tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post8945924068689930417..comments2024-03-28T11:29:46.845-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: A Roadmap to ObesityStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-84677153533997052872015-02-25T06:19:18.879-08:002015-02-25T06:19:18.879-08:00Its preservative ingredients triggers heart illnes...Its preservative ingredients triggers heart illness<br /><br />It sets the scene for obesity as it includes trans-fat and saturated fat; the fact that it is fried may cause both hearth illnesses and cancer; consuming too much salt and sugar might cause hypertension and diabetes. As it does not include fiber and sediment may cause digestion illnesses and various cancer types. Due to preservative materials, allergic reaction can be observed in some people.<br /><br />Keep them away from children<br /><br />How your child is being fed is important for his brain development. Studies show that IQ of children consuming junk food very often is low and their learning capacities are affected. Besides, this type of food makes the child more aggressive, causes concentration problem, hyperactivity and sleeping disorders.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.weightlosseasy.tips/say-no-to-junk-food.html" rel="nofollow">Say “no” to Junk Food</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07576039331066946246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-36823172075641823192011-09-29T17:03:22.663-07:002011-09-29T17:03:22.663-07:00You said, "Exercise maintains leptin sensitiv...You said, "Exercise maintains leptin sensitivity in the hypothalamus, and the rodent literature suggests that without it, leptin sensitivity declines and fat mass increases (16, 17). This offers an explanation for why overweight people don't necessarily compensate for the calories they burn while exercising by eating more (18). If energy expenditure is increased, but leptin sensitivity is increased, the balance between these two factors will determine hunger and food intake.". <br />Then we have this:<br /><br />Using animal studies to propose novel hypotheses can be fun. However, we cannot extrapolate findings directly. This is important when discussing metabolic pathways and the effect of different diets. For instance, mice have a basal metabolic rate that is 7 times greater than humans, so a 40% calorie restriction in mice mimics a therapeutic fasting in humans. There is evidence that mRNA levels of several lipogenic enzymes are different between rats and humans.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16709251/<br /><br />What you say happens in rodents does not happen in humans. The hypocretin neurons are evolutionary quite young in mammals phylogentically speaking. We only have 50k of them and they can replenish as far as we know today. They also have been shown to control the depolarization of the dopaminergic reward tracts. How does this science fit into your reward series. Right now it appears a completely unfinished theory based upon the hypothalmic wiring and neurochemistry we do know today in 2011.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126132841611727249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-17834921702934141662011-09-09T11:45:14.465-07:002011-09-09T11:45:14.465-07:00Stephan, I love your blog! I just found you abou...Stephan, I love your blog! I just found you about 2 days ago and I can't get enough. I also have a website, not for profit like yours that is just for sharing information about fat metabolism, healthy eating and recipe sharing. May I please share some of the information you have posted here and give you credit for it all? I will be happy to refer people back to your site whenever I quote you. My email is shan.held@gmail.com thank you so much.shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10734953712062837884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-27863407882819249572011-09-09T03:25:54.709-07:002011-09-09T03:25:54.709-07:00Re Nature doesn't exactly work as our abstract...Re <i>Nature doesn't exactly work as our abstract thinking would like it to, and this may just be the largest obstacle in our understanding of her. So asking questions such as these might be, for lack of a better term, irrelevant.</i><br />Those who agree with the above may enjoy these two full text articles.<br /><a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/Technology_Diet.pdf" rel="nofollow">Technology, Diet, and the Burden of Chronic Disease</a><br />and<br /><a href="http://www.wphna.org/downloadsjan2011/2011%20Jan%20WN3%20Comm%20UPPs%2012.pdf" rel="nofollow">Commentary. The big issue is ultra-processing‘Nutrient profiling’, and ‘fortified’ soft drinks for Africans </a>TedHutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140097526458431747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-9654973220318465342011-09-05T22:32:06.165-07:002011-09-05T22:32:06.165-07:00Apollo,
