# Baked beans in tomato sauce??



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

The classic. Quick to make, easy and tasty.

BUT does anyone consider them `diet safe` Looking at a tin of Branstons theres like 20g of protein and barely 2g fat.

Does this make them an ideal meal whacked on a couple slices of wholemeal??


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

skipjack said:


> The classic. Quick to make, easy and tasty.
> 
> BUT does anyone consider them `diet safe` Looking at a tin of Branstons theres like 20g of protein and barely 2g fat.
> 
> Does this make them an ideal meal whacked on a couple slices of wholemeal??


Yeah, I love them and you can get reduced salt and sugar ones, too.

4 boiled eggs 4 slices of wholemeal toast and a tin of beans... Around 1100 cals, 70g of protein and frig knows how many carbs. Great as a breakfast on a bulk.

And if you're cutting, equally good, just half it.


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

suliktribal said:


> Yeah, I love them and you can get reduced salt and sugar ones, too.
> 
> 4 boiled eggs 4 slices of wholemeal toast and a tin of beans... Around 1100 cals, 70g of protein and frig knows how many carbs. Great as a breakfast on a bulk.
> 
> And if you're cutting, equally good, just half it.


Tidy breakfast idea actually like, tin of beans, 3 slices of toast and a scoop of whey??


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

skipjack said:


> Tidy breakfast idea actually like, tin of beans, 3 slices of toast and a scoop of whey??


Yep. Whey could substitue the eggs.


----------



## Bale (Dec 16, 2008)

i have exactly that sulikitribal

its sooo goood! and sooooo easy to make


----------



## fadel (Feb 13, 2010)

As above I regularly have a tin of beans + 4 slices of toast, either breakfast or around 11 ish


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

i love it with grilled bacon too.


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

fadel said:


> As above I regularly have a tin of beans + 4 slices of toast, either breakfast or around 11 ish


Do you count that as one of your 6 meals pal??


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

suliktribal said:


> i love it with grilled bacon too.


Bacon and bean sandwiches = Winning combination!

Have em for brekkie on a cheat day:thumb:


----------



## Evoann (Apr 22, 2010)

I didnt know Baked Beans where that good untill i read it on here 

Added them to my Diet STRAIGHT away..Happy Days


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Evoann said:


> I didnt know Baked Beans where that good untill i read it on here
> 
> Added them to my Diet STRAIGHT away..Happy Days


Me too! They`ve what i`ve always ate anyway before the BB diet came along!


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

So you've all said how great they taste, but what about their place in the bb'er diet!

personally I don't think they have any benefits at all!


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> So you've all said how great they taste, but what about their place in the bb'er diet!
> 
> personally I don't think they have any benefits at all!


20g protein per tin? 2g fat? Chuck in a few boiled eggs?

BB`on Appetit? :lol:


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

skipjack said:


> 20g protein per tin? 2g fat? Chuck in a few boiled eggs?
> 
> BB`on Appetit? :lol:


The Op was about baked beans, not baked beans with eggs!

20g of crap protein

And low fat isn't a selling point for me. Put more fat in and take all the sugar out I say!!


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> The Op was about baked beans, not baked beans with eggs!
> 
> 20g of crap protein
> 
> And low fat isn't a selling point for me. Put more fat in and take all the sugar out I say!!


Hows it crap protein? Protein is protein right?


----------



## fadel (Feb 13, 2010)

skipjack said:


> Do you count that as one of your 6 meals pal??


I do tbh, always whack a fair bit of cheese ontop too. Bulking atm and to be honest i'm just eating anything within reason (no takeaways every day etc) it's just a nice quick easy meal and that's what I like lol haven't got time to be making lots of bigger meals so that does me fine ty


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

skipjack said:


> Hows it crap protein? Protein is protein right?


If protein was protein then why is there such a massive industry selling designer proteins?

There is amino acid profiles

Bio Availability

Essential and non essential aminos

If protein was protein we would all be stocking up on cheap aldi beans at 25p a tin instead paying 40 quid for a tub of decent stuff.


