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

Heart poison



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 1st, 2012, 05:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Heart poison

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 12:54:13 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote:

[...]
Truly it's hard to condemn them when the AHA is endorsing Chocolate
Covered Sugar Bombs.


Why can't we condemn all of them?

Works for me.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #12  
Old September 2nd, 2012, 01:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Heart poison

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

Define "relative health."


I think Doug is talking about the many people in Asian
countries who eat lots of rice and/or noodles and who
are doing fine. It's kind of like the French paradox. You
can't just look at what agrees with your views and ignore
the rest.


Plus poor potato eaters in Europe,

The problem is that model depnds on food not being available in
abundance -

I don't ignore any views.

And they're actually not doing so fine.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-a...#axzz1l3sFmGFn

"Is Asia Even All That Healthier Anymore?

"Healthy, long-lived Asia isn’t so healthy and long-lived. Both China
and India are facing diabetes epidemics. In Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam,
and Thailand, diabetes is also increasing. The perfect storm – of
sedentary living, processed junk food full of carbs and bad fats, and
poor sleep – that has ravaged America and other industrialized nations
for almost a century and led to a host of debilitating illnesses is
beginning to descend upon Asia. Cooking oils have displaced
traditional animal fats and sugar intake is rising. People walk less


Yup.
  #13  
Old September 5th, 2012, 03:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Heart poison

On Sep 1, 12:31*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:02*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger


wrote:
I'm not sure any claim is being made, Doug, other than in his own
practice (and in various other studies) small LDL particles are a
significant risk factor for CHD. More studies would need to be done to
confirm any link between eating "gluten-free foods" and having small
LDL particles.


That "the nice people" bit does imply that the folks who put such
products on the market are/were unaware of such risks. *That's
definitely true of the folks who put maragine on the market decades ago.
A lot of people though maragerine was beneficial until the long term
studies showed otherwise.


Given what we now know about HFCS, etc., it's not hard to imagine that
"the nice people" knew exactly what they were doing.


Another evil conspiracy theory. *It couldn't be the
perfectly logical idea that the "nice people" are just giving people
what they want,


I don't remember any great demand from the people that food
manufacturers stop using sugar and start using a bunch of chemicals in
their place, or that they stop making butter and start making tubs of
chemicals instead, etc.


The market demand is for a product that does not use
a specific component, be that gluten, transfat, fat, etc.
That demand is driven by what people are choosing to buy
based on the latest information from govt, health "experts",
fads, etc. In the specific case, the alleged evils of wheat
and gluten, there is demand emerging for products that
are gluten free. So, maufacturer's are coming up with
new formulations that leave the gluten out. That is what
the market is demanding. So, they try to products similar
to what is selling well now, except leave the gluten out.
What they put in instead is up to them and will be driven
by how it effects the product, what it tastes like, what it
costs, etc.

You example of sugar is a particulalry poor one.
Are you suggesting manufacturers just leave out sugar
and sell sugar free soda with no sweetener?
Who would buy that? Geez.... So, they take out the
sugar and put in sucralose. Suddenly that is some
example of a company doing bad things deliberately?








See: "pull" marketing.

Nota bene: One of the worst decisions (in my opinion) ever made was to
allow Big Pharma to directly advertise presciption drugs to the
public, another case of "pull" marketing (or "conspiracy") that has
had serious health consequences.


It's called free speech. And I have no problem with it.
The more info a consumer has so they can learn more,
discuss options with their doctor, the better.




ie gluten free products very similar to the ones
they are currently consuming.


You're an excellent example of why a good number of people who eat
low-carb are unsuccessful.

You want to have your cake, and eat it, too.

Good luck with that!

--


I've been doing LC for decades. As usual, you're just going off
the rails. I never suggested that eating gluten free products that
are very similar to the products people are now eating, minus the
gluten was a good idea. I really don't give a rat's ass about
gluten in particular one way of the other. The discussion was
about food manufacturer's
offering foods similar to the ones they already sell, with just the
gluten and/or wheat removed. There are enough people out
there that want products minus the gluten. So, that is what
some manufacturer's are doing, just taking the gluten out.

