HWZ Forums

Login Register FAQ Mark Forums Read

[Fan Club] LCHF Lifestyle - Part 3

Like Tree2030Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 30-04-2014, 10:08 AM   #4426
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
yes, subway's bread has some real crap in it like high fructose corn syrup. it's unbelievable the amount of crap they put into something "seemingly harmless" to the masses.
That's not the worst ingredient they have inside their bread...hahah

Google for it - it's the same ingredient found in yoga mats

They agreed to remove it in the US market - not sure if it is being implemented here or not
Isabella_ likes this.
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:14 AM   #4427
High Supremacy Member
 
twinings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 42,090
NPNT

It's not hard to gain if you are doing it properly...

I have already told you liao - eat clean (1g of protein for every kg of lean muscle including your target), eat the required calorie intake for your targeted weight and do hard (plus HIIT)

Failing which, you can always employ me as your personal trainer
Shu shu got new target.
twinings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:18 AM   #4428
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
EATING FOR *LONGEVITY*, VERSUS “PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT”

Making a clear distinction between UNIFORM, STABLE, LONG-TERM ENERGY OUTPUT and RAPID, EXPLOSIVE, SHORT-LIVED ENERGY SPIKES

by: Igor Butorsky
-----------------------------------------

In light of the ongoing debates in the athletic / fitness community, concerning the ideology of "carb loading" as an exercise "performance enhancement" aid, I would like to copy-and-paste and share with all of you a "Q & A" session that I recently fielded with an athlete.

(I choose to keep the inquiring party anonymous / undisclosed, unless given express permission.)

-----------------------------------------

Q - (This 'Q', and all subsequent "Q's", are indicating the start of questions posed by athlete):

"I found for me, after years of training 2 hours post meal (with carbs), severely hampered the level of intensity I could reach. Training somewhat fasted (5-6 hours) without carbs in my system pre-workout has increased my intensity 10 fold.

I then begin adding carbs mid-workout and post. I'm beginning to see this trend among more and more athletes both performance and aesthetic realms. Interested on your thoughts, Igor."

-----------------------------------------

A - (This 'A', and all subsequent "A's", are indicating the start of answers supplied by Igor):

The reason you notice an improvement in "performance" during a partial / intermittent fasting state (or rather - a more uniform, stable and prolonged release of energy - is a more accurate statement) is because this very closely mimics precisely what occurs on a long-term ketogenic diet; That being, that your physiology now begins to assemble its OWN limited need for glucose - INTERNALLY - without having to ever derive it exogenously (from food), while switching to fatty acids / ketone bodies as its primary energy source.

This is done through a process called 'gluconeogenesis', and I assure people, it is quite efficient and well-regulated. Nor is it in any way "dangerous" or "unsustainable." If anything, our energetic metabolic pathways become MORE operationally efficient, when we run on fatty acids and ketone bodies, as a long-term primary source of energy.

Now, sure, carbohydrates may seem like a "good" source of rapid energy to many less informed athletes, but that's rather a flawed and short-sighted perception, based on a matter of CONVENIENCE (or possibly even ADDICTION), rather than biological necessity / survival.

In fact, while the existence of both "essential fatty acids" and "essential amino acids" has been inarguably verified and well documented by the broad scientific establishment, there is no such thing as "essential carbohydrates", despite the endless bickering and infighting over this topic that continues to pervade (and undermine) the so-called dietetic "authorities" and "experts."

In other words, because saccharides (carbohydrates) are NOT an *essential nutrient* (whereas, there are some amino acids and fatty acids that are *essential*), there is really no real biological "need" to derive them exogenously, because the human physiology can manufacture all the carbohydrates one requires, INTERNALLY. And that biological requirement is rather small, for that matter.

No healthy human being, short of an abnormal or rare metabolic disorder, has ever perished from a lack of carbohydrate intake. (Granted, that some people that are forced to come off of / detox from a vicious carbohydrate ADDICTION cycle - known as the 'Standard American or Western Diet' - may feel like they are "going to die." But that can be said of heroin addicts, too).

However, if one were to entirely eliminate either proteins or fats (or both) from the diet, they would be dead within weeks.

Literally speaking, there is no physiological "need" to derive carbohydrates from food. That is a luxury (and in many cases, even potentially a psychological and / or psychosomatic addiction), but never a true biological necessity or requirement.

But, let's put this into a more real-world, practical perspective, as an example:

For instance, I can't tell you how many misinformed runners and other long-distance / endurance athletes argue: "Well, I for one, am a marathoner, so I need carbs for fuel."

