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 » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 20th, 2011, 11:29 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Bill O'Meally
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

By ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D.
Published: December 27, 2010

WHY WE GET FAT And What to Do About It. By. Gary Taubes, Alfred A.
Knopf. 272 pages. $24.95.

Another year ends, and still the war drags on. In the final salvo of
2010, the combatants are lobbing fruit.
Not literally, of course, though they might like to: The long war of
the weight-loss diets has aroused passions just about as overheated as
those of any military conflict.
How is a person best advised to lose extra weight and retreat from
diabetes and heart disease? Count calories, cut fat and fill up on
fruits and vegetables? Or turn instead to a high-protein, high-fat
regimen like the one popularized by Dr. Robert C. Atkins?
The experts point vehemently in all directions. And so in one corner
this month we find the chief executive of Weight Watchers — one of the
calorie-driven, “balanced diet” options — gleefully announcing on the
radio that he was giving out fruit baskets for Christmas in honor of
his organization’s new “Plus Points” program, in which fruit can be
freely eaten.
In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who
has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in
his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and
walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that
most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”
At this point all eaters, fat or lean, could be forgiven for slamming
the door on all expert dietary input, forever. But those who are
curious about the science behind it all could do worse than to pick up
Mr. Taubes’s book “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.”
A few things to understand at the outset: First, despite the happy fact
that unlike many in this field, Mr. Taubes is not out to sell you
anything (other than his book), it is still a manifesto. Thus, though
it is bursting with data, a reader has no way of knowing whether other
data has been overlooked or minimized to support the author’s points.
Second, the new book is not really a new book at all; it is a sort of
CliffsNotes version of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a long, dense
tome Mr. Taubes published in 2007. With the new, smaller and more
focused version, Mr. Taubes openly admits he is aiming for a broader
audience and bigger impact. Fair enough, although one does begin to
wonder if a line of protein bars is not far behind.
But all that aside, Mr. Taubes proceeds to stand the received wisdom
about diet and exercise on its head in a particularly intriguing and
readable synthesis.
We’ve got the whole thing backward, he argues. The overweight are not
lazy hogs who eat too much and exercise too little. The thin are not
virtuous and disciplined. Rather, all of us are fulfilling a fixed
biological mandate, just as growing children are. Our bodies have a
nonnegotiable agenda, and our behavior evolves to make that agenda
happen, he writes: “Eating in moderation and being physically active
(literally, having the energy to exercise) are not evidence of moral
rectitude. Rather, they’re the metabolic benefits of a body that’s
programmed to remain lean.”
In other words, you don’t haul your body off that couch and out to the
gym; your body hauls you.
Meanwhile, “those who get fat do so because of the way their fat
happens to be regulated,” Mr. Taubes writes. “A conspicuous consequence
of this regulation is to cause the eating behavior (gluttony) and the
physical inactivity (sloth) that we so readily assume are the actual
causes.”
The actual causes, he argues, with a great deal of observational and
experimental data to support his points, are the array of regulatory
enzymes and hormones that move fuel, in the form of fat and sugar
molecules, in and out of storage depots around the body.
And the only one of these hormones under even a smidgen of voluntary
control is insulin. At this point Mr. Taubes merges onto the narrative
highway traveled by all low-carb advocates: The body’s insulin levels
are largely determined by ingested carbohydrates, and for some people
the high-carb foods that stimulate insulin secretion and cravings for
more high-carb foods are, in this worldview, just so much poison.
So that apple — a filling package of fiber and vitamins to the Weight
Watchers folks — is just a serving of fructose to Mr. Taubes. Fructose
is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and
if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much
fatter.
Mr. Taubes draws an analogy to cigarette smoking: Not every long-term
smoker gets lung cancer — in fact, only a minority do — but among
people with lung cancer, smoking is by far the most common cause. “In a
world without cigarettes, lung cancer would be a rare disease, as it
once was,” he writes. “In a world without carbohydrate-rich diets,
obesity would be a rare condition as well.”
How to account for the fact that in virtually all head-to-head
comparisons of various diet plans, the average long-term results have
invariably been quite similar — mediocre all around? The party line
holds that backsliding is universal. Mr. Taubes makes much of the
addictive effect of carbohydrates: once you taste them you never forget
them.
But those studies report group outcomes. Every plan has its own rare,
shining success stories as well. Sometime, a diet just clicks.
Perhaps the remarkable diversity of the human organism — whose various
sizes and shapes (double chins, giant thighs and all) are so clearly
driven by such a vast array of different appetites and genetic cues —
simply means that it is foolish to expect a single diet to serve all
comers.
There. A proposal to end the war, just in time for the new year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html
--
Bill O'Meally
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)

