Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Wed, Jan-14-09, 23:35
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addict1000
How about endocrine problems? Someone in another thread mentioned this. They said that long term ZC can lead to endocrine problems and subsequent weight gain...especially for women. Is there any truth in this?

This is interesting. First we cut carbs by claiming we have hormonal problems i.e. low testoterone/progesterone, high insulin/glucagon/adrenaline, etc. Then we increase carbs by claiming we have hormonal problems, high T3 and whatever else we can think of.

If anything, cutting carbs returns us to good health. This includes hormones. If there is a persisting hormonal problem after cutting out carbs, it's not the low/zero carb that caused it. Instead, it's the 40 years of low fat, high carbs before it that should be responsible. Why go back to that?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 05:56
PilotGal PilotGal is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 36,355
 
Plan: KetoCarnivore
Stats: 206.6/178/160 Female 5'7
BF:awesome
Progress: 61%
Location: USA
Default

I'll get back to this thread when I have completed my 30 day ZC experiment.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 06:02
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PilotGal
I'll get back to this thread when I have completed my 30 day ZC experiment.

I took a look at your journal. It looks like you're enjoying ZC so far. You also seem to know what you're doing.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 06:09
PilotGal PilotGal is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 36,355
 
Plan: KetoCarnivore
Stats: 206.6/178/160 Female 5'7
BF:awesome
Progress: 61%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
I took a look at your journal. It looks like you're enjoying ZC so far. You also seem to know what you're doing.


i'm under the guidance of Charles and Dean!
experts make all the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 09:01
AmoryBlain's Avatar
AmoryBlain AmoryBlain is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,932
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 225/143/155 Female 5'10''
BF:38%/21.4%/24.9%
Progress: 117%
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by M Levac: This includes hormones. If there is a persisting hormonal problem after cutting out carbs, it's not the low/zero carb that caused it.


LMAO!
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 10:05
JeanM's Avatar
JeanM JeanM is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 755
 
Plan: LC
Stats: 170/129.8/125 Female 5'1.5
BF:
Progress: 89%
Default

I tried zero carb and I did feel pretty good but went back to vlc due to boredom with just meats. A few things that may be overlooked by some attempting zc is that unless you are eating strictly meat and water you do not need to add extra fats to your meals nor do you need the extra fat at every meal. You also need to pick meats with visible fat marbled throughout the cut and I do agree the meat needs to be rare/medium rare to get all the nutrients that are available in the meat. From what I have seen on the zc forum those that are successful eat only rare/medium rare meat and water and truly only eat to hunger. But in the end we are all individuals and what works for one may not work for another for any number of reasons. Jeanie
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 15:46
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac

If anything, cutting carbs returns us to good health. This includes hormones. If there is a persisting hormonal problem after cutting out carbs, it's not the low/zero carb that caused it. Instead, it's the 40 years of low fat, high carbs before it that should be responsible. Why go back to that?


It's easy to make declarations such as the above when you believe what you're saying is true, but repeating something again and again does not make it true.

Martin, you're continuing to miss/dismiss things that influence health outcomes when someone adopts a particular dietary approach - things like genetic mutations, epigentics, long-term adapations, etc.

Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.

I've taken an interest in it recently since DH is seeing it at a higher rate in his practice than the general population, and that's likely because it is associated (doesn't necessary "cause") with infertility and recurrent miscarriage.

Anyway, there are a few different MTHFR genetic mutations that can occur; and one, two or a combination of genes influence nutrient requirements because the gene provides instructions for making an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase....specifically, this enzyme converts 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate; this in turn fuels the folate cycle that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. Other critical nutrients in the cycle pathway are B12 and B6, along with B2 (riboflavin), betaine and choline.

I'm including all that detail because there is some pretty neat data out there about the gene mutations and how nutrient status (environment) pulls the trigger to negative effects on health and reproduction in those carrying the mutation(s)......you see, having the gene itself doesn't automatically doom a person - the doom can come when there is an inadequate supply of folate or other critical nutrients in the folate pathway.

