Stuff You Should Know About Fat
With two-thirds of Americans overweight or obese and obesity in alarming numbers finding its way into every nation, even poor families in poor nations, let's have a serious look at what the fuss is about.
To begin, let's establish a couple of things. First, if we take everything we eat and drink, then subtract from that nutrition what we use up in energy or function of our organs, convert to muscle or expel as body wastes, what gets left over is stored as fat. Fat is stored potential energy.
Second, no young child aspires to be fat as an adult. None aspire to be insurance salesmen, call centre employees or cubicle workers in offices either, but those are conscious choices a person makes later.
To return to the first point, obese people can't say they didn't notice they were putting on weight. That's the criticism many slim people have of the heavyweights: "they ate too much." While that point can't be debated, the more important point is what they could have done about it. The answer is: they didn't know what to do. In fact, nobody does. Lots of people make fortunes selling to people who want to lose weight, but none are guaranteed, some created yo-yo dieting, some could even be harmful.
I am reminded of an old joke about the owner of a donkey who was determined that he could train his animal to adapt to life without food if he used methods similar to what nature uses to train animals to adapt to other adverse conditions and environmental changes. A year after the man began his program of gradually lowering the amount of food he gave his donkey, a friend asked him how he had made out with the experiment. He replied, "Just my luck, I got him to the point where he could live completely without food and the stupid animal died."
What to do to overcome obesity or being overweight is precisely the same thing as what slim people do to avoid gaining too much weight. Trouble is, no one, including medical science, knows exactly what that is. As ironic as it sounds, obese people usually have more efficient absorption of nutrients in their guts than slim folks. Some could eat like birds and still gain weight. Many slim people could eat boatloads of food and still remain thin because their digestive systems don't work as efficiently.
Diet? Sure but look at the abundance of diet advice we get in newspapers, magazines and on television--especially look at how each suggestion conflicts with other suggestions by "experts"--and you can quickly see that no one really knows. Studies have proven that so-called yo-yo dieting (diet, gain weight, diet, gain weight, repeatedly) has a more negative impact on body organs than simply carrying around too much weight. Even maintaining extra weight is healthier than losing weight rapidly.
Exercise off what you eat? Sure, but who is prepared to exercise for that much time in a day, setting aside all other commitments in the process? Society mitigates against it anyway. What would you think of a person who exercised--who even walked--for three hours each day? Could you spare that much time out of your day, every day? If you did, what would you have to sacrifice from your present life?
Why not just eat less? Have you ever tried to do that over a long period of time? Most people who have tried it learn to despise dieting because they always feel hungry.
How about eating different foods? Some kinds of food--such as high fibre--flushes stuff through your gut so fast that it doesn't have time to absorb some of the nutrition in the food. That might be okay if you knew how to balance what you lost by taking supplements a few hours before you ate the fibre and afterwards emptied your bowel. But, despite the advertising that gives you the impression that it knows what a balanced diet is, no one knows for certain. Study evidence conflicts. If you plan to diet, choose your vitamin and mineral supplements carefully, then commit to the bet of your life.
Californians seem to have something going for them. In a study of obesity rates in the U.S. from 1976 to 1999, obesity and overweight numbers increased across the board. However, as of 2007, California was the only state where the obesity rate did not increase. The study did not say exactly what had changed in California that could account for the change. No one is guessing that having a former Mr. Universe as governor has made the difference.
If you are overweight and you lose some of that excess, you will live longer, studies show. But likely only a few months longer. Excess weight reduces a woman's chance of getting pregnant. The U.S. National Institutes for Health believes that obesity accounts for why women under 25 are the fastest growing group experiencing infertility. Losing ten percent of body weight results in an improvement in your sex life.
People who often eat dinner or breakfast at restaurants or fast food outlets double their risk of becoming obese.
Leptin, our body's built-in way to convince us to stop eating when we are full doesn't work in supplement form on most overweight people. Their bodies have become insensitive to it.
