If i don't eat an hour or so before riding I sometimes feel hollow and shaky. I agree with you on apples. I commute and find that if I don't eat something between lunch and the ride home at 6ish I get that bonking feeling. I've been disappointed with bloks, gels etc. and usually ride much better when I've eaten a sandwich or lite meal type things vs. sports stuff.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I remember one day a few years ago I went on a ride with my buddy who was much faster than me. All I had eaten was milk and three donuts. I felt like crap and puked on the way up the climb. I have learned to eat better foods before a ride. Greasy fried stuff tends to make me ride like I am hungover from a night on the town. Apples tend to give me lots of energy on semi-long rides. I usually keep one in my bag. I am realizing that eating two hours ebfore a ride is ideal for me (most rides anyway). It is not weighing me down and I am not yet hungry. No cramps either. Any preferred foodstuffs before your rides?


My Cross Country coach used to say that our stomachs would stop digesting when we ran, therefore milk is bad an hour before a meet or practice because it will go sour in our stomachs. I'm not sure if this is true, but I did puke some nasty curdled type milk at a meet once. I'm going to bet the stomach acid has a lot to do with that. Maybe the milk had more to do with your experience than the donuts.


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Good grief. I feel sorry for you bro.


When someone tries to tell someone else that there's a rift in the scientific community over evolution, the conversation is pretty much over. biology 101: evolution is the core theme of biology.


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

Yeah, milk is a big no-no for me pre ride. I love chocolate milk post ride though.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Oh... Ok. Back to barf stories. 
My stepson always manages to eat a bowl of cereal or a huge egg sandwich before a ride and always throws up all over. We call him Ralph.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

NYrr496 said:


> Oh... Ok. Back to barf stories.
> My stepson always manages to eat a bowl of cereal or a huge egg sandwich before a ride and always throws up all over. We call him Ralph.


Get the camera ready and take him out this Saturday AM!


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

It's good to know a thread a started caught on fire. Never thought religion would be brought up when I posted this. lol. Robust debate is good for Democracy though, right? No? Maybe? I dunno. Barfing is cool though.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MattC555 said:


> The question is what you eat. Not what you think I should eat.


no, the question i initially responded to was from this post...


manbeer said:


> Is there any reason to avoid proteins before riding? I know very little about this stuff but i always tried to have as much protein as possible whenever i had the chance.


a comment i made while answering that question seemed to garner quite a bit of attention and many people felt they needed to engage me over it as well as my comments in subsequent posts.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Good grief. I feel sorry for you bro.


although we clearly agree on much, what we disagree on i'm able to do without feeling sorry for you. nice avoidance technique, btw...



Asmodeus2112 said:


> I get a kick out of feeding the trolls.


since you initially engaged me trolling for a response/debate/argument rather than the other way around who's _really_ the troll???


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

You're really trolling monogod. Your Darwin post was epic troll.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Lemiwinks said:


> When someone tries to tell someone else that there's a rift in the scientific community over evolution, the conversation is pretty much over. biology 101: evolution is the core theme of biology.


a TRUE scientist or student of science is objective and seeks facts and truth over the promotion of their own pet cause/agenda, and will take ALL evidence into consideration.

i've studied, and continue to study, evolution in depth because truth is my core agenda. can you make the same statement regarding anti-evolution science, studies, and literature? here's a few peer reviewed articles and papers if you have the integrity to be truly objective.

more scholarly literary challenges to your biased, subjective, blind devotion to evolution: darwin's black box (behe), signature in the cell (meyer), darwin on trial (johnson), the edge of evolution (behe), icons of evolution (wells), evolution, a theory in crisis (denton), science and the evidence for design in the universe (behe), the myth of junk dna (wells).


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> It's good to know a thread a started caught on fire. Never thought religion would be brought up when I posted this. lol. Robust debate is good for Democracy though, right? No? Maybe? I dunno.


food and the human body will always be a hot topic simply due to the sheer amount of disinformation that is disseminated and accepted as valid truth and fact. some people get reeeeeeally ticked when their sacred cow is tipped. (pun intended)

i was amazed when religion got brought up too! totally didn't expect that. interestingly though, had i brought up religion there would have been howls of disapproval, disgust, and protest. the peanut gallery giving Bikemaya a pass on it really revealed their bias and mob mentality...

doesn't bother me though, because truth stands on it's own merit and is not dependent upon popularity or majority vote. irrespective of the topic or number of detractors, one man and the truth are a majority. :thumbsup:

be that as it may, robust debate is good PERIOD! i enjoy it because it causes one to research, think, gather data, analyze, take a position, and to KNOW what one believes and why. deeper enlightenment comes as one becomes more and more objective and less agenda driven.

as i've had opportunity over the years to discuss different issues with a countless folks i've found there are only two kinds of people on the earth... those who like to be right and those who like to be right.

the only way they differ is in HOW they arrive at being right... dishonest people bend or simply disregard the truth to fit around or within their personal beliefs/agendas/paradigms, while honest people of integrity become right by altering their personal beliefs and paradigms to be in line with truth.

for all my faults, i strive to be the latter.



GnarBrahWyo said:


> Barfing is cool though.


only when someone else is doing it! :lol:


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

I didn't realize to what degree you were a religious zealot. I would never have attempted an argument with you. I would smile and nod like the kid I knew getting his physics and astronomy degrees who really believed the universe was 6000 years old or something stupid. Someone like that doesn't study science to listen and learn, but to try and outsmart, disprove, disrupt and just generally be a pain in the ass.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> I didn't realize to what degree you were a religious zealot. I would never have attempted an argument with you. I would smile and nod like the kid I knew getting his physics and astronomy degrees who really believed the universe was 6000 years old or something stupid. Someone like that doesn't study science to listen and learn, but to try and outsmart, disprove, disrupt and just generally be a pain in the ass.


wow... talk about an assumption based on facts not in evidence!

also, i like to throw in snarky comments for fun and entertainment value, but for someone who cried foul about it you've certainly resorted to making ad homs the sole content of your posts. if i recall, there's a word for that.

as i also recall, i believe you also said something to the effect that doing so destroys one's position and renders them irrelevant. but i guess it's different when you do it... huh?


----------



## Doug_J (Oct 5, 2009)

If I have at minimum an hour prior to hitting the trail I'll have a normal breakfast: Bacon & Eggs, fruit, milk, coffee, ...and a good poop, coffee makes me poop. 

If time is tight I like a BIG glass50/50 milk and OJ blended with a raw egg. 

For a decent length ride I always take an apple and some homemade trail mix, sometimes a foil package of tuna as well. Plent of water always.

Eating crap before a ride or eating too much before is no bueno for me anymore. 15 years ago maybe, but not now.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> wow... talk about an assumption based on facts not in evidence!
> 
> also, i like to throw in snarky comments for fun and entertainment value, but for someone who cried foul about it you've certainly resorted to making ad homs the sole content of your posts. if i recall, there's a word for that.
> 
> as i also recall, i believe you also said something to the effect that doing so destroys one's position and renders them irrelevant. but i guess it's different when you do it... huh?