Not to be party-pooper, but categorizing ...Apollo,<br /><br />Not to be party-pooper, but categorizing macronutrients is the work of man - as is the prioritizing of body functions.<br /><br />Nature doesn't exactly work as our abstract thinking would like it to, and this may just be the largest obstacle in our understanding of her. So asking questions such as these might be, for lack of a better term, irrelevant.<br /><br />-AlCoachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07108014237791854719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-46004140916726162352011-09-05T09:26:40.354-07:002011-09-05T09:26:40.354-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Apolloswabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10048632865194585592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-61484104342771603052011-09-05T09:26:03.783-07:002011-09-05T09:26:03.783-07:00Dr. William "Wheat Belly" Davis makes th...Dr. William "Wheat Belly" Davis makes the point that the wheat we eat today, like many foods, isn't even like the wheat we ate 100 years ago, and on his own body, eating the new wheat has a far stronger impact on blood glucose. Is there a way to use this phenomenon to understand your view of the impact on obesity?Apolloswabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10048632865194585592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-82660432098082039842011-09-05T09:13:05.025-07:002011-09-05T09:13:05.025-07:00Have you made a post about when the change in mode...Have you made a post about when the change in model from the carb/insulin/fat model to the Guyanet/pallatability model results in a change in clinical implementation? It appears that carb control (~100g/day) is practically the same as palatability control.Apolloswabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10048632865194585592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-6599423007640553122011-09-05T09:11:54.682-07:002011-09-05T09:11:54.682-07:00Part 2:
IOW, the carb/insulin/fat model is compell...Part 2:<br />IOW, the carb/insulin/fat model is compelling for me because it fits within a coherent model which satisfies the important "WHY" question: why do we have a metabolic process.<br /><br />I am working through an understanding of the model you advocate - is there a post in which you've highlighted how that model also meets the metabolic purpose? IOW - why is it good that the body as a "set point"? What purpose does it serve, what survival/adaptability function is enhanced, via "set point/leptin signaling?" I can see how leptin signaling serves us in the carb/insulin/fat model, but the light is not yet on for your advocated model.<br /><br />As I read the comments, I'm surprised by how many of the commenters on "both sides" (and Taubes, but he likely didn't read it) can't see the significance of this part of your post: "According to USDA data, Americans today eat an astonishing 425 more calories per day than they did in 1970** (11). That is the reason for the obesity epidemic, plain and simple. However, that fact doesn't tell us why we're eating more calories, so its usefulness is limited." (my italics/underline/bold)<br /><br />I'm also curious, in your experiment w Kresser, how you will define palatability in a way that differentiates that quality from carbohydrate in general, sugar specifically, in real food.<br /><br />For me, as I have become habituated to carb restriction, regular, non-sweetened/salted food tastes much better. My "addictive" behaviors as regards sweets have been regulated. My pleasure in eating sweets now is decreased. I cannot remember the last time I "ate big", and I don't feel the desire to eat big. My body fat has modulated between 10% and 20% over the last 25 years (everyone else in my family spend at least half their lives overweight; I don't have a genetic super-metabolism). Prior to age 20, I couldn't eat enough to gain weight, ever since, it has required significant experimentation to find a strategy to maintain a healthy weight, despite hours of weekly exercise. I can explain all of that - to my satisfaction - via the carbs/insulin/fat model. I'm still a long way from that level of understanding in your model.<br /><br />Lastly, thank the heavens the debate has moved beyond "saturated fat bad, plant based food good, exercise more and control your portion size."Apolloswabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10048632865194585592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-20311196298824417092011-09-05T09:11:21.937-07:002011-09-05T09:11:21.937-07:00A proposition on what the purpose of a metabolic s...A proposition on what the purpose of a metabolic system is:<br />-fueling the brain is the highest priority of the metabolic system, the most critical element being oxygen, second is glucose/ketones IOW a "brain specific fuel." <br />-possibly the next most critical function is hydration<br />-not as time critical, but critical, is prevention of an excessively high level of blood glucose to prevent damage to the nervous system<br />-after that, the priorities are to distribute fuel to keep the body moving, and then to ensure long term viability via distribution of essential nutrients to support growth, healing, and the mechanisms of long term health<br /><br />In other words, for a model to explain a condition like obesity, or how to reverse it, I would expect it to reflect the primary drivers of metabolic purpose. I understand how the carb/insulin/fat model aligns with the priorities as I understand them - that model explains the role of insulin in defense of excess blood sugar, it explains why we get the ketogenic response in the absence of carb intake (brain fuel source redundancy, in combination with the fact that most cells exhibit metabolic flexibility to either