Coconuts in the context of tradiitional diets reduce the risk of CHD

[John Que]

Doug Skrecky posted this on the sci.life-extension forum
recently.

I'll comment perhaps instead of the Mediterranean diet there
needs to be a detailed discussion of the traditional
Melanesian diet. Perhaps a diet of fish, yams, fruit, and
coconuts will be the next big thing?

__________________________________
What Doug posted
__________________________________

Coconut lovers of the world rejoice!]

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(4):377-84. Dietary intake and
the risk of coronary heart disease among the coconut-consuming
Minangkabau in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Several nutrition and
non-nutritional pathways are recognised in the development and
occurrence of cardiovascular disease. In many populations,
high intakes of saturated fat are associated with elevated
serum cholesterol concentrations and increased coronary heart
disease (CHD) mortality. However, several studies report that
hyperlipidaemia and heart diseases are not common among
populations who consume coconut, a source of saturated fat. A
case-control study was conducted among the Minangkabau known
to be high coconut consumers to examine the difference in food
patterns and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) between the
coronary cases and their gender- and age-matched apparently
healthy counterparts serving as controls. Eligible subjects
with CHD were identified through the co-operation of five
participating hospitals located in Padang and Bukittinggi in
West Sumatra, Indonesia. A total of 93 eligible cases (62 men
and 31 women) in the Case group and 189 subjects (113 men and
76 women) in the Control group were recruited. Information on
the intakes of individual foods and dishes over the preceding
12 months was obtained using a semi-quantitative food
frequency questionnaire. The Case groups had significantly
higher intakes of meats, eggs, sugar, tea, coffee and fruits,
but lower intakes of soy products, rice and cereals compared
to the controls. Coconut consumption as flesh or milk was not
different between cases and controls. The cases had
significantly higher intakes of protein and cholesterol, but
lower intake of carbohydrate. Similar intakes of saturated and
unsaturated fatty acids between the cases and controls
indicated that the consumption of total fat or saturated fat,
including that from coconut, was not a predictor for CHD in
this food culture. However, the intakes of animal foods, total
protein, dietary cholesterol and less plant derived
carbohydrates were predictors of CHD.

J Intern Med. 1993 Mar;233(3):269-75. Apparent absence of
stroke and ischaemic heart disease in a traditional Melanesian
island: a clinical study in Kitava. On the island of Kitava,
Trobriand Islands, Papua New Guinea, a subsistence lifestyle,
uninfluenced by western dietary habits, is still maintained.
Tubers, fruit, fish and coconut are dietary staples. Of the
total population, 1816 subjects were estimated to be older
than 3 years and 125 to be 60-96 years old. The frequencies of
spontaneous sudden death, exertion-related chest pain,
hemiparesis, aphasia and sudden imbalance were assessed by
semi-structured interviews in 213 adults aged 20-96. Resting
electrocardiograms (ECG's) were recorded in 119 males and 52
females. No case corresponding to stroke, sudden death or
angina pectoris was described by the interviewed subjects.
Minnesota Code (MC) items 1-5 occurred in 14 ECG's with no
significant relation to age, gender or smoking. ST items (MC
4.2 and 4.3) were found in two females and Q items (MC 1.1.2,
1.3.2 and 1.3.3) in three males. Stroke and ischaemic heart
disease appear to be absent in this population.

[Montygram]

I've been posting about this for years here. Welcome to the
club! The statistics are incredible, and the problem is that
the phrase "saturated fat" has no scientific meaning as it is
used by most people, including scientists. Here's a study that
talks about fat and "red meat" causing cancer, and when they
go into specifics about the fat, notice that they are talking
about polyunsaturated faffy acids, not saturated ones. It's
all about oxidative stress, and saturated fatty acids actually
act as a buffer against this form of stress, while the other
fatty acids are potentially very bad news (if eaten in more
than small amounts).

