Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 My problem tends to be low cholesterol. Latest lipid profile: Triglycerides 54 mg/dl (10-150 mg/dl) Cholesterol 111 mg/dl (140-200 mg/dl) LDL 34 mg/dl HDL 67 mg/dl > or = 40 mg/dl Chol/HDL Ratio 1.7 On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:01:33 -0000, citpeks <citpeks@...> wrote: > > > >>> > From: " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> > Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:54 pm > Subject: Re: Vitamin E Linked to Higher Death Rates > I think you may very well want to track the vits and mins and try to > manage them. Some are difficult like phosphorus. You can get a lot of > beta-carotene eating a lot of carrots, something I'd like to keep > below 32000 IU per just one study on Prostate cancer. > But most things are ok, with needed added Ca (milk), Mg (MV), Se (MV), > maybe Zn(MV). > The hardest maximums to control are sat fats, cholesterol if I ate > meats/egg yolks. > >>> > > Fats and cholesterol are two nutrients that you cannot track > accurately because the body has the ability to synthesize them. It is > not unusual for people on a low-fat diet to have high Total > Cholesterol because the body converts carbs into saturated fatty acids > such as palmitic acid. Low-fat diets may be equivalent to diets high > in tropical oils. Optimum nutrition should involve ingesting a proper > ratio of fatty acids. We are all concerned about our omega-3 and > omega-6 fatty acids, but a low level of linoleic acid (C18:2) in the > diet may result in increased Total Cholesterol levels for diets that > are high in saturated fat, or are low in fat and high in > carbohydrates. > > Below is an interesting paper that discusses the impact of low-fat, > high carbohydrate diets on lipids. > > Tony > P.S. Today I updated my " progress report " web page with my yearly > picture: > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/pictures.html > === > > http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/225/3/178 > Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology > and Medicine 225:178-183 (2000) > SEBM Symposium > Effect of High-Carbohydrate Feeding on Triglyceride > and Saturated Fatty Acid Synthesis > C. Hudgins1, > The Rogosin Institute, Rockefeller University, New > York, New York 10021 > > Recently, new isotopic and nonisotopic methods have > been used to determine in vivo whether low-fat, > high-carbohydrate diets increase triglyceride levels > by stimulating fatty acid synthesis. The results of a > series of studies in lean and obese weight-stable > volunteers showed that very-low-fat (10%), > high-carbohydrate diets enriched in simple sugars > increased the fraction of newly synthesized fatty > acids, along with a proportionate increase in the > concentration of plasma triglyceride. Furthermore, the > concentration of the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, > increased and the concentration of the essential > polyunsaturated fatty acid, linoleate, decreased in > triglyceride and VLDL triglyceride. The magnitude of > the increase in triglyceride varied considerably among > subjects, was unrelated to sex, body mass index, or > insulin levels, and was higher when fatty acid > synthesis was constantly elevated rather than having a > diurnal variation. > > Conclusions > Very-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric diets > with a high ratio of sugar to starch (> 60/40) > increased the synthesis of the saturated fatty acid, > palmitate. This occurred to a similar extent in lean > and obese subjects. Although there were no detected > effects on energy balance, there were large > alterations in the concentration and fatty acid > composition of plasma triglyceride with substantial > interindividual variation that was unrelated to body > mass index or insulin levels. Recommendations to the > public to reduce dietary fat must take into > consideration the stimulatory effect of increased > dietary sugar on fatty acid synthesis and plasma > triglyceride levels. The reasons for the variability > in response among individuals and the consequences of > these effects on the cardiovascular system need > further study. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Thanks, Tony, Of course, I was speaking of controlling intake, not lipids. Effect of a low fat diet probably depends on the individual, which is another reason to weigh studies' results. Fats represent excess calories to me. I probably still have enough fat on me to sustain a year or 2 of sat fat requirements. And I still have that problem accepting the Omega 3 theory. Apparently I get enough EFA's in veggies, because I haven't had dusty elbows, etc. in 4 years, using olive oil, maybe a little soy/canola oil. Notice that article says "Very-low-fat formula", like maybe an Ornish reversal diet. Low fat is defined as <30%, I do <20%. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: citpeks Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 3:01 PM Subject: [ ] Tracking Nutrients >>>From: "jwwright" <jwwright@e...>Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:54 pmSubject: Re: Vitamin E Linked to Higher Death RatesI think you may very well want to track the vits and mins and try tomanage them. Some are difficult like phosphorus. You can get a lot ofbeta-carotene eating a lot of carrots, something I'd like to keepbelow 32000 IU per just one study on Prostate cancer.But most things are ok, with needed added Ca (milk), Mg (MV), Se (MV),maybe Zn(MV).The hardest maximums to control are sat fats, cholesterol if I atemeats/egg yolks. >>>Fats and cholesterol are two nutrients that you cannot trackaccurately because the body has the ability to synthesize them. It isnot unusual for people on a low-fat diet to have high TotalCholesterol because the body converts carbs into saturated fatty acidssuch as palmitic acid. Low-fat diets may be equivalent to diets highin tropical oils. Optimum nutrition should involve ingesting a properratio of fatty acids. We are all concerned about our omega-3 andomega-6 fatty acids, but a low level of linoleic acid (C18:2) in thediet may result in increased Total Cholesterol levels for diets thatare high in saturated fat, or are low in fat and high incarbohydrates.Below is an interesting paper that discusses the impact of low-fat,high carbohydrate diets on lipids.TonyP.S. Today I updated my "progress report" web page with my yearlypicture:http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/pictures.html===http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/225/3/178Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biologyand Medicine 225:178-183 (2000)SEBM SymposiumEffect of High-Carbohydrate Feeding on Triglycerideand Saturated Fatty Acid Synthesis C. Hudgins1,The Rogosin Institute, Rockefeller University, NewYork, New York 10021 Recently, new isotopic and nonisotopic methods havebeen used to determine in vivo whether low-fat,high-carbohydrate diets increase triglyceride levelsby stimulating fatty acid synthesis. The results of aseries of studies in lean and obese weight-stablevolunteers showed that very-low-fat (10%),high-carbohydrate diets enriched in simple sugarsincreased the fraction of newly synthesized fattyacids, along with a proportionate increase in theconcentration of plasma triglyceride. Furthermore, theconcentration of the saturated fatty acid, palmitate,increased and the concentration of the essentialpolyunsaturated fatty acid, linoleate, decreased intriglyceride and VLDL triglyceride. The magnitude ofthe increase in triglyceride varied considerably amongsubjects, was unrelated to sex, body mass index, orinsulin levels, and was higher when fatty acidsynthesis was constantly elevated rather than having adiurnal variation.ConclusionsVery-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric dietswith a high ratio of sugar to starch (> 60/40)increased the synthesis of the saturated fatty acid,palmitate. This occurred to a similar extent in leanand obese subjects. Although there were no detectedeffects on energy balance, there were largealterations in the concentration and fatty acidcomposition of plasma triglyceride with substantialinterindividual variation that was unrelated to bodymass index or insulin levels. Recommendations to thepublic to reduce dietary fat must take intoconsideration the stimulatory effect of increaseddietary sugar on fatty acid synthesis and plasmatriglyceride levels. The reasons for the variabilityin response among individuals and the consequences ofthese effects on the cardiovascular system needfurther study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 >>It is not unusual for people on a low-fat diet to have high Total Cholesterol because the body converts carbs into saturated fatty acids such as palmitic acid. This would depend on the " low fat " diet that was being consumed as there are many ways to construct a diet that is low in fat, some being very healthy and some being quite harmful >>The results of a series of studies in lean and obese weight-stable volunteers showed that very-low-fat (10%), high-carbohydrate diets enriched in simple sugars A diet that is " enriched " in simple sugars would not be one that would full under the heading of " healthy " or recommended. >Very-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric diets with a high ratio of sugar to starch (> 60/40) increased the synthesis of the saturated fatty acid, palmitate. Again, this is not something I think anyone