Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-17-2011, 05:29 PM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
You seem to take this personally. Gary Taubes is talking to his audience- which just doesn't happen to include you. Why should it include everyone?
Taubes cloaks his conclusions with the legitimacy of science. Science concerns universal truth, so it includes everyone.
__________________

__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-17-2011, 05:50 PM   #102
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Taubes cloaks his conclusions with the legitimacy of science. Science concerns universal truth, so it includes everyone.
That's nearly as funny as the comment in another thread about politicians and conscience.

Science tries to assign consistancy and reason to observed phenomena. In the process of that scientists bicker and indulge in catfights and character assassination. Taubes' science is just as valid as any other nutritionist's. As far as I'm concerned, they're all pretty much still in the guessing stage of science. I'm sticking with the lard and chocolate for health theory, myself.

Regarding ERD's comment though, I definitely remember the no fat craze of the 80s, and also the 90s until Adkins came along. Maybe dieticians weren't recommending it, but it was all over the TV and the magazines that way. And I took it in his quote as a comment on society at the time, not science. But that's JMO.
__________________

__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 08:09 PM   #103
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Science concerns universal truth, so it includes everyone.
This is an absurd statement. Hypotheses have domains. It may be that some domains are not yet known to be less than universal.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 09:56 AM   #104
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
I'm sticking with the lard and chocolate for health theory, myself.
Or in Mr. Taubes words:

Quote:
Take lard, for example, which has long been considered th archetypal example of a killer fat. It was lard that bakeries and fast food restaurants used in large quantities before they were pressured to replace it with the artificial trans fats that nutritionists have now decided might be the cause of heart disease after all. You can find the fat composition of lard easily enough, as you can for most foods, by going to a [U.S.D.A.] website called the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. You’ll find that nearly half the fat in lard (47 percent) in monounsaturated, which is almost universally considered a “good” fat. Monounsaturated fat raises HDL cholesterol and lowers LDL cholesterol (both good things according to our doctors).Ninety percent of that monounsaturated fat is the same oleic acid that’s in the olive oil so touted by champions of the Mediterranean diet. Slightly more than 40 percent of the fat in lard is indeed saturated, but a third of that is the same stearic acid that’s in chocolate and is now considered a “good fat” because it will raise our HDL levels but have no effect on LDL (a good thing and a neutral thing). The remaining fat (about 12 percent of the total) is polyunsaturated, which actually lowers LDL cholesterol but has no effect on HDL (also a good thing and a neutral thing.

In total, more than 70 percent of the fat in lard will improve your cholesterol profile compared to with what would happen if you replaced the lard with carbohydrates. The remaining 30 percent will raise LDL cholesterol (bad) but also raise HDL (good). In other words, and as hard as this may be to believe, if you replace the carbohydrates in your diet with an equal amount of lard, it will reduce your risk of a heart attack. It will make you healthier. The same is true for red meat, bacon and eggs, and virtually any other animal product…

Why We get Fat and What To Do About It, Pages 189-190 (My emphasis)
Chocolate, too, is an interesting story. It has so many benefits but, unfortunately, they are not found in a Mars Bar. My point when I posted this: Chocolate tea?
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 12:33 PM   #105
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Or in Mr. Taubes words:
I'll claim credit for this one, although some might point to the stopped clock theory.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 08:30 AM   #106
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
Here's my response to Calories In/Calories Out:

You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contained only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. Perhaps it's related to your thyroid, but that doesn't matter for this example. What matters is that it makes you hungry and sedentary.