Look who's crying now? LOL. Ever consider that I went the ad-hominem route after you just to see what would happen? All of a sudden you maneuver around and... remember the little picture of the crying baby you posted above? Sheesh. This has been a hoot. Is this the first time you've ever been trolled? So busy doing it you didn't realize I guess.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> Look who's crying now? LOL. Ever consider that I went the ad-hominem route after you just to see what would happen? All of a sudden you maneuver around and... remember the little picture of the crying baby you posted above? Sheesh. Is this the first time you've ever been trolled? So busy doing it you didn't realize I guess.


crying, huh? uh.... well... ok. whatever you gotta think to save your fragile ego, nancy. :skep: you got seriously bent out of shape and it showed... but you can play it off if you need to -- you're among friends.

maneuvered around? hmm.... nope, never happened. i'm still throwing in snarky comments and ad homs. what do you think the last post you responded to was? pwned! LOL



EmTee said:


> This has been a hoot.


yup... BIG fun!!! 

see? there's something we can agree on after all... :thumbsup:


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

Doug_J said:


> If I have at minimum an hour prior to hitting the trail I'll have a normal breakfast: Bacon & Eggs, fruit, milk, coffee, ...and a good poop, coffee makes me poop.
> 
> If time is tight I like a BIG glass50/50 milk and OJ blended with a raw egg.
> 
> ...


I can skip the ride and go straight to puking with your 50/50 mix.


----------



## Scott the Great (Dec 29, 2009)

Monogod has a sigline about how derailleurs suck, AND he's a vegan? Ugh... Is there anything worse than than the fusion of those two self-righteous cults? Gag me with a fork.

Gearz rule.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> My Cross Country coach used to say that our stomachs would stop digesting when we ran, therefore milk is bad an hour before a meet or practice because it will go sour in our stomachs. I'm not sure if this is true, but I did puke some nasty curdled type milk at a meet once. I'm going to bet the stomach acid has a lot to do with that. Maybe the milk had more to do with your experience than the donuts.


I have heard that if you are doing nothing else but digesting food, most of your energy is going to that process. When you start using your energy for other tasks, like running, the digestive process is curtailed while your energy (or blood flow) is divided or "switched" (for lack of vocabulary here) to maintain the other process(es). It was said to be a primordial development to aid in escape/self-preservation/fight/flight. That's one reason, I think, a lot of people get a stomach ache or worse if they eat too much or too soon before exercise. Their body is, almost literally, shifting gears. Hopefully not into "R".

-F


----------



## mfisher1971 (Dec 7, 2005)

it would sure be nice if, at some point, folks would take their self-righteous commentary private, or to a thread of its own...

BACK ON TOPIC...

I used to head to a wing joint before a weekly Sunday afternoon ride. Usually feast on 8-12 hot wings, have a salad covered with crumbled bacon and bleu cheese, and drink a beer or two. Always seemed to have decent rides, can't remember bonking of feeling that bad during. Nowadays, I just load up on a good breakfast of eggs, bacon or sausage, juice and a good whole wheat bread for toast. Or maybe pancakes or biscuits and gravy if I'm not feeling too lazy.


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

Studies have shown you are 50% more likely to get punched in the face for trying to force your beliefs on others.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Get the camera ready and take him out this Saturday AM!


Haha! You're on!


----------



## Doug_J (Oct 5, 2009)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> I can skip the ride and go straight to puking with your 50/50 mix.


Yeah, my wife thinks it's pretty disgusting, but it works for me!


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

For all others, excuse the long post. He asked for it 

Your parents might not have had very good imaginations, but they did raise you with the sky daddy fairy tale! I like to call the christian flavor easter bunny, makes for easier context then using a universal word that every culture has claimed a different meaning to 

And, anyways, why would genesis even MENTION beasts and fowl in the same passage as other foods if it wasn't meant as FOOD? Well, sky daddy's book has never been known for its editing skills...(I am looking at YOU, Chronicles...)

Oh, I chose King James version, by the way. It is the one I was lectured from. If you have a different flavor you prefer, let me know. All the same as far as I'm concerned 

Let me first start by saying bible timey peoples didn't eat a lot of meat because it was a LUXURY. Any time a rich person is referred to, they are gorging themselves on meat and milk because they can afford it. The Israelites ate meat at every opportunity, they just usually didn't have much. So they saved it for special occasions and celebration. As much time the bible spends droning on and on about when and how to sacrifice lambs, practically, it was rare. Sacrifices were expensive too, and were saved for special occasions. The bible even has provisions for the poor as to what they can sacrifice instead, which is fowl  This, of course, further reduced the number of the flock when the sky daddy was always so hungry and demanding lamb at every opportunity. He had rich taste! But, either way, if meat was available, it was eaten. Period. And sky daddy encouraged it by making special occasions, complete with recipes, for eating meat.

The lamb thing I always found creepy. First, god is constantly demanding them to be slaughtered and burned for him, then his kid comes along and says all his followers are lambs? So, what, god liked soylent green or something? Was it *really* 'lamb' being constantly slaughtered at the alter? Yes, I understand the whole 'flock' analogy, but a proper jewish herdsman took care of his lambs.. and also ate them. And killed them whenever someone sneezed. They weren't raised as pets, they were raised for food, sacrifices, and wool.

*Concerning lamb, god's favorite meat!*

I am going to skip all the instances of god asking for lamb with his macaroni pictures. Frankly, he has his peeps burn a ****ing lamb offering for him every time one of them sneezes. He REALLY likes his lamb and wine, and only *sometimes* will share  Bogart!

The bible even comes with RECIPES for cooking lamb! Roasted lamb with herbs! I eat meat, but lamb is where I draw the line 



> Exodus 12: 1-11
> 
> 12 And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
> 
> ...


But it was a *special* occasion, (well, yearly special if you are Jewish...) so lets continue.

God like lamb at his parties too!



> Exodus 29: 31-33
> 
> 31 "And thou shalt take the ram of the consecration and boil his flesh in the holy place.
> 
> ...





> Leviticus 6: 15-18
> 
> 15 And he shall take from it his handful of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savor, even the memorial of it unto the Lord.
> 
> ...


God hates a bogart  And, no, dressing a lamb doesn't mean it's sunday best. Unless, by sunday best you mean with unleavened bread, herbs, and wine. In which case, YES, the lamb never looked better! 



> 2 Samuel 12: 1-6
> 
> 1 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, "There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.
> 
> ...


But, enough about lamb. 
*
God likes all meat!*

The animals shall FEAR YOU! For you are MAN. HUNTER. MUAHAHAHAHA! Also, you can't pawn this one off as 'meat in a more general sense'. Ancient people had no ****ing clue that plants move. They thought the things just appeared when the sky daddy was happy cause they feed him the lambs and wine.



> Genesis 9: 1-3
> 
> 9 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.
> 
> ...


As I said, meat was a LUXURY back in the day, but no one hesitated to eat it when the occasion was right.



> Genesis 27: 1-10 and 17-25
> 
> And it came to pass that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son and said unto him, "My son." And he said unto him, "Behold, here am I."
> 
> ...


I think moses said it best. A bit wordy, that one. But at least he agrees; steak is AWESOME. How he lived a happy a life without bacon, however, is a mystery to me. He must have had an unexplainable empty spot in his heart where bacon should have been </3



> Leviticus 11: 1-47
> 
> 11 And the Lord spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
> 
> ...


There is more, but I am bored now. I need a new ball of yarn to play with. Anywho, this is just the old testament. I could go into the new one as well. I will give you a hint; Mr. Heyseuss fed his peeps fishes and loaves, not rice and beans.