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1031:169-83. Effect of vitamin e on
gene expression changes in diet-related carcinogenesis. Lunec
J, Halligan E, Mistry N, Karakoula K. Genome Instability
Group, University of Leicester, Genome Instability Group,
Department of Cancer & Molecular Medicine, Level 0, RKCSB,
LRI, Leicester, LE2 7LX, U.K. jl20@le.ac.uk. Colorectal cancer
(CRC) is responsible for the second highest associated
mortality in Western Europe and the United States.
Approximately 95% of CRC is sporadic and believed to involve
environmental agents and chronic inflammation as causal
elements. Several recent studies have suggested a link with
diet, in particular, red meat, dietary fats, and low
consumption of vegetables. Lipid peroxidation and arachidonic
acid metabolism have specifically been implicated in
genotoxicity, tumor initiation, and promotion. We have
examined the global gene expression profiles (Affymetrix;
HU133A) of differentiated vs. undifferentiated colonocytes
(CRL-1807), with and without vitamin E supplementation, while
undergoing a lipid peroxidative stress. Malondialdehyde and
hydroxynonenal, generated by heating a mixture of linoleic and
linolenic acid, caused DNA adduct formation identified by
immunofluoresence. We also observed a decreased ability for
vitamin E to upregulate detoxifying enzymes against
free-radical peroxidation, with the exception of mitochondrial
superoxide dismutase in undifferentiated cells. However, there
was an increased ability in undifferentiated, rather than in
differentiated, colonic cells to detect DNA damage, initiate
cytostasis, and then effect subsequent DNA repair and
apoptosis, in the presence of vitamin
E. The expression profile implies less genotoxic stress is
experienced in vitamin E-supplemented colonocytes,
particularly undifferentiated cells, and points to a
mechanism by which dietary supplementation may prevent
genotoxic damage and subsequent carcinogenic events in the
colon, by both antioxidant and non-antioxidant-related
mechanisms.

[Juhana Har]

montygram wrote:
:: I've been posting about this for years here. Welcome to the
:: club! The statistics are incredible, and the problem is
:: that the phrase "saturated fat" has no scientific meaning
:: as it is used by most people, including scientists. Here's
:: a study that talks about fat and "red meat" causing cancer,
:: and when they go into specifics about the fat, notice that
:: they are talking about polyunsaturated faffy acids, not
:: saturated ones. It's all about oxidative stress, and
:: saturated fatty acids actually act as a buffer against this
:: form of stress, while the other fatty acids are potentially
:: very bad news (if eaten in more than small amounts).

I think that it is important to differentiate between various
saturated fatty acids. It is well known that saturated fatty
acid in coconut is at least less atherogenic than saturated
acid in dairy products and meat. Second, animal products
contain also direct arachidonic acid, a polyunsaturated fatty
acid as you said.

--
Juhana

[John Que]

"Juhana Harju" <shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:3a4i93F68mne3U1@individual.net...
> montygram wrote:
> :: I've been posting about this for years here. Welcome to
> :: the club! The statistics are incredible, and the problem
> :: is that the phrase "saturated fat" has no scientific
> :: meaning as it is used by most people, including
> :: scientists. Here's a study that talks about fat and "red
> :: meat" causing cancer, and when they go into specifics
> :: about the fat, notice that they are talking about
> :: polyunsaturated faffy acids, not saturated ones. It's all
> :: about oxidative stress, and saturated fatty acids
> :: actually act as a buffer against this form of stress,
> :: while the other fatty acids are potentially very bad news
> :: (if eaten in more than small amounts).
>
> I think that it is important to differentiate between
> various saturated fatty acids. It is well known that
> saturated fatty acid in coconut is at least less atherogenic
> than saturated acid in dairy products and meat. Second,
> animal products contain also direct arachidonic acid, a
> polyunsaturated fatty acid as you said.