Why do people eat more than their bodies need? My personal belief is that eating is a pleasure that never fails over the short term. Food never demands a divorce, gives you a hangover, threatens you or nags you. Only over the long term might it betray you with unwanted fat. But then, that applies to all kinds of activities we do when we are young that we survive, get thrills from, but pay for 20, 40 or more years later when our bodies age faster than those who played it safer.
About ten percent of our fat cells die every year. New ones grow again. Our total number of fat cells remains the same throughout our life. Dieting, even having the stomach stapled, has no effect on the body's number of fat cells. However, new fat cells do not begin their lives bloated with fat. They only grow as the body needs to store more fat. New fat cells begin as skinny fat cells.
The only permanent way to reduce the total number of fat cells in the body is by liposuction. Even liposuction does not remove fat from around body organs, so whatever risk fat presents to them remains unless it is reduced in some other way. Liposuction may make you look good, but not necessarily any healthier.
Obesity occurs commonly within families, but science is not certain if that has to do with DNA (nature) or family eating, exercising and related environmental problems (nurture).
Your brain is comprised about 70 percent of fat. Losing that fat is not recommended. Bottlenose dolphins use a fat sack in their heads to amplify sound as part of their sonar hearing ability. Human fatheads have not advanced to that stage so far as I know.
Whale bodies are surrounded by fat, in some cases up to 45 cm (20 inches) thick. They use it as insulation against the cold of the oceans. In our body fat tends to hold heat in as well, often making us sweaty when slim people feel cool. Camels in the desert don't want to conserve heat, which is why they concentrate their fat in one or two humps on their backs. People who lose lots of weight often complain they feel cold because they have lost subcutaneous fat that previously kept them warm (sometimes sweaty).
Still confused about fat? At least you have more knowledge about it now, and you have lots of company. One factor all serious health professionals agree about is that losing weight safely should be a long term project involving serious lifestyle changes.
In conclusion, it's worth noting that fat is essential to life. When stored body fat reaches zero percent, you die. That's why anorexia nervosa sufferers die even when they are being force fed in hospitals. Like everything else in life, the key is moderation. Even when dieting. Let the first three letters of that word be your guide to caution.
Bill Allin is the author of Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for teachers and parents who want to grow children who are healthy and well balanced in mind as well as in body.
Learn more at http://billallin.com/
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diet. Show all posts
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Sunday, November 22, 2009
You Need It To Live, But Too Much Will Kill You
You Need It To Live, But Too Much Will Kill You
Seldom in history has a product worn the horns of the Devil and the wings of an angel at the same time. Loved and respected because it provides the energy we need to work, to play, even to breathe, sugar is so important to our diet our bodies take several things we eat and convert them into sugars.
However, eat too much sugar and your body will blimp up and your organs will slowly but surely break down. Never has "moderate consumption" been so important.
But what's "moderate"? How can we tell what's too much?
Let's look at an example.
In our example you will eat 16 teaspoons of refined sugar all in one short sitting. Don't worry, it will be in liquid form. Sound outrageous? That's how much sugar is in a 20 ounce bottle of cola. In every bottle.
In general, if you look at the ingredient list of products before you buy them and see some that end in the letters "...ose" you have various different kinds of sugars. Sugars come with other name endings, but "...ose" tends to be the most common ending in packaged foods we eat. Most of them are complex sugars our bodies break down into simple ones so they can be used to burn as energy.
Sugars, along with starch, are the basic carbohydrates. Inside your gut they all become sugars, ultimately simple sugars. What your body can't use it will expel through your colon or convert to fat for storage.
Because our bodies can only convert a limited amount of sugar into fat at one time, if you are going to eat too much sugar, eat it in a binge. Most of it you will enjoy in your mouth and you will get rid of it in the toilet the next day. Eat a little too much sugar on a regular basis and your body will store it in special cells in your body known as fat cells.
The average American consumes 61 pounds of refined sugar each year. About 25 pounds of that would be in the form of candy. That's just sucrose, though, and the number doesn't include amounts of any other sugars we consume.
Sugar may cause your skin to wrinkle. Called glycation, blood sugar in the skin binds to collagen so the skin loses its elasticity. Cut out excess sugar consumption and your skin may retain its elasticity. No good or easy or cheap method exists today to help skin regain its elasticity.