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

Has your "calories in/calories out" thermodynamic law been violated? No, because, as a result of your extra eating, you have taken in a lot more calories, and expended fewer. But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.
So, now I'm confused... I haven't read the book and I'll watch the video when I get a free min. But by giving this example above, did you want to say that the theory of "Calories in/Calories Out" is all wrong? Well, maybe I'm a biased here because I have sort of followed this theory for the last 1-2 years. I read some expert's (how many of them including the new book's author??) words "Calorie is a calorie is a calorie". I'm not THAT meticulous though and don't record each bite in a journal, but I make conservative estimates (meaning that maybe I consume less calories than my calculated amount and I burn less calories while exercising than I'm told by a machine/watch).
I agree with you that carbs and my weakness for sweets would be my main hindrances to losing more weight. But as long as my BMI stands between 23-24, I try not to force myself to starve myself or work out more because then I could lose it emotionally. Darn I like eating and I live only once.
__________________
aida2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 08:54 AM   #107
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by aida2003 View Post
I read some expert's (how many of them including the new book's author??) words "Calorie is a calorie is a calorie".
I will leave your main question for Al to respond to. However, Taubes doesn't say that. What he says is there are Good Calories and Bad Calories. Fat and Protein provide Good Calories and Carbohydrate provides the bad. (Alcohol, the 4th source, provides Neutral -- in this sense -- Calories but they provide no nutritional value and are used by the body, first, at the expense of other calories.)

Your body uses Fat and Protein Calories for energy (Good) and your body simply stores Calories from Carbohydrates as Body Fat (Bad). And most important in the message is that since the Carb Calories are not used right away (if ever), your body cries out for Food -- those nasty "Hunger Pangs."

To put it more in perspective there is this quote:

Quote:
"There are Essential Amino Acids and there are Essential Fatty Acids but there are no Essential Carbohydrates."
(I don't have the cite at hand but could look it up if needed.)
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:53 AM   #108
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,197
Quote:
did you want to say that the theory of "Calories in/Calories Out" is all wrong?
No, I'm saying calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

Here's a new metaphor I just made up:

There's a shirt factory. Every day it gets fabric (calories in) and ships out shirts (calories out). But the manager has a brain defect such that whenever he gets red fabric, he puts it in storage instead of giving it to the tailors. The tailors scream for more fabric, so the manager orders more. The factory has to get larger to accommodate the stored fabric.

Yes, it's all fabric in, shirts out, but as long as the factory keeps getting red fabric, it's going to keep expanding. Many people have a metabolic defect that causes them to store more energy than they should. Their muscle cells scream for more calories, and they have to eat more.

I admit that the whole thing is complicated, and people are different. Many people do not have this metabolic defect. 5% of people can maintain weight loss just by restricting calories. Someone can lose weight on a Twinkie diet.

However, the carbs business is the only thing I've found that explains the dramatic obesity epidemic.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:04 AM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Your body uses Fat and Protein Calories for energy (Good) and your body simply stores Calories from Carbohydrates as Body Fat (Bad).
Then how is it the guy on the Twinkie diet @ 1800 calories a day (IIRC) lost weight and didn't just 'simply store the Calories from Carbohydrates as Body Fat'?

BTW, I have done a bit more googling of the 'Satiety' of different foods - found this interesting (and surprising), but would like to see a study for four hour periods:


The Satiety Index

Quote:
Holt drew up the Satiety Index by feeding 240-calorie portions of 38 different foods to volunteers. ...

After eating, the volunteers told the scientists what their appetite ratings were, but they were not allowed anything else for the next two hours. Then, after two hours, they were then allowed to eat from a small buffet, where the scientists measured how much they nibbled from a variety of other foods. ...

Using white bread as the baseline of 100, 38 different foods were ranked. In other words, foods scoring higher than 100 are more satisfying than white bread and those under 100 are less satisfying.
A few samples:

White bread100%
Beef176%
French fries116%
Potatoes, boiled323%

So the surprising part to me is that potatoes are the thing the 'carb-cutters' most seem to avoid, yet the Satiety index is very high. The same number of calories from French Fries (where I'd assume you would get less total bulk, and more of the 240 calories from fat) were less satisfying (at least over two hours).

