|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
Again Mikey you shift the debate. This whole thread started because you
noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2 weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6 weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good this year) through his nose he laughed so hard. Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit, your attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals - let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that continues to eat up and fragment habitat? I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride. Toodles moron. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
I suggest you ask for a refund on your degree and get some new glasses.
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
Oops I made a mistake I will have a 70 times greater (not 12.5 times as I
mistakenly quoted) chance of dying on my lunch time road ride than if I choose to do a mt. bike ride. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:52:01 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: ...And since there are dozens of ways of getting aerobic exercise besides mountain biking, and since mountain biking causes an enormous amount of damage to wildlife and people, there's absolutely no reason to promote mountain biking.... Reason No. 1 to ride your bicycle off road - it annoys Mikey V. Let us know when you get a second brain cell working. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:31:54 GMT, wrote:
Again Mikey you shift the debate. This whole thread started because you noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2 weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6 weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good this year) through his nose he laughed so hard. Proving only that you idiots can't handle beer any better than you can science. Once again, you DELIBERATELY IGNORED the negative health impacts of mountain biking, including driving hikers off of the trails, killing animals and plants, and inducing young people into a dangerous sport. So-called "scientists" who skew data are nothing new, and for mountain bikers, are the rule. I don't think I need any more proof that you have no intention of EVER telling the truth about your destructive sport (well, why would you want to break mountain bikers' record of always lying? . . . ). Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit, Yes, and you haven't grasped that YET. your attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals - let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that continues to eat up and fragment habitat? I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride. Toodles moron. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:43:55 GMT, wrote:
Oops I made a mistake Just one of many.... I will have a 70 times greater (not 12.5 times as I mistakenly quoted) chance of dying on my lunch time road ride than if I choose to do a mt. bike ride. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the
health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport. You have this remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event). Thus, you loose again for being stupid. Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with 8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity and better outlook on life, a substantial increase in leg strength and body toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity. Quit being so disingenuous or stupid or both. You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do. Or take an English class. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:03:31 GMT, wrote:
Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport. That's a myopic view. If a sport benefits the person who does it, but at the same time harms others, then the NET benefit (which is what we are talking about) is ZERO. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that stupid? You have this remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event). You are really AMAZINGLY dense. If they are driven off the trails, and so don't get the exercise benefit that they had, then they are harmed! DUH! That subtracts from the alleged net benefit of mountain biking. Thus, you loose again for being stupid. Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with 8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity and better outlook on life, Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance and dishonesty. Mountain bikers have one of the WORST outlooks of any group I know. It is entirely centered on their own pleasure, to the exclusion of the welfare of any wildlife or people around them. You are a perfect example of that self-centeredness. a substantial increase in leg strength and body toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity. No, it doesn't. As John Muir said, everything is "hitched" to everything else. If you improve your health at to the detriment of others' health, where is the net benefit? Quit being so disingenuous or stupid or both. You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do. Or take an English class. I got straight A's in English, but I never learned to lie, as you do. So I as you again: Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be stupid? The world wants to know. -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:03:31 GMT, wrote: Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport. That's a myopic view. If a sport benefits the person who does it, but at the same time harms others, then the NET benefit (which is what we are talking about) is ZERO. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that stupid? Zero ! That's your IQ isn't it, Vandy ? You're stump stupid, aren't you ? You have this remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event). You are really AMAZINGLY dense. If they are driven off the trails, and so don't get the exercise benefit that they had, then they are harmed! DUH! That subtracts from the alleged net benefit of mountain biking. DUH! If they were walking the trails and THEN got driven off wouldn't they get MORE exercise ?? DUH! Thus, you loose again for being stupid. Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with 8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity and better outlook on life, Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance and dishonesty. Mountain bikers have one of the WORST outlooks of any group I know. It is entirely centered on their own pleasure, to the exclusion of the welfare of any wildlife or people around them. You are a perfect example of that self-centeredness. a substantial increase in leg strength and body toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity. No, it doesn't. As John Muir said, everything is "hitched" to everything else. If you improve your health at to the detriment of others' health, where is the net benefit? Quit being so disingenuous or stupid or both. You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do. Or take an English class. I got straight A's in English, but I never learned to lie, as you do. So how did you get the straight A's, cheat ? And don't worry learning to lie, you're doing a fine job on your own. So I as you again: So I guess spelling wasn't part of english, lier ? Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be stupid? The world wants to know. He's just pretending to be stupid so you don't feel so bad! -- I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Death Threat from a Typical Mountain Biker (was Hate Mail from a Typical Mountain Biker) | averal | Social Issues | 0 | April 11th 05 04:47 AM |
Mountain Biking is DANGEROUS! -- Mountain Biker Found Dead In Capitol State Forest, WA | [email protected] | Mountain Biking | 4 | February 12th 05 11:33 PM |
Mountain Biking is DANGEROUS! -- Mountain Biker Found Dead In Capitol State Forest, WA | treefrog | Social Issues | 1 | February 12th 05 11:33 PM |
Mountain Biking is DANGEROUS! -- Mountain Biker Found Dead In Capitol State Forest, WA | [email protected] | Social Issues | 0 | February 9th 05 11:32 PM |
Mountain Biker Gives Driver the Finger, Then Wonders Why People Hate Mountain Bikers! | Mr_Kingkillaha | Mountain Biking | 3 | January 27th 05 04:20 AM |