There's nothing new about the kind of sugar we eat. When Alexander the Great invaded India over 2000 years ago he was shocked at how the people managed to create "honey" without bees.
Sugar cane is a plant of hot climate countries. That's why people who live in the tropics have had it sweet for so long. Andreas Marggraf discovered, in 1747, that the sugar in sugar beets was the same as that in sugar cane. Sugar beets can be grown in much colder climates than sugar cane.
The first sugar beet factory opened in 1802. Over half of the 8.4 metric tonnes of sugar used in the USA this year--no, seriously, make that 8.4 million metric tonnes--will come from sugar beets. Sugar beets are a form of beet with white sweet roots. Only the root is used to make refined sugar.
Getting back to soft drinks, the kinds with artificial sweeteners may contribute to obesity rather than prevent it. A study at Purdue University using rats had one group consuming soft drinks with artificial sweeteners and another with sugar-sweetened drinks.
The group that drank the artificial sweeteners consumed more calories from other foods than the sugar group. The study did not consider the controversial belief that long term consumption of the artificial sweetener aspartame might cause major diseases. Rats don't live long enough.
Like many popular discoveries artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin were found by accident. Lab researchers working on projects having nothing to do with sweetening mixed some test compounds and decided to taste them.
Ask yourself what kind of researcher eats his own experiment.
The artificial sweetener Splenda came about in an even stranger way. The scientists were looking for a new insecticide. [I'll just wait here while you process that thought. Prepare yourself for the next part so we don't have to pause again.]
A lab assistant had been asked to "test" the compound, but he thought he had been told to "taste" the compound. Remember, they had been looking for an insecticide. [Good thing you prepared yourself for that.]
Table sugar certainly isn't the sweetest taste around. A compound called lugduname is actually 200,000 times sweeter. [Do you wonder where the lab assistant is today that tasted that stuff?]
Sugars are compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The simplest (simple sugars) are most commonly known as glucose, fructose and galactose. Table sugar (a complex sugar) consists of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule fused together. Other complex sugars dance with different partners.
We don't want to avoid sugars totally because they are carbohydrates, by far the most common organic molecules in all living things. [Unless you consider minerals to be "living," which is a whole different discussion.]
An eight-atom sugar called glycolaldehyde has the ability to react with a three-carbon sugar to form ribose, a major component of RNA (ribonucleic acid), which does the real work in living things while DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) takes all the credit.
Who cares? Glycolaldehyde has been found in an interstellar gas cloud near the centre of the Milky Way. [Stay with me here.] Glycolaldehyde may therefore be a precursor of life on our planet. If it's in space, it might have been here.
That same gas cloud, by the way, contains ethylene glycol, which most of us think of as antifreeze. Which is sweet, but lethal, as many animals have learned when they licked up antifreeze leaks.
These are complex sugars. In deep space. We must at least hypothesize that they were synthesized in space. We haven't yet guessed how that could happen.
Sugar can be used as more than a fuel for your body. Burn table sugar (sucrose) with some corn syrup and a bit of saltpeter and you have a popular amateur rocket fuel.
It's also sometimes prescribed by doctors. Yup, you pay a dispensing fee to buy a product called "Obecalp," a sugar pill made to FDA specifications. It may be prescribed for mild problems with a variety of symptoms but no clear therapy. [Spell the product name backwards.]
Not only is the "placebo effect" surprisingly real according to recent studies, the sugar itself may actually help clear up symptoms. Glucosamine works as an immunosuppressant (drug that lowers the body's normal immune response) in mice.
Immune system suppression is a mixed blessing because while it can go crazy sometimes, such as with allergies, it also protects us from viruses and bad bacteria. The sugar alcohol xylitol can be used to prevent ear infections in children.
You better have a dose of Obecalp and think about this.
Bill Allin is the author of Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for teachers, parents and grandparents who want to grow children who are healthy in all developmental streams, not just intellectually and physically. It's a great gift.