I'm not saying any of this is conclusive (or even on the right track) but I do find it interesting and plan to read more about it.

more links:

Fullness Factor™ – NutritionData.com
Better Choices – NutritionData.com

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:12 AM   #110
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by aida2003 View Post
So, now I'm confused...
Here is a Blog Post that may help:

Fat Head » Fat Accounts And The Laws of FiscalDynamics

Quote:
It still amazes me … Gary Taubes wrote an entire chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories titled Energy Conservation, which explains how the laws of thermodynamics apply (because they do) to his hypothesis that elevated insulin makes us fatter. In Why We Get Fat And What to Do About It, he explained the concepts again in two short chapters titled Thermodynamics for Dummies. It’s all right there. And yet a reviewer of Why We Get Fat offered up this criticism:

"There is no question that the science of nutrition needs critical review, but Taubes is just wrong. Calories-in-calories-out is the law of thermodynamics."
He then goes on for a somewhat lengthy bit and you may (as with the video) elect to skip it but, if you do read it, you will have a much better understanding (IMHO).
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:20 AM   #111
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
No, I'm saying calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

...

However, the carbs business is the only thing I've found that explains the dramatic obesity epidemic.
? The only thing? How about...'calories'?

Average Calorie Intake Among Americans | weightlosingideas.com

Quote:
reports such as this, by JD Wright, et al. “Trends in Intake of Energy and Macronutrients—United States, 1971-2000”, points out that, during the study period, the prevalence of obesity in the US increased from 14.5% to 30.9%, the average daily calorie intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals for men and from 1,543 kcals to 1,877 kcals for women;
Calories increased - doesn't that explain it?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:32 AM   #112
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
Many people do not have this metabolic defect. 5% of people can maintain weight loss just by restricting calories. Someone can lose weight on a Twinkie diet.
I would say that for many people in advanced countries this is true. But I spent too much time in underdeveleoped calorie constrained environments to doubt that for most people, calorie restriction will suffice to keep them thin. Taubes shows photos of extrememly obese women in some South Sea island locations, as well as some American Indian Tribes around the turn of the prior century. I doubt either of these groups were really calorie contrained. Poor diets no doubt, but calorie deficient unlikely.

For the most part, if there is not enough to eat, people are thin. This does not address malnourished babies and children who are often bloated and edematous.

The other evidence is certain occupations. Young loggers- who are mostly choker setters, limbers, toppers and fallers, are always very lean. It's not that there are not enough calories in the environment, they just cannot keep up with the calorie demand of the work. If they become crane operators or some less physically demanding role they fatten up a little or a lot.

For educated people in advanced countries it isn't too complicated. Try low carb; try potatoes, try whatever you want. Check after meal blood sugars, continue with whatever gives you low sugars and the weight you want with OK pleasure from eating, assuming you are covering micronutrient needs.


Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:42 AM   #113
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Taubes shows photos of extrememly obese women in some South Sea island locations, as well as some American Indian Tribes around the turn of the prior century. I doubt either of these groups were really calorie contrained. Poor diets no doubt, but calorie deficient unlikely.

Ha
Another example of the kind of cherry-picking/distortions that Taubes does that makes it hard for me to take his writings seriously.

-ERD50actly
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 11:54 AM   #114
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Calories increased - doesn't that explain it?
Yes... but not in the way you are implying.

Starvation Diets work because in the process of restricting all Calories, the body simply has to deal with fewer Calories from Carbohydrates.

However, the (necessary) Fat and Protein Calories are also (by definition) restricted. When F & P Calories are supplied in insufficient numbers your body demands you supply them... those "Hunger Pangs" again. If you increase the Calorie intake of F & P (even to greater than the total pre-Diet level) while continuing to restrict Carb Calories, you will lose weight or, at worst, maintain your current weight.

It is simply more fun to lose weight without Hunger as a constant companion. But for those masochists who believe in the "no pain, no gain" philosophy, a starvation diet is the way to go if weight lose is the goal.

Now, for the other foot: Exercise has no effect on weight lose... in fact, it causes weight gain.
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 01:09 PM   #115
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Yes... but not in the way you are implying.

Starvation Diets work because in the process of restricting all Calories, the body simply has to deal with fewer Calories from Carbohydrates.
That may be the case, but my comment was in respect to what T-Al said about obesity in the US. We certainly are not talking about starvation diets among the obese.

Quote:
It is simply more fun to lose weight without Hunger as a constant companion.
That is why I'm interested in this "Satiety Index".

