Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>Which gets back to the original assumption that not producing your own
>is somehow metabolically inefficient. If you're surrounded by water,
>it'd make little sense to evolve some ability to aborb necessary H2O
>from the vapor in the air. Likewise, if you're surrounded by
>easily-accessible protein sources, making your own is not
>metabolically efficent.
You do know why we evolved into endomorphs, right?
Here, let me remind you: THERE'S SOMETIMES NO FOOD FOR
A THOUSAND MILES FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.
--Blair
"Cuz even the people at Safeway
have to go on vacation."
John <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
>> >about efficiency.
>>
>> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
>> calculus?
What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
>Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
>always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the last
>word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
> >> >about efficiency.
> >>
> >> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
> >> calculus?
>
> What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
>
> >Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
> >always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the
last
> >word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
>
> Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.
You couldn't have proven my point better.
>
> --Blair
> "He let the horse go already."
John <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
>> >> >about efficiency.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
>> >> calculus?
>>
>> What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
>>
>> >Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
>> >always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the
>last
>> >word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.
>
>You couldn't have proven my point better.
If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.
>> --Blair
>> "He let the horse go already."
>
>--John
> "Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >> John <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
> >> >> >about efficiency.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
> >> >> calculus?
> >>
> >> What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
> >>
> >> >Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he
will
> >> >always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the
> >last
> >> >word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.
> >
> >You couldn't have proven my point better.
>
> If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
> who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
> fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.
>
> >> --Blair
> >> "He let the horse go already."
> >
> >--John
> > "Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."
>
> You wouldn't know the difference.
>
> --Blair
> "That would require sentience."
John <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Blair P. Houghton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news[email protected]...
>> >> John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
>> >> >> >about efficiency.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
>> >> >> calculus?
>> >>
>> >> What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
>> >>
>> >> >Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he
>will
>> >> >always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the
>> >last
>> >> >word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.
>> >
>> >You couldn't have proven my point better.
>>
>> If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
>> who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
>> fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.
>>
>> >> "He let the horse go already."
>> >
>> > "Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."
>>
>> You wouldn't know the difference.
>>
>> "That would require sentience."
>
>Schmuck.
No it is not a bad thing. As long as you eat a healthy meal, preferably
high in protein. Go to a local GNC and ask them about all of the protein
supplements that they have that are designed to be taken before you sleep.
As I am sure you know that when the body is asleep it does most of its
growing, if you do not have anything in the old tank then it does not grow.
I wake up in the middle of the night and I will eat.
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hi, All:
>
> I've heard different things about eating before bed...it makes you fat,
> food simply passes through without real benefit, interferes with a good
> night's sleep...does anyone know (and/or have links/refs) regarding
> this matter?
>
> I mean, is it a bad thing? (Unhealthy?) Why?
>
>
> TIA!
>