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

nothing can beat oat eggs and whey for breakfast .. fook beans ..


----------



## fadel (Feb 13, 2010)

From the time i've been here Joe knows his stuff so worth taking into account. On the other hand it's whether or not you're interested in learning all that?

I would definately keep varying where you get your protein from as Joe says


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

skipjack said:


> Hows it crap protein? *Protein is protein right?*


NO go and learn before you make such statement.. :laugh:


----------



## fadel (Feb 13, 2010)

Don't overload him with too much info lol pick it all up as he goes along etc as I am


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

Beans, beans theyre good for your heart the more you eat... GET TO DA CHAPPAH!!


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

:lol:Chill out ..haha we`re getting stressed over beans man!

But aye fair point i suppose


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

Theyre great with breakfast as a tasty part of the meal.

Full of fibre, too.


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

COOL BEANS!!!

To quote the old jumanji cartoon from the 90`s:thumb:


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

suliktribal said:


> Theyre great with breakfast as a tasty part of the meal.
> 
> Full of fibre, too.


Tastey yes, beneficial, not really!

What's so great about fibre anyway??

Most fibre is too harsh to our digestive systems anyway, causes injury. The only fibre i'd recommend is in green veg!


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

I give up

Go and eat your beans until your hearts content.

Obviously there aren't any better choices.

Eat for purpose not taste. But hey, what do I know?


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> I give up
> 
> Go and eat your beans until your hearts content.
> 
> ...


Beans, beans good till your hearts content!

The more you eat the bigger the penny spent! :lol: :thumb:


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> Tastey yes, beneficial, not really!
> 
> What's so great about fibre anyway??
> 
> Most fibre is too harsh to our digestive systems anyway, causes injury. The only fibre i'd recommend is in green veg!


Don't hate on the beans, man!

I can see where you're coming from, and as a tasty snack, they're not exactly a sin.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Baked beans are high in good full-spectrum protein, fibre and antioxidants.

It's true some makes can be quite high in sugar and salt, but you can compensate for these by reducing carbs and salt elsewhere in your diet, or buy healthier versions.

On wholemeal buttered toast they're ideal for breakfast. - good bodybuilding food.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Baked beans are high in good full-spectrum protein, fibre and antioxidants.
> 
> It's true some makes can be quite high in sugar and salt, but you can compensate for these by reducing carbs and salt elsewhere in your diet, or buy healthier versions.
> 
> On wholemeal buttered toast they're ideal for breakfast. - good bodybuilding food.


I'll go with that!


----------



## testman (Aug 7, 2009)

i like beans, but if i had more money i would get something else, i think they are good to include in a budget diet


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Baked beans are high in good full-spectrum protein, fibre and antioxidants.
> 
> It's true some makes can be quite high in sugar and salt, but you can compensate for these by reducing carbs and salt elsewhere in your diet, or buy healthier versions.
> 
> On wholemeal buttered toast they're ideal for breakfast. - good bodybuilding food.


Thanks man!! Someone talking some real sense bout the beans!!

I knew we were right suliktribal:thumb:

Another victory for the beans?? :lol:


----------



## Craig660 (Dec 8, 2005)

Baked beans, toast and eggs - sounds like a winner to me


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

I want to believe.

Believe in beans, for a positive change.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Bit of Worcester sauce spices em up a bit too. I'll only have beans I'd I'm in a rush, I'll just scoff em cold out of the tin....


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

The main bad thing about most tins of beans will be the high sodium content.. but you can buy healthy ones that are low in sodium.. and as Prodiver said they are an excellent source of Fibre.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

So then.

Beans = win.


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

Crazy thread! I like baked beans though :bounce:


----------



## jackrmee (Apr 15, 2010)

Christ, I thought beans were good too. So how do I know what protein is good and what is crap then?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

All protein is good.

Not all sources contain the whole spectrum of amino acids - including many of the cheaper protein shakes.