Now you do like to point to the Inuit as being a population we can learn from, that they eat an animal-based diet and have good health. You like to cite Steffanson, the Bellevue study and other things to support your belief that eating just meat can provide and/or restore good health.

But guess what?

The Inuit have a significantly lower incidence of MTHFR gene mutations than other populations investigated.....in fact, they and those born in sub-Saharan Africa (think Masai!) have the lowest worldwide incidence of the mutation, followed by the Tupi Parakana tribe of Brazil and the Cayapa population of Ecuador.

In one study of the Tupi Parakana in Brazil, not one person was found to have two copies of C677T or a combination of A1298C + C677T (the two worst combinations to have)....researchers noted that the absence of these combination suggest a reason for the lower incidence of NTD's found in that population....their lower folate diet isn't risky since they do not require more folate since their population is predominently "wild type" for the MTHFR genes.

Why am I pointing this out?

Well, when researchers have also investigated the gene mutation in ethnicly similar populations, simply located in different areas, they find something intriguing....sub-Saharan Africans have a very low incidence of MTHFR gene mutations, but African-Americans (locale South America) with sub-Saharan ethnicity have the gene within the range of the general population for generations born after emigration. How can that be? One answer is that folate in food and folic acid fortification reduces selective pressure against the gene because folate is available at higher levels, thus more babies can be born and survive with the mutation.

And there is good data to support that - in research investigating genetics of miscarried fetal tissue, researchers find there is a higher prevalence of MTHFR mutations.....but this finding isn't always statistically significant - it seems that maternal folate load matters; the data suggest that there may be an overall survival advantage for fetuses with the mutation when their mothers are exposed to sufficient levels of folate and folic acid during pregnancy. Kind of complicated, but very interesting stuff....and one reason I really think it's irresponsible to make blanket declarations that eating a diet that's just meat (and fat) is beneficial to all.

Which brings us back to the Inuit - their diet is low in folate, and as you've noted, they don't seem to have problems reproducing. Which, on its face, is valid. However, it does not take into account that genetically, it's unlikely they're carrying an MTHFR gene mutation.....whereas someone of Japanese or French descent has a higher probability of having an MTHFR gene mutation (the two populations with the highest prevalence), thus an all-meat, low-folate diet could be detrimental to not only their ability to reproduce, but long-term health issues.

So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 16:52
zedgirl's Avatar
zedgirl zedgirl is offline
Say cheese!
Posts: 555
 
Plan: Carb'n negative + IF
Stats: 123/106/111 Female 163
BF:
Progress: 142%
Location: Western Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW

Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.

I've taken an interest in it recently since DH is seeing it at a higher rate in his practice than the general population, and that's likely because it is associated (doesn't necessary "cause") with infertility and recurrent miscarriage.


Regina,
I’ve been tested for this gene mutation but I never really understood what it was about. The doctor just added it to a list of hormone tests I was having at the time for her own interest (she specialized in anti-aging medicine). Anyway my test result says “Heterozygous Mutation Detected” with no other information. I never got a chance to discuss it with her because she closed her practice.
What are the implications - does it mean I should supplement with folate? (I’m 45 and past having babies).
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:21
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
[...]
So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!


All this time, I thought you wanted to point out my lack of intelligence. Phew, I guess I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:21
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedgirl
Regina,
I’ve been tested for this gene mutation but I never really understood what it was about. The doctor just added it to a list of hormone tests I was having at the time for her own interest (she specialized in anti-aging medicine). Anyway my test result says “Heterozygous Mutation Detected” with no other information. I never got a chance to discuss it with her because she closed her practice.
What are the implications - does it mean I should supplement with folate? (I’m 45 and past having babies).


Heterozygous is one copy....it could be the A1298C or the C677T.....you only have one or the other, not one of both, since if you had one of both, the result would say "compound heterozygosity".....so, you have one or the other.

One copy of A1298C is of little to no consequence, MTHFR activity is 95% of normal (here normal = activity level found in in those with two wild-type genes on the 1298 allele).....daily consumption of foods and/or supplements with 400-800mcg folate/folic acid seems to keep things going along well.