I don't see that as something evil, just companies responding
to customer demand. It's like taking the sugar out of say
bread and butter pickles or soda and replacing it with sucralose.
Is that a bad thing too? If company A didn't do it, company
B would because there is a market for it.
  #14  
Old September 5th, 2012, 03:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Heart poison

On Sep 1, 12:31*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:41:25 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

So the claim is that what happened with margarine will happen with
gluten free foods? *Time will tell.


I'm not sure any claim is being made, Doug, other than in his own
practice (and in various other studies) small LDL particles are a
significant risk factor for CHD. More studies would need to be done to
confirm any link between eating "gluten-free foods" and having small
LDL particles.

Of course claims are being made. *And there are plenty of people
who question "WheatBelly"'s grounding in science, his use of
studies, etc.


There are plenty of people who question the low-carb way of eating,
its grounding in science, etc. But you claim to eat low-carb anyway,
right? Why is that?


The issue was whether WheatBelly was making claims, not what
I eat. He is making claims. I'm just suggesting that before people
believe anything from
WheatBelly, they do their own due diligence and see what some,
including those with Celiac disease are saying. And given what YOU
think is sound science, everyone should be especially skeptical of
anything
you claim here.



And some of them are people with Celiac disease
who say he's misrepresenting studies, ignoring what doesn't
agree with what he claims, etc.


That *is* funny, since you apparently ignore all the people who don't
agree with LCHF, HPV, HIV, prions, etc.





Admit it, you just ignore those things that don't conform with your
preconceived notions. And that's dumb.


You've done your version of what you consider to be
a reasonable review of the science out there. Among the
amazing things you've then concluded with your version
of scientific analysis is:

HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
HIV is harmless
AIDS is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist


So, I'll leave it for others to judge who's capable of doing
a reasonable review of the facts and the science out
there and who is ignoring what does not conform to
their own preconceived conclusions, the truth be damned.


IMO, the above proves you a loon and I would not trust
your judgement on anything.
So, I'm not going to waste my time listening to your claims
about gluten.


  #15  
Old September 5th, 2012, 06:44 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Heart poison

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 07:16:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
I don't see that as something evil, just companies responding
to customer demand. It's like taking the sugar out of say
bread and butter pickles or soda and replacing it with sucralose.
Is that a bad thing too? If company A didn't do it, company
B would because there is a market for it.


"Evil" is your word, not mine. And while I wouldn't want government
stepping in and telling manufacturers what they should make (God
forbid!), companies that are aware of (or should have been aware of)
the dangers of replacing various FOOD ingredients with processed
chemicals, knowingly making false claims, taking advantage of gullible
consumers like you, etc., should be roundly criticised, even sued out
of existence (See: Big Tobacco). And that includes the government
itself, which is where a lot of these health problems originate, such
as pushing the low-fat, high-carb paradigm, at the expense of people's
health. Throw in (mostly drug pushing) organizations like the ADA,
AHA, etc., and there should be enough malfeasance found to keep an
army of white-shoe law firms busy.

This is a good example of why so many dieters fail - they fall for
this rubbish, i.e., that you can have your cake and eat it, too (no,
you can't!), and then wonder why they're still fat and/or unhealthy,
or can't keep the weight off, long-term.

Sheesh.

Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little
bit low-carb and expect to be successful in the long run.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #16  
Old September 5th, 2012, 09:17 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Heart poison

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

I don't see that as something evil, just companies responding
to customer demand. It's like taking the sugar out of say
bread and butter pickles or soda and replacing it with sucralose.
Is that a bad thing too? If company A didn't do it, company
B would because there is a market for it.


"Evil" is your word, not mine.


A number of folks have posted over the years calling it evil. I'm not
the only one who has bserved tha tall it takes is business practices -
Make more of what sells more. Vary the product line around what sells
best. Eventually the process evolves towards a diet that humans are
evolved to crave. it doesn't take evil it just takes counting sales.