Also, leave your religion at the altar. It exposes your weak spot. Getting butt hurt when someone says the magical hot word your religion is fighting its current holy war against leaves that soft spot right open. You think no one can see it, and your religion protects it, but it doesn't. You are spending a **** ton of time defending a view that is only propped up by the same circular misinformation every single one of you sheep defends like the freakin Alamo. Pretty much the exact same logic that props up the book where the BS comes from in the first place. But I digress 

Have fun, and try some sugar next time. You really need to work on that bedside manner. With a bit of sugar, encouraging and helpful knowledge, and cheeriness without pushing, I have talked many people into giving healthy vegan meals a try  The most ironic part? They have all taken the advice from a fat chick with no medical background. You would be amazed at what talking to people instead of fighting with them does!

Good luck, and sky daddy bless


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

MattC555 said:


> You're really trolling monogod. Your Darwin post was epic troll.


I have trouble believing well spoken people are that stupid. I like to play along for teh spiders. I like to think I am contributing to the trash heap that is the google archives. One day, this **** will be important in an ethnographical sense. Like the anthropologists who study poop, only it is our cultural trash! It's all in the trash, every little dirty secret and information you ever (didn't) want to know about ancient peoples


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

Oh, and someone else reminded me! I like to chug coffee first thing in the morning as well. One, it wakes me up, and two, nothing gets you feeling ready to go for the day like an awesome poop! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nenbran (Dec 7, 2010)

Wow, I just popped in to see what's goin' on.

What a cluster****.


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

That van looks SO familiar...










So hard to resist free candy  Just park your bike on top and head on in! There is enough for everyone


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bikemaya said:


> ~_religious rant snipped~_
> leave your religion at the altar.


...says the chick who without provocation spewed her vitriolic resentment of God, hatred of the bible, and disdain for christians all over this thread. 

fun is fun but you've seriously crossed the line. this post is profoundly inappropriate, not germane to any part of this thread, has absolutely nothing to do with anything posted by myself or anyone else, and is merely a thinly and poorly disguised rambling religious rant stemming from an obvious deep-seated hatred of God. i've seen posts with far less irrelevant religious content removed by mods.

just to be clear -- it was YOU who initially interjected religion into this thread, not me. in fact, not only did you interject religion but you proceeded to make wild assumptions on my beliefs as basis to subsequently harangue and attack me despite simultaneously lecturing me on being nice.

yes, you trolled and hooked me and i responded to your first religious based post. congrats. but as a proponent of intellectual integrity i honestly would have done the same if you had grossly misquoted and misrepresented pretty much any other religion (or secular doctrine) as you did with christianity. in other words, i wasn't defending the bible or christianity per se but rather was combating ignorance and disinformation.

even at that i responded specifically to the gross misapplication, misquotation, and misunderstanding of SPECIFIC passages that YOU interjected into the thread; making ABSOLUTELY NO overall comment about meat as it relates to the bible or God. it was YOU who felt the need to do, for reasons known only to you.

then you make broad and sweeping assumptions regarding my personal beliefs in order to set up strawmen to knock over so you can pretentiously crow about your victories and how weak and feeble your opponent is. way to go, dawn quixote... 

if you're angry at God then go beat up a nun or defecate in a synagogue, but don't pollute this or any other thread with your blinding caustic revulsion of Him. or better yet, join an atheist forum so you can God-bash to your heart's content with complete impunity. there are plenty of christians who join those forums solely to argue with atheists, giving you a steady supply of opponents. you'd have the time of your life!



Bikemaya said:


> But I digress


ding ding ding... we have a winner for the understatement of the entire thread!



Bikemaya said:


> You would be amazed at what talking to people instead of fighting with them does!


like you've done with me... right? :skep:

review the thread.... contrary to the revisionist history propagated by yourself and others my involvement began by answering a specific diet question with medical, biophysical, and physiological facts rather than attacking people. while i'm an admitted fan of snarky comments my posts centered around facts rather than ad homs or lambasting people on their chosen beliefs and/or practices.

upon tipping their sacred cows, people came out of the woodwork to aggressively engage me -- and i don't mind that, truly. as i've previously stated, i don't mind personal attacks and i actually enjoy a spirited discussion peppered with snarky comments cuz i don't take the comments personally nor do i take it as a personal insult to be disagreed with or if others hold a different opinion.

my arguments have been directed at facts rather than beliefs -- a difference a great deal of people in this thread have not been able to comprehend.

facts are facts, and i'll doggedly argue them -- but beliefs and opinions are quite another thing and i vehemently respect the rights of others to hold whatever belief/opinions they choose along with their right to make whatever personal choices they wish provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. something i have repetitively made clear.

happy trails!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Scott the Great said:


> Monogod has a sigline about how derailleurs suck, AND he's a vegan? Ugh... Is there anything worse than than the fusion of those two self-righteous cults? Gag me with a fork.
> 
> Gearz rule.


it sure is easy to spot someone who's been trounced by a ss'er a time or two! :lol:


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

And you STILL take the bait! Even after I told you how I baited you last time!

Classic!

:lol:

Here, let me try a better picture:










Sorry sweetie, my bad. Didn't mean to leave a mark. I tend to forget that folks who don't hang out in the fire get burned so easily  I will go easy on MTBR folk from now on. I thought you were up to it with how much you were shooting your mouth to everyone else! I guess you are used to just dishing it and not receiving it, hmm?

I don't have a problem with religious types. Except the self righteous pompous ****** ones who have to **** on other people's good times. So let the good times roll and lay off the roid raging, k?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bikemaya said:


> ~image snipped~
> 
> And you STILL take the bait! Even after I told you how I baited you last time!


not responding to a single point you raised is taking your bait? :skep:

uh... no. hardly.

your post had NOTHING to do ANY of the content of this thread (save your previous religious intrusion) and was nothing more than religious pontification wherein you vented your animosity for God and the bible. you made your disgust for both clear in your own words. i called you on it. now you're trying to backpedal and claim it was bait.

sorry... no one's buying it. :nono:

oh, and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery you might wanna be a little more original in future...



Bikemaya said:


> I thought you were up to it with how much you were shooting your mouth to everyone else! I guess you are used to just dishing it and not receiving it, hmm?


as i said, fun is fun but you crossed the line. pure and simple.

in the appropriate forum i would most definitely discuss in depth the points you raised. but this thread is not the place and F-88 is long gone. that doesn't mean i'm not up to it, it means i'm abiding by the rules of the forum by not pontificating my religious beliefs or engaging in an in depth bible study.

YOU are the only one that's brought religion and your corresponding beliefs into the fray.

if you wish to further discuss the issues i raised and commented on regarding the detrimental effect resultant to the ingestion of meat/dairy into the body we can most definitely continue that. snarky comments and all...


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

I made snarky comments on a silly book of fairy tales that you were basing your own arguments off of. I am sorry, is that off limits? Seems so since you resorted to personal attacks as soon as I brought it up. I never once personally attacked you. I just made fun of a silly book and made my own snark regarding the ridiculous nature of it. Then you threw a hissy fit and declared it 'profoundly inappropriate'. But I figured it was ok! Because, as you said, I don't know you or your beliefs, so I didn't hurt your feelings or anything, right?  I mean, we are all just being snarky about other's misunderstandings on health and science, right? That book is the KING of health and science misunderstandings! Don't know why YOUR main source of reference is off limits but everyone else's isn't...