One copy of C677T has MTHFR activity of about 70% of normal (here normal = activity level found in those with two wild-type genes on the 677 allele)....usual course is to test homocysteine levels first to see if they're elevated or trending upward since it's inadequate folate that's tied to elevated homocysteine......if that's high or even "elevated" then supplementation with a prescription "medical food" supplement (Metanx, FolgardRX, etc.) is given since they contain the active form of folate, L-methylfolate.....over-the-counter folic acid isn't usually advised if homocysteine is high/elevated since too much of it can be toxic since it has to be converted to L-methylfolate.

One area that is a bit problematic is that the normal range in most labs for homocysteine is up to 10....that normal range was established including those with and without MTHFR gene mutations.....so many docs ignore the upper limit said to be "normal" and look for homocysteine at or below 5 as the point of "elevation" rather than the higher level of 10 (some labs even use 13 as upper normal). One doc I'm friendly with suggests 800-1000mcg OTC folic acid + b-complex for homocysteine that around 7 (6 to 9) and prescription preparations with folate (L-methylfolate) + B12 and B6 for anything 10+.....anything over 15 usually takes two of the prescription dose rather than just one until homocysteine levels decline to below 10, then they continue taking one a day.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:32
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
It's easy to make declarations such as the above when you believe what you're saying is true, but repeating something again and again does not make it true.

Martin, you're continuing to miss/dismiss things that influence health outcomes when someone adopts a particular dietary approach - things like genetic mutations, epigentics, long-term adapations, etc.

Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.

I've taken an interest in it recently since DH is seeing it at a higher rate in his practice than the general population, and that's likely because it is associated (doesn't necessary "cause") with infertility and recurrent miscarriage.

Anyway, there are a few different MTHFR genetic mutations that can occur; and one, two or a combination of genes influence nutrient requirements because the gene provides instructions for making an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase....specifically, this enzyme converts 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate; this in turn fuels the folate cycle that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. Other critical nutrients in the cycle pathway are B12 and B6, along with B2 (riboflavin), betaine and choline.

I'm including all that detail because there is some pretty neat data out there about the gene mutations and how nutrient status (environment) pulls the trigger to negative effects on health and reproduction in those carrying the mutation(s)......you see, having the gene itself doesn't automatically doom a person - the doom can come when there is an inadequate supply of folate or other critical nutrients in the folate pathway.

Now you do like to point to the Inuit as being a population we can learn from, that they eat an animal-based diet and have good health. You like to cite Steffanson, the Bellevue study and other things to support your belief that eating just meat can provide and/or restore good health.

But guess what?

The Inuit have a significantly lower incidence of MTHFR gene mutations than other populations investigated.....in fact, they and those born in sub-Saharan Africa (think Masai!) have the lowest worldwide incidence of the mutation, followed by the Tupi Parakana tribe of Brazil and the Cayapa population of Ecuador.

In one study of the Tupi Parakana in Brazil, not one person was found to have two copies of C677T or a combination of A1298C + C677T (the two worst combinations to have)....researchers noted that the absence of these combination suggest a reason for the lower incidence of NTD's found in that population....their lower folate diet isn't risky since they do not require more folate since their population is predominently "wild type" for the MTHFR genes.

Why am I pointing this out?

Well, when researchers have also investigated the gene mutation in ethnicly similar populations, simply located in different areas, they find something intriguing....sub-Saharan Africans have a very low incidence of MTHFR gene mutations, but African-Americans (locale South America) with sub-Saharan ethnicity have the gene within the range of the general population for generations born after emigration. How can that be? One answer is that folate in food and folic acid fortification reduces selective pressure against the gene because folate is available at higher levels, thus more babies can be born and survive with the mutation.

And there is good data to support that - in research investigating genetics of miscarried fetal tissue, researchers find there is a higher prevalence of MTHFR mutations.....but this finding isn't always statistically significant - it seems that maternal folate load matters; the data suggest that there may be an overall survival advantage for fetuses with the mutation when their mothers are exposed to sufficient levels of folate and folic acid during pregnancy. Kind of complicated, but very interesting stuff....and one reason I really think it's irresponsible to make blanket declarations that eating a diet that's just meat (and fat) is beneficial to all.