"No, my friend", I reply. "You don't NEED them for fuel. You WANT them for fuel" ... "want" being the operative word here.

I have been on a ketogenic (high fat / moderate protein / ultra-low carb) diet for quite a while now, and I can run further and longer than I EVER could when "carbing up", with much greater efficiency and energy uniformity. That's if I ever even wanted to subject myself to such torture, called "marathon" events.

What a lot of "mainstream" long-distance runners do not have a firm, working knowledge of is the full extent and capability of the many metabolic processes of biochemical energy preferences by mammalian physiologies, such as our own.

Even when we "load carbs" for a long-distance event, we can only supply enough glycogen (stored carbohydrates in the liver and skeletal muscles) as fuel for a very short portion of a long-distance athletic event. Then, we switch over to fatty acids as our primary fuel source, anyway.

For instance, when a runner undertakes a "full marathon" (26 miles), every effective and available source of muscle glycogen is used up within the first 3 to 5 miles of that event (provided, they don't allow themselves to become a literal SLAVE to the convenient "glucose-replenishment stations" spaced out all along the course). Once all usable liver and skeletal muscle glycogen runs out (and it runs out rather fast), they experience a "drop-out" period, usually characterized by a short "crash", as the body switches from glycogen to fatty acids (and ketone bodies) for the primary remainder of the long-distance athletic event.

Therefore, there is even NO POINT of "carb loading" for a long-distance event, if you're already on an adequate fat-intake / protein-intake diet. The difference being, you start using fatty acids / ketone bodies from the get-go, right from the very first mile. Right out of the gate. Hence, no need for the tell-tale "crash" or "metabolic switch" that occurs one-sixth of the way into the full marathon.

All "carb loading" really accomplishes is prolonging and hence avoiding the inevitable. The inevitable being, that we can be powered on fatty acids / ketone bodies almost INDEFINITELY, compared to the very rapid but short-lived, highly-limited, and inefficient supply and use of glucose.

And unless you get down to about less than 2.5% body-fat (where the remaining fatty compositions of your physiology reside in your organs, and not subcutaneously / under your skin), then you can run on body-fat as fuel for many many "duty cycles" - uninterrupted - compared to the very inefficient and limited supply of stored glucose.

(I have seen some studies showing that an African bushman, for instance, can run for hundreds of miles in a partially fasted / ketogenic state, with no discernible drop off in energy. Just a steady, uniform trickle of efficient fuel: FAT. And some of these bushmen are quite lean - in relation to the typical "westerner." And yet, their physiologies still have plenty-enough of stored bodyfat to power them, indefinitely).

Put it in this type of analogy: Our stored body-fat is like a nuclear power plant. Steady, even, and long-term energy. And our very limited and inefficient supplies of glucose is like a lightning strike. The explosive, rapid, and limited energy "spike" from glycogen stores was designed for EMERGENCIES only: For a "Fight or Flight" experience, which evolved from hundreds of thousands of years of "primal" demands. Something that usually lasted no longer than mere seconds, if even a few minutes at most. Sprinting at full speed, from a predator, for instance. Or a battle to the death, coming from the challenge of a rival tribal member.

Sure, carbohydrates provide quite a sudden "wiz bang" of energy. But since they burn hard and furious, they also burn fast, too.

Not to mention: Many people who have been duped by this "carb-load" ideology have been lied to by misleading theories, perpetuated even further by the advent of starch-crop / grain industries, such as the 'Food Pyramid', which wrongfully instructed American citizens to derive over 65% of their daily intake from starches, rather that fats.

And these falsified ideologies go back even further, pushed on us by 'Big Agri' since the end of World War II.

(That 'Pyramid' SHOULD have been flipped upside down, if the industries were HONEST about it).

70 years later, not only has this "theory" proven to be dead wrong, but it continues to show itself in the exponentially-degrading state of out health in this nation.

So, while deriving carbohydrates exogenously (from dietary means) can appear like a "convenience", in reality, it's really a form of slavery. A handicap, because you're manually attempting to do something that your own physiology has already evolved to do, with much greater accuracy and efficiency than you could ever account for, by trying to do it manually (guess-work). And so, adding in carbohydrates deliberately, through diet, can only present MORE potential problems, rather than solutions.

Finally, in terms of some bodybuilders pounding carbs mid-workout - for added "explosiveness" - sure it "works" (according to the specifically desired result). But just because it's a "performance enhancement" DOES NOT automatically mean that it is simultaneously "good for your health", or is necessarily conductive to life-extension / longevity.