You think I am bashing sky daddy? We are bros, man! We like to kick back a few cold ones and **** around with each other like that. I hate lamb, he eats that **** up! We both like wine though, so all good! And, hey, he makes fun of my shitty writing too. We both get a good laugh out of our embarrassing early works!  Don't take it personally, man. He doesn't. 

Also, I did try to talk to you nicely. Look for my first post in this thread  It was a nice way of telling you to be cool and keep it civil. And you continued to spiral. I'll give you a hint; the fish are the same thing.

You used your religious beliefs to prop up your agreements about evolution. Please, ffs, don't repeat them. I have heard them before, and it is always the same circular lines. You brought it up first when you picked a single word out of someone else's post, and began a crusade against evolution and science in general. I just mounted a counter crusade...against...uhhhh.. crusades... 

The nice thing about my posts, however, is I didn't need to read any of the other droning posts, and I got all the info I needed with a few quick googles! Overall, I think I came out with less invested time and less butt hurt feelings, and thus I didn't resort to personal attacks 

Don't be mad 










It's a little fish.  But boy did it put up a fight for a little 'un!


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I can't believe what this thread has turned into... 
I don't even have time to read all of this.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bikemaya said:


> I made snarky comments on a silly book of fairy tales that you were basing your own arguments off of...


nowhere, at no time, in no way, and in no post did i base my arguments from a biblical or religious basis. you've been barking up the wrong tree this whole time. you're just to obtuse, myopic, and ignorant to realize it even when you've been told outright.



Bikemaya said:


> Don't know why YOUR main source of reference is off limits but everyone else's isn't


if your assumption is that the bible was my main source of reference for anything i've stated in this thread (other than answering your first bible thread) you couldn't be more wrong. you're fighting a battle that simply doesn't exist. in no post, position, or statement (again other than to respond to YOUR biblically based post) did i use the bible as an overt or covert reference.



Bikemaya said:


> You used your religious beliefs to prop up your agreements about evolution.


again, in no place and at no time did i do that. not accepting darwinian evolution is not synonymous with religion or a religious response. my reasons are entirely science based.



Bikemaya said:


> Don't be mad


don't flatter yourself, people like you don't anger me nor do your anti-religious, anti-biblical, anti-God rants anger me nor has anger been the genesis or impetus of any of my posts.

your quixotic crusade against what you think has been the backbone of my position, arguments, and posts is just that... jousting at windmills.

your lack of reading comprehension betrays you as i made my position quite clear, yet you've read something different and contrary into it all together based on your own bias, ignorance, and lack of basic reading comprehension. since you were too stupid to garner it the first time i'll not bother repeating it.

bring on your next load of tripe....


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Lemiwinks said:


> When someone tries to tell someone else that there's a rift in the scientific community over evolution, the conversation is pretty much over. biology 101: evolution is the core theme of biology.


It is a waste of time arguing with Monogod about evolution. I know this from past experience.

I would be happy to link to past threads where this has been hashed out at length with him where he invokes many scientific theories which, when pressed he is then shown to have no knowledge of.

It makes absolutely no difference, he will never budge an inch. His beliefs are not based in science, they come from somewhere else, so no amount of scientific evidence is going to change his mind. He believes what he believes. Period.

And there is no end to the bogus arguments out there on the internet for people who share his beliefs to throw out there. It takes a lot of time to go through and debunk them (I know this also from experience), and they all come down to either a lack of understanding of the underlying theory, or a lack of understanding of the piece of evidence they bring forth. In some cases, they know it is bogus, they just want to see if something sticks to the wall. At some point people throwing this stuff out there just lose all their credibility, and I don't see the point of wasting more time with them.


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

Way to ruin a thread you two.


----------



## shorner (Jul 14, 2009)

Where's Jim Lehrer when you need him....oh wait.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kapusta said:


> It is a waste of time arguing with Monogod about evolution. I know this from past experience.


just as i've found it's a waste of time arguing with you about it. the truth is that we're equally immovable from our respective positions on evolution, each for our own reasons. however, you consistently make it sound like a bad, closed-minded, evil thing when someone else does it and a good thing when you do it.

for the record, i did NOT introduce the topic of evolution to this thread nor did i immediately jump on it and begin debate. someone else claimed humans evolved to need a high fat diet, and i disagreed. then further discussion ensued.

when someone wants to bring up evolution as a valid argument for something related to the human body i will disagree every time -- even if they use evolution to explain a position we're in agreement with. for example, someone could say humans evolved to function best on a vegan diet; and while i'd agree on the latter i would disagree with the former.



kapusta said:


> His beliefs are not based in science, they come from somewhere else, so no amount of scientific evidence is going to change his mind. He believes what he believes, and looks around for anything to throw that might stick to defend it.


 there must be an evolution believer's manual somewhere, cuz this is the common mantra when someone dares to disagree with their hallowed hypothesis. however, my beliefs are all science based and i reject your arguments and beliefs on scientific basis. our mutual position is that there is no valid science behind the other's position and arguments.



kapusta said:


> I don't see the point of wasting more time with them.


nor do i with you, which is why i ceased discussing certain things with you long ago. you think what you think and i think what i think. we each have our own reasons to hold the beliefs we do, we each claim they're based on science, we both reject what the other calls science, and we both view discussion with the other as a fruitless waste of time.

yet you consistently claim victory. :skep:

despite the similarities between us the main difference between you and i is that i'm ok with not agreeing with you and could hang out and ride with you and be totally ok with the discrepancies in our beliefs. conversely you, and people like you, make it a personal thing if someone dares to disagree with what you believe to be truth.

just look at all the furor it's caused here...


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

I wouldn't have any problem with your opinions if it wasn't for your complete lack of respect for fellow members of this forum, monogod.

Why you think personal attacks are fun and entertaining, yet religious dialogue is crossing the line, is beyond me. But you're all for freedom of speech right?


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Pork


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)

Ms Piggy


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Kermit


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)

Yoda









FYI, Religious and political discussions (or in your case arguments) are highly discouraged on MTBR, you two have about 1billion other internet boards in which you could go on and argue to your hearts delight.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

The force


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not the PETA type. Like Mac Danzig, the UFC Fighter, says: He doesn't want to get into it. I eat small amounts of incidental dairy (like in deserts and such) and I eat 2 eggs in the morning from a local, ethical farmer (Glaum Egg Ranch). I don't buy grocery store eggs and I'm cutting out cheese in the next month.

BTW, the only time anybody ever cares about my protein intake is when I mention I'm a vegetarian. So glad people care about my dietary needs! The next question is, "How do you stay so big and muscular without eating meat? What do you do for protein?"

I didn't get into this because of dietary/health reasons, though.

When it comes to my dietary choice, I try not to get into discussions about it. I think vegetarians/vegans have ruined the lifestyle by being pompous about it, which is annoying (PETA, etc.). A lot of them try to "lecture" people, and _look at the responses_ - d-bag'y junior high responses from those who choose to eat meat and dairy. Pompous vegetarians/vegans should learn that nobody will listen to them as long as they "lecture" people about it. For some reason, it becomes personal.

I can feel it if somebody offers me something to eat and I turn it down. Then they ask me and I tell them - immediately I feel a "defense" go up... like I told them their crotch stinks or their mama's ugly. Usually I just tell them I'm allergic.