help control glucose levels from exceeding healthy levels, but easily burn fat for most purposes when glucose is not abundant), it explains why we observe very high blood concentrations of free fatty acids in the absence of fat intake with high carbohydrate intake (liver production of palmitic acid from glucose), and in this model we observe that in the obese, many indicators of metabolic derangement can be reversed via carb restriction alone in just a few days (and less rapidly so with non-carb restriction of calories).Apolloswabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10048632865194585592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-2965788854860815632011-09-02T17:18:57.962-07:002011-09-02T17:18:57.962-07:00How does the type II diabetes epidemic fit into yo...How does the type II diabetes epidemic fit into your food reward theory? Your theory would seem to require obesity and a broken metabolism as a precursor to type II diabetes. And yet, I am frequently reminded by people with expertise in this area that not all type II diabetics are fat; there are plenty of thin people who get diagnosed with the disease. Are these all LADA types? Or it is possible to break you metabolism even without getting fat? If so, why does a modern diet break some people's metabolisms even in the absence of obesity, and why doesn't that happen in primative peoples following a more traditional diet and life style. Or is the absence of type II diabetes in such populations over exaggerated?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18049342159643425505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-55787616411789144182011-09-02T11:09:32.888-07:002011-09-02T11:09:32.888-07:00Hi Brad,
Yes, it looks like I misread the chart. ...Hi Brad,<br /><br />Yes, it looks like I misread the chart. Still, the overall NHANES finding was an increase of about 250 kcal/d, as I said. See this post:<br /><br />http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-weight-lifestyle-and-diet-trends.html<br /><br />Overall, total fat intake in grams has remained quite stable, possibly declining slightly. Vegetable fats, mostly soybean oil, have partially replaced animal fats.<br /><br />Hi Sam,<br /><br />That's not how it works. As body mass increases, energy expenditure increases, so you will not keep gaining fat mass indefinitely. A person will reach a plateau when energy intake matches expenditure. You can't just make calculations based on the number of calories in a pound of fat mass.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-19085973317589606372011-09-02T10:51:53.448-07:002011-09-02T10:51:53.448-07:00I think this was a quite balanced view. Thanks! So...I think this was a quite balanced view. Thanks! Someone mentioned increased access to food. I think this might be very important on top of the continously increasing variety of foods. We simply have to many stimulus and sensory food signals around us. <br /><br />Something that was missing and might contribute: decreased share of complex carbs. Complex carbs include a fair share of low digestable carbohydrates (LDC). LDCs contain energy only 2 kcals/g and are fermentable in colon. Fermentation of LDCs produce short chain fatty acids that improve satiety. Consumption of LCDs has decreased since 1970s while usage of refined carbs has increased at the same time.Reijohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16600461974345868939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-1822844096741631692011-09-01T22:50:54.979-07:002011-09-01T22:50:54.979-07:00Very nice post, and it covers a lot of different a...Very nice post, and it covers a lot of different aspects of the obesity problem. I am also interested in the effect of epigenetics, and I do wonder why hardly anyone wants to talk about female hormonal changes spurring weight gain, especially during pregnancy and menopause. The formerly slender young woman who gains weight with every pregnancy is almost a cliche.In my own family, going back 5 generations that I know of, all the women got fat when they hit their 40's. No HFCS, no junk food, no McDonald's, no automobiles, no TVs in those days, and they still got fat.Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649219716363923845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-61044319360997097292011-09-01T21:01:08.166-07:002011-09-01T21:01:08.166-07:00"According to USDA data, Americans today eat ..."According to USDA data, Americans today eat an astonishing 425 more calories per day than they did in 1970** (11). That is the reason for the obesity epidemic, plain and simple."<br /><br />An excess of 425 kcal/day is 155,125 calories in a year, or roughly 38 pounds if stored as fat.<br /><br />That seems...high.Sam Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15632591648777098250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-87450704592900702772011-09-01T20:57:10.541-07:002011-09-01T20:57:10.541-07:00Nice to find it. I like your blog site very much. ...Nice to find it. I like your blog site very much. You have done very appreciative work. Good job! Keep posting...