And while I wouldn't want government
stepping in and telling manufacturers what they should make (God
forbid!), companies that are aware of (or should have been aware of)
the dangers of replacing various FOOD ingredients with processed
chemicals, knowingly making false claims, taking advantage of gullible
consumers like you, etc., should be roundly criticised, even sued out
of existence (See: Big Tobacco).


Consider the problem of margarine. It was sincerely believed to be
better when it first came out. It wasn't known that tobacco causes
problems until much of the world was addicted.

And that includes the government
itself, which is where a lot of these health problems originate, such
as pushing the low-fat, high-carb paradigm, at the expense of people's
health. Throw in (mostly drug pushing) organizations like the ADA,
AHA, etc., and there should be enough malfeasance found to keep an
army of white-shoe law firms busy.


Sure but use the tobacco company experience as a caution.

This is a good example of why so many dieters fail - they fall for
this rubbish, i.e., that you can have your cake and eat it, too (no,
you can't!), and then wonder why they're still fat and/or unhealthy,
or can't keep the weight off, long-term.

Sheesh.


Can we really blame people who eat what is suggested and then it does
not work? Can we really blame people who eat what's on the market and
it ends up addictive? At least we need to stop claiming that moderation
works. No way moderation works in the face of those two forces. And so
here we are doing PR for low carb.

Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little
bit low-carb and expect to be successful in the long run.


Caveat. If low is good lower is not better. It just doesn't work that
way no matter how many quotes get thrown at it.

Caveat. If low is good then a small move towards low should be
something of an improvement. That strategy tends to trigger cravings.

If a food triggers cravings stop eating it. Ah if it were only really
that easy. It's that simple but simple does not equal easy. Simple:
Here's a pick axe. There's a mountain. Ten meters north place. Start
now.
  #17  
Old September 5th, 2012, 10:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Heart poison

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:17:48 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
And while I wouldn't want government
stepping in and telling manufacturers what they should make (God
forbid!), companies that are aware of (or should have been aware of)
the dangers of replacing various FOOD ingredients with processed
chemicals, knowingly making false claims, taking advantage of gullible
consumers like you, etc., should be roundly criticised, even sued out
of existence (See: Big Tobacco).


Consider the problem of margarine. It was sincerely believed to be
better when it first came out. It wasn't known that tobacco causes
problems until much of the world was addicted.


I disagree. Butter was tied to the saturated fat scare. But many
scientists knew that there was no credible data to support it. It was
purely a political decision (we can thank Eisenhower and McGovern for
that one), plain and simple.

And we've known that smoking causes cancer for seemingly forever. When
I was a kid, cigarettes were called "coffin nails" and "cancer
sticks." I eventually went on to smoke 3-4 packs of those "cancer
sticks" every single day, until I almost died from double pneumonia.
Thanks to a do-gooder doctor, who forced me to watch a movie (the old
reel-to-reel kind) of an autopsy of someone who died of lung cancer,
while I was still in the hospital, I stopped smoking. It "scared me
straight," so to speak.

And that includes the government
itself, which is where a lot of these health problems originate, such
as pushing the low-fat, high-carb paradigm, at the expense of people's
health. Throw in (mostly drug pushing) organizations like the ADA,
AHA, etc., and there should be enough malfeasance found to keep an
army of white-shoe law firms busy.


Sure but use the tobacco company experience as a caution.


A caution for what?

This is a good example of why so many dieters fail - they fall for
this rubbish, i.e., that you can have your cake and eat it, too (no,
you can't!), and then wonder why they're still fat and/or unhealthy,
or can't keep the weight off, long-term.

Sheesh.


Can we really blame people who eat what is suggested and then it does
not work?


Maybe.

Can we really blame people who eat what's on the market and
it ends up addictive?


Carbs have been known to be addictive for as long as I can remember,
especially sugars and starches.

At least we need to stop claiming that moderation
works.


You'll never hear me saying those words.

No way moderation works in the face of those two forces.


Absolutely not.