Learn more at http://billallin.com/
[Primary resource: Discover, October 2009]
Seldom in history has a product worn the horns of the Devil and the wings of an angel at the same time. Loved and respected because it provides the energy we need to work, to play, even to breathe, sugar is so important to our diet our bodies take several things we eat and convert them into sugars.
However, eat too much sugar and your body will blimp up and your organs will slowly but surely break down. Never has "moderate consumption" been so important.
But what's "moderate"? How can we tell what's too much?
Let's look at an example.
In our example you will eat 16 teaspoons of refined sugar all in one short sitting. Don't worry, it will be in liquid form. Sound outrageous? That's how much sugar is in a 20 ounce bottle of cola. In every bottle.
In general, if you look at the ingredient list of products before you buy them and see some that end in the letters "...ose" you have various different kinds of sugars. Sugars come with other name endings, but "...ose" tends to be the most common ending in packaged foods we eat. Most of them are complex sugars our bodies break down into simple ones so they can be used to burn as energy.
Sugars, along with starch, are the basic carbohydrates. Inside your gut they all become sugars, ultimately simple sugars. What your body can't use it will expel through your colon or convert to fat for storage.
Because our bodies can only convert a limited amount of sugar into fat at one time, if you are going to eat too much sugar, eat it in a binge. Most of it you will enjoy in your mouth and you will get rid of it in the toilet the next day. Eat a little too much sugar on a regular basis and your body will store it in special cells in your body known as fat cells.
The average American consumes 61 pounds of refined sugar each year. About 25 pounds of that would be in the form of candy. That's just sucrose, though, and the number doesn't include amounts of any other sugars we consume.
Sugar may cause your skin to wrinkle. Called glycation, blood sugar in the skin binds to collagen so the skin loses its elasticity. Cut out excess sugar consumption and your skin may retain its elasticity. No good or easy or cheap method exists today to help skin regain its elasticity.
There's nothing new about the kind of sugar we eat. When Alexander the Great invaded India over 2000 years ago he was shocked at how the people managed to create "honey" without bees.
Sugar cane is a plant of hot climate countries. That's why people who live in the tropics have had it sweet for so long. Andreas Marggraf discovered, in 1747, that the sugar in sugar beets was the same as that in sugar cane. Sugar beets can be grown in much colder climates than sugar cane.
The first sugar beet factory opened in 1802. Over half of the 8.4 metric tonnes of sugar used in the USA this year--no, seriously, make that 8.4 million metric tonnes--will come from sugar beets. Sugar beets are a form of beet with white sweet roots. Only the root is used to make refined sugar.
Getting back to soft drinks, the kinds with artificial sweeteners may contribute to obesity rather than prevent it. A study at Purdue University using rats had one group consuming soft drinks with artificial sweeteners and another with sugar-sweetened drinks.
The group that drank the artificial sweeteners consumed more calories from other foods than the sugar group. The study did not consider the controversial belief that long term consumption of the artificial sweetener aspartame might cause major diseases. Rats don't live long enough.
Like many popular discoveries artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin were found by accident. Lab researchers working on projects having nothing to do with sweetening mixed some test compounds and decided to taste them.
Ask yourself what kind of researcher eats his own experiment.
The artificial sweetener Splenda came about in an even stranger way. The scientists were looking for a new insecticide. [I'll just wait here while you process that thought. Prepare yourself for the next part so we don't have to pause again.]
A lab assistant had been asked to "test" the compound, but he thought he had been told to "taste" the compound. Remember, they had been looking for an insecticide. [Good thing you prepared yourself for that.]
Table sugar certainly isn't the sweetest taste around. A compound called lugduname is actually 200,000 times sweeter. [Do you wonder where the lab assistant is today that tasted that stuff?]
Sugars are compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The simplest (simple sugars) are most commonly known as glucose, fructose and galactose. Table sugar (a complex sugar) consists of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule fused together. Other complex sugars dance with different partners.
We don't want to avoid sugars totally because they are carbohydrates, by far the most common organic molecules in all living things. [Unless you consider minerals to be "living," which is a whole different discussion.]