Which brings us back to the Inuit - their diet is low in folate, and as you've noted, they don't seem to have problems reproducing. Which, on its face, is valid. However, it does not take into account that genetically, it's unlikely they're carrying an MTHFR gene mutation.....whereas someone of Japanese or French descent has a higher probability of having an MTHFR gene mutation (the two populations with the highest prevalence), thus an all-meat, low-folate diet could be detrimental to not only their ability to reproduce, but long-term health issues.

So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!


I bolded the impertinent banter in your post. It makes it that much more clear what you really wanted to say to me. As a contributing member, you do not have the luxury of pissing off other members of this forum in the manner you just tried with me. Indeed, you should be held to a higher standard if only to give proper example of what is acceptable behavior on this forum. The alternative is that I respond to your banter in kind and eventually this exchange escalates to the point where a moderator must intervene. Do you wish this?


Nevertheless, I am and remain willing to participate in discussions with you however strenuous it may be for me.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:33
zedgirl's Avatar
zedgirl zedgirl is offline
Say cheese!
Posts: 555
 
Plan: Carb'n negative + IF
Stats: 123/106/111 Female 163
BF:
Progress: 142%
Location: Western Australia
Default

Thankyou Regina! I guess I need to have my homocysteine levels tested then.
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:45
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedgirl
Thankyou Regina! I guess I need to have my homocysteine levels tested then.


That's a good first step....if your homocysteine is fine, continue on.....
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 17:55
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac

I bolded the impertinent banter in your post. It makes it that much more clear what you really wanted to say to me. As a contributing member, you do not have the luxury of pissing off other members of this forum in the manner you just tried with me. Indeed, you should be held to a higher standard if only to give proper example of what is acceptable behavior on this forum. The alternative is that I respond to your banter in kind and eventually this exchange escalates to the point where a moderator must intervene. Do you wish this?


Nevertheless, I am and remain willing to participate in discussions with you however strenuous it may be for me.


No need to take me, yourself, or the banter of the forum so seriously!

As I noted, I've mentioned the MTHFR previously....I took the time to go into much greater detail since you haven't said anything that leads me to believe you've read up on it, were concerned it may be a factor for some people, or that you'd even noted what role it plays in our metabolic pathways.

That, and other folks are reading the thread and should be, IMO, aware that adopting an all-meat diet may reduce their intake of folate and if they carry an MTHFR gene mutation, doing that may put their health at risk if their folate status declines and their homocysteine rises.

And, quite frankly, I do not think a moderator would need to "intervene" since I don't tend toward ad hominem in my replies.....I didn't above and I don't plan to change that in the future.

Is my stating that you "like to point to the Inuit" a personal attack or out-of-bounds for the war zone? Heck no - you do, repeatedly, in your posts.

Is my saying that something "...should give you pause, but doesn't seem to." inappropriate or improper? Heck no - I'm stating my observation after posting previously about the issue that you've seemed to ignore/dismiss.

Now if you really do want to have a discussion - how about you present data refuting what I posted.....or ask questions if you have them.....scolding me, while amusing, isn't contributing to the topic at hand, is it?
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 18:12
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Well, I think the debate about the topic kinda redirects from some possibly interesting things.

For example: meat is good. Food=Meat as I have said (Taubes finally got that settled in my brain). I consider fruits and vegetables "Nature's Vitamins" -- at core unnecessary, but useful in some circumstances or for some people -- but some are flintstone vitamins that are just junkfood with all that sugar and so better avoided LOL.

Lowcarb improved my health radically and, I'm certain, lowered my insulin resistance.

That my body seems to feel lousy without some carbs now -- but only when I'm too LC consistently, I can do it for a short time and be fine (it's hard for me to do anything ELSE except the other extreme) -- I don't know why. But it's real; it's not something to dismiss; WHY it happens is unknown but I don't think it necessarily implies that VLC is bad in any way. My VLC was for most of 5 months and then off and on for the last couple years. It varies with normal LC most the time, and I have periods where I'm offplan entirely.

