A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old April 9th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:38:38 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On 30 Mar 2004 08:20:22 -0800, (jpatti) posted:

..
There are archeological studies indicating humans were much healthier
prior to the development of agriculture...


Some were, some weren't. Archeological evidence is very sparse and
often contradictory in my experience

on a much lower-carb diet.


Whoa! Some ate a lot of meat and some ate little. Some ate lots of
fish some ate little or none. Most gathered seeds and fruits and
juices and tubers....

Larger skeletons, better tetth, stuff of that sort.


In some, and not in others.


'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago.


What does that mean? Anthropologically speaking? Very little tenuous
evidence, or what?

Current calcium
intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we
are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be
consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
physiologic mechanisms.


No reliable evidence though?

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content;


Which ones? Grown where? Calcium rich soils or calcium poor soils?

animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago.


Not sure about that. Some early humans are thought to have "caught"
some animal milks.

Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.


Sorry, what did these women eat?

As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17


Exercise -- Sheeeesh!

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11


High salt and high protein was likely in the diets of SOME prehistoric
humans.
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html

And very high in protein.

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm


Whereabout? Indonesia? Africa? India?
  #162  
Old April 9th, 2004, 10:37 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:10:34 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:35:42 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message news On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:04:23 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

From; 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA

Trace Elements.
Parts per million
Dry matter

Vegetable: Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 0.26
Non-organic 0
Cabbage
Organic 0.15
Non-organic 0
Lettuce
Organic 0.19
Non-organic 0
Tomatoes
Organic 0.63
Non-organic 0
Spinach
Organic 0.25
Non-organic 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm


This is an extremely poor reference source.

Again- you were given a reference.


And you think that organic propaganda is a good source of unbiased
information? Try again.


A study by Rutgers University isn't 'biased organic propaganda'. Try again.


Many American universities are not what they would appear. I've seen
much utter crap published on the web by often reputable institutions.
(Well under the banner of the university -- perhaps they would pull
the rug if they knew what crap some folks portray as coming from them)
You seem to think that just because something is written, it has some
credence.

The cobalt in plants depends on the cobalt in the soils. Many
conventional ag soils are rich in cobalt, and when grazing animals the
cobalt, if low, will be ammended.

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html


A pathetic reference, sorry.
Above it says "may" -- but it isn't, except in organic biased
propaganda.
Assuming that conventional farmers use high levels of fertilisers and
that they abuse their soils is just as silly as assuming that organic
farmers do the same. Organic farmers are just prevented from
replenishing the nutrients that are exported in the crop.


Time you supplied some evidence to support your claims.


No need. Unless you can tell us exactly where the exported potassium
(for instance) is replaced in organic farms. If you can, then it might
be worth digging up some of the masses of evidenvce I've plowed
through in a lifetime of interest in things agricultural

Organic methods preclude all of this
ammendment and so, on average, organic grown will be lower in cobalt.

'The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in
the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization
of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known
to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for
healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect,
for B12 .


And how much diesel are you going to burn carting seaweed to Kansas?


I'd like to see freight powered by sustainable-energy sources.
Objections?


So would we all, but there ain't none, sorry. The best I can figure is
nuclear electricity and synthetic diesel oil. But until that
eventuates (as I hope it will when gas reaches $10 per gallon) then we
have to use cheap fossil diesel oil. But you didn't answer my question
about the unsustainability of seaweed use.

Using seaweed should be banned. It is unsustainable for the seaboard
environment.


Harvested sustainably it needn't be. Better stop bottom trawling, though.
http://www.google.ie/search?num=20&h...awling&spell=1


Better stop lots of thing, like breeding so fast

The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own
food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting
remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.'
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm


Crushed rock is vitually useless unless you have hundreds of years to
wait, or you crush it so fine using inordinate amounts of precious
energy.


Again, with the will, in time, energy from sustainable-energy sources.


Energy is really in short supply. Wasting it in grinding mined rocks
is rather silly when a drop of chemically extracted cobalt cholride is
so efficient.

And anyway, most organic silliness precludes quarrying of anything.