An eight-atom sugar called glycolaldehyde has the ability to react with a three-carbon sugar to form ribose, a major component of RNA (ribonucleic acid), which does the real work in living things while DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) takes all the credit.
Who cares? Glycolaldehyde has been found in an interstellar gas cloud near the centre of the Milky Way. [Stay with me here.] Glycolaldehyde may therefore be a precursor of life on our planet. If it's in space, it might have been here.
That same gas cloud, by the way, contains ethylene glycol, which most of us think of as antifreeze. Which is sweet, but lethal, as many animals have learned when they licked up antifreeze leaks.
These are complex sugars. In deep space. We must at least hypothesize that they were synthesized in space. We haven't yet guessed how that could happen.
Sugar can be used as more than a fuel for your body. Burn table sugar (sucrose) with some corn syrup and a bit of saltpeter and you have a popular amateur rocket fuel.
It's also sometimes prescribed by doctors. Yup, you pay a dispensing fee to buy a product called "Obecalp," a sugar pill made to FDA specifications. It may be prescribed for mild problems with a variety of symptoms but no clear therapy. [Spell the product name backwards.]
Not only is the "placebo effect" surprisingly real according to recent studies, the sugar itself may actually help clear up symptoms. Glucosamine works as an immunosuppressant (drug that lowers the body's normal immune response) in mice.
Immune system suppression is a mixed blessing because while it can go crazy sometimes, such as with allergies, it also protects us from viruses and bad bacteria. The sugar alcohol xylitol can be used to prevent ear infections in children.
You better have a dose of Obecalp and think about this.
Bill Allin is the author of Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for teachers, parents and grandparents who want to grow children who are healthy in all developmental streams, not just intellectually and physically. It's a great gift.
Learn more at http://billallin.com/
[Primary resource: Discover, October 2009]
Friday, August 01, 2008
Weight Loss And Fitness From A Pill
One Episode of the original Star Trek series had the Enterprise crew finding rather dull slave-like humanoids on the surface of a planet while a very different creature ensconced in caves below gave them orders. The subterranean species had evolved, though lack of use of their limbs--then most of their bodies--to the point where they were little more than brains on pedestals.
They had developed the skills of telepathy so they could communicate with each other and give orders to the surface species who grew food for them and provided for their minimal other needs. The brain-only creatures were, in effect, the ultimate evolution of the perfect brain.
I was reminded of that episode today when I read of the scientists in California who had produced a chemical that allowed sedentary mice to live as if they were fit and active. In more active mice the experimental drug GW1516 from GlaxoSmithKline increased their endurance by 75 percent.
No doubt this research will be welcomed by people who require treatment for obesity or muscle wasting diseases and well as by athletes who want to improve their performance. Of course the anti-doping agency that acts on behalf of the International Olympic Committee is working furiously to develop a method for detecting the drug in athletes participating in the Beijing Olympics. Ronald Evans, a researcher at Salk Institute, which hosted the study, has developed just such a test.
But what of athletes who participate in sports or other athletic endeavours who never make it to the international level of competition or the national level where testing is done? What about fathers who want to look good in the eyes of their sons, who at middle age want to keep up with their boys just reaching their natural athletic peak?
While as a society we would welcome a prescription that would enable obese people who have no easy way to account for their great weight (genetic factors are still very much in the running) to return to a more normal or natural size, thus reducing their risks of health problems that put a burden on the health care system and our own pocketbooks, this may be a significant step toward humans evolving very different bodies from what we know now.
If we don't need to exercise in order to remain fit, eventually some of our appendages may not be needed.
Enter medical ethics committees and national lawmakers. Despite the fears that science fiction writers have encouraged us to have about new scientific developments involving the human body, we have the ability to control the sale and use of such products.
Science fiction writers (some of whom worked for heads of state of powerful countries) made us believe that nuclear energy and bombs could easily get into the hands of rogue Goldfinger-like rascals who could hold the world at ransom with their threats. Or, indeed, could destroy the planet with the push of a button. The truth was much different. Terrorists don't have such highly developed scientific skills. Bomb shelters are used for cold storage. Threat of "the bomb" is for old movies. Except in the USA where keeping such threats active has seen President Bush through two elections.