I think the process of significant weight loss may have had some side-effect on the body that we just don't know about. GOOD ones mostly and I know about most of those! But some other problematic things perhaps, including some degree of homeostasis reaction (weight not changing despite by all accounts it should have), etc. Supersized bodies seem to be a bit diff to begin with (or they wouldn't get there). Maybe it relates to some difference because of that.

One thing I've considered is that maybe supersized people actually need a lot more of certain nutrients, for whatever reason (god only knows).

And maybe, since everything but meat has carbs, some of those nutrients are best food-absorbed and only come with carbs. So maybe some people experience that "they need more carbs" but what they really need is some berries and peas because they've got something IN them -- or perhaps it's even just the "variety" combination factor! -- they need.

One thing I've noticed is that my insulin resistance, now this improved with lowcarb obviously; I don't pass out after meals -- even pasta when I'm offplan -- anymore. Usually lol.

However, for whatever reason -- maybe just because I'm healthier?? -- I notice it more even when it's kicking in after meals that carbs aren't even part of.

I've taken my fasting BG readings and what I see is that the majority of the time, because my body's IR and overproducing insulin, I am really low on blood sugar.

In other words, I'm sure for years I walked around with high insulin because I just kept eating and growing. When I quit eating what gave me chronically high insulin, my weight started dropping (yay).

But although the IR seems less now thanks to LC, it's still existent.

I think that might (...) create some conditions in my body that just aren't... well they're probably normal but I don't think they may be in place for thinner people.

For example research is always showing how a person who 'used to be' fatter reacts differently to the same thing -- calories, exercise, etc. -- as a person the same height/weight/BMI as them but who was never fat.

It just seems like there are some changes that happen in the body when someone gets significantly obese. Maybe more of them the larger they are. At that point, what is logical and normal for "normal" people so to speak, may no longer be ideal because literally the body may have other medium to long term if not permanent issues.



So I'm not saying that lowcarb CAUSED any problems for me; I'm saying that (a) while it improved problems they might still exist; (b) their presence might mean that VLC is problematic for me when it wouldn't be for someone else.

It's like gluten. I never knew I was intolerant to gluten. I never knew that my severe asthma and allergies and skin rashes and more were related to gluten. When I went lowcarb I got healthy. Gradually I started eating some lowcarb grains (which have even MORE gluten) and it was pretty easy to see the very clear reaction my body was having everytime I did. Now a lot of people comment that on the lowcarb boards, it seems like all these normal people go lowcarb and then end up deciding they're intolerant to all kinds of stuff. As if it's just some obsession with food or something. As if low-carb caused it or something LOL. But it didn't CAUSE it. It probably revealed it, is all, by clearing up enough symptoms that you finally NOTICE.

Maybe I felt like shit a lot when I was highcarb and went too long without eating (the IR making my BG too low), but then I'd eat and I'd feel great (until I was snoring) and start all over again. Maybe I just really NOTICE how I feel now on lowcarb because I'm staying alert through all of it LOL! -- and because I am never really bringing myself OUT of it for very long.

I think that lowcarb "dealt with" enough major problems and symptoms that I am finally able to actually be 'aware' of my body in ways I never was before. I was numb and toxic until lowcarb. Now I'm aware enough that I can feel and see how my body responds to various things.

And it's not always what seems right on paper, what normal people under normal conditions should be expected to experience. I mean how funky is it to go, "I have fluid in my lungs and my forearms itch 'cause I ate something with gluten!" I think that's just weird. But that's what my body does.

Maybe it's doing some other things that make doing VLC too long make me feel pretty bad now. I think it's possibly chronic low blood sugar that is what's making me feel lousy.

But there was a time I felt so good with it. Loved it. Had so much energy. It's not that way anymore. I feel a little cheated that I felt like I'd "found the answer" and now my body, the question, seems to have changed!

PJ
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:46.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.