Not silliness at all. Industrial quarrying can be very destructive.


Ummm, so can doing anything that humans do, but.....

Although some allow toxic and persistent Bordeaux mixture on grape
vines Go figure. Poisons the pickers.


More info' please.


Bordeaux mixture (calcium copper hydroxide or similar) is allowed as a
fungicide in vineyards Copper is toxic and hangs around forever.
Workers have been poisoned. The only reason it is allowed is
hypocritical pragmatism. Nothing else works except a dozen or so
almost harmless synthetic fungicides that don't persist at all.
These however are "nasty chemicals" not like loverly old Bordeaux
mixture which grandpa used to make himself.

What is wrong with adding minuscule amounts of cobalt chloride to the
irrigation water? That's what I did when I had large fishponds.


That might work.


It does work, but organic growing bans it. That's the point. Many of
their silly rules are totally counterproductive and driven by ignorant
dogma.

Try a more balanced reference like USDA or similar.

It should be noted that in the UK 'organic' is the same as 'sustainable'
in the US. I'm aware that 'organic' farming in the US isn't the real deal.


Organic in the US varies from state to state. Each one has its own
ridiculous list of preclusions.
No agriculture is sustainable. The closest will be where the nutrients
are replenished as they are used up.


'Incorporating organic matter aids in sustaining the organic
content of the soil. However, organic matter cannot be built
up permanently in the soil because it continually decomposes
and disappears; soil building must be a continual process
in the garden. ......
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/envirohor...1/426-711.html


Obvious for anyone who knows a bit about soil. So what has this to do
with organic? I know many many farmers who amend their soils with OM.

Using leaves for composting
Since most trees are deep-rooted, they absorb minerals from deep
in the soil and a good portion of these minerals go into the leaves.
http://www.compostguide.com/using_le...omposting.html


And a good portion of these minerals are reabsorbed by the tree before
the leaf is dropped. Anyways, this only works for a somewhat longer
time, and of course assumes that the subsoil has any of the required
minerals in the first place. Taking the leaves from under the tree is
robbing from the tree to solve your food problem.

'In 1991, Dr. Sanchez accepted a position as the head of ICRAF
in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African
agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature
of the soil. Dr. Sanchez' most enduring contribution to ending
world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish
crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and
promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms,
when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to
the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize
their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly
chemical fertilizers.


Lucky them, to have nutrients below that the trees can drag up. Try
that on 2000' of ancient sand like I live on.
And how long will this carry on? Trees cut out light and thus cut down
production of food.
The mining of rock phosphate is likely useless (depending on the type
of rock}, notwithstanding the silly proscription by organics on
mining.

The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez'
methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases
200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this
success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion
more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another
tropical rainforest. ICRAF's goal is to move 20 million people
out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2
from the air with this project.'

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/2002La...essrelease.htm


Trees are almost insignificant wrt CO2 in the atmosphere. Not that
growing trees isn't a nice thing to do. Perhaps even food trees.
But as I said above this might work for a short period, or it might
not. When you're starting from such a low base of fertitlity, almost
any tiny increase will have a marked effect on productivity.

  #163  
Old April 9th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "vegan" Diet Linked To B-12 Deficiency

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:15:39 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:13:07 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:21:14 -0000, "pearl"
posted:

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
..
"vegan" diets are linked with B-12 deficiency.

And iron deficiency, zinc deficiency, etc.

Common in the general population.

The Baer report (Rutgers Univ., 1984) "Variations in Mineral
Contents of Vegetables"
Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter

Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69
0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3

0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48
0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4

0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60

0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3
0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53

0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0
0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm

Look at the amazing numbers, and then look at the URL. Bull****!!!

Ipse dixit. .. Anyway, you have a reference.


Maliciously misleading though.


What is?


Your organic propaganda reference.
As an old hort science lecturer of mine once said, it is akin to
Voodoo Economics.

Organic produce MUST contain less minerals than conventional.

Organic growing can't replace the harvested minerals, whereas
conventional growing analyses and replenishes the mined minerals.

Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals,


Bull**** scare tactics!!! How can you possibly claim that crops grown
on soils which are prohibited from replenishment of exported minerals
in the crop, can be more mineral-rich than soils which are constantly
monitored and replenished?


Prohibited from replenishment of exported minerals? Explain.


A plot of land grows a crop which is harvested and sold at the market.
That crop will contain a lot of nutrients extracted from the soil.
The soil will therefore become shorter and shorter in this element.
Potassium eg is exported in great amounts. How is organic farming
going to replace this potassium? This is crucial to the logic of
organic growing. I've heard some advocates claim that extraterrestrial
sources provide these nutrients.

snip more of same

No proper scientific evidence, I see, just organic propaganda.


Ipse dixit.


Well that's all I've seen from you.
Please explain the above conundrum wrt potassium.

  #164  
Old April 9th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Laurence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Excellent observations, all!

There is one small part, however, that bears consideration. Wheat, barley
and rye gluten proteins evoke an IgA and IgG immune response in about a
third of all people. In most it is a fairly low level response in the
intestine. In about one per cent of all people it turns into and immune
system attack on the intestinal mucosa and epithelium. And recent research
has discovered the fact of associated NHL and intestinal cancers if the
condition is allowed to persist untreated.

For information about the one per cent, see this reference

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2003...210-celiac.php

For information about the 35% see this medical lab website

http://www.enterolab.com/


where they offer a newer, more sensitive test.


Funny how it is really tough to sort out the "locker-room science" from the
real stuff.

Laurence



"Moosh" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:34:29 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

What I'm saying is that ongoing excess consumption of wheat
will often precipitate a wheat-specific allergic response.


No evidence for this. Some folk are allergic to just about anything.
I'm allergic to paper wasp stings. They cure this by giving me weekly
stings Go figure.

Eating
anything in excess may result in some problems as well, I agree.


But most of Western man's problems stem from too much energy.

can produce a craving
as well as allergic response (headaches, tiredness,

fuzzy-headedness,
abdominal discomfort, bloating, tinnitus (referred) [especially

with,
wheat-bran, shredded wheat, and weetabix, ..

Evidence? Or is this just personal opinion?

Evidence to what?

Your ipse dixit

Symptoms of allergic response to wheat,
or the part about tinnitus? The former is well known,

In a very few people, so what?


You admit it's not just my ipse dixit then.


No I asked you for evidence of what you said above.
Sure some folks are intolerant of wheat, or milk, or nuts, or
shellfish....

the latter
I learned during my training,

As what?


As a reflexologist.


OK. What are you doing on this group, then?

I hope you are not appealing to authority?


No, just answering your question 'Evidence? Or is this
just personal opinion?'.


So why mention "training" as though this gives what you say some
authority. It doesn't. It is just an ignorant personal opinion.

and has been confirmed many times
during almost ten years of clinical practice.

As what?


A reflexologist.


Sort of Tarot cards of the feet?

Anecdotal I know,
but I doubt I could do any better than that in this case, sorry.

So it is meaningless? Thanks.


It might be meaningless to you.


Or anyone else here.

Probably not to the tinnitus-suffering
all-bran/weetabix/shredded-wheat eating folks reading this though.


Show us any evidence that these things cause what you claim in any but
a tiny tiny minority of overfed Westerners who are becoming
increasingly allergic to everything. Possibly coz of our obbsessive
cleanliness.

all of which are highly
abrasive to the colon, especially the ileo-caecal valve, situated
between the small and large intestine- just above the appendix]).

Nonsense. We've evolved to eat such things.

'All-bran' and 'weetabix' bushes? (That's 'nonsense').
We haven't evolved to eat large amounts of course grain-fibre.

Well we've certainly survived it. And that's what really counts.


'Survived it' in what sense? As a species?

We're discussing individual's health, not surviving as a species.


No, we are discussing epidemiology, I would have thought.
General principles.

because vegetables alone didn't fill me up.

Nuts, seeds, legumes, cereals, sweet fruits, roots, leafy greens,

rice?