I think many people can benefit from a lowered meat intake/plant based diet. Even if it's just lowering meat intake. Being conscience about food (like having a special diet) - even if it includes small amounts of meat - can help people like diabetics, the obese and others with significant health problems. May not cure them, but they can start to feel better with this, some moving, and proper medication. Unfortunately, look at this thread and the pile of cråp it's turned into. How can you persuade somebody to start thinking healthier choice diets if these discussions turn out this way?

I feel great. I haven't been sick in years (I used to get sick 2-3 times a year). I drink kale shakes every morning, and eat veggie sandwiches for lunch with a coconut water and some chips. Before a ride, I try to eat some fruit, but I usually just take a bar and eat it on the ride over. I try to stay away from gels and things, although I think they work well. I also try to stay away from caffeine right before a ride as it increases my HR to levels I'm uncomfortable with.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

Dion said:


> I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not the PETA type. Like Mac Danzig, the UFC Fighter, says: He doesn't want to get into it. I eat small amounts of incidental dairy (like in deserts and such) and I eat 2 eggs in the morning from a local, ethical farmer (Glaum Egg Ranch). I don't buy grocery store eggs and I'm cutting out cheese in the next month.
> 
> BTW, the only time anybody ever cares about my protein intake is when I mention I'm a vegetarian. So glad people care about my dietary needs! The next question is, "How do you stay so big and muscular without eating meat? What do you do for protein?"
> 
> ...


I feel your pain. It's crazy how offended people seem to get when they find out I don't eat meat (I try and avoid the situation whenever possible).


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Vegan joke. You know how you can pick out the vegan in the room? 









They'll tell you. 

Take it easy, I'm a vegeterian.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Vegan joke. You know how you can pick out the vegan in the room?
> 
> They'll tell you.
> 
> Take it easy, I'm a vegeterian.


:lol: That's funny because it's true for the most part.


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

:lol: that was a good one. I make it a point to actually avoid telling someone I'm a vegetarian. People ask so many dumb questions.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

I'm a vegetarian as well, although not strict. If I'm invited to a dinner and they serve meat I'll eat it, unless they have enough other items and I know the people are cool with it. I don't have an allergy to meat, I'm not going to die if I eat it. It's what one does the majority of the time that matters in this regard anyway. It pisses me off when I see people freak out that their veggie burger was grilled on the same grill that a hamburger was grilled on.

I became a vegetarian by going down the path of eating healthy. It's really difficult to filter the good information from the bad. There are so many interested parties trying to sway public opinion. I'm not completely sure about all the food information myself, but I try to do the best with what information I have. I certainly can't\won't\shouldn't preach to others what they should eat. I can only tell interested people what my experiences have been. (I'm 44, great blood pressure, low cholesterol, good BMI, no diabetes, no perscription drugs etc. Relevant to this thread a fairly strong rider and have been vegetarian long enough that i can say it has not adversely affected my biking performance. ) 

By posting this and doing exactly what the vegan joke is mocking, but it is very loosely relevant to this thread....


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

After the diatribes in this thread almost everything is relevant to it.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Dion said:


> I think many people can benefit from a lowered meat intake/plant based diet. Even if it's just lowering meat intake...
> 
> ...How can you persuade somebody to start thinking healthier choice diets if these discussions turn out this way?


I agree. I think the biggest danger is the displacement of better foods, not that meat is so bad for you. I am ready to admit that you're righter and I'm wronger. I feel like I eat too much meat because it's the easy way out for protein, and too many carbs because it's the easy way out for calories. I have mad metabolism. I do cook, eat, and enjoy vegetables and fruits, and praise high nutrient items like sprouts, but in the end I don't eat hardly enough of them.

I think there's really mainly one person responsible for turning the thread into what it is. I don't even have a big problem with one trying to "foist" his (or her--maya) beliefs onto another person. I have a big problem with employing sensationalism and bs. If you said "I'm a vegetarian and I feel great, better than when I ate meat" I don't think that would have really piqued the meat eaters so much. In fact, a rise was gotten out of a vegetarian or two as well. I think you're safe to bring it up.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

How To Stop Fighting Chickens _by VideojugLifestyleandHome_


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)

^^^ looks like we need more hanging purches and cd's in here


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

EmTee said:


> I agree. I think the biggest danger is the displacement of better foods, not that meat is so bad for you. I am ready to admit that you're righter and I'm wronger. I feel like I eat too much meat because it's the easy way out for protein, and too many carbs because it's the easy way out for calories. I have mad metabolism. I do cook, eat, and enjoy vegetables and fruits, and praise high nutrient items like sprouts, but in the end I don't eat hardly enough of them.
> 
> I think there's really mainly one person responsible for turning the thread into what it is. I don't even have a big problem with one trying to "foist" his (or her--maya) beliefs onto another person. I have a big problem with employing sensationalism and bs. If you said "I'm a vegetarian and I feel great, better than when I ate meat" I don't think that would have really piqued the meat eaters so much. In fact, a rise was gotten out of a vegetarian or two as well. I think you're safe to bring it up.


Indeed, you can be vegetarian and just eat Crispy Cremes and Diet Coke all day. I couldn't eat like I do without my wife. She does a lot of research and cooking. We honestly didn't start out with the goal to be vegetarian, we arrived there as we went down the path to try to eat healthier.


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

MattC555 said:


> I wouldn't have any problem with your opinions if it wasn't for your complete lack of respect for fellow members of this forum, monogod.
> 
> Why you think personal attacks are fun and entertaining, yet religious dialogue is crossing the line, is beyond me. But you're all for freedom of speech right?


^^^^^ This.

I don't poke people often, but when I do, I make sure they are complete tools


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

every time before a ride, I just think to myself, "what the hell, I'll just eat some trash"


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Guerdonian said:


> FYI, *Religious and political discussions (or in your case arguments) are highly discouraged on MTBR*, you two have about 1billion other internet boards in which you could go on and argue to your hearts delight.


that was exactly my stated point regarding her acrimonious religious diatribe being profoundly inappropriate and crossing the line; and precisely why i didn't engage her further when she pushed the issue. f88 is gone for a reason.

absolutely none of my arguments or positions were religiously or biblically based nor was i inclined to argue the points with her. in fact, i too referred her to an atheist board if she wished to engage in such arguments.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> I think there's really mainly one person responsible for turning the thread into what it is.


yup... one person controlling all the keyboards, fingers, responses, and submit buttons for countless accounts. gimme a break...


----------



## Ilikemtb999 (Oct 8, 2010)

This thread is confusing....."god" wants me to eat trash food or not??


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)




----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Then he had a steak dinner.


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)




----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

Ok, ok, closing statements and I will leave it alone. Sorry guys 

In my defense, the thread crash was already in progress. Most people bailed out, I just made it a spectacular crash 

Anywho, Mono, let me explain something here you keep missing every single time you engage people in fights on evolution. YOU make it about religion by basing your entire argument around what YOUR religion says. How did I know sky daddy's novel was your hot spot and the thing that, at a mere mention, would put you in a tizzy, hmm? As you said, I don't know you. I only read a few of your posts in this thread. There are lots of religions out there, so how did I know that your beliefs are tied to this particular book? I mean, most people who are THAT overbearingly vegetarian or vegan are yuppies who are also overbearingly atheist. So how did I pick this out, Mono?