Eggs are the perfect protein food; milk and meat are close behind; and pulses - beans (which naturally fix nitrogen as they grow) - are good too.

Eat a good balance of natural proteinacious foods, top up with good quality protein shakes, and you can't go wrong.

Don't worry unduly about fat intake; just watch your carb intake or you'll put on flab.

Please note: for a competition prep diet consult an expert!


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

pro what protein powders or companies do you class as quality?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

hilly said:


> pro what protein powders or companies do you class as quality?


Well, I hesitate to advertise, but I rate Biohazard Ravager highly.

It has a high protein percentage and full-spectrum biological value.

There are plenty of other good makes.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

i am using reflex peptide fusion at the minute as i like the 33/33/33 mix of whey/egg and casein


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

robc said:


> The main bad thing about most tins of beans will be the high sodium content.. but you can buy healthy ones that are low in sodium.. and as Prodiver said they are an excellent source of Fibre.


NO! The main problem is the sugar they put in the sauce. To much sodium isn't a problem if you drink at least 4ltrs of water a day.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> NO! The main problem is the sugar they put in the sauce. To much sodium isn't a problem if you drink at least 4ltrs of water a day.


Reduced salt and sugar beans, amigo.

Before now, I've drained all the sauce away and mashed the beans on my toast.


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

B|GJOE said:


> NO! The main problem is the sugar they put in the sauce. To much sodium isn't a problem if you drink at least 4ltrs of water a day.


Too much salt in a diet is a problem, a high intake can cause high blood pressure and potentially lead to heart problems, no matter what your water intake might be.


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

robc said:


> Too much salt in a diet is a problem, a high intake can cause high blood pressure and potentially lead to heart problems, no matter what your water intake might be.


Can you substantiate that,

1. That sodium, and what quantity, is a significant factor in high blood pressure, and by what method it causes it.

2. That high blood pressure is a contributing factor to heart problems.

I'm not say it isn't, however. I have read good articles refuting these claims. I just want to be sure that you have researched it thoroughly before making such claims, or whether you are just regurgitating the tripe that is fed to us by the medical world, and media?

http://www.nasw.org/awards/1999/99Taubesarticle1.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/015820.html


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

http://www.nasw.org/awards/1999/99Taubesarticle1.htm

Gary Taubes

"The (Political) Science of Salt"

Science

Part One: The salt controversy

Three decades of controversy over the putative benefits of salt reduction show how the demands of good science clash with the pressures of public health policy.

"Science ... warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations."

- Thomas Huxley, 1860

In an era when dietary advice is dispensed freely by virtually everyone from public health officials to personal trainers, well-meaning relatives, and strangers on check-out lines, one recommendation has rung through 3 decades with the indisputable force of gospel: Eat less salt and you will lower your blood pressure and live a longer, healthier life. This has been the message promoted by both the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBPEP), a coalition of 36 medical organizations and six federal agencies. Everyone, not just the tens of millions of Americans who suffer from hypertension, could reduce their risk of heart disease and stroke by eating less salt. The official guidelines recommend a daily allowance of 6 grams (2400 milligrams of sodium), which is 4 grams less than our current average. This "modest reduction," says NHBPEP director Ed Roccella, "can shift some arterial pressures down and prevent some strokes." Roccella's message is clear: "All I'm trying to do is save some lives."

So what's the problem? For starters, salt is a primary determinant of taste in food - fat, of course, is the other - and 80% of the salt we consume comes from processed foods, making it difficult to avoid. Then there's the kicker: While the government has been denouncing salt as a health hazard for decades, no amount of scientific effort has been able to dispense with the suspicions that it is not. Indeed, the controversy over the benefits, if any, of salt reduction now constitutes one of the longest running, most vitriolic, and surreal disputes in all of medicine.