  #2  
Old February 21st, 2011, 12:10 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

In article 2011022016290536629-omeallymd@wiserrcom,
Bill O'Meally wrote:

By ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D.
Published: December 27, 2010

WHY WE GET FAT And What to Do About It. By. Gary Taubes, Alfred A.
Knopf. 272 pages. $24.95.

Another year ends, and still the war drags on. In the final salvo of
2010, the combatants are lobbing fruit.
Not literally, of course, though they might like to: The long war of
the weight-loss diets has aroused passions just about as overheated as
those of any military conflict.
How is a person best advised to lose extra weight and retreat from
diabetes and heart disease? Count calories, cut fat and fill up on
fruits and vegetables? Or turn instead to a high-protein, high-fat
regimen like the one popularized by Dr. Robert C. Atkins?
The experts point vehemently in all directions. And so in one corner
this month we find the chief executive of Weight Watchers — one of the
calorie-driven, “balanced diet” options — gleefully announcing on the
radio that he was giving out fruit baskets for Christmas in honor of
his organization’s new “Plus Points” program, in which fruit can be
freely eaten.
In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who
has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in
his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and
walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that
most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”
At this point all eaters, fat or lean, could be forgiven for slamming
the door on all expert dietary input, forever. But those who are
curious about the science behind it all could do worse than to pick up
Mr. Taubes’s book “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.”
A few things to understand at the outset: First, despite the happy fact
that unlike many in this field, Mr. Taubes is not out to sell you
anything (other than his book), it is still a manifesto. Thus, though
it is bursting with data, a reader has no way of knowing whether other
data has been overlooked or minimized to support the author’s points.
Second, the new book is not really a new book at all; it is a sort of
CliffsNotes version of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a long, dense
tome Mr. Taubes published in 2007. With the new, smaller and more
focused version, Mr. Taubes openly admits he is aiming for a broader
audience and bigger impact. Fair enough, although one does begin to
wonder if a line of protein bars is not far behind.
But all that aside, Mr. Taubes proceeds to stand the received wisdom
about diet and exercise on its head in a particularly intriguing and
readable synthesis.
We’ve got the whole thing backward, he argues. The overweight are not
lazy hogs who eat too much and exercise too little. The thin are not
virtuous and disciplined. Rather, all of us are fulfilling a fixed
biological mandate, just as growing children are. Our bodies have a
nonnegotiable agenda, and our behavior evolves to make that agenda
happen, he writes: “Eating in moderation and being physically active
(literally, having the energy to exercise) are not evidence of moral
rectitude. Rather, they’re the metabolic benefits of a body that’s
programmed to remain lean.”
In other words, you don’t haul your body off that couch and out to the
gym; your body hauls you.
Meanwhile, “those who get fat do so because of the way their fat
happens to be regulated,” Mr. Taubes writes. “A conspicuous consequence
of this regulation is to cause the eating behavior (gluttony) and the
physical inactivity (sloth) that we so readily assume are the actual
causes.”
The actual causes, he argues, with a great deal of observational and
experimental data to support his points, are the array of regulatory
enzymes and hormones that move fuel, in the form of fat and sugar
molecules, in and out of storage depots around the body.
And the only one of these hormones under even a smidgen of voluntary
control is insulin. At this point Mr. Taubes merges onto the narrative
highway traveled by all low-carb advocates: The body’s insulin levels
are largely determined by ingested carbohydrates, and for some people
the high-carb foods that stimulate insulin secretion and cravings for
more high-carb foods are, in this worldview, just so much poison.
So that apple — a filling package of fiber and vitamins to the Weight
Watchers folks — is just a serving of fructose to Mr. Taubes. Fructose
is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and
if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much
fatter.
Mr. Taubes draws an analogy to cigarette smoking: Not every long-term
smoker gets lung cancer — in fact, only a minority do — but among
people with lung cancer, smoking is by far the most common cause. “In a
world without cigarettes, lung cancer would be a rare disease, as it
once was,” he writes. “In a world without carbohydrate-rich diets,
obesity would be a rare condition as well.”
How to account for the fact that in virtually all head-to-head
comparisons of various diet plans, the average long-term results have
invariably been quite similar — mediocre all around? The party line
holds that backsliding is universal. Mr. Taubes makes much of the
addictive effect of carbohydrates: once you taste them you never forget
them.
But those studies report group outcomes. Every plan has its own rare,
shining success stories as well. Sometime, a diet just clicks.
Perhaps the remarkable diversity of the human organism — whose various
sizes and shapes (double chins, giant thighs and all) are so clearly
driven by such a vast array of different appetites and genetic cues —
simply means that it is foolish to expect a single diet to serve all
comers.
There. A proposal to end the war, just in time for the new year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html