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 01:13 PM   #116
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
That may be the case, but my comment was in respect to what T-Al said about obesity in the US. We certainly are not talking about starvation diets among the obese.



That is why I'm interested in this "Satiety Index".

-ERD50
If your interest is personal, rather than theoretical, you would likely be better off ignoring this index and observing your own satiety after eating various meals. There are huge individual differences in this kind of biology. Same is true of glycemic index- different testers show very different indexes for the identical food. The New Zealand researcher who popularized G.I. acknowledges this variability.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 01:34 PM   #117
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
If your interest is personal, rather than theoretical, you would likely be better off ignoring this index and observing your own satiety after eating various meals. There are huge individual differences in this kind of biology. Same is true of glycemic index- different testers show very different indexes for the identical food. The New Zealand researcher who popularized G.I. acknowledges this variability.
+1

The (New) Atkins method is to eliminate most carbs (restricted to 20 grams a day... of certain kinds) for a period of, at least, two weeks to acclimate the body. Then proceed to add food items to your meals so that you can get a "real" sense of how that particular item affects you.

This makes (made) sense to me rather than experimenting inside a "customary & habitual" diet. But the principle is the same as HaHa is suggesting.
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 01:36 PM   #118
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
If your interest is personal, rather than theoretical, you would likely be better off ignoring this index and observing your own satiety after eating various meals. There are huge individual differences in this kind of biology. Same is true of glycemic index- different testers show very different indexes for the identical food. The New Zealand researcher who popularized G.I. acknowledges this variability.

Ha
Very likely. But I think the published indexes might be a good place to start, and then try to see how I do against that. I noticed another time that 1/2 an apple with ~ 1TB of peanut butter seemed to make a huge difference for me. I simply was not hungry, even an hour after I would normally be. Hmmm, peanuts are actually low on their list @ 84% compared to 100% for white bread.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 02:00 PM   #119
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
I will leave your main question for Al to respond to. However, Taubes doesn't say that. What he says is there are Good Calories and Bad Calories. Fat and Protein provide Good Calories and Carbohydrate provides the bad. ( Alcohol, the 4th source, provides Neutral -- in this sense -- Calories but they provide no nutritional value and are used by the body, first, at the expense of other calories.)

Your body uses Fat and Protein Calories for energy (Good) and your body simply stores Calories from Carbohydrates as Body Fat (Bad). And most important in the message is that since the Carb Calories are not used right away (if ever), your body cries out for Food -- those nasty "Hunger Pangs."

To put it more in perspective there is this quote:


(I don't have the cite at hand but could look it up if needed.)
This thread is starting to intrigue me .
First of all, I read a very brief review of this book in the recent PEOPLE issue. I dismissed it because the magazine itself doesn't pose any credibility to me (my baby son was offered a FREE subscription via US Airways Dividend Miles, so I got it to catch up on pop culture).
But seeing an interest here (I consider this site more credible than PEOPLE mag.), maybe I'll have to look for this book at our local library.

Can you give some examples of FAT that provides good calories beside fish fat which I'd agree is good?
Alcohol is neutral as far as calorie intake goes? Wow, maybe it's time to take a few shots of vodka. Or like one important manager at GM (I worked in her household a long time ago) used to drink a bottle of white wine EVERY night to alleviate her stress....and she was in a reasonable shape (not overweight). So, apart from detriment (my assumption) to her liver, it seems she didn't gain weight from drinking.

The only thing I agree with so far is carbs.
So, in general do you (anyone) agree with the book and would you recommend reading it? Who sponsored his research?
__________________
aida2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 02:05 PM   #120
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by aida2003 View Post
Who sponsored his research?
No one, as he has done no research. He is a journalist, not a researcher.

It would take 50 lifetimes to personally do all the research that he reports on.
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gary Taubes to Speak in Seattle Thursday, 4/15/10 haha Health and Early Retirement 8 04-16-2010 02:32 PM
Newest Scam! guest Other topics 3 07-03-2008 10:15 AM
Newest Member with Maggie Hi, I am... 2 06-19-2004 08:52 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:37 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.