Which leads me to my final point: An enhancement in *immediate*, *abrupt* or *spiked* performance is NOT necessarily reconcilable with a long-term enhancement in health / longevity. Often, in fact, they DIVERGE, rather than CONVERGE. Especially when "performance enhancement" is more abrupt and forced.

For instance: Add a "nitro" system to your car, and turn it into a "dragster" ... and sure; It will certainly provide "immediate" explosiveness (just like pounding carbohydrates does, to the human physiology). But, at what price? That there is added wear and tear / friction / heat build-up against the engine parts (pistons, boreheads, cam-shafts, etc). The same goes for the BIOLOGICAL machine. Injecting an explosive energy source (carbohydrates) into our physiology may be quite a "rush", but we can pay a price for it in longevity.

Hence, there needs to be made a distinction between HEALTH and PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT. They are not necessarily interchangeable, and often, can even pull at opposite ends when demands become exceptionally abrupt and overly-ambitious.

The ultimate question that one should ask themselves, then, is this: "What's more important to me? Breaking records and pushing the envelope, or living a longer, healthier life?"

There is no "correct" path, of course. There is only possessing the knowledge involving the underlying nature of any choice, and then being fully consented to the consequences of those choices.

-----------------------------------------

Q:

"I really do agree with everything you have stated in terms of performance but what about in aesthetics. In-terms of igniting new muscle and tissue growth (adding muscle) how would one expect to do this without carbohydrates in the diet? If I take in 100-150g of carbs (non gluten/fructose) during/after my workouts a day when the muscles (GLUT4) are primed doesn't this require minimal insulin spiking and less problematic effects of chronically raised insulin?"

-----------------------------------------

A:

Do you mean truly solid, prolonged, long-term muscle growth, or just bloating oneself up on "water?"

There is a difference.

You see, pounding the carbohydrates leads to increased water retention / uptake, via an enhanced insulinic response, into muscle cells. And that can certainly give musculature a more "fuller" appearance, momentary (and only when you're actually lean enough to display such musculature, to begin with). But, "fuller"-looking, water-engorged muscle doesn't necessarily equate to "new muscle growth"

There are actually MORE independent studies showing that a ketogenic diet is SUPERIOR for the process of hypertrophy, and not a carb-dominated diet. This is because a ketogenic diet actually optimizes the peak production of hGH (human growth hormone) factors, and even improves the ratio between free-form testosterone, versus bound-up testosterone analogues (which, by themselves, are largely inactive and unusable).

There has been some ongoing experimentation indicating that MORE muscle can not only be built, but even better kept (held on to, or retained) on a long-term ketogenic diet, as compared to the mainstream, carbohydrate-dominated diet.

Again, the illusion that many fall prey to ... is the appearance of "fuller"-looking muscles, when pounding the carbs. And that may appear more "aesthetic", as you say (for the competition stage), but retaining additional water in muscle cells is not the same as actually packing on solid, functional muscle. Bloat does not make for actual substance. Just like a blow fish puckering up doesn't actually increase its REAL mass and density.

Nor am I saying you cannot ever build new muscle, if you ingest carbohydrates. Sure you can. But you can better retain muscle, if you actually do the opposite by endeavoring to limit carbohydrates while ramping up FAT intake, instead ... given the optimized hormonal environment observed on a ketogenic diet.

Also, your pancreas still secretes insulin, even when you're on a predominantly fat-intake diet. It's just that it secretes insulin in more stable, uniform, trickles ... and is released in much more efficiently-managed, lock-step balance with its antagonistic hormone, glucagon.

There is no such thing as a "complete insulin shut-off / shut-down."

You'd be dead, rather quickly, if that ever happened.

And since the antagonistic hormone of insulin - glucagon - can prime the physiology to synthesize whatever limited amounts of glucose you actually need, then why do you need to get carbohydrates from food?

Remember what I said: Your physiology INTERNALLY manufactures all of your glucose requirements, IF and WHEN needed. And those biological requirements are quite minor, to begin with. However, deriving added glucose from food does NOT do anything EXTRA for solid muscle growth that a ketogenic diet can already do (and even do with greater efficiency).

Well, with the added aesthetics of "muscle bloat" or "muscle fullness", then yes: Load the carbs, momentarily, for that reason ... if that's your specific goal at the time. And if you are a competitive bodybuilder, then SURE, that makes sense. That's a desired illusion, pre-contest and on-stage. Pound the carbs, right before the event, so you look muscularly swollen for the crowd and the judges. that's what it serves, if that's what it is used for. (And again, it only creates that illusion effectively when you're actually lean enough to display such musculature and fine detail below the skin, in the first place.)