It's not unlike any addiction. I'm not aware of any 12-step program
(essentially the only ones that work) that allows for a few drinks, or
a few hits, etc.

And so
here we are doing PR for low carb.


Low-carb could use some good PR.

Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be a little
bit low-carb and expect to be successful in the long run.


Caveat. If low is good lower is not better. It just doesn't work that
way no matter how many quotes get thrown at it.


Being a little bit low-carb, in my mind, is to look for loopholes
(have your cake and eat it too). Eventually those loopholes add up,
and you're not really eating low-carb anymore. Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?

Caveat. If low is good then a small move towards low should be
something of an improvement. That strategy tends to trigger cravings.


Exactly.

If a food triggers cravings stop eating it.


Bingo! And that's precisely what wheat does to many, many people. The
only way to find out if you're one of them is to totally stop eating
wheat and see what happens.

There is no nutrition associated with today's wheat (just empty
calories, like sugar, unless it's been "fortified"), and you can get
all the vitamins, minerals and fiber you need from meat, fish,
shellfish, veggies, and some fruit. Experimenting with things like
"resistant flours" is akin to getting hooked on methadone while you're
being "treated" for a heroin habit. It just perpetuates the addiction
("cravings").

Anyway, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #18  
Old September 6th, 2012, 03:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Heart poison

On Sep 5, 5:27*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:17:48 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

wrote:

[...]

And while I wouldn't want government
stepping in and telling manufacturers what they should make (God
forbid!), companies that are aware of (or should have been aware of)
the dangers of replacing various FOOD ingredients with processed
chemicals, knowingly making false claims, taking advantage of gullible
consumers like you, etc., should be roundly criticised, even sued out
of existence (See: Big Tobacco).


Consider the problem of margarine. *It was sincerely believed to be
better when it first came out. *It wasn't known that tobacco causes
problems until much of the world was addicted.


I disagree. Butter was tied to the saturated fat scare. But many
scientists knew that there was no credible data to support it. It was
purely a political decision (we can thank Eisenhower and McGovern for
that one), plain and simple.


But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product. It matters
not a wit if it was based on totally sound science, or a govt
recommendation. The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.
Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it.





Being a little bit low-carb, in my mind, is to look for loopholes
(have your cake and eat it too). *Eventually those loopholes add up,
and you're not really eating low-carb anymore.


Not all people respond the same way. Not all people
need a very low carb diet to benefit. Not all people
are overweight to begin with. I think it's perfectly
fine if people want to do what I would call a reduced
carb diet, where they avoid a significant amount of
refined carbs. If it works for them, fine. Your position is extreme.





Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?



If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.

Studies?......



  #19  
Old September 6th, 2012, 05:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Heart poison

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
I disagree. Butter was tied to the saturated fat scare. But many
scientists knew that there was no credible data to support it. It was
purely a political decision (we can thank Eisenhower and McGovern for
that one), plain and simple.


But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product.


No, you have it backwards. It was PUSHED on the public for purely
political reasons.

Recent example: corn and ethanol subsidies. Much of the world is
desperately in need of food, and here we are BURNING ours, while
pushing prices higher!

The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.


But the scientists KNEW it was bad! They protested vigorously (there
are videos of it all over the net), but the politicians still won the
day. Government is the enemy. Big Food are their cronies.

Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?

Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it.


Pointing out that it was PUSHED on a mostly gullible population is not
rewriting history. It's simply telling the truth.

Being a little bit low-carb, in my mind, is to look for loopholes
(have your cake and eat it too). *Eventually those loopholes add up,
and you're not really eating low-carb anymore.


Not all people respond the same way. Not all people
need a very low carb diet to benefit. Not all people
are overweight to begin with. I think it's perfectly
fine if people want to do what I would call a reduced
carb diet, where they avoid a significant amount of
refined carbs. If it works for them, fine. Your position is extreme.


This is not a matter of whether people should be forced to do what
they have no interest in doing (I'm against that!). It's all about
doing things scientifically, and pointing out ways to do it and get
the best possible results.