http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(available at better libraries near you)

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health (Vintage)
by Gary Taubes

p. 372 OBESITY AND THE REGULATION OF WEIGHT

In 1946, for example, the Johns Hopkins physiologist Chandler Brooks
reported that his albino mice become "definitely obese" after VMH
lesions, and that they gained six times as much weight per calorie of
food consumed as normal mice. In other words, it wasn't how much these
mice ate that determined their ultimate weight, or the number of
calories, but how these calories were utilized. They were turned into
fat, not used for fuel.


THE CARBOHYDRATE HYPOTHESIS, I p. 373

What may have been the most enlightening animal experiments were
carried out in the 1970s by physiologists studying weight regulation and
reproduction. In these experiments, the researchers removed the ovaries
from female rats. This procedure effectively serves to shut down
production of the female sex hormone estrogen (technically estradiol).
Without estrogen, the rats eat voraciously, dramatically decrease
physical activity, and quickly grow obese. When the estrogen is replaced
by infusing the hormone back into these rats, they lose the excess
weight and return to their usual patterns of eating and activity. The
critical point is that when researchers remove the ovaries from these
rats, but restrict their diets to only what they were eating before the
surgery, the rats become just as obese, just as quickly; the number of
calories consumed makes little difference.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.* Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
  #3  
Old February 21st, 2011, 12:22 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article 2011022016290536629-omeallymd@wiserrcom,
Bill O'Meally wrote:

By ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D.
Published: December 27, 2010

WHY WE GET FAT And What to Do About It. By. Gary Taubes, Alfred A.
Knopf. 272 pages. $24.95.