pursuing health would recommend or consume. Over half of the carbs coming from sugar? Our sugar to starch ratio is closer to 5-10/90-95. On such a program, TG, TC, and LDL all drop 20-40%. Showing that a diet that is high in sugar, though lower in fat, worsens lipid levels, and than extrapolating that to criticize all lower fat diets, is not accurate or fair. To put this in a more balanced persepctive, you can read this analysis of this critique (and others like it) here.... http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/stanford.php I also recently responded to a post from Logan on a critique of low fat diets showing that Americans have never been on a low fat diet. The percentage of calories from fat went down slightly, but the actual amount of fat (as did calories and sugars) went up. Again, not a fair criticism of a healthy diet that happens to be lower in fat. Nutrition is such a complex issue that these narrow definitions of " diets' such as low fat, or high carb, doesn't in anyway help understand the totality of the eating pattern. Not only isnt in helpful in teaching nutrition to people, its not healthy in analysing and critiqueing diets. It has also lead to mass confusion in the market. Products marketed as low fat, low carb, low sugar, abound as they are targeted to people who believe these products fit into this diets that are being promoted with the same limited view, may sound healthy but are usually anything but healthy. As I mentioned earlier, its why I pursued removing the focus of our program of one that is " low fat " Or a specific amount of fat, to a focus of an overall eating pattern. Most people don't know what percent of anything the food they eat or buy is. But, we all know if we are eating more fresh fruits, and vegetables etc. We can do better, much better. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 >Very-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric diets with a high ratio of sugar to starch (> 60/40) increased the synthesis of the saturated fatty acid, palmitate. I was just thinking more about this. If the diet was 10% fat, and we have to figure if it's a high carb diet, the protein will probably be around 20-25%. That means the carb ratio would be 65-70%. Maybe to be safe I will say 60-70%. If sugar is compromising 60%, than 60% (sugar) of 60-70% (total carb) is 36-42% (sugar). So, if I am correct, their diet is 36-42% sugar. The typical American diet is 23% sugars. I am not surprised the TGs and the TC when up Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Just to clarify, when you say sugar, are you talking sucrose or maybe brown rice too (complex carbs)? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Novick Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 4:44 PM Subject: RE: [ ] Tracking Nutrients >Very-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric diets with a high ratioof sugar to starch (> 60/40) increased the synthesis of the saturatedfatty acid, palmitate. I was just thinking more about this. If the diet was 10% fat, and we have to figure if it's a high carb diet,the protein will probably be around 20-25%. That means the carb ratiowould be 65-70%. Maybe to be safe I will say 60-70%. If sugar iscompromising 60%, than 60% (sugar) of 60-70% (total carb) is 36-42%(sugar). So, if I am correct, their diet is 36-42% sugar. The typicalAmerican diet is 23% sugars. I am not surprised the TGs and the TC whenupJeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 Jeff, this is a nice post summing up things clearly. Nice link too. I think all studies should be read with a critical eye. The fact that they are published in a respected journal doesn't mean the conclusions are valid or that it represents reality. Studies are simply " snapshots " of the " terrain " , models created by people. Models that may suffer from design flaws, erroneous conclusions, invalid assumptions etc. Models that more or less)often a lot less) depict " reality " under particular conditions and over specific time frame. So when I read a study I look for reasons NOT to " believe " it. The less I find the " better " the study. I guess most of us know all this. There is ample evidence that the place to start is a plant-based diet of fruits and vegetables in their WHOLE form. The further we stray from whole foods the more trouble we can get into, the more variables we introduce into the diet that may affect its efficacy. To this we may add some nuts and maybe some fish ( maybe even a little lean meat) if we decide the benefits warrent their inclusion, but the centerpiece, IMO, should be FRUITS and VEGETABLES first. After you've constructed your proper whole food plant-based diet, then and only then do you begin to experiement with adding