But the pasta and bread didn't fill me up either!

Wholegrain or refined?

I could eat unlimited quantities of starchy foods, seemingly,
and never feel satiated.

You may have been missing out some higher protein plant-foods.

(Were you drinking 'diet' cokes, etc?).

Eliminating those foods has made it a lot easier
to eat less, and I feel a lot better too.

For cutting out all the wheat, no doubt.

Meat is a nutritionally dense
food, meat eating animals don't need to eat nearly as frequently

to survive
as plant eating animals do.

Meat is a high protein food, in fact so high that it's unhealthy

for us.

More nonsense! Do you regard eggs as unhealthy?

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.

Noticed they are nearly all skinny as rakes? I have.


Funny that, because many of them aren't vegetarians!


Well the few dozen that I have known have been, and the pictures I've
seen of SDA conferences were.

Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
(in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption
was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death

investigated.

PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Have you taken note of that?


Yes, so what? It tells us nothing but what it tells us. What were
these correlations like compared with say smoking, drinking,
overweight, sedentariness...

Otherwise, plant foods are far richer than meat in most nutrients,
and we can obtain all the essential nutrients we require, in

suitable
and balanced amounts; sans all the unhealthy anti-nutrients in

meat.

What ARE you talking about?

What part isn't clear?

The assertion abour anti-nutrients in meat.


Yes. I really should have written 'components' instead.


Again, what are you talking about?

I think one of the things that gets missed in
the debate about low-carb diets is that for the people who

respond well to
it, you end up eating less overall than before.

The conclusion in the in-depth documentary I saw, was that protein
satiates appetite very quickly. But you could just as easily eat

plant
foods that are high in protein, such as nuts and legumes, also

rice.

Potatoes are the most satiating, when you measure it scientifically.

I find a diet comprised of a variety of quality plant foods very

satiating.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that a little meat shouldn't be
included in this variety.


'In short, disease rates were significantly associated within a range
of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an

all-plant
foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these

diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

OBSERVED-TO-EXPECTED CORONARY
HEART DISEASE MORTALITY IN ADVENTIST MEN
Total Vegetarians 14%
Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarians 39%
Meat Users 56%
Phillips et al. (Amer. J. of Clinical Nutrition, 1978, 31: S191-S198)

RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman
Meat Eggs

Butter/cheese
less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0
2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10
almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23
(from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
"Problems with Meat", 1989)



So? Associations? Londoners who get run over by London busses have a
strong association with drinking tea.



  #165  
Old April 10th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:55:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
posted:

I agree. Why doesn't she just take some massive
dose of antibiotics and kill off all those nasty
intestinal bacteria?

[Hint; because it will make her sick as hell.]


And of course, no brew of antibiotics would sterilise the gut. Those
left will likely overgrow.

  #166  
Old April 10th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:37:11 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...

..
absorbed through the wall of the large intestine?


'The intestinal epithelium and the normal intestinal microflora represent
a barrier to the movement of pathogenic bacteria, antigens and other
noxious substances from the gut lumen. Under normal circumstances
this barrier is intact and provides normal intestinal function. When either
the epithelial cells or the normal microflora are disturbed altered
permeability facilitates the invasion of pathogens, foreign antigens and
other harmful substances. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN...Num1/51p53.htm

See;
http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/r-world/...news/2004/feb/
Figure 3: Relationship between intestinal microbiota and disease



Thankyou. I rest my case

  #167  
Old April 11th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:49:24 -0700, "Laurence" lharris@nwlinkDOTcom
posted:

Funny how it is really tough to sort out the "locker-room science" from the
real stuff.


It really needs a scientist with good teaching skills to translate all
the studies and tell us what is really relevant to everyday lives and
what is merely academically interesting or just plain speculation.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diet Soda [aspartame] Dangerous? Shari Lieberman, The O'Reilly Factor 3.19.4: Murray 3.23.4 rmforall Rich Murray General Discussion 15 March 27th, 2004 04:22 AM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
Is excess sugar consumption linked to cancer? Diarmid Logan General Discussion 6 October 8th, 2003 09:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.