Many of these people are fish eaters; albeit, fish out of
warmer waters.
>
> --
> Juhana

[Juhana Har]

John Que wrote:
:: "Juhana Harju" <shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote in message
:: news:3a4i93F68mne3U1@individual.net...
::: montygram wrote:
::::: I've been posting about this for years here. Welcome to
::::: the club! The statistics are incredible, and the problem
::::: is that the phrase "saturated fat" has no scientific
::::: meaning as it is used by most people, including
::::: scientists. Here's a study that talks about fat and "red
::::: meat" causing cancer, and when they go into specifics
::::: about the fat, notice that they are talking about
::::: polyunsaturated faffy acids, not saturated ones. It's
::::: all about oxidative stress, and saturated fatty acids
::::: actually act as a buffer against this form of stress,
::::: while the other fatty acids are potentially very bad
::::: news (if eaten in more than small amounts).
:::
::: I think that it is important to differentiate
::: between various saturated fatty acids. It is well
::: known that saturated fatty acid in coconut is at
::: least less atherogenic than saturated acid in dairy
::: products and meat. Second, animal products contain
::: also direct arachidonic acid, a polyunsaturated
::: fatty acid as you said.
::
:: Many of these people are fish eaters; albeit, fish out of
:: warmer waters.

Even that fish may contain considerable amounts of
omega-3 fatty acids to outweigh the adverse effects of
arachidonic acid.

--
Juhana

[Montygram]

Saturated fatty acids are not at all atherogenic in humans.
Where is your evidence for such claims? How could a molecule
with a few more carbons on the chain be atherogenic because of
that feature? Learn some basic biochemistry.

Fish oil contains AA as well as EPA and DHA. It will interfere
with AA metabolization, but it will cause free radical damage
to tissues and organs. Just do a pubmed search for lipid
peroxidation and see what you're in for if you eat more than
trace amounts of these fatty acids.

[Montygram]

For those unaware, the claim is that because some saturated
fatty acids raise cholesterol levels in people with levels
below 220, this makes it "bad." Cholesterol is fine if it's
not oxidized. Oxidation is the key, not the actual level.
However, Ancel Keys, who got this whole "saturated fat causes
heart attacks" thing going, actually said that you will live
the longest if your cholesterol is between 200 and 200 (see
his book, Seven Countries, for all the details). Somehow, this
has all gotten horribly distorted, so now many are being told
to lower their cholesterol to levels that will greatly
increase the risk of cancer, shock, etc.

[Juhana Har]

montygram wrote:
:: For those unaware, the claim is that because some saturated
:: fatty acids raise cholesterol levels in people with levels
:: below 220, this makes it "bad." Cholesterol is fine if it's
:: not oxidized. Oxidation is the key, not the actual level.
:: However, Ancel Keys, who got this whole "saturated fat
:: causes heart attacks" thing going, actually said that you
:: will live the longest if your cholesterol is between 200
:: and 200 (see his book, Seven Countries, for all the
:: details). Somehow, this has all gotten horribly distorted,
:: so now many are being told to lower their cholesterol to
:: levels that will greatly increase the risk of cancer,
:: shock, etc.

In the Seven Countries Study the average total cholesterol of
Cretan people was around 200. They ate a diet high in
monounsaturated fat and low in saturated. It was also a diet
of high in vegetables and fruits and it contained a good
amount of EPA and DHA from fish. Due to the high intake of
vegetables and fruits it was also a diet high in flavonoids to
protect the cholesterol from oxidation.

--
Juhana

[Robert]

Just to make it clear to everybody. Lab test performed in
which clinical correlations are made and risk assessments are
made as to high risk or low risk for CAD are not dependent on
which people eat or don't eat. It is the actual level that
those studies are made on and not on what people eat. There is
no distortion there. The only distortion comes from people
like yourself who tells people to eat this and that and they
will not get heart disease. You have no concept of test
performance and clinical correlations. What should have been,
could have been, or what will be based on what you eat is
already evident. People are fat because they like to eat and
not because they like to eat healthy foods. It is an
addiction. I have more respect for people who simply say
cholesterol is meaningless and they eat what they want to.