processed supplements. AND only if you wish to accept the attendant risk/reward ratio of supplementing. As a few of my previous posts show, potential benefits exist here but there are risks too. I made a few recent posts with studies showing niacin significantly raises HDL and lowers LDL but niacin becomes toxic quickly at higher dosages. So I think we have to be careful if we wish to experiment, and I am sure everyone here knows this. So begin transforming your diet regieme with LOTS of WHOLE PLANTS, FRUITS and VEGGIES in or close to their orginal forms, then, add little bits of the other things like fish etc. And if you wish to supplement, do so sparingly and carefully. Do you agree with this? Is there anything you would add? PS Thanks for the link to med books online, I am finding it good place to start. > >>It is not unusual for people on a low-fat diet to have high Total > Cholesterol because the body converts carbs into saturated fatty acids > such as palmitic acid. > > This would depend on the " low fat " diet that was being consumed as there > are many ways to construct a diet that is low in fat, some being very > healthy and some being quite harmful > > >>The results of a series of studies in lean and obese weight-stable > volunteers > showed that very-low-fat (10%), high-carbohydrate diets enriched in > simple sugars > > A diet that is " enriched " in simple sugars would not be one that would > full under the heading of " healthy " or recommended. > > >Very-low-fat formula and solid-food isocaloric diets with a high ratio > of sugar to starch (> 60/40) increased the synthesis of the saturated > fatty acid, palmitate. > > Again, this is not something I think anyone pursuing health would > recommend or consume. Over half of the carbs coming from sugar? Our > sugar to starch ratio is closer to 5-10/90-95. On such a program, TG, > TC, and LDL all drop 20-40%. > > Showing that a diet that is high in sugar, though lower in fat, worsens > lipid levels, and than extrapolating that to criticize all lower fat > diets, is not accurate or fair. > > To put this in a more balanced persepctive, you can read this analysis > of this critique (and others like it) here.... > > http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/stanford.php > > I also recently responded to a post from Logan on a critique of low fat > diets showing that Americans have never been on a low fat diet. The > percentage of calories from fat went down slightly, but the actual > amount of fat (as did calories and sugars) went up. Again, not a fair > criticism of a healthy diet that happens to be lower in fat. > > Nutrition is such a complex issue that these narrow definitions of > " diets' such as low fat, or high carb, doesn't in anyway help understand > the totality of the eating pattern. Not only isnt in helpful in > teaching nutrition to people, its not healthy in analysing and > critiqueing diets. > > It has also lead to mass confusion in the market. Products marketed as > low fat, low carb, low sugar, abound as they are targeted to people who > believe these products fit into this diets that are being promoted with > the same limited view, may sound healthy but are usually anything but > healthy. > > As I mentioned earlier, its why I pursued removing the focus of our > program of one that is " low fat " Or a specific amount of fat, to a focus > of an overall eating pattern. > > Most people don't know what percent of anything the food they eat or buy > is. But, we all know if we are eating more fresh fruits, and > vegetables etc. > > We can do better, much better. > > > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 >>Do you agree with this? 100%. >>Is there anything you would add? Not really, but maybe just a comment or two. In regard to vegetables, I would say leafy greens are the best, so eat plenty of them. In regard to fruits, I would say berries may be the best, so eat plenty of them. And, I would place the importance of vegetables over fruit. One personal concern I have with fruit is that most of our fruits today have been hybridized and mostly for marketing reasons, so better color, more sweetness, etc. The result is that some of them have a lower fiber to calorie ratio, which I consider important. In evaluating fruits based on nutrients/calorie and fiber/calorie, berries come up the best and that's why I emphasis those. So, when I say " best " , that is what I mean, nutrients/calorie and fiber/calorie (and also calories/grams or energy density but fruits and vegetables are all the best in that category) Regard jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 Jeff, a couple more questions: 1) What other plants, if any, that when heated have an increased bio-availability of their nutrients like lycopene with cooked tomatoes for instance? Are there any others? 