Giant or Midget Leos?

Yes, I've been bitten by a crestie and had to look to see I was being bitten. Repeatedly. There was nothing to it. I never said they wouldn't survive being fed mealworms, and I did say that I in fact have mealworms for them. The problem would obviously occur if they're not actually dead. This is so beside the point. The point was the nutritional value. Anything else is moot.

If anything else is moot, why did YOU say it in YOUR post? Sheesh.

Time for me to step in, lol. David is 100% correct on this one Marla, sorry to say. Think about this logically. Leos of all sizes have powerful little jaws. Ever notice how when they eat a mealie, they ALWAYS grab it up, then rotate it horizontally, crushing the head 100% of the time? This always happens, always. Secondly, lets say the head didn't get crushed. The mortal wounds inflicted on the body would kill it in a matter of seconds. The wounds added with the Hydochloric acid would definately kill it within a second or two. So, no air in the stomach, burning acid on open wounds, always head being crushed. It's simply impossible for a mealie to chew through their stomachs. Can't happen, wont happen.

Jeff, if you'll notice, this wasn't only referring to leos, which have more powerful jaws than, say, cresteds. But once again, the point was nutritional value.

Marla....I love you but please just admit you were wrong and move on. Stop trying to sidestep the issue....the mian focus of your post may have been nutritional value but YOU said something that was incorrect. Nothing bad about being wrong....arguing an impossibility takes away from your credibility though.

Marla, if you went ahead and read the rest of my post, you'll see that I did take into account the possiblity of the head not being crushed. You mean to tell me a crestie is so weak as to not break the meal worm at all? Quite doubtful.

okay two of you are arguing whether or not worms can live through the eating/digestive process - never was it directly stated that this was possible in Marlas post. It could be considered implied but implication isn't direct statement so thus an implication is not a statement of any sort and cannot be considered as such. Marla posted about nutritional content and also even though it does seem overwhelmingly obvious that worms could not live through such a process no scientific evidence has been stated to prove or disprove either side - thus not only was it never stated that worms could go through the digestive tract, it hasn't been proven here either way.

also if arguing the fact that "crickets cannot burrow back out of your herp" we're all agreed so there is no disagreement

Dude all I meant was that some things that seem perfectly logical do not work out the way they logically should. I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a worm could eat through but it could somehow some way in some situation be possible. And anything implied is what the reader takes away not what the writer writes.

but this whole thing has been exhausted so I say we agree to disagree or whatever and scrap it :)