Another year ends, and still the war drags on. In the final salvo of
2010, the combatants are lobbing fruit.
Not literally, of course, though they might like to: The long war of
the weight-loss diets has aroused passions just about as overheated as
those of any military conflict.
How is a person best advised to lose extra weight and retreat from
diabetes and heart disease? Count calories, cut fat and fill up on
fruits and vegetables? Or turn instead to a high-protein, high-fat
regimen like the one popularized by Dr. Robert C. Atkins?
The experts point vehemently in all directions. And so in one corner
this month we find the chief executive of Weight Watchers — one of the
calorie-driven, “balanced diet” options — gleefully announcing on the
radio that he was giving out fruit baskets for Christmas in honor of
his organization’s new “Plus Points” program, in which fruit can be
freely eaten.
In the opposite corner we have Gary Taubes, the science journalist who
has thrown in his lot with the high-fat, high-protein crowd, arguing in
his new book that the overweight should just put down their apples and
walk away: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that
most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”
At this point all eaters, fat or lean, could be forgiven for slamming
the door on all expert dietary input, forever. But those who are
curious about the science behind it all could do worse than to pick up
Mr. Taubes’s book “Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.”
A few things to understand at the outset: First, despite the happy fact
that unlike many in this field, Mr. Taubes is not out to sell you
anything (other than his book), it is still a manifesto. Thus, though
it is bursting with data, a reader has no way of knowing whether other
data has been overlooked or minimized to support the author’s points.
Second, the new book is not really a new book at all; it is a sort of
CliffsNotes version of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a long, dense
tome Mr. Taubes published in 2007. With the new, smaller and more
focused version, Mr. Taubes openly admits he is aiming for a broader
audience and bigger impact. Fair enough, although one does begin to
wonder if a line of protein bars is not far behind.
But all that aside, Mr. Taubes proceeds to stand the received wisdom
about diet and exercise on its head in a particularly intriguing and
readable synthesis.
We’ve got the whole thing backward, he argues. The overweight are not
lazy hogs who eat too much and exercise too little. The thin are not
virtuous and disciplined. Rather, all of us are fulfilling a fixed
biological mandate, just as growing children are. Our bodies have a
nonnegotiable agenda, and our behavior evolves to make that agenda
happen, he writes: “Eating in moderation and being physically active
(literally, having the energy to exercise) are not evidence of moral
rectitude. Rather, they’re the metabolic benefits of a body that’s
programmed to remain lean.”
In other words, you don’t haul your body off that couch and out to the
gym; your body hauls you.
Meanwhile, “those who get fat do so because of the way their fat
happens to be regulated,” Mr. Taubes writes. “A conspicuous consequence
of this regulation is to cause the eating behavior (gluttony) and the
physical inactivity (sloth) that we so readily assume are the actual
causes.”
The actual causes, he argues, with a great deal of observational and
experimental data to support his points, are the array of regulatory
enzymes and hormones that move fuel, in the form of fat and sugar
molecules, in and out of storage depots around the body.
And the only one of these hormones under even a smidgen of voluntary
control is insulin. At this point Mr. Taubes merges onto the narrative
highway traveled by all low-carb advocates: The body’s insulin levels
are largely determined by ingested carbohydrates, and for some people
the high-carb foods that stimulate insulin secretion and cravings for
more high-carb foods are, in this worldview, just so much poison.
So that apple — a filling package of fiber and vitamins to the Weight
Watchers folks — is just a serving of fructose to Mr. Taubes. Fructose
is the problematic sugar our bodies turn to fat the most readily, and
if you are programmed to be fat, an apple will make you that much
fatter.
Mr. Taubes draws an analogy to cigarette smoking: Not every long-term
smoker gets lung cancer — in fact, only a minority do — but among
people with lung cancer, smoking is by far the most common cause. “In a
world without cigarettes, lung cancer would be a rare disease, as it
once was,” he writes. “In a world without carbohydrate-rich diets,
obesity would be a rare condition as well.”
How to account for the fact that in virtually all head-to-head
comparisons of various diet plans, the average long-term results have
invariably been quite similar — mediocre all around? The party line
holds that backsliding is universal. Mr. Taubes makes much of the
addictive effect of carbohydrates: once you taste them you never forget
them.
But those studies report group outcomes. Every plan has its own rare,
shining success stories as well. Sometime, a diet just clicks.
Perhaps the remarkable diversity of the human organism — whose various
sizes and shapes (double chins, giant thighs and all) are so clearly
driven by such a vast array of different appetites and genetic cues —
simply means that it is foolish to expect a single diet to serve all
comers.
There. A proposal to end the war, just in time for the new year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28zuger.html


http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(available at better libraries near you)

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health (Vintage)
by Gary Taubes

p. 372 OBESITY AND THE REGULATION OF WEIGHT

In 1946, for example, the Johns Hopkins physiologist Chandler Brooks
reported that his albino mice become "definitely obese" after VMH
(ventromedial hypothalamus) lesions, and that they gained six times as
much weight per calorie of food consumed as normal mice. In other words,
it wasn't how much these mice ate that determined their ultimate weight,
or the number of calories, but how these calories were utilized. They
were turned into fat, not used for fuel.