The basis of all your arguments against evolution are the E.X.A.C.T. same ones every. single. bible. thumper. uses. No one, NOT ONE non religious person uses them. (and I am now going to get a link to a cult who believes in UFOs and that aliens put us here or something. There, I just did the legwork for you to find the one. :thumbsup The ONLY (sane) people who protest evolution are bible thumpers. And why is that? You used this point in your arguments, without realizing it is merely the bible community using the SCIENTIFIC community's argument against them; Religion starts with a conclusion. It then seeks out evidence to support this conclusion. This is the opposite of the scientific method, which evolution DOES follow.

People observe something (bones that are very old that look very similar to current animals, but aren't from anything that currently exists, as well as lots of similar features across many species) and form a hypothesis as to why this might happen. They test the hypothesis by looking for more information. More on that in a minute. Based on their findings, they find a conclusion, which states how accurate their original hypothesis was, what the evidence supports, what it doesn't support. Rinse and repeat.

Here are some facts for you that you may not know. Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution. The idea has existed for a very, VERY long time. Since the Greek philosophers kind of long time. Darwin merely had a hypothesis as to how it occurred, and made some observations. At the time, he had competition in the scientific community, and there were competing theories as to the mechanisms behind evolution. Most were theist. The scientific community STILL accepted evolution, but ever the skeptics, debated as to which method it followed. Darwin, like others at the time and before him, couldn't figure out how to reproduce 'natural selection', the name he made for a phenomenon he observed and recorded. Survival of the fittest, etc. You see this all the time, right? Now, follow me here. He didn't know the _mechanism_ behind it, so his argument seemed weak, though certainly better than the lazy theists who simply said 'god did it', and would follow the evidence everyone else found and just stamp all their questions with a giant 'GOD' rubber stamp.

How life evolved remained a mystery, though the archeological evidence showed it happened. Enter Mendel, a MONK. He is the grandfather of genetics. He had a hypothesis about how certain traits are passed from one generation to the next in plants and animals. He meticulously tested and recorded his findings, and discovered the missing piece of information from Darwin's theories; inheritance. He didn't even realize the connection, he was just experimenting with hybrids for agricultural usage. It was other scientists who realized what he discovered and connected the two theories together. Because that is how science works.

There is a method that every single living thing on this planet follows when it comes to how traits are passed from one generation to the next. If you know what traits the parents have, through previous testing have determined whether the traits are dominant or recessive, you can predict with almost 100% accuracy what traits the progeny will possess. It isn't 100% because of pure chance that causes mutations in the genes, which is an advanced subject later covered in the early 1900's by Morgan. It filled the gaps in Mendel's research and completed the core of genetics.

You would do well to read up on this, perhaps evolution will make more sense once you UNDERSTAND how it works! Try Mendel's tests, they are simple. When you apply his model over MILLIONS of years, try to now convince me massive changes did not occur throughout our animal kingdom. When looking at BILLIONS of years, when concerning microbes who reproduce exponentially every minute, and now try to convince me that ENORMOUS changes could not occur within them. And, then, add in chance. Mutations. Think about how so much is affected by the smallest problems in one measly chromosome in someone with Down's Syndrome, or Dwarfism. There are hundreds of mutations that cause enormous changes in humans, and the list constantly grows as new ones occur. And, guess what? Science has mutations and their scope covered as well. That is just a snipet from an entry level genetics book. Doesn't even touch the latest discoveries. Because science doesn't stop at one answer, like religion. It keeps asking questions and digging deeper. There will ALWAYS be more questions, which is why everything will ALWAYS be a THEORY. Religion stonewalls and backtracks to explain itself. Science is never fully satisfied and will keep digging deeper and forward to find answers for every single question these curious apes could ever come up with.

You see how one person discovered something, and other scientists built on it and found stronger evidence, then someone took THOSE findings, and found stronger evidence to support THAT finding? No one was perfect along the way, plenty of hypothesizes were dropped. You can find complete experiments if you are skeptical.

To doubt the existence of evolution is to doubt the existence of genetics. You do realize that it is the THEORY of gravity as well, right? Care to test the THEORY of gravity? The scientific community makes THEORIES, not FACTS. The FACTS are what we observe. Throw ball up, it comes down. WHY it comes down is the THEORY. The FACTS are there are old bones all over the effing place that look kind of like things that currently exist, and no one has seen the creatures they represent. The FACTS are the genetic structures of all living things are connected with each other, and all living things share genetic traits. The EXTREMELY ****ING OBVIOUS THEORY is that ALL living things have ALWAYS shared these similar genetic structures and traits, which have changed over time evidenced by the bones of things that no longer exist.

See what you did? I said I wasn't going to get into evolution! Sheesh! This was just going to be some nice commentary about how much god loves meat and that you should too. There was no bashing of sky daddy's favorite book, just good old snark directed towards the guy who protests eating meat even though his dad encourages it's consumption  If you think THAT was religious commentary or bashing, you have REALLY led a sheltered life. I mean, it isn't like I danced and sang at your special altar or anything!

Anywho, now you have heard the facts, and I have said my piece. I have heard the opinions of you and your congregation on the matter, and now we can walk away from the conversation knowing we are both right and let these people have their nice thread about puking back 

/skips away


----------



## mfisher1971 (Dec 7, 2005)

Let.

It.

Go.

...always gotta get the last word in.

This thread needs to be destroyed. There's no winning with god.


----------



## Bikemaya (Sep 24, 2012)

For the confused, Dion summed it all up.

'On the seventh day god had a steak (and a glass of wine!), and it was AWESOME!'

If it is good enough for god, it is good enough for bike riders!

:thumbsup: to meat!

Ok, really done this time, time to ride! XD


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Word.


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

I eat food before I ride...


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)




----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Screw jumping the shark
I'm riding the manatee


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

SlowerJoe said:


> Screw jumping the shark
> I'm riding the manatee


Which one is the manatee?


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Sep 17, 2012)

SlowerJoe said:


> Screw jumping the shark
> I'm riding the manatee


ROFL.. I laughed when I saw this pic.. Then I laughed even harder when I saw the story on the news on how this lady could face 60 days in jail for 'riding' a manatee. Poor thing (the manatee).

Edit: No, I don't really think she will spend time in jail.. And no I don't want to harm manatees nor eat them.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

OCtrailMonkey said:


> ROFL.. I laughed when I saw this pic.. Then I laughed even harder when I saw the story on the news on how this lady could face 60 days in jail for 'riding' a manatee. Poor thing (the manatee).
> 
> Edit: No, I don't really think she will spend time in jail.. And no I don't want to harm manatees nor eat them.


Wait a minute... Let's not be hasty...

Do Manatees taste good??


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

Thanks for the unsigned neg rep!


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

[clueless mod]










[/clueless mod]

i really, really do not want to read all this....

what happened? In 10 words or less please


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

CHUM said:


> [clueless mod]
> 
> [/clueless mod]
> 
> ...


I blame Dyslexia.


----------



## Obi (Oct 16, 2005)

CHUM said:


> what happened? In 10 words or less please


I don't know yet. You just made my day though.


----------



## Lemiwinks (May 24, 2012)

CHUM said:


> i really, really do not want to read all this....
> 
> what happened? In 10 words or less please


Angry vegan get meat envy go jesus freak everywhere everyone


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

Lemiwinks said:


> Angry vegan get meat envy go jesus freak everywhere everyone


:lol:

that's what i figured

:lol:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

CHUM said:


> i really, really do not want to read all this....
> 
> what happened? In 10 words or less please


Here's the video replay:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

monogod said:


> wow... the content of your post is so asinine, ludicrous, vacuous, specious, and downright ignorant on so many levels i feel like i'm punching a 2nd grade girl in the gut by responding.
> 
> but what the hey -- if you wanna pigpile then you're gonna get pile driven...
> 
> ...