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1111377537.723216.43050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> For those unaware, the claim is that because some saturated
> fatty acids raise cholesterol levels in people with levels
> below 220, this makes it "bad." Cholesterol is fine if it's
> not oxidized. Oxidation is the key, not the actual level.
> However, Ancel Keys, who got this whole "saturated fat
> causes heart attacks" thing going, actually said that you
> will live the longest if your cholesterol is between 200 and
> 200 (see his book, Seven Countries, for all the details).
> Somehow, this has all gotten horribly distorted, so now many
> are being told to lower their cholesterol to levels that
> will greatly increase the risk of cancer, shock, etc.

[Alf Christ]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:43:38 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
<shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:

>:: Many of these people are fish eaters; albeit, fish out of
>:: warmer waters.
>
>Even that fish may contain considerable amounts of
>omega-3 fatty acids to outweigh the adverse effects of
>arachidonic acid.

The warmer water, the less omega-3 acids are needed to keep
cell membranes optimal fluid.

[Juhana Har]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
:: On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:43:38 +0200, "Juhana Harju"
:: <shantigiri@despammed.com> wrote:
::
::::: Many of these people are fish eaters; albeit, fish out
::::: of warmer waters.
:::
::: Even that fish may contain considerable amounts of
::: omega-3 fatty acids to outweigh the adverse effects of
::: arachidonic acid.
::
:: The warmer water, the less omega-3 acids are needed to keep
:: cell membranes optimal fluid.

Yes, that is known, but there are actually studies about EPA
and DHA content of fresh water/warm water fish and some
reseach results show that they can be good sources of omega-3
fatty acids. It varies.

--
Juhana

[Mirek Fidl]

> In the Seven Countries Study the average total cholesterol
> of Cretan people was around 200. They ate a diet high in
> monounsaturated fat and low in saturated.

As main dietary source of fat on Creta was olive oil, you
should rather say "high in monosaturated, moderate in
saturated and relatively low in polysaturated".

I always drives me crazy how somebody can consider olive oil
more healthy than "standard" vegetable oil (like sunflower),
and in the same time animal fat less heathy than sunflower
oil, when lipid profiles spectrum is more like

tropical vegetable oils (cocunut, palm) - most saturated, very
low in MUFA and PUFA

animal fats - moderately saturated, with MUFA and saturated
fats at about same levels, low in PUFA,

olive oil - moderately high in saturated, twice as much MUFA
than PUFA, low in PUFA

sunflower oil - very high in PUFA, low in MUFA and saturated.

I guess traditional "sense" of what fats are healthy and what
are not based on saturated fat content just does not make
sense to me.

Mirek

[Roger Rabb]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:54:27 -0800, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Just to make it clear to everybody. Lab test performed in
>which clinical correlations are made and risk assessments are
>made as to high risk or low risk for CAD are not dependent on
>which people eat or don't eat. It is the actual level that
>those studies are made on and not on what people eat. There
>is no distortion there. The only distortion comes from people
>like yourself who tells people to eat this and that and they
>will not get heart disease. You have no concept of test
>performance and clinical correlations. What should have been,
>could have been, or what will be based on what you eat is
>already evident. People are fat because they like to eat and
>not because they like to eat healthy foods. It is an
>addiction. I have more respect for people who simply say
>cholesterol is meaningless and they eat what they want to.
>

Cholesterol is meaningless and I'll eat what I want.

rr

[mattlb]

montygram wrote:
> Saturated fatty acids are not at all atherogenic in humans.

Myristic acid is readily converted to cholesterol which is
then shipped out in VLDL, eventually becoming LDL. The more
cholesterol there is the more LDL there is and the more chance
it will enter the artery wall and become oxidised initiating
an atheroma.

Coconut oil is used experimentally to induce
hypercholesterolaemia and atherosclerosis in test animals.
It's also associated with higher scavenger receptor expression
in macorphages than with:

1) fish oil http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd-
=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10996338

2) olive oil http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm-
d=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11280337

I assume you're aware that scavenger receptor uptake of oxLDL
is the key event in atherogenesis.

> Where is your evidence for such claims? How could a
> molecule with a few more carbons on the chain be
> atherogenic because of that feature? Learn some basic
> biochemistry.

You're very quick to tell others to learn some biochemistry,
yet you've shown many times how shakey your own
understanding is.

