Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-25-2012, 06:30 AM   #101
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 Tyro View Post
Those charts don't tell the whole story.
And yet the fact remains that Sugar is Sugar. Of course, if you like Apples (and anyone addicted to Sugar would), then you can certainly justify eating them... or if you are selling them (USDA, for instance). In any event, all of these benefits can be gotten in much more healthy sugar-free ways -- for example, an Avocado would provide much greater amounts of Potassium per volume. This repeating of propaganda is why Nutritionists (among others) have such a poor reputation. Where is the science behind those claims?

All I'm sayin is that if you are overweight (and particularly by 30 pounds or more -- you decide what that is), then perhaps a change in thinking is called for.
__________________

__________________
"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
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 10-25-2012, 08:43 AM   #102
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
JoeWras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,518
RonBoyd: this is perhaps part of that 5% we differ on.

Sugars obtained through whole foods that have many other benefits (nutrients, fiber) etc. are OK in my book, within reason. Reason isn't 5 apples and 2 bananas. Reason is some occasional fruit, best eaten with some protein.

That said, I'm not sure bananas have a lot of other value and I'm sticking to firmer, denser, more complex fruits. Oh, and sweet potatoes too. Potassium comes in many other places than bananas.

And for heaven's sake, manufactured sugar or syrups are really just pure cr*p.
__________________

__________________
JoeWras is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 08:59 AM   #103
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
Yes, (as I said earlier) Bananas have the same problem as Apples.

Banana.JPG

In fact, THE only fruit that is not poisonous to my system is Avocados but, without a doubt, YMMV. Sugar is Sugar. (My personal exception is pure Maple Syrup but even then very rarely -- my taste for Sweet left long ago.)

And don't get me started on most vegetables... including Sweet Potatoes
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 09:03 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
Avocado.JPG

and to add to the fray

Corn.JPG
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 09:15 AM   #105
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Lutzig is a bit overly-paranoid for my taste. Having said that, Merkins eat too much crap, including sugar and starchy carbs. However, for a reasonably active and healthy person, an apple or sweet potato are not poisonous...

YMMV, IMHO, OMG, WTF...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:53 AM   #106
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 HFWR View Post
However, for a reasonably active and healthy person, an apple or sweet potato are not poisonous...
Very true... up until one's Pancreas gets "fed up" (pun intended) and says it isn't. (and there is no way to go back once that happens.)

But to keep this on track. I never said Zero carbs. I get my carbs from a very select group of vegetables but try to keep it under 25 grams a day.

And I did try to add fruits to my diet but could not find any (except Avocado) that didn't instantly convert to poundage on the bathroom scale. I had high hopes for Blueberrys and Blackberrys and held out for quite some time but, in the end, had to admit Sugar is Sugar.

For those wishing a more immediate method of determining the effects of certain foods personally (for this purpose), here are a couple of places to start your research:

My 5 Low-Carb Mistakes And How Nutritional Ketosis Rescued Me From Them by Jimmy Moore

Dana Gets Medical Tests What a Low Carb Diet Has Done To My Blood Work by Dana Carpender

(I, personally, don't get that involved but recognize that, for some, it is necessary.)

Each of these folks, BTW, have there own BLOG:

Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog

HoldTheToast! by Dana Carpender | Low Carbohydrate Blog and Books
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 10:11 AM   #107
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
I definitely not arguing that sugar is "good", and I mostly agree that low-carb, but not no-carb, is likely a healthier option for most people.

But after reading quite a bit over the past few years, I've noticed so many zealots, on all sides, that I take much of it with a grain of sugar salt...

Here are some randumb articles worth reading, by authors worth reading:

A retrospective of the fructose alarmism debate. | Alan Aragon's Blog

Archevore - Archevore Blog - Jimmy Moore inquires about "safe*starches"

Whole Health Source: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:13 AM   #108
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Yes, (as I said earlier) Bananas have the same problem as Apples.
Interesting. I've had a habit for decades of starting the day with a banana. I just like to get something in my stomach, then take a little time to get to breakfast. They are just so convenient.