But it doesn't actually improve the rate of new, solid muscle synthesis and muscle retention, in the long-term.

Take a look at this one particular independent study (link below). Just an example, even though it is somewhat dated (2006).

Still, there are many updated, newer, and more detailed studies, but I don't have them right now, off the top of my head.

But this is a good one, to start with:

Very-low-carbohydrate diets and preservation of muscle mass

---------------------------------------------------

Q:

"I totally agree with preservation. I was in a bad car accident in january and was laid up for 8 weeks with a busted ankle and broke rib. 200g protein 200g of fat (based on bodyweight) didn't lose or gain a pound and the docs asked what i was doing to be healing so fast. When I got back into training though I was constantly flat and what i call (gooey) in the ab region. Once I added in carbs - bam - metabolism through the roof and mid section leaned out. At the end of the day, carbs are still more thermogenic than fats, even if not healthy."

-----------------------------------------

A:

In that context, you are correct in the sense that your metabolism does reach a nominally slower rate, on a long-term ketogenic diet. But that will also happen on a long-term carbohydrate-dominated diet, too. The operative word here, is long-term. Metabolism will compensate, regardless of macronutrient. Homeostasis is homeostasis. The body cannot just freely allow weight to drop, indefinitely. Because that is a "no no" from the perspective of long-term survival.

(NOTE: When one consumes a diet that is predominantly carbohydrate-based ... on a day-to-day basis ... this is what drives weight gain / obesity, since what spikes metabolism also increases appetite, too. That's the "double-edged sword", here. Indeed, carbohydrates are known to promote persistently voracious and insatiable hunger. This is why industrial farming of livestock particularly implements starch / grain-rich feeds - instead of grasses - to fatten up cattle beyond what is normally possible: Because consistent carbohydrate consumption does promote weight-gain, through the up-regulation of appetite.)

But, in the *SHORT TERM*, an occasional or carefully planned / measured indulgence in carbohydrates (once every several weeks to a month) will definitely "spike" your metabolism, without any long-term consequence such as fat-gain. But that only works if you do it strategically, and not on a day-to-day basis.

And this wouldn't be doing anything new, that our primal ancestors weren't already encountering in nature, without even doing it deliberately. For example: stumbling across a beehive, every now and then, and gorging on it. But then, RETURNING to mostly wild game, for the REMAINDER of the bulk of their diets.

So, yes. What you are referring to, is what I have dubbed an: "insulin flood." A way to re-prime your insulin-secreting cells within the pancreas, after a prolonged ketogenic cycle (lasting for a month or more). This does give your basal metabolic rate an upwards adjustment, after relying on a different macro-nutrient for so long. But like I stated before, it only works, if you do it *INTERMITTENTLY*, then get immediately OUT of it, and RETURN to the ketogenic diet as your mainstay in between those periodic shocks. I call this "metabolic coasting" (as in coasting on the inertia of your forward push, so to speak).

However, I would like to correct something: Carbohydrates are not "more thermogenic." Don't confuse a momentary increase in overall / relative basal metabolism with a specific efficiency increase in acute fat-oxidation. Not the same things. But, I will save that for another time.

Regardless, sure. You can certainly re-prime your metabolic rate with a periodic carbohydrate injection. But for it to work, you have to get right back out of it, and not ingest carbohydrates every single day.

And as for appearing muscularly "flat" during an extended ketogenic dietary phase: That is actually our naturally-evolved state. It is looking unusually "full", "swollen", or "engorged" that is unnatural and unusual for our physiologies. That also happens to drive up resting blood pressure (which can then lead to chronic hypertension), thus placing undue stress on the cardio-vascular / pulmonary organs, and can even promote the proliferation of many diseases down the line. In other words, a muscularly "flat"-looking physique is the default state of our mammalian physiology. But "flat"-looking musculature is not the same thing as actually being "fat." Looking relatively muscularly "flat", even when you're lean, is a sure bet that your blood pressure is operating at non-strenuous levels, because your blood vessels are not chronically vaso-constricted (but rather vaso-dilated and relaxed), and that indicates a healthy "water balance" environment. That spares one from the onset of many diseases that manifest from strained cardio-vascular conditions.

(Which might explain why so many bodybuilders who stubbornly insist on having that "muscle engorged", "water-bloated fullness" appearance all the time ... and NOT just during competition ... tend to develop CVD's [cardio-vascular diseases] down the line.)

Like stated before, if you're doing it for "the look" ... for the competition stage ... then sure. But that's ALL it is good for (besides an intermittent "insulin flood", every now and then, to re-prime and up-regulate basal metabolism). And I think we already agreed on that.