BWAHAHAHAHA, Ive just picked out a random post here from this bloke, i find it very fitting when deciding on a user name he chose 'monogod' honestly mono have you ever thought about becoming a comedian?
For a man so well versed in EVERY topic on the face of the universe, the outer realm and beyond, every religion and every god, every molecule, atom and cell, every machination of every living and every man built thing, there seems to be one or two things you have bypassed on the road to being the supreme and omnipotent monogod that you have become, but im not going to break them to you, you should know what im thinking before ive even thought it..:skep:
P.S i spoke to god on my personal direct line and he said to tell you he is ready for his next lesson, i dont know what that means but he said you would understand.....cheers mate.:thumbsup:


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

CHUM said:


> what happened? In 10 words or less please


Nothing to see here. Please move on.


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)

CHUM said:


> i really, really do not want to read all this....
> 
> what happened? In 10 words or less please


Food -> Troll -> Cockfight -> derail -> back on topic (via Dion) -> re-troll -> re-derail








<- Derail


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> BWAHAHAHAHA, Ive just picked out a random post here from this bloke, i find it very fitting when deciding on a user name he chose 'monogod' honestly mono have you ever thought about becoming a comedian?
> For a man so well versed in EVERY topic on the face of the universe, the outer realm and beyond, every religion and every god, every molecule, atom and cell, every machination of every living and every man built thing, there seems to be one or two things you have bypassed on the road to being the supreme and omnipotent monogod that you have become, but im not going to break them to you, you should know what im thinking before ive even thought it..:skep:
> P.S i spoke to god on my personal direct line and he said to tell you he is ready for his next lesson, i dont know what that means but he said you would understand.....cheers mate.:thumbsup:


now THAT is snarkiness! well done sir! :lol:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Guerdonian said:


> Food -> Troll -> Cockfight -> derail -> back on topic (via Dion) -> re-troll -> re-derail
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wish I could give you more rep for that one!


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

Surprised nobody mentioned Obamacare. 

There... now this thread is complete.


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> BWAHAHAHAHA, Ive just picked out a random post here from this bloke, i find it very fitting when deciding on a user name he chose 'monogod' honestly mono have you ever thought about becoming a comedian?
> For a man so well versed in EVERY topic on the face of the universe, the outer realm and beyond, every religion and every god, every molecule, atom and cell, every machination of every living and every man built thing, there seems to be one or two things you have bypassed on the road to being the supreme and omnipotent monogod that you have become, but im not going to break them to you, you should know what im thinking before ive even thought it..:skep:
> P.S i spoke to god on my personal direct line and he said to tell you he is ready for his next lesson, i dont know what that means but he said you would understand.....cheers mate.:thumbsup:


I think mono in his name is for single speed. As in, he is the single speed god. (He claims to ride 10,000 miles a year, or 27.4 miles a day). I could, of course, be completely wrong on this.

He certainly acts in accordance to your description though.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Dion said:


> Surprised nobody mentioned Obamacare.
> 
> There... now this thread is complete.


Adolf Hitler.

It took a long time but we fnally made it.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MattC555 said:


> Thanks for the unsigned neg rep!


don't let it bother you bro, you're better than that. so you said something on an internet forum someone else didn't like and they neg repped you. big deal. you may not believe this, but that happens to me from time to time too.

personally, i think some of the anon neg rep comments i've gotten related to this thread are funny...

"_weirdo evolv_", "_silly lamb_", and my personal favorite, "_there's a lot more where this came from champion_" (ooohhhhh... i'm shakin' in my boots! :lol.

i think what i think and believe what i believe and don't mind sharing it. both are subject to change resultant to sufficient preponderance of evidence, but i'm certainly not going to let public opinion (whether positive or negative) dictate either of those for me.

i pretty much live my life in line with a quote by dr. suess who said, "_Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind._"

heck yeah, that's what i'm talkin' about! :thumbsup:


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

Dion said:


> Surprised nobody mentioned Obamacare.
> 
> There... now this thread is complete.


Ya'll do know that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true beyond a doubt now,right?


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Jan 4, 2008)

EmTee said:


> Adolf Hitler.
> 
> It took a long time but we fnally made it.


Adolf was not an Atheist!


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

monogod said:


> don't let it bother you bro, you're better than that. so you said something on an internet forum someone else didn't like and they neg repped you. big deal. you may not believe this, but that happens to me from time to time too.
> 
> personally, i think some of the anon neg rep comments i've gotten related to this thread are funny...
> 
> ...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

monogod said:


> now THAT is snarkiness! well done sir! :lol:


Mono, i must come clean and say you have entertained me greatly in this thread, dont change for anybody mate, your a funny guy in a kind of scientific sort of way :thumbsup:


----------



## MattC555 (Mar 24, 2011)

monogod said:


> don't let it bother you bro, blah blah blah.


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)

why wont this thread die!!!

New topic: Parkour
And GO!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

monogod said:


> here's where it get's really interesting because the molecules in this new product are now closer to cellulose or plastic than to oil. in fact hydrogenated oil is only one molecule away from being plastic!!!!


This is pretty off.

I can see where someone who forgot most of freshman year biology and chemistry, when looking at the structures of plastics and fats, might think that certain plastics and hydrogenated oil are similar, but beyond each containing hydrocarbon chains, they are very different in several key ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by a hydrogenated fat being one molecule away from being plastic, that makes no sense. Did you mean one _*atom*_? If so, keep in mind that water is one atom different from hydrogen peroxide or hydrogen gas. It is simply not a relevant statement. One atom makes all the difference in the world.

Besides, a hydrogenated oil is NOT one atom away from being a plastic. Simple fatty acids are hydrocarbons with a carboxylic acid group at the end (which plastic does not have), most dietary fat comes in a more complex arrangement. Further, even the hydrocarbon aspect is quite different. Plastic (the kind I can think of that might be mistaken as similar to a dietary fat) is a highly branched hydrocarbon polymer. Fats are not. Sorry, but these two substances are just not similar in any meaningful sense, other than they both contain a lot of energy in the hydrocarbon chains.

In fact, the hydrogenated fats are simply fats. Oil is just a type of fat, one with more kinks in the hydrocarbon chain. Yes, partially hydrogenated fats can differ from naturally mono or polyunsaturated fats in the trans orientation of the hydrogen atoms (trans fats), but they are still worlds closer to natural oils and fats than to plastic.

If there is some type of plastic that is in fact more similar to a dietary fat, please point it out to me.

Cellulose is not even _*remotely *_close in structure to fats of any kind. Just google the structures, it will be glaringly obvious even to someone knowing nothing about chemistry of biology.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Guerdonian said:


> why wont this thread die!!!
> 
> New topic: Parkour
> And GO!


Lax building codes.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> Adolf was not an Atheist!


Nor a vegetarian.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)




----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kapusta said:


> This is pretty off.
> 
> I can see where someone who forgot most of freshman year biology and chemistry, when looking at the structures of plastics and fats, might think that certain plastics and hydrogenated oil are similar, but beyond each containing hydrocarbon chains, they are very different in several key ways.
> 
> ...