But 100 plus calories of mostly sugar, almost every day is a considerable amount of extra calories. I need to re-think this.

I like the convenience, so I just tried this - the bananas I have are ~ 130gm w/o peel, so ~ 117 calories. That same number of calories would be ~ 17-18 almond kernels. That's a lot of almonds, and yes, I suspect that will be more satisfying than a banana.

I think I'll start subbing 8~9 almonds for that banana. That will be 1/2 the calories, but surprisingly, a bit less fiber (not enough diff to worry about). Convenient, tasty, and I won't have to worry about balancing green versus over-ripe. Looks like it will be cheaper too (small change though, but every little bit helps).

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:18 AM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Interesting. I've had a habit for decades of starting the day with a banana. I just like to get something in my stomach, then take a little time to get to breakfast. They are just so convenient.

But 100 plus calories of mostly sugar, almost every day is a considerable amount of extra calories. I need to re-think this.

I like the convenience, so I just tried this - the bananas I have are ~ 130gm w/o peel, so ~ 117 calories. That same number of calories would be ~ 17-18 almond kernels. That's a lot of almonds, and yes, I suspect that will be more satisfying than a banana.

I think I'll start subbing 8~9 almonds for that banana. That will be 1/2 the calories, but surprisingly, a bit less fiber (not enough diff to worry about). Convenient, tasty, and I won't have to worry about balancing green versus over-ripe. Looks like it will be cheaper too (small change though, but every little bit helps).

-ERD50
Not so fast...

WHFoods: Is it easy to shift the omega-6mega-3 ratio of my diet to one that is more beneficial?

Quote:
For an example, let's take almonds. With no omega-3s and about 4-5 grams of omega-6s per cup, your almonds are a member of the nut family with the highest possible 6:3 ratio.
Besides, for someone of my size and activity level, my base calorie intake is around 2500 kcal/day. A banana is <5% of that...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:19 AM   #110
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
I definitely not arguing that sugar is "good", and I mostly agree that low-carb, but not no-carb, is likely a healthier option for most people.

But after reading quite a bit over the past few years, I've noticed so many zealots, on all sides, that I take much of it with a grain of sugar salt...
A lot of this is individual. I dropped to 50g or less of carbs/day and dropped 30 pounds to 162 (5'11"). I have gradually added some carbs back in up to around 100-150g/day and am steady at 162. I don't really want to go much lower. I eat a bit of old favs like rice and potatoes, an apple a day, etc. For others that might be problematic. You need to start out aggressively and then see what works for you. Some people will start craving carbs as soon as they eat some rice or bread. I don't have that problem with staples but would probably releapse if I ate some chocolate chip cookies
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:29 AM   #111
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
Interesting. I've had a habit for decades of starting the day with a banana. I just like to get something in my stomach, then take a little time to get to breakfast. They are just so convenient.
What I said earlier was this:

Quote:

The next step was to discover how sugar hides itself in the English language. Any word that ends in "ose" is sugar -- Glocose, lactose, fructose, etc. I found, for instance, that the Banana I had eaten every morning for over 35 years was almost pure sugar. The bowl of cereal that had replaced the Eggs and Bacon was a double whammy -- Milk (lactose) and cereal (glucose) are pure sugar. No wonder I gained weight.
I, also, said earlier that Calories don't count. I stand by that... however, let me insert "within reason." It is very easy to overdo it with nuts. Nevertheless, they form an important part of my diet -- I prefer Walnuts but Almond Butter did an acceptable job of replacing Peanut Butter -- the one single food item that I miss.

Almonds.JPG Walnuts.JPG
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 10:44 AM   #112
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
Whoa! That will be a lot to slog through so I will have to get back to you. A quick glance, however, suggests it will add very positively to this thread. Thank you.
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 10:45 AM   #113
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Whoa! That will be a lot to slog through so I will have to get back to you. A quick glance, however, suggests it will add very positively to this thread. Thank you.
And reading those blogs will lead to untold other places as well...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 11:13 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 donheff View Post
A lot of this is individual. I dropped to 50g or less of carbs/day and dropped 30 pounds to 162 (5'11"). ...
Just to go a little off track:

My goal was 160 lbs -- if I had thought about it. However, I am unsure if that is right for me -- some 20 lbs over that.