The length of chains has significant effect on the destination
of fatty acids. Generally it's the longer ones that are
exported in lipoproteins. Longer chains are more hydrophobic,
so if deposited in artery walls are more likely to stay there.
Membrane rafts also depend on the length of fatty acids in the
phospholipids, but of course they're a feature of bilayers,
which you deny exist in cells.

> Fish oil contains AA as well as EPA and DHA.

Less than 1% AA in cod liver oil according to the USDA; even
less in fish oil.

MattLB

[Robert]

"Roger Rabbit" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
news:ir6b51t7bqp3260c8r5neuq18jlfnvjmgf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:54:27 -0800, "Robert"
> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Just to make it clear to everybody. Lab test performed in
> >which clinical correlations are made and risk assessments
> >are made as to high risk or
low
> >risk for CAD are not dependent on which people eat or don't
> >eat. It is
the
> >actual level that those studies are made on and not on what
> >people eat. There is no distortion there. The only
> >distortion comes from people like yourself who tells people
> >to eat this and that and they will not get
heart
> >disease. You have no concept of test performance and
> >clinical correlations. What should have been, could have
> >been, or what will be based on what you eat is already
> >evident. People are fat because they like to eat and not
> >because they like to eat healthy foods. It is an addiction.
> >I have more respect for people who simply say cholesterol
> >is meaningless
and
> >they eat what they want to.
> >
>
> Cholesterol is meaningless and I'll eat what I want.
>
> rr

I don't have any problem with what you eat or don't eat. I am
not telling you what to eat. Lab tests are used as markers for
the possibility or what the relative risk will be based on
correlation of lipid studies and heart disease. It did not
look into what people ate or didn't eat. If you think it is
harmless than eat as you wish. As a hospital worker I get paid
to take care of the sick and not the healthy. I could care
less of what they ate. That's why they invented pills because
people don't care about what they eat either. That's all I was
saying. Bring it on and help pay my bills.

[Roger Rabb]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:13:06 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Roger Rabbit" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
>news:ir6b51t7bqp3260c8r5neuq18jlfnvjmgf@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:54:27 -0800, "Robert"
>> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Just to make it clear to everybody. Lab test performed in
>> >which clinical correlations are made and risk assessments
>> >are made as to high risk or
>low
>> >risk for CAD are not dependent on which people eat or
>> >don't eat. It is
>the
>> >actual level that those studies are made on and not on
>> >what people eat. There is no distortion there. The only
>> >distortion comes from people like yourself who tells
>> >people to eat this and that and they will not get
>heart
>> >disease. You have no concept of test performance and
>> >clinical correlations. What should have been, could have
>> >been, or what will be based on what you eat is already
>> >evident. People are fat because they like to eat and not
>> >because they like to eat healthy foods. It is an
>> >addiction. I have more respect for people who simply say
>> >cholesterol is meaningless
>and
>> >they eat what they want to.
>> >
>>
>> Cholesterol is meaningless and I'll eat what I want.
>>
>> rr
>
>I don't have any problem with what you eat or don't eat. I am
>not telling you what to eat. Lab tests are used as markers
>for the possibility or what the relative risk will be based
>on correlation of lipid studies and heart disease. It did not
>look into what people ate or didn't eat. If you think it is
>harmless than eat as you wish. As a hospital worker I get
>paid to take care of the sick and not the healthy. I could
>care less of what they ate. That's why they invented pills
>because people don't care about what they eat either. That's
>all I was saying. Bring it on and help pay my bills.
>

Never been in a hospital except to visit sick people. If I do
get sick however you will unfortunately not benefit from my
illness. I live in Canada. So far my bill of health looks
good! Not that it matters but my numbers are:

cholesterol: 5.11 mmol/L (197.6 mg/dl) HDL: 1.94 mmol/L
(75 mg/dl)
LDL: 2.74 mmol/L (105.95 mg/dl)
Triglycerides: 0.94 mmol/L (83.25
mg/dl) CHOL/HDL ratio: 2.63

My BP is fairly constant at 120/70.