THE CARBOHYDRATE HYPOTHESIS, I p. 373

What may have been the most enlightening animal experiments were
carried out in the 1970s by physiologists studying weight regulation and
reproduction. In these experiments, the researchers removed the ovaries
from female rats. This procedure effectively serves to shut down
production of the female sex hormone estrogen (technically estradiol).
Without estrogen, the rats eat voraciously, dramatically decrease
physical activity, and quickly grow obese. When the estrogen is replaced
by infusing the hormone back into these rats, they lose the excess
weight and return to their usual patterns of eating and activity. The
critical point is that when researchers remove the ovaries from these
rats, but restrict their diets to only what they were eating before the
surgery, the rats become just as obese, just as quickly; the number of
calories consumed makes little difference.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
  #4  
Old February 22nd, 2011, 10:31 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Marengo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:29:05 -0600, Bill O'Meally
wrote:


But those studies report group outcomes. Every plan has its own rare,
shining success stories as well. Sometime, a diet just clicks.
Perhaps the remarkable diversity of the human organism whose various
sizes and shapes (double chins, giant thighs and all) are so clearly
driven by such a vast array of different appetites and genetic cues
simply means that it is foolish to expect a single diet to serve all
comers.


Jack Sprat could eat no fat.
His wife could eat no lean.
And so between them both, you see,
They licked the platter clean.

-- Nursery Rhyme

:-D
---
Peter
  #5  
Old February 23rd, 2011, 02:38 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default A Diet Manifesto: Drop the Apple and Walk Away

In article ,
Marengo wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:29:05 -0600, Bill O'Meally
wrote:


But those studies report group outcomes. Every plan has its own rare,
shining success stories as well. Sometime, a diet just clicks.
Perhaps the remarkable diversity of the human organism whose various
sizes and shapes (double chins, giant thighs and all) are so clearly
driven by such a vast array of different appetites and genetic cues
simply means that it is foolish to expect a single diet to serve all
comers.


Jack Sprat could eat no fat.
His wife could eat no lean.
And so between them both, you see,
They licked the platter clean.

-- Nursery Rhyme

:-D
---
Peter


"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health"
by Gary Taubes
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you)

370 OBESITY AND THE REGULATION OF WEIGHT

.. . . the Johns Hopkins physiologist Chandler Brooks reported that his
albino mice become "definitely obese" after VMH (ventromedial
hypothalamus) lesions, and that they gained six times as much weight per
calorie of food consumed as normal mice. In other words, it wasn't how
much these mice ate that determined their ultimate weight, or the number
of calories, but how these calories were utilized. They were turned into
fat, not used for fuel.

.. . . When physiologists began studying animal hibernation in the 1960s,
they again demonstrated this decoupling of food intake from weight gain.
Hibernating ground squirrels will double their body weight in late
summer, in preparation for the winter-long hibernation. But these
squirrels will get just as fat even when kept in the laboratory and not
allowed to eat any more in August and September than they did in April.
The seasonal fat deposition is genetically programmedthe animals will
accomplish their task whether food is abundant or not.

What may have been the most enlightening animal experiments were
carried out in the 1970s by physiologists studying weight regulation and
reproduction. In these experiments, the researchers removed the ovaries
from female rats. This procedure effectively serves to shut down
production of the female sex hormone estrogen (technically estradiol).
Without estrogen, the rats eat voraciously, dramatically decrease
physical activity, and quickly grow obese. When the estrogen is replaced
by infusing the hormone back into these rats, they lose the excess
weight and return to their usual patterns of eating and activity. The
critical point is that when researchers remove the ovaries from these
rats, but restrict their diets to only what they were eating before the
surgery, the rats become just as obese, just as quickly; the number of
calories consumed makes little difference.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
 




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
Bankers Manifesto Hank Kroll Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 November 23rd, 2008 07:09 PM
Apple Patch Diet! [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 March 2nd, 2007 04:30 PM
apple diet Katalac General Discussion 0 November 15th, 2006 03:00 AM
Drop diet?!??! caistor Weightwatchers 10 April 4th, 2006 08:16 AM
Carbs in sour apple vs sweet apple !!! ?? John E Low Carbohydrate Diets 11 February 4th, 2005 12:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 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.