My Body Fat by US Navy Calculation = 15.27
My BMI = 24.9
By Accu-Measure = 24.5

All within a range considered "healthy." (I suspect a greater than normal muscle mass -- no, I don't weight lift very often.)

From "How To Measure Your Body Fat In The Privacy of Your Home" by Tom Venuto.

Quote:
When you look at the Accu measure interpretation chart, you’ll notice that it’s sorted into age groups. That’s because statistically speaking, body fat increases with age, at least in "normal" non-athletic populations. With age, the average person also tends to store more body fat internally (internal organs and intramuscular fat) as opposed to below the skin (subcutaneous fat). This internal and intramuscular fat can’t be measured with a skinfold.


The increase in fat represented on the chart with age groups is an attempt at estimating the higher fat in the “average” older person and accounting for the internal fat that can’t be pinched.

On the body fat charts in the back of this book, you’ll notice that if you’re a 21 year old female, and your iliac skinfold is 10.5 mm, the chart says your body fat is 20.3%. However, if you’re a 51 year old female and your skinfold is 10.5 mm, the chart says your body fat is 24.0%, even though you have the same skinfold.


The only drawback to the age categories is that if you’re older, especially over 50, and you’re extremely fit, you’re an athlete, and/or you’ve been training your entire life, then using your age category might overestimate your body fat slightly. For purposes of charting your progress from one week to the next, that doesn’t really matter. It wouldn’t even matter if you used the
wrong age category, as long as you used the same age category on the chart.
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 11:21 AM   #115
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Whoa! That will be a lot to slog through so I will have to get back to you. A quick glance, however, suggests it will add very positively to this thread. Thank you.
And that's the problem for so many of us. So much info, so many contrary views. It is a lot to slog through, and tough to know what is right.

I know almost nothing about this Omega 6 and 3 stuff. So you are saying almonds bad, walnuts good? But both probably better than bananas?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 11:28 AM   #116
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
I know almost nothing about this Omega 6 and 3 stuff. So you are saying almonds bad, walnuts good? But both probably better than bananas?
Actually, what I meant by "prefer" was the taste. They are equal in all other respects. And yes! Definitely better than Bananas.

In any event, there is a lot to what HFWR brought up about the Fatty Acid balance. However, it is much too complicated for me to explain but it is something to be concerned about -- perhaps start with the article he linked to.
__________________
"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 10-25-2012, 12:47 PM   #117
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
One of the acronyms on the bodybuilding forum is IIFYM, meaning "if it fits your macros". The suggestion is that if you get 80% or so of your calories from "healthy" foods, the other 20% or so can be about anything. Of course, this is mostly a very active, and somewhat "younger" population than this forum.

Not sure what you'll see if not a member, but here's the link to the nutrition forum. Check out the stickies...

Nutrition - Bodybuilding.com Forums
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 12:52 PM   #118
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And that's the problem for so many of us. So much info, so many contrary views. It is a lot to slog through, and tough to know what is right.

I know almost nothing about this Omega 6 and 3 stuff. So you are saying almonds bad, walnuts good? But both probably better than bananas?

-ERD50
Which is why I subscribe to "eat real food, not too much" as a good starting point.

Here's part of a stickie on the bodybuilding forum, as it relates to macros:

Quote:
Macronutrient Needs
Once you work out calorie needs, you then work out how much of each macronutrient you should aim for. This is one of the areas that is MOST often confused but This should NOT be based on a RATIO of macro intakes. (eg: '30:40:30 or 40:40:20') Your body doesn't CARE what % intake you have. It works based on SUFFICIENT QUANTITY per MASS.

