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

Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 6th, 2011, 11:39 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
jay[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...way_the_poison

Packing Away The Poison
Genetic mutation allows Hudson River fish to adapt to PCBs, Dioxins
2/17/2011

Some fish in New York’s Hudson River have become "resistant" to
several of the waterway’s more toxic pollutants. Instead of getting
sick from dioxins and related compounds including some polychlorinated
biphenyls, Atlantic tomcod harmlessly store these poisons in fat, a
new study finds.

But what’s good for this bottom-dwelling species could be bad for
those feeding on it, says Isaac Wirgin of the New York University
School of Medicine’s Institute of Environmental Medicine in Tuxedo.
Each bite of tomcod that a predator takes, he explains, will move a
potent dose of toxic chemicals up the food chain — eventually into
species that could end up on home dinner tables.

From 1947 to 1976, two General Electric manufacturing plants along the
Hudson River produced PCBs for a range of uses, including as
insulating fluids in electrical transformers. Over the years, PCB and
dioxin levels in the livers of the Hudson’s tomcod rose to become
“among the highest known in nature,” Wirgin and his colleagues note
online February 17 in Science. Because these fish don’t detoxify PCBs,
Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.

All vertebrates contain molecules in their cells that will bind to
dioxins and related compounds. Indeed, these proteins — aryl
hydrocarbon receptors, or AHRs — are often referred to as dioxin
receptors. Once these poisons diffuse into an exposed cell, each
molecule can mate with a receptor and together they eventually pick up
a third molecule. This trio can then dock with select segments of DNA
in the cell’s nucleus to inappropriately turn on genes that can poison
the host animal.

The tomcod actually has two types of AHRs, with AHR-2 offering the
most effective binding to dioxin-like pollutants. But one naturally
occurring AHR-2 variant, the result of a gene mutation, proves a very
poor mate, Wirgin’s team has found. It takes five times more of the
pollutants to get substantial binding than is needed with the
conventional AHR-2.

In local rivers relatively free of dioxins and PCBs, 95 percent of
tomcod possess AHR-2 only in the conventional form. But in the PCB-
rich Hudson, Wirgin’s group finds, the only kind of AHR-2 protein in
99 percent of tomcod is the poorly binding variant.

The mutant receptor appears to have evolved long ago and to be widely
dispersed. But in the Hudson, fish with the gene to make the mutant
receptor have thrived, while those without it have died out ...

-----

For more on POPs & Insulin Resistance, see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854721/
  #2  
Old August 7th, 2011, 02:05 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
outsider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.


Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.


There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.
  #3  
Old August 7th, 2011, 03:05 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Mark Thorson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted HudsonRiver

jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants’ toxicity.


Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.
  #4  
Old August 7th, 2011, 06:47 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.


Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.


There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.


Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here? DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down. They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis
  #5  
Old August 7th, 2011, 12:58 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
outsider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River

On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.


There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.


Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here?


Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here
more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of
the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment?

DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down.


They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't
break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we
only suspect things, but don't actually know them.

In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My
look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method
available for destruction was passing the product through a molten
sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful
means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about
here.

They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.


We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being.
  #6  
Old August 8th, 2011, 07:35 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:

Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcod¹s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutants¹ toxicity.

Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.

There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.

And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.


Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here?


Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here
more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of
the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment?

DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down.


They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't
break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we
only suspect things, but don't actually know them.

In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My
look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method
available for destruction was passing the product through a molten
sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful
means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about
here.

They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.


We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being.


Your premise is wrong. DDT hasn't been band, and how much will it cost
us to throw away one of our best defenses to the mosquito by allowing
the mosquito to quickly develop a resistance to DDT? DDT is used, but
selectively with other practices, and insecticides to control mosquitos.
Global warming will bring more mosquitos. Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis
  #7  
Old August 8th, 2011, 10:00 AM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Chris Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

In alt.support.diabetes outsider wrote:

We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform.


Because we haven't had the technology to be that specific, except by
lucky accident.

The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent.


Not nonexistent, and growing rapidly as genomics science and
technology develops.

In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.


But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.


You've not heard of sickle cell anemia?

--
Chris Malcolm
  #8  
Old August 8th, 2011, 03:09 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
outsider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River

On 8/8/2011 1:35 AM, Billy wrote:

[...]

Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.


I'm sorry, Billy, but you're mistaken. I urge you to read this book,
and perhaps other more advanced ones on the topic, and see how it
all fits together.

http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0143113453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312810518&sr=8-1

For example:

Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the modification to the
CR5 gene. Exposure to bubonic plague didn't lead the survivors
to procreate more. Survival only allowed those with the mutant
gene to represent a larger segment of a surviving population.

However you'll find that Mediterranean peoples today have a
smaller portion of the population with the mutant gene than
those in northern Europe.

Why would that be if the only survivors had the mutant gene?

Logic would dictate that there's more than one mechanism for
survival. But that's generally true for *any* mechanism where
that mechanism can fail. A study of parasites in general shows
how complex their needs are to survive generation after
generation.