On the one side are those experts - primarily physicians turned epidemiologists, and administrators such as Roccella and Claude Lenfant, head of NHLBI - who insist that the evidence that salt raises blood pressure is effectively irrefutable. They have an obligation, they say, to push for universal salt reduction, because people are dying and will continue to die if they wait for further research to bring scientific certainty. On the other side are those researchers - primarily physicians turned epidemiologists, including former presidents of the American Heart Association, the American Society of Hypertension, and the European and international societies of hypertension - who argue that the data supporting universal salt reduction have never been compelling, nor has it ever been demonstrated that such a program would not have unforeseen negative side effects. This was the verdict, for instance, of a review published last May in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). University of Copenhagen researchers analyzed 114 randomized trials of sodium reduction, concluding that the benefit for hypertensives was significantly smaller than could be achieved by antihypertensive drugs, and that a "measurable" benefit in individuals with normal blood pressure (normotensives) of even a single millimeter of mercury could only be achieved with an "extreme" reduction in salt intake. "You can say without any shadow of a doubt," says Drummond Rennie, a JAMA editor and a physiologist at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, "that the [NHLBI] has made a commitment to salt education that goes way beyond the scientific facts."

At its core, the salt controversy is a philosophical clash between the requirements of public health policy and the requirements of good science, between the need to act and the institutionalized skepticism required to develop a body of reliable knowledge. This is the conflict that fuels many of today's public health controversies: "We're all being pushed by people who say, 'Give me the simple answer. Is it or isn't it?' " says Bill Harlan, director of the office of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "They don't want the answer after we finish a study in 5 years. They want it now. No equivocation. ... [And so] we constantly get pushed into positions we may not want to be in and cannot justify scientifically."

The dispute over salt, however, is an idiosyncratic one, remarkable in several fundamental aspects. Foremost, many who advocate salt reduction insist publicly that the controversy is a) either nonexistent, or B) due solely to the influence of the salt lobby and its paid consultant-scientists. Jeremiah Stamler, for instance, a cardiologist at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago who has led the charge against salt for 2 decades, insists that the controversy has "no genuine scientific basis in reproducible fact." He attributes the appearance of controversy to the orchestrated resistance of the food processing industry, which he likens to the tobacco industry in the fight over cigarettes, always eager to obfuscate the facts. "My considerable experience indicates that there is no scientific interest on the part of any of these people to tell the truth," he says.

While Stamler's position may seem extreme, it is shared by administrators at the NHBPEP and the NHLBI, which funds all relevant research in this country. Jeff Cutler, director of the division of clinical applications and interventions at NIH and an advocate of salt restriction for over a decade, told Science that even to publish an article such as this one acknowledging the existence of the controversy is to play into the hands of the salt lobby. "As long as there are things in the media that say the salt controversy continues," Cutler says, "they win." Roccella concurs: To publicize the controversy, he told Science, serves only to undermine the public health of the nation.

After interviews with some 80 researchers, clinicians, and administrators throughout the world, however, it is safe to say that if ever there were a controversy over the interpretation of scientific data, this is it. In fact, the salt controversy may be what Sanford Miller calls the "number one perfect example of why science is a destabilizing force in public policy." Now a dean at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Miller helped shape salt policy 20 years ago as director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. Then, he says, the data were bad, but they arguably supported the benefits of salt reduction. Now, both the data and the science are much improved, but they no longer provide forceful support for the recommendations.

The salt controversy is the "number one perfect example of why science is a destabilizing force in public policy."

- Sanford Miller

That raises the second noteworthy aspect of the controversy: After decades of intensive research, the apparent benefits of avoiding salt have only diminished. This suggests either that the true benefit has now been revealed and is indeed small, or that it is nonexistent, and researchers believing they have detected such benefits have been deluded by the confounding influences of other variables. (These might include genetic variability; socioeconomic status; obesity; level of physical exercise; intake of alcohol, fruits and vegetables, or dairy products; or any number of other factors.)