If you're happy being a chubby little man, who has no idea what his
actual health is (because you apparently don't want to know), by all
means, keep doing what you're doing.

I want you to. And Darwin would want you to.

Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?


If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.


Read the book.

Bon appétit!

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #20  
Old September 8th, 2012, 06:25 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Heart poison

On Sep 6, 12:54*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

I disagree. Butter was tied to the saturated fat scare. But many
scientists knew that there was no credible data to support it. It was
purely a political decision (we can thank Eisenhower and McGovern for
that one), plain and simple.


But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product.


No, you have it backwards. It was PUSHED on the public for purely
political reasons.


You just can't read. I specifically said:

"But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product. It matters
not a wit if it was based on totally sound science, or a govt
recommendation. The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.
Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it. "


See, it doesn't matter if it was a govt, ie "political" decision.
The recommendation was that butter was bad. The public
heard the message and believed it. Companies
responded and produced products, ie margarine, that were
similar but without the saturated fat.


* The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.


But the scientists KNEW it was bad! They protested vigorously (there
are videos of it all over the net), but the politicians still won the
day. Government is the enemy. Big Food are their cronies.


No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the
scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you.
I believe the scientists and doctors that recommended substituting
margarine for butter really believed margarine was better for
you. That was the majority scientific opinion of the period.





Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?


What Bloomberg is doing isn't the issue. The issue is that
the mainstream scientific and medical belief at this point in
time is that excessive salt and super-sized sugary drinks
are bad for people. So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what
is considered sound, mainstream science today. You can
disagree with his methods, but it's the science of the day
that's the DRIVING factor.

To draw the correct margarine analogy, It's like claiming that
the soft drink manufacturer's today that are producing diet
soda are FORCING it on the public. In reality, they are
simply reacting to mainstream science and medicine and
consumer demand. Now if 20 years from now it turns out that
sucralose is harmful, is it fair to claim that it's some evil pushed
on the public by the soda manufacturers? Sorry, but I don't
believe that's the case.



Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. *You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it.


Pointing out that it was PUSHED on a mostly gullible population is not
rewriting history. It's simply telling the truth.


See the above.





Being a little bit low-carb, in my mind, is to look for loopholes
(have your cake and eat it too). Eventually those loopholes add up,
and you're not really eating low-carb anymore.


Not all people respond the same way. *Not all people
need a very low carb diet to benefit. *Not all people
are overweight to begin with. * I think it's perfectly
fine if people want to do what I would call a reduced
carb diet, where they avoid a significant amount of
refined carbs. *If it works for them, fine. *Your position is extreme.


This is not a matter of whether people should be forced to do what
they have no interest in doing (I'm against that!). *It's all about
doing things scientifically, and pointing out ways to do it and get
the best possible results.


There you go again. Forced? Who said anything about
forcing anyone to do anything? You were speaking out against
being a little bit low carb. All I'm saying is if that works for some
people and they just reduce carbs somewhat, that's fine with me.
Say someone isn't overweight or is only sligtly overweight. If
they choose to cut out some refined carbs, like some of their
bread, pasta, sugar, etc. and it works for them, I see nothing
wrong with it.






If you're happy being a chubby little man, who has no idea what his
actual health is (because you apparently don't want to know), by all
means, keep doing what you're doing.

I want you to. *And Darwin would want you to.


Nice.





Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?

If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.


Read the book.


In other words, as usual, you have no studies to support
the assertions.
 




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
LIPITOR: THE POISON THAT CAUSES CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE [email protected] General Discussion 0 March 4th, 2008 10:16 PM
Poison In The Food: How the Hungry Lion Eats Us donquijote1954 General Discussion 6 December 13th, 2006 04:14 PM
WW without guilt or poison notices Kate Dicey Weightwatchers 14 February 25th, 2006 11:38 PM
Soda is poison! Andrew General Discussion 0 May 26th, 2005 08:35 PM
Prednisone for my poison ivy curt Low Carbohydrate Diets 36 November 25th, 2004 03:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.