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.raymeds.com/purchase/kamagra-oral-jelly.aspx" rel="nofollow">kamagra jelly</a>sharon bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055226791215076274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-29408897143120100632011-09-01T18:04:30.734-07:002011-09-01T18:04:30.734-07:00OK, not to beat a dead horse, but if you believe t...OK, not to beat a dead horse, but if you believe the NHANES numbers, men ages 20-39 between 1971 and 2000 actually decreased their fat calories from 1030 per day (37% of 2784) to 840 (32% of 2828) while increasing carb consumption from 1174 to 1309, basically just replacing fat with carbs.<br /><br />Also, if we're talking about trends, caloric consumption was unchanged from 1971 to 1980 (in men and women). Caloric consumption only jumped during the 1988-94 period when carbohydrate consumption as a percentage of calories increased from about 42% of calories to 48% of calories (in men).<br /><br />So I think we can all agree that the obesity epidemic took off while everyone was doing low fat in the early nineties. Caloric consumption increased as dietary fat percentage decreased and carb percentage increased. The question is whether it's because snackwell's (the early nineties low fat snack of choice, remember) had high food reward or because a lower fat diet (by caloric percentage) was less satiating or some other mechanism.Brad Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068446509764297652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-2459674035706977952011-09-01T17:35:21.282-07:002011-09-01T17:35:21.282-07:00Even more interestingly, in men ages 20-39, an age...Even more interestingly, in men ages 20-39, an age period when many men get fat, caloric consumption went from 2784 daily to 2828, an increase of only 44 calories. It was older men who showed a big increase in caloric consumption.<br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm#fig1Brad Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068446509764297652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-35266201623742301912011-09-01T17:31:05.583-07:002011-09-01T17:31:05.583-07:00Nope, I was right. From the link:
"For men,...Nope, I was right. From the link:<br /><br />"For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women."<br /><br />Which actually means fat calories consumed by men decreased by about 50 calories or so between 1971 and 2000 (according to NHANES). Increasing carb consumption made up for this drop and then some.Brad Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068446509764297652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-10146200275722690632011-09-01T17:22:56.384-07:002011-09-01T17:22:56.384-07:00Hi Brad,
You were looking only at the 20-39 year ...Hi Brad,<br /><br />You were looking only at the 20-39 year old age group. NHANES found the overall increase over that time period for adult men plus women was 250 kcal/d. That is on the lower end of estimates, which range up to 570 kcal/d (also based on direct measurement rather than food disappearance).<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21738451<br /><br />The USDA food disappearance is adjusted for food losses between manufacture and consumption. See this page:<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodGuideSpreadsheets.htmStephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-74636325978079482562011-09-01T17:05:47.147-07:002011-09-01T17:05:47.147-07:00Thanks for the response, Stephan.
Another comment...Thanks for the response, Stephan.<br /><br />Another comment I have about this post is you state that caloric consumption has increased by between 400 and 600 calories. But the USDA data you site is "food disappearance", not what people actually ate. So another reason for the big increase is that we've become more wasteful.<br /><br />The NHANES data, an indication of actual intake, I believe, shows that male caloric intake went from 2450 daily to 2618 between 1971 and 2000, an increase of "only" 168 calories. Still an increase, but not nearly as big a jump as you suggest. Interestingly the increase was greater in women - over 300 calories. <br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm#fig1<br /><br />BradBrad Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068446509764297652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-49770620218296323592011-09-01T15:22:31.883-07:002011-09-01T15:22:31.883-07:00Hi Brad,
It's a bit of an exaggeration to say...Hi Brad,<br /><br />It's a bit of an exaggeration to say I'm "rapidly backpedaling" or "running from" my previous ideas. <br /><br />I used to believe that sugar, white flour and seed oils promote obesity, and I still believe that. The question is, why? Is it due to an inherent harmful property of those foods, or because they're used to make foods with a high reward/palatability value, or both? I had my tentative hypotheses back then, but I've moved on from them because I've found something better. <br /><br />I never came to any strong conclusions about fructose consumption being inherently obesity-promoting in the normal range of intakes. There are several reasons for this. 1) in rodents and some other animals, sugar is not inherently obesogenic under controlled conditions. 2) the fructose drinking study you cited found an increase in abdominal adiposity, but not total adiposity, so it's hard to argue that it promoted obesity per se. 3) the doses used in that study and others were very, very high. Lower doses don't show that kind of effect.