The controversy itself remains potent because even a small benefit - one clinically meaningless to any single patient - might have a major public health impact. This is a principal tenet of public health: Small effects can have important consequences over entire populations. If by eating less salt, the world's population reduced its average blood pressure by a single millimeter of mercury, says Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto, that would prevent several hundred thousand deaths a year: "It would do more for worldwide deaths than the abolition of breast cancer." But even that presupposes the 1-millimeter drop can be achieved by avoiding salt. "We have to be sure that 1- or 2-millimeter effect is real," says John Swales, former director of research and development for Britain's National Health Service and a clinician at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. "And we have to be sure we won't have equal and opposite harmful effects."

Decades have passed without a resolution because the epidemiologic tools are incapable of distinguishing a small benefit from no benefit or even from a small adverse effect. This has led to a literature so enormous and conflicting that it is easy to amass a body of evidence - what Stamler calls a "totality of data" - that appears to support a particular conviction definitively, unless one is aware of the other totality of data that doesn't.

Over the years, advocates of salt reduction have often wielded variations on the "totality of data" defense to reject any finding that doesn't fit the orthodox wisdom. In 1984, for instance, David McCarron and colleagues from the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland published in Science an analysis of a national health and nutrition database suggesting that salt was harmless. They were taken to task in these pages by Sanford Miller, Claude Lenfant, director of NHLBI, and Manning Feinleib, then head of the National Center for Health Statistics. Among their criticisms was that McCarron and colleagues had not "attempt[ed] to square their conclusions with the abundance of population-based and experimental data suggesting that dietary sodium indeed plays an important role in hypertension." At the time of the letter, however, Lenfant's NHLBI was about to fund perhaps the largest international study ever done, known as Intersalt, precisely to determine whether salt did play such a role. And even Stamler, the motivating force behind Intersalt, was describing the literature on salt and blood pressure at the time as "replete with inconsistent and contradictory reports."

One-sided interpretations of the data have always been endemic to the controversy. As early as 1979, for instance, Olaf Simpson, a clinician at New Zealand's University of Otago Medical School, described it as "a situation where the most slender piece of evidence in favor of [a salt-blood pressure link] is welcomed as further proof of the link, while failure to find such evidence is explained away by one means or another." University of Glasgow clinician Graham Watt calls it the "Bing Crosby approach to epidemiological reasoning" - in other words, "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative." Bing Crosby epidemiology allows researchers to find the effect they're looking for in a swamp of contradictory data but does little to establish whether it is real.

This situation is exacerbated by a remarkable inability of researchers in this polarized field to agree on whether any particular study is believable. Instead, it is common for studies to be considered reliable because they get the desired result. In 1991, for instance, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a 14-page, three-part "meta-analysis" by epidemiologists Malcolm Law, Christopher Frost, and Nicholas Wald of the Medical College of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London. Their conclusion: The salt-blood pressure association was "substantially larger" than previously appreciated. That same year, Swales deconstructed the analysis, which he describes as "deeply flawed," at the annual meeting of the European Society of Hypertension in Milan. "There was not a single person in the room who felt the [bMJ] analysis was worth anything after that," says clinician Lennart Hansson of the University of Uppsala in Sweden, who attended the meeting and is a former president of both the international and European societies of hypertension. Swales's critique was then published in the Journal of Hypertension.

Just 2 years later, however, the NHBPEP released a landmark report on the primary prevention of hypertension, in which the government first recommended universal salt reduction. The BMJ meta-analysis was cited repeatedly as "compelling evidence of the value of reducing sodium intake." This spring, however, it was still possible to get opinions about the BMJ review from equally respected researchers ranging from "reads like a New Yorker comedy piece" and the "worst example of a meta-analysis in print by a long shot" to "competently done and competently analyzed and interpreted" and a seminal paper in the field.


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

B|GJOE said:


> Can you substantiate that,
> 
> 1. That sodium, and what quantity, is a significant factor in high blood pressure, and by what method it causes it.
> 
> ...


By the looks of it, what I put in bold.

Then again, by your comments and links, so are you :thumb: Considering your links are from the medical world and the media.


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

Most of that debate centers on theory anyway..