So to try to make it as simple as possible:
1. Protein: Protein intake is a bit of a controversial issue in nutrition. The general recommendations given in the 'bodybuilding' area are nearly double the 'standard' recommendations given in the Sports Nutrition Arena.
The GENERAL sports nutrition guideline based on clinical trials suggest that in the face of ADEQUATE calories and CARBS the following protein intakes are sufficient:
STRENGTH training -> 1.4 to 2g per KG bodyweight (about .6 / pound)
ENDURANCE training -> 1.2 to 1.8g per KG bodyweight (about .8 / pound)
ADOLESCENT in training -> 1.8 to 2.2g per KG bodyweight (about 1g / pound)
BUT researchers also acknowledge that protein becomes MORE important in the context of LOWER calorie intakes, or LOWER carb intakes.
Recent evidence also suggests that protein intakes of 3g/kg help with physiological and psychological stressors associated with high volume or intense training.
One should also note that ADEQUATE v's OPTIMAL is not discussed when it comes to hypertrophy v's performance.
And lastly - you need to consider thermogenics/ satiety/ and personal preference.

So - General 'bodybuilding' guidelines for protein would be as follows:
- Moderate bodyfat and training load = 2.2-2.8g per kg TOTAL weight (about 1-1.25g per pound)
- Very Low bodyfat or Very Low Calorie or High training load = 2.4 - 3g per kg TOTAL weight (1.1-1.35g per pound)
- High bodyfat, high calorie, or low training load = 1.6 to 2.2g per kg TOTAL weight (.75 - 1g per pound)
Anecdotally, as most find HIGHER protein intake better for satiety, partitioning, blood sugar control, and hypertrophy. UNLESS you have medical reasons for lower protein, or unless guided to use the GENERAL sports nutrition guidelines, I would suggest the BODYBUILDING values.


2. Fats: Generally speaking, although the body can get away with short periods of very low fat, in the long run your body NEEDS fat to maintain health, satiety, and sanity. Additionally - any form of high intensity training will benefit from a 'fat buffer' in your diet - which controls free radical damage & inflammation. General guides:
Average or low bodyfat: 1 - 2g fat/ kg body weight [between 0.40 - 1g total weight/ pounds]
High bodyfat: 1-2g fat/ Kg LEAN weight [between 0.4 - 1g LEAN weight/ pounds]
Low calorie dieting - you can decrease further, but as a minimum, I would not suggest LESS than about 0.30g/ pound.
Note 1: Total fat intake is NOT the same as 'essential fats' (essential fats are specific TYPES of fats that are INCLUDED in your total fat intake)...


3. Carbs: For carbs there are no specific 'requirements' for your body so - but carbs are important for athletes, ACTIVE individuals, or those trying to GAIN MASS. [carbs help with workout intensity, health, & satiety (+ sanity)]. This means if you are an athlete involved in a good volume of training I would suggest you CALCULATE a requirement for carbs as a PRIORITY - then go back and calculate protein / fat:
Moderately active: 4.5 - 6.5 g/ kg (about 2 - 3g/ pound)
High active: 6.5 - 8.5 g/ kg (about 3 - 4g/ pound)
INTENSE activity: + 8.5g / kg (more than 4g/ pound)

For 'others' - simply carbohydrate intakes via the calories left over from fats/ protein:
carb cals = Total cal needs - ([protein grams above x 4] + [fat grams above x 9])
carb grams = (above cals)/ 4
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 01:07 PM   #119
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Ballpark for me, then, would be:

170lbs, 1gm/lbs protein, 0.7gm/lbs fat, remainder carb

Protein = 170gm x 4kcal/gm = 680 kcal
Fat = (170 x 0.7)gm x 9 kcal/gm = 1751 kcal
Carb = (2500 - 1751) = 749gm/4kcal/gm = 187 kcal

So, a ratio of 27/70/3, so very low carb comparatively, and lower than I am, which might explain the love handles...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 01:37 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: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Ballpark for me, then, would be:

170lbs, 1gm/lbs protein, 0.7gm/lbs fat, remainder carb
How do you manage to eat 170 gm protein per day? I heard a fairly convincing speech by a protein researcher than one should get at least 30 gm protein per meal. I am down to about 2 meals/day, but stuffing in that much protein at a meal seems really hard. Not too bad if I have steak and eggs for breakfast, but even a 3 egg cheese omelet falls short. Since your intake is almost 3x my minimum, how do you do it?

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
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


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:46 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.