<br /><br />There may be some inherently toxic properties of fructose if it's consumed in excess, particularly if it's refined, but that doesn't make it inherently fattening. I think refined seed oils are probably inherently unhealthy in excess, although I no longer have any reason to believe they are inherently fattening. Wheat is definitely inherently unhealthy for some people, but what percentage of the population that applies to is unclear, and its inherent ability to fatten is very questionable. On the other hand, many commercially processed wheat foods are highly fattening because they're among the most rewarding/palatable foods (pastries, donuts, etc).<br /><br />Basically, I've encountered a hypothesis that is a much more convincing way to explain the same observations I described earlier on this blog. I feel that my overall understanding of obesity has expanded greatly since I wrote those posts, so I am de-emphasizing some of my earlier, tentative hypotheses.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-29780495980257171162011-09-01T14:44:31.718-07:002011-09-01T14:44:31.718-07:00Stephan, previously you wrote about the effects of...Stephan, previously you wrote about the effects of fructose consumption and wheat consumption:<br /><br />http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/04/fructose-vs-glucose-showdown.html<br />http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava_20.html<br /><br />Now, in the second post, you say "As usual, my microscope is pointed directly at industrial food", but the google archives show that you've recently edited that phrase. It used to say, "As usual, my microscope is pointed directly at wheat."<br /><br />You keep arguing that food reward is not the ONLY factor in obesity, yet you are rapidly backpedalling from alternative explanations such as:<br /><br />-fructose causing direct metabolic damage to the liver/other organs<br />-lectins in wheat interfering with leptin signalling<br />-omega 6 imbalance causing inflammation of the hypothalamus<br /><br />All of these seem like plausible explanations backed by some science and are ideas that you've supported for a long time. I'm not sure why you're suddenly running from them so quickly.<br /><br />For instance, in the case of the glucose vs. fructose based soft drinks, the fructose based drinks led to increased visceral fat and other markers of damaged metabolism compared to glucose based drinks. Do fructose based drinks have higher food reward? That seems doubtful, yet they directly led to increased insulin resistance, which you seem to be claiming is merely an effect of leptin resistance, which is caused by food reward. When I look at the study, though, the fructose seems to have directly done the damage independent of food reward.Brad Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04068446509764297652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-1028453175544738922011-08-31T21:40:26.056-07:002011-08-31T21:40:26.056-07:00psychic24,
I don't think what you're sayi...psychic24,<br /><br />I don't think what you're saying is unreasonable--that certain behaviors may have gotten us into this mess. <br /><br />But the main problem seems to be what to do about it now. Once obese, the body seems to defend the new setpoint. So doing the opposite--eating less/better and exercising more--doesn't seem to reverse the weight gain as easily. Forcing the issue through caloric deficit causes further metabolic damage and it's unclear if you're any healthier for doing so, nor is it clear if it's maintainable.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087483943360769276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-46327798677018554122011-08-31T19:38:09.279-07:002011-08-31T19:38:09.279-07:00I don't mean to be a downer, or to deride any ...I don't mean to be a downer, or to deride any of this scientific talk, I just think that it's much simpler to explain this "epidemic", or just our individual journey to this obese state of no returns. I think going out for drinks and restaurant meals is fun, not because it's providing a much needed source of calories, but because it feels good. I don't think we avoid exercise because we don't have the energy, via insulin or leptin or whatever, but because we get more enjoyment from sitting back on our couches, watching tv or playing games. <br /><br />And I really think that just as with the seeds oils revisitation, there are many bright lights that can be shined into what previously seemed an opaque hole of ill health (i.e. wheat/grains, fructose, and seed oils); something meant to avoid at all costs, without really glancing at what was inside (unfortunately a bunch of in vitro studies with amounts of toxin that would be hard to come by in the context of real food). A quote that seems to summarize this, roughly, is one by Matt Lalonde, "[what athletes would] be eating on a quote unquote paleo diet, you’ve got things like yams and cassava. and if you look at the antinutrient content, it’s the same order of magnitude… so if you’re going to tell someone, ‘hey, you should not eat grains and legumes because they contain anti-nutrients’ a biologist – a plant biologist – is just going to look at you and say, ‘wow, this guy’s a moron". Wording around a new slogan to eat whole feeds and sit on your ass less just seems to be a tenable roadmap to solving the obesity crisis.psychic24https://www.blogger.com/profile/02007506132069495095noreply@blogger.com