BTW, my grandparents and great grand parents didn't care about
what they ate and all lived into their 80's and 90's. Of
course, they lived during the time when eggs, meat and dairy
weren't bad for us. ;o)

rr

[Robert]

"Roger Rabbit" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
news:0k6h51t39l1rsu54a4m2vgsgka7utuqsk7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:13:06 -0700, "Robert"
> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Roger Rabbit" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:ir6b51t7bqp3260c8r5neuq18jlfnvjmgf@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:54:27 -0800, "Robert"
> >> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just to make it clear to everybody. Lab test performed
> >> >in which
clinical
> >> >correlations are made and risk assessments are made as
> >> >to high risk or
> >low
> >> >risk for CAD are not dependent on which people eat or
> >> >don't eat. It is
> >the
> >> >actual level that those studies are made on and not on
> >> >what people
eat.
> >> >There is no distortion there. The only distortion comes
> >> >from people
like
> >> >yourself who tells people to eat this and that and they
> >> >will not get
> >heart
> >> >disease. You have no concept of test performance and
> >> >clinical correlations. What should have been, could have
> >> >been, or what will be based on what
you
> >> >eat is already evident. People are fat because they like
> >> >to eat and
not
> >> >because they like to eat healthy foods. It is an
> >> >addiction. I have more respect for people who simply say
> >> >cholesterol is
meaningless
> >and
> >> >they eat what they want to.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Cholesterol is meaningless and I'll eat what I want.
> >>
> >> rr
> >
> >I don't have any problem with what you eat or don't eat. I
> >am not telling you what to eat. Lab tests are used as
> >markers for the possibility or what the relative
risk
> >will be based on correlation of lipid studies and heart
> >disease. It did
not
> >look into what people ate or didn't eat. If you think it is
> >harmless than eat as you wish. As a hospital worker I
get
> >paid to take care of the sick and not the healthy. I could
> >care less of what they ate. That's why they invented pills
because
> >people don't care about what they eat either. That's all I
> >was saying. Bring it on and help pay my bills.
> >
>
> Never been in a hospital except to visit sick people. If I
> do get sick however you will unfortunately not benefit from
> my illness. I live in Canada. So far my bill of health looks
> good! Not that it matters but my numbers are:
>
> cholesterol: 5.11 mmol/L (197.6 mg/dl) HDL: 1.94 mmol/L
> (75 mg/dl)
> LDL: 2.74 mmol/L (105.95 mg/dl) Triglycerides: 0.94 mmol/L
> (83.25 mg/dl) CHOL/HDL ratio: 2.63
>
> My BP is fairly constant at 120/70.
>
> BTW, my grandparents and great grand parents didn't care
> about what they ate and all lived into their 80's and 90's.
> Of course, they lived during the time when eggs, meat and
> dairy weren't bad for us. ;o)
>
> rr
>
You are lucky and just hope it stays that way. As you get
older it tends to get worse. I wish I had your numbers. As far
as the other goes though, you will see a doctor or hospital
eventually and the longer you live the higher the chance you
will have chronic disease. There is no getting around that
from arthritis to worse. The body just doesn't last that long
without wear and tear. You are also right in that politicians
are pretty good in keeping health care costs down. I wonder
how they do it? : -}

[Roger Rabb]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:43:43 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You are lucky and just hope it stays that way. As you get
>older it tends to get worse. I wish I had your numbers. As
>far as the other goes though, you will see a doctor or
>hospital eventually and the longer you live the higher the
>chance you will have chronic disease. There is no getting
>around that from arthritis to worse. The body just doesn't
>last that long without wear and tear. You are also right in
>that politicians are pretty good in keeping health care costs
>down. I wonder how they do it? : -}
>

Not exactly a spring chicken as I'll be 50 next month. I know
wear and tear. ;o)

Oh, I'm sure there's going to be a day where I will have to
have something attended to. I played a lot of sports and
contact sports at that. Did I mention the herniated disc? The
main thing I try to do is keep my weight in the ideal range
for my height and my current BMI around 24. It has been known
to increase at certain holidays. ;o)

rr