We have an opponent, ding ding ding, 
in the red corner we have the reigning champ monogod
in the black corner we have the new kid on the block kapusta...

This heavyweight bout is set for 10 rounds.........
Ding ding ding...........


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> We have an opponent, ding ding ding,
> in the red corner we have the reigning champ monogod
> in the black corner we have the new kid on the block kapusta...
> 
> ...


Nah, we go way back.

Besides, this actually has something to do with the thread topic.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

This thread,


----------



## Guerdonian (Sep 4, 2008)




----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

veg·e·tar·i·an
noun \ˌve-jə-ˈter-ē-ən\
Definition of VEGETARIAN
1
: bad hunter
2
: sanctimonious blowhard


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Asmodeus2112 said:


> I think mono in his name is for single speed. As in, he is the single speed god. (He claims to ride 10,000 miles a year, or 27.4 miles a day). I could, of course, be completely wrong on this.


only partially correct on the moniker.

yes, i log about 10k miles a year. i ride daily, live 8 miles from the trail, road ride as well (sometimes both in the same day), and ride year round.



Asmodeus2112 said:


> He certainly acts in accordance to your description though.


discussing a couple of topics in a mtb forum thread equates to someone acting like they are "_well versed in EVERY topic on the face of the universe, the outer realm and beyond, every religion and every god, every molecule, atom and cell, every machination of every living and every man built thing_"?

wow... you really need to get out more. :skep:


----------



## leoferus (Jul 22, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I remember one day a few years ago I went on a ride with my buddy who was much faster than me. All I had eaten was milk and three donuts. I felt like crap and puked on the way up the climb. I have learned to eat better foods before a ride. Greasy fried stuff tends to make me ride like I am hungover from a night on the town. Apples tend to give me lots of energy on semi-long rides. I usually keep one in my bag. I am realizing that eating two hours ebfore a ride is ideal for me (most rides anyway). It is not weighing me down and I am not yet hungry. No cramps either. Any preferred foodstuffs before your rides?


My experience is similar. I find that my expected effort level is also a factor in determining what food I can or cannot eat.

On short rides I can manage by simply eating fruits like apples, bananas, etc. For semi-long rides I tend to eat a good breakfast about 2 hours prior. Oatmeal, cereal, etc. with bananas or raisins, etc. For long rides, I prep the night before with a little carb loading. Just some pasta does it.

In addition, on long and semi-long rides, I take a Gatorade/Energy mix in one bottle so that I can replenish. I also pack energy shots, Gu, and electrolyte tablets. Even the best plans fail.  I don't often find myself needing that stuff but I'm glad to have it when I need it. Most of the time, I end up giving it someone else that really needs it. People I find on the trails or buddies that underestimate the ride.

Ride on!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

MattC555 said:


> monogod said:
> 
> 
> > _don't let it bother you bro, blah blah blah._
> ...


opps, my bad. apparently you're not better than that. :lol:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kapusta said:


> This is pretty off.
> 
> I can see where someone who forgot most of freshman year biology and chemistry, when looking at the structures of plastics and fats, might think that certain plastics and hydrogenated oil are similar, but beyond each containing hydrocarbon chains, they are very different in several key ways.
> 
> ...


as i recall i had a book on highly refined foods with both molecular structures showing their similarity, but i could be entirely mistaken. it's been some time since reading it and molecular chemistry is not my area of expertise.

thanks for pointing it out, i'll look into it and if i'm mistaken will certainly edit the post. the last thing on my to-do list is disseminate false or misleading information.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> the last thing on my to-do list is disseminate false or misleading information.


...but it IS on your to-do list? I conjecture that it's a fairly short list too, as you seem to get to the end of it quite readily.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

wait, epo counts as vegetarian right?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*captain understatement strikes again!*



EmTee said:


> I conjecture...


yup. frequently. that's pretty much why a conversation with you gets nowhere.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)

This thread still isn't closed. Let's turn this up a notch.


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> yup. frequently. that's pretty much why a conversation with you gets nowhere.


You might join me and try accurately prefacing your content too. Try it sometime, it feels great. It's... healthy. It's also kinda honest. But honesty is only for a weak "nancy" like me


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

monogod said:


> as i recall i had a book on highly refined foods with both molecular structures showing their similarity, but i could be entirely mistaken. it's been some time since reading it and molecular chemistry is not my area of expertise.
> 
> thanks for pointing it out, i'll look into it and if i'm mistaken will certainly edit the post. the last thing on my to-do list is disseminate false or misleading information.


Just to be clear, I am in no way trying to defend hydrogenated oils, or other refined foods. I do agree with the general gist of the value of something like a cliff bar over a snickers.

Just wish I could stand the taste of cliff bars :madman:


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

kapusta said:


> Just wish I could stand the taste of cliff bars :madman:


You are in luck! It's a suppository.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

monogod said:


> you + human a&p and physiology = EPIC FAIL


As a physiologist, I think the misinformation you are spreading is considered a fail. I won't even take the time to go into details, but please research your information before claiming it's fact.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> As a physiologist, I think the misinformation you are spreading is considered a fail. I won't even take the time to go into details, but please research your information before claiming it's fact.


Your extended post was better before the edit, but yes, it is pearls before swine.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Axe said:


> Your extended post was better before the edit, but yes, it is pearls before swine.


I kept reading more of his posts and finding more stuff that needed correction. Since it's Friday, and they're serving free beer in the cafeteria, I think I'm done with science for the day. :thumbsup:


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

jtmartino said:


> Since it's Friday, and they're serving free beer in the cafeteria, I think I'm done with science for the day. :thumbsup:


Where do you work dude (rhetorical)... I just went downstairs for the same reason--uncanny--except I chose poorly and got the seasonal barleywine and all they had left was soft "pretzel bites" (salted wheat mini rolls blegh) and mustard. Of course I ate it. All the "real" food is gone in the first 10 seconds.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> ...a weak "nancy" like me


well, you should know best to make that call.


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

Why isnt this closed? where are the cat memes?


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

monogod said:


> well, you should know best to make that call.


Your MOM would know best! Is that how we play this game? Did I get it right? It's been a long time since gradeschool.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

....


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

your MOM believes in evolution!!!!

OHHHHHH SNAPPPPPP!!!!!


----------



## EmTee (Apr 4, 2009)

MY mom is a DOCTOR! What does YOUR mom do? HUH?

...I think gradeschool is coming back to me.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

EmTee said:


> Your MOM would know best!


well whattaya know, captain conjecture was right... i just called her up and my mom agrees with you that you're a weak nancy.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

NicoleB28 said:


> your MOM believes in evolution!!!!
> 
> OHHHHHH SNAPPPPPP!!!!!


hahahahaha.... well played, bro! :lol:


----------



## marpilli (Feb 8, 2011)

NicoleB28 said:


> Why isnt this closed? where are the cat memes?


Since this thread is already going down the tubes...


----------



## marpilli (Feb 8, 2011)

Personally, I eat a lot of donuts and steak. Not necessarily at the same sitting, though...


----------



## jwilliams (Jun 6, 2011)

Dang marp! My mouth was watering and craving milk with the donuts.

Then things went south in the next one.

Oops did I really say "went south"?:nono:


----------



## jwilliams (Jun 6, 2011)

Yo momma so fat she got satellites in orbit.


----------



## Hutch3637 (Jul 1, 2011)




----------



## Doug_J (Oct 5, 2009)




----------