2) Juicing increases bio-availability too does it not by increasing surface area? (of course, retaining the pulp to get all goodies) I've also read that you really shouln't juice with high RPM juicers because the heat produced by these from the action of the blade on the vegetable may destroy some of the nutrients. Do you know this to be true? What are your thoughts here? 3)This may have been asked and answered before but I'll ask again.. In your opinion, if one ate LOTS of whole [primarily] raw plant diet based on a great variety of vegetables and a variety of cooked beans (pinto, kidney, black etc) with somewhat lesser amounts of fruit, eating this EVERDAY.. But NO nuts or fish or meat.. In general, do you see a glaring lack of any nutrient etc with such a diet? Do you see any significant reason to add fish or nuts to such a diet?? Would one need to supplement with Vitamins B12, zinc, Vit D, fish oil caps and such? The reason I ask is that I could eat like this and be perfectly satisfied for the most part but I have only been eating this way for a relatively short period of time and I am not sure if I may be missing some important " ingredient " so to speak. TIA, Jeff! > >>Do you agree with this? > > 100%. > > >>Is there anything you would add? > > Not really, but maybe just a comment or two. > > In regard to vegetables, I would say leafy greens are the best, so eat > plenty of them. In regard to fruits, I would say berries may be the > best, so eat plenty of them. And, I would place the importance of > vegetables over fruit. > > One personal concern I have with fruit is that most of our fruits today > have been hybridized and mostly for marketing reasons, so better color, > more sweetness, etc. The result is that some of them have a lower > fiber to calorie ratio, which I consider important. In evaluating > fruits based on nutrients/calorie and fiber/calorie, berries come up the > best and that's why I emphasis those. > > So, when I say " best " , that is what I mean, nutrients/calorie and > fiber/calorie (and also calories/grams or energy density but fruits and > vegetables are all the best in that category) > > Regard > jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hi All, Fish fats seem to have many favorable effects for our health. Not only the well-known risks for heart disease seem to be improved. The case for rheumatoid arthritis seems quite convincing. Using a mean dose of 3.3 g/day of DHA plus EPA healthy fish fats is somewhat high. " Definition and nomenclature of n-3 PUFA " below is a clear description of the terminology of the fats. The review seems to be impartial. Although it is stated: " The subjects advised to eat fatty fish, around two to three portions per week, had a 29% reduction in 2 year all-cause mortality com-pared with those given alternative advice " , yet " Interest-ingly, a repeat of this study in 3114 men with angina (Burr et al., 2003) found no beneficial effect of dietary advice on mortality after 3–9 years; men advised to eat more fish experienced a higher risk of cardiac death " . The case for fish fat benefits for depression seem up-lifting to me to be. Not many here are significantly depressed, but maybe even moods improve with fish fats. That in the randomized control trials there was little affect on severe depression (only) may be related to the inability of such patients to respond to any treatments whatsoever. That prospective study identified fish fats to be beneficial for the prevention of Alzheimer's Disease and dementia is comforting to me. Obviously to be considered, is that: " The inclusion of antioxidants, e.g. vitamin E, in such trials is worth considering since n-3 PUFA are highly unsaturated, making them susceptible to peroxidation. " Much of the discussion of environmental pollutants has been previously expounded upon in the list. The approximately 2.5-fold greater ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in the US versus UK is of surprise to me. See the pdf-available below. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2004 Oct;17(5):449-59. The health benefits of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: a review of the evidence. Ruxton CH, SC, Simpson MJ, Millington KJ. The UK dietary guidelines for cardiovascular disease acknowledge the importance of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) - a component of fish oils - in reducing heart disease risk. At the time, it was recommended that the average n-3 PUFA intake should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 g day(- 1). However, since the publication of these guidelines, a plethora of evidence relating to the beneficial effects of n-3 PUFAs, in areas other than heart disease, has emerged. The majority of intervention studies, which found associations between various conditions and the intake of fish oils or their derivatives, used n-3 intakes well above the 0.2 g day(-1) recommended by Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA). Furthermore, in 2004, the Food Standards Agency changed its advice on oil-rich fish creating a discrepancy between the levels of n-3 PUFA implied by the new advice and the 1994 COMA guideline. This review will examine published evidence from observational and intervention studies relating to the health effects of n-3 PUFAs, and discuss whether the current UK recommendation for long-chain n-3 PUFA needs to be revisited. PMID: 15357699 [PubMed - in process] Cheers, Al Pater. > > Jeff, a couple more questions: > > 1) What other plants, if any, that when heated have an increased > bio-availability of their nutrients like lycopene with cooked tomatoes > for instance? Are there any others? > > 2) Juicing increases bio-availability too does it not by increasing > surface area? (of course, retaining the pulp to get all goodies) > > I've also read that you really shouln't juice with high RPM juicers > because the heat produced by these from the action of the blade on the > vegetable may destroy some of the nutrients. Do you know this to be > true? What are your thoughts here? > > 3)This may have been asked and answered before but I'll ask again.. In > your opinion, if one ate LOTS of whole [primarily] raw plant diet > based on a great variety of vegetables and a variety of cooked beans > (pinto, kidney, black etc) with somewhat lesser amounts of fruit, > eating this EVERDAY.. > > But NO nuts or fish or meat.. > > In general, do you see a glaring lack of any nutrient etc with such a > diet? Do you see any significant reason to add fish or nuts to such a > diet?? Would one need to supplement with Vitamins B12, zinc, Vit D, > fish oil caps and such? > > The reason I ask is that I could eat like this and be perfectly > satisfied for the most part but I have only been eating this way for a > relatively short period of time and I am not sure if I may be missing > some important " ingredient " so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 >>1) What other plants, if any, that when heated have an increased bio-availability of their nutrients like lycopene with cooked tomatoes for instance? Are there any others? Off hand, the ones that have been tested and reported on that come to mind are Carrots, Broccoli and Spinach. >2) Juicing increases bio-availability too does it not by increasing surface area? (of course, retaining the pulp to get all goodies) Increased surface area also increases oxidation, that's why juices go bad so quickly unless they are pastuerized. Mnay fresh pressed juices start turning very quickly. While it may concentrate some nutrients, you lose the fiber (the remaining pulp is not the fiber) and who knows what else. I always prefer whole foods to juices. Also, little satiety per calorie associated with liquid calories >>I've also read that you really shouln't juice with high RPM juicers because the heat produced by these from the action of the blade on the vegetable may destroy some of the nutrients. Do you know this to be true? What are your thoughts here? I always thought they said that because it destroyed " enzymes " more than their concern over any nutrient. I don't give much credence to the enzyme theory of the raw food or juicing camps. >>In general, do you see a glaring lack of any nutrient etc with such a diet? Do you see any significant reason to add fish or nuts to such a diet?? Would one need to supplement with Vitamins B12, zinc, Vit D, fish oil caps and such? Vit B12 doesn't really exist in any sufficient quantity in whole natural plant foods unless by contamination. So,unless you eat some foods where it has been added, you need a source of B12, whether that be some animal products or a supplement. You would also want to ensure adequate EFAs, and their balance as many vegetarian diets, that are high in veggie oils and processed foods can be very high in Omega 6s. Other than that, proper planning should ensure the others. >>The reason I ask is that I could eat like this and be perfectly satisfied for the most part but I have only been eating this way for a relatively short period of time and I am not sure if I may be missing some important " ingredient " so to speak. If you want to " read " more there are 2 books I would recommend on the topic. One is by Walsh, and I believe it is called " Plant Based Nutrition " . The other is called Becoming Vegan by . They are the newest and best for an overview on Vegan nutrition. Regards Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.