I can't think of anything in the natural universe that's linear.
Yet your arguments have historically depended on linear attributes.
  #9  
Old August 8th, 2011, 06:26 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB Polluted Hudson River

In article ,
outsider wrote:

On 8/8/2011 1:35 AM, Billy wrote:

[...]

Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.


I'm sorry, Billy, but you're mistaken. I urge you to read this book,
and perhaps other more advanced ones on the topic, and see how it
all fits together.


And I suggest that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica to see what
knowledge looks like.

You seem to be better adapted to sound bites than presenting an argument.

Let's back up to,
"We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.

But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.

All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being."
- outsider

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...o-combat-malar
ia
The scientists from the United States and South Africa said the
insecticide, banned decades ago in most of the world, should only be
used as a last resort in combating malaria.

The stance of the panel, led by a University of California
epidemiologist, is likely to be controversial with public health
officials. Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was
endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's
Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program . . .

The scientists reported that DDT may have a variety of human health
effects, including reduced fertility, genital birth defects, breast
cancer, diabetes and damage to developing brains. Its metabolite, DDE,
can block male hormones.

In 2007, at least 3,950 tons of DDT were sprayed for mosquito control in
Africa and Asia, according to a report by the United Nations Environment
Programme.

In South Africa, about 60 to 80 grams is sprayed in each household per
year, Bouwman said.

A 2007 study on male fertility is the only published research so far.
Conducted in Limpopo, South Africa by de Jager and his colleagues, the
study found men in the sprayed homes had extremely high levels of DDT in
their blood and that their semen volume and sperm counts were low.

"Clearly, more research is neededŠbut in the meantime, DDT should really
be the last resort against malaria, rather than the first line of
defense," Eskenazi said.

The pesticide accumulates in body tissues, particularly breast milk, and
lingers in the environment for decades.

Since then [2001, Stockholm Convention], nine nations‹Ethiopia, South
Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and
Swaziland‹notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT.
Five others‹Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and
Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China,
have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January
Stockholm Convention report.

Mexico, the rest of Central America and parts of Africa have combated
malaria without DDT by using alternative methods, such as controlling
stagnant ponds where mosquitoes breed and using bed nets treated with
pyrethroid insecticides. But such efforts have been less successful in
other places, particularly South Africa.

"We have a whole host of mosquito species and more than one parasite.
The biology of the vectors is different and there is therefore no
one-method-fits-all strategy, as is the case in Central America,"
Bouwman said.
---

So much for having chosen human beings for our victims

On to the "Red Herring" of "Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the
modification to the (sic) CR5 [CCR5 ] gene".

Plague didn't cause the mutation in CCR5, but it gave those who had it
an evolutionary advantage.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html
Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance
gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black
Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe,
killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were
individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could
not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by
the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the
most common today.
---

Also see
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered



http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-S...113453/ref=sr_
1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312810518&sr=8-1

For example:

Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the modification to the
CR5 gene. Exposure to bubonic plague didn't lead the survivors
to procreate more. Survival only allowed those with the mutant
gene to represent a larger segment of a surviving population.

However you'll find that Mediterranean peoples today have a
smaller portion of the population with the mutant gene than
those in northern Europe.

Which is where the mutation appears to have come from. Mystery solved.


Why would that be if the only survivors had the mutant gene?

Logic would dictate that there's more than one mechanism for
survival. But that's generally true for *any* mechanism where
that mechanism can fail. A study of parasites in general shows
how complex their needs are to survive generation after
generation.

I can't think of anything in the natural universe that's linear.
Yet your arguments have historically depended on linear attributes.


Natural universe, perhaps not, but in scientific modeling (premise,
hypothesis, conclusion, new hypothesis based on the synthesis of new
information, ad infinitum) it is about all we have except for the
occasional paradigm shifting revelations grated to the few. What you
offer are interesting, unconnected, misleading factoids that prove
nothing.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis
  #10  
Old August 8th, 2011, 07:01 PM posted to sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb
outsider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Fish with Insensative Dioxin Receptor Survive in PCB PollutedHudson River

On 8/8/2011 12:26 PM, Billy wrote:

In ,
wrote:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html
Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance
gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black
Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe,
killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were
individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could
not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by
the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the
most common today.


Correlation is not causation.

Natural universe, perhaps not, but in scientific modeling (premise,
hypothesis, conclusion, new hypothesis based on the synthesis of new
information, ad infinitum) it is about all we have except for the
occasional paradigm shifting revelations grated to the few. What you
offer are interesting, unconnected, misleading factoids that prove
nothing.


We agree to disagree. But do let me know if/when you've actually read
something worthwhile about Chaos (internet web pages of the same value
as printed material are few) and have some understanding of the topic.
It is a growth area for most folks and I think your take on what you've
published here will probably change.
 




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
High Animal Fat Diet, Dioxin, Chloracne jay[_2_] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 July 15th, 2008 09:07 PM
Is it just a river? Lump Chicken Weightwatchers 17 March 9th, 2006 09:57 PM
Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer Alan S Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 28th, 2006 02:44 AM
Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer Carmen Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 February 27th, 2006 11:04 PM
Caloric restriction and increased dopamine receptor signaling. Tim General Discussion 0 March 15th, 2004 09:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.


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