Also, I am very glad to hear that you made a full recovery from that accident. Awesome.
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:20 AM   #4429
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
Shu shu got new target.
Mai expose me leh

Times are bad - need side income
Isabella_ likes this.
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:20 AM   #4430
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
maggoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,986
Subway: 'Yoga mat' chemical almost out of bread



hahaha
maggoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:29 AM   #4431
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
Pardon my finger! Was for my friends. xD

Spoiler!
Cant really tell haha

More distracted by the maggi mee strands than your finger LOL
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:29 AM   #4432
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
saiyan2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,889
Potatoes are actually okay, provided your body can handle it

Google for resistant starch

Potatoes would have to be cooked, cooled and then reheated though
wat is that? read before but dont really understand the mechanism
__________________
"Pain allows people to grow... and how you grow is up to you."-Jiraiya
saiyan2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:32 AM   #4433
Master Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,932
i know lah!
im just wondering why eating kellogs k can lose weight leh. like that will have not enough nutrition instead what.
I think as long as you are in a caloric deficit, you can lose weight. Just a matter of how healthy your body is at the end of the day.

You might lose alot of weight but like you said, your body might not be getting enough of the necessary and essential nutrients and vitamins.
Isabella_ likes this.
zedane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:34 AM   #4434
Master Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,932
Potatoes are actually okay, provided your body can handle it

Google for resistant starch

Potatoes would have to be cooked, cooled and then reheated though
I didn't read the article but is the reheating part necessary or just to make the food more palatable?
zedane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:35 AM   #4435
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
wat is that? read before but dont really understand the mechanism
Read again (and again)?

Okay, this one for free

RS is basically "starch" that is not digested by our bodies but is food for bacterias in our gut

Feeding the good bacteria can lead to benefits including better sleep, mental well-being and even weight loss

Note that RS is not our normal starch - it's not a license to go ahead and eat things like potatoes or rice etc

They first have to be cooked, cooled and then reheated for RS to form...

Again, if it's too chim, don't worry about RS for now

Eating butter is just as good

Next question will be chargeable
saiyan2005 and Isabella_ like this.
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:38 AM   #4436
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
Me like the ah neh potatoes with yellow powder.
Good choice - turmeric is very good for us

Best to put them in the fridge for a day first then reheat hahah
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:39 AM   #4437
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
I didn't read the article but is the reheating part necessary or just to make the food more palatable?
Unless you like eating cold stuff then reheating is optional
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 10:49 AM   #4438
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
12 Ways Fructose Destroys Your Body | David Gillespie

Eien_kisu and Fennel like this.
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 11:03 AM   #4439
High Supremacy Member
 
carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 31,386
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well...is-good-for-us

Why Chocolate Is Good for Us
__________________
Join our FB group for more LCHF tips and discussion

Last edited by carey; 30-04-2014 at 11:39 AM..
carey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2014, 11:40 AM   #4440
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,113
Read again (and again)?

Okay, this one for free

RS is basically "starch" that is not digested by our bodies but is food for bacterias in our gut

Feeding the good bacteria can lead to benefits including better sleep, mental well-being and even weight loss

Note that RS is not our normal starch - it's not a license to go ahead and eat things like potatoes or rice etc

They first have to be cooked, cooled and then reheated for RS to form...

Again, if it's too chim, don't worry about RS for now

Eating butter is just as good

Next question will be chargeable
more info:

Retrogradation is a reaction that takes place in gelatinized starch when the amylose and amylopectin chains realign themselves, causing the liquid to gel.
When native starch is heated and dissolves in water, the crystalline structure of amylose and amylopectin molecules is lost and they hydrate to form a viscous solution. If the viscous solution is cooled or left at lower temperature for long enough period, the linear molecules, amylose, and linear parts of amylopectin molecules retrograde and rearrange themselves again to a more crystalline structure. The linear chains place themselves parallel and form hydrogen bridges. In viscous solutions the viscosity increases to form a gel. At temperatures between –8 and +8 °C the aging process is enhanced drastically.

Retrogradation can expel water from the polymer network. This is a process known as syneresis. A small amount of water can be seen on top of the gel. Retrogradation is directly related to the staling or aging of bread.[1]
Retrograded starch is linked to a reduction in colon cancer.[2] Retrograded starch is less digestible (see resistant starch).

Chemical modification of starches can reduce or enhance the retrogradation. Waxy, high amylopectin, starches have also much lesser tendency to retrogradate. Also additive as fat, glucose, sodium nitrate and emulsifier can reduce retrogradation of starch.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrogradation_(starch))
Eien_kisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On