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

LOL this is mental, I feel sorry for Joe cos he's the only one talking sense!

Joe offers quality info and gets shouted down by idiots who think beans on toast is an awesome bb meal :lol: .

Listen, if you're not taking it too seriously, then fine, whatever. But you've taken the time you join a forum to (I would assume) learn how to do things optimally.

Now, let's say you want to do things optimally and you want a decent protein, fat and (genetics depending) carb source in each meal. For the protein, whey, casein, chicken breast, lean beef, eggs, cottage cheese etc do the job. For fats you've got oils, nut butters, nuts, cheese etc etc. For carbs you've got oats, potatoes, rice etc. Now, assuming we're doing things optimally and going for protein with a good amino acid and bioavailability profile, where the fcuk do baked beans fit into this?


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

TBH I don't really care what people's opinions are. What I can't stand is people quoting as fact things they don't fully understand.

I often just put up argument to get people to question what they believe to be true enough to doubt it. It only with doubt, that you will seek the truth, whatever that may be.

Conventional wisdom gives conventional results.

Like EA Games says: Challenge Everything!!!!


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

AlasTTTair said:


> LOL this is mental, I feel sorry for Joe cos he's the only one talking sense!
> 
> Joe offers quality info and gets shouted down by idiots who think beans on toast is an awesome bb meal :lol: .
> 
> ...





B|GJOE said:


> TBH I don't really care what people's opinions are. What I can't stand is people quoting as fact things they don't fully understand.
> 
> I often just put up argument to get people to question what they believe to be true enough to doubt it. It only with doubt, that you will seek the truth, whatever that may be.
> 
> ...


Well, you said about me regurgitating the tripe fed to us by the medical world and the media but yet that is the source of your argument? an online journal and excerpts from books written by medical professionals?

End of the day he is going to eat beans if he wants too and so what they taste nice.

EDIT: I do agree with you, challenge everything! challenge EVERYONE.


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

DO NOT EAT BEANS!!

They cause unprecident catabolism, clog your arteries and cause 7/10 deaths in the developing world.


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

robc said:


> Well, you said about me regurgitating the tripe fed to us by the medical world and the media but yet that is the source of your argument? an online journal and excerpts from books written by medical professionals?
> 
> End of the day he is going to eat beans if he wants too and so what they taste nice.
> 
> EDIT: I do agree with you, challenge everything! challenge EVERYONE.


*Totally missed my point!*

My point was that what you said was basic mainstream thinking.

What I presented was a counter argument, to prove that you hadn't really thought about why you believed what you believed.

Thus, my point is, that you should challenge what you are told, and not take everything you read as absolute truth.

Maybe you could look up E-Prime english, it could prevent such arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime


----------



## B-GJOE (May 7, 2009)

suliktribal said:


> DO NOT EAT BEANS!!
> 
> They cause unprecident catabolism, clog your arteries and cause 7/10 deaths in the developing world.


Like you humour! :thumb:


----------



## suliktribal (Apr 4, 2010)

B|GJOE said:


> Like you humour! :thumb:


Ahh, what's life if ya can't laugh, eh?!


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

B|GJOE said:


> *Totally missed my point!*
> 
> My point was that what you said was basic mainstream thinking.
> 
> ...


 :thumb:


----------



## robc (Sep 21, 2008)

suliktribal said:


> Ahh, what's life if ya can't laugh, eh?!


A miserable one!! :lol:


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

AlasTTTair said:


> *LOL this is mental, I feel sorry for Joe cos he's the only one talking sense!*
> 
> *Joe offers quality info and gets shouted down by idiots who think beans on toast is an awesome bb meal * :lol: *.*
> 
> ...


Sums this forum up these days mate. Laughable bollocks spouted by one numpty and then backed up by others.


----------



## skipjack (Mar 28, 2010)

ba baracuss said:


> Sums this forum up these days mate. Laughable bollocks spouted by one numpty and then backed up by others.


Who are you referring to as the numpty in this thread then????


----------