Should we fear that one day people will be able to have healthy hearts, lungs and other organs so that they don't have to exercise, just take a pill once a day? My answer is an unqualified No.
With well over six billion of us on the planet now, the cost of supplying evolution-altering drugs for a sufficient number of people that it would change the future of our species is highly unlikely.
If it were possible, we would have AIDS drugs in the hands of everyone who is HIV positive and prevention information and devices in the hands of everyone who could contract the disease. Bill Gates, once the world's richest man (he's third now), has a foundation to supply information and drugs for AIDS victims, but even he can't afford to help more than a tiny minority.
Of course we must have legislation in place for those who would find nefarious uses for any drug or chemical. But fear? No.
Instead we should be applauding new scientific developments, encouraging our governments to become more involved with sponsoring promising studies, and learning ourselves how to keep our bodies in healthy and fit shape for the hundred or so years that our children are expected to live.
Depending on science to solve our health problems in the future bears no more wisdom than taking Prozac or cocaine to relieve our anxieties today. The strength of the future will lie--as it does now--with those who can look after themselves without depending on medical science to solve problems our descendants shouldn't develop in the first place.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to grow children who know how to look after themselves, their minds and their bodies, without having to depend on medical science to help them get by.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
They had developed the skills of telepathy so they could communicate with each other and give orders to the surface species who grew food for them and provided for their minimal other needs. The brain-only creatures were, in effect, the ultimate evolution of the perfect brain.
I was reminded of that episode today when I read of the scientists in California who had produced a chemical that allowed sedentary mice to live as if they were fit and active. In more active mice the experimental drug GW1516 from GlaxoSmithKline increased their endurance by 75 percent.
No doubt this research will be welcomed by people who require treatment for obesity or muscle wasting diseases and well as by athletes who want to improve their performance. Of course the anti-doping agency that acts on behalf of the International Olympic Committee is working furiously to develop a method for detecting the drug in athletes participating in the Beijing Olympics. Ronald Evans, a researcher at Salk Institute, which hosted the study, has developed just such a test.
But what of athletes who participate in sports or other athletic endeavours who never make it to the international level of competition or the national level where testing is done? What about fathers who want to look good in the eyes of their sons, who at middle age want to keep up with their boys just reaching their natural athletic peak?
While as a society we would welcome a prescription that would enable obese people who have no easy way to account for their great weight (genetic factors are still very much in the running) to return to a more normal or natural size, thus reducing their risks of health problems that put a burden on the health care system and our own pocketbooks, this may be a significant step toward humans evolving very different bodies from what we know now.
If we don't need to exercise in order to remain fit, eventually some of our appendages may not be needed.
Enter medical ethics committees and national lawmakers. Despite the fears that science fiction writers have encouraged us to have about new scientific developments involving the human body, we have the ability to control the sale and use of such products.
Science fiction writers (some of whom worked for heads of state of powerful countries) made us believe that nuclear energy and bombs could easily get into the hands of rogue Goldfinger-like rascals who could hold the world at ransom with their threats. Or, indeed, could destroy the planet with the push of a button. The truth was much different. Terrorists don't have such highly developed scientific skills. Bomb shelters are used for cold storage. Threat of "the bomb" is for old movies. Except in the USA where keeping such threats active has seen President Bush through two elections.
Should we fear that one day people will be able to have healthy hearts, lungs and other organs so that they don't have to exercise, just take a pill once a day? My answer is an unqualified No.
With well over six billion of us on the planet now, the cost of supplying evolution-altering drugs for a sufficient number of people that it would change the future of our species is highly unlikely.
If it were possible, we would have AIDS drugs in the hands of everyone who is HIV positive and prevention information and devices in the hands of everyone who could contract the disease. Bill Gates, once the world's richest man (he's third now), has a foundation to supply information and drugs for AIDS victims, but even he can't afford to help more than a tiny minority.
Of course we must have legislation in place for those who would find nefarious uses for any drug or chemical. But fear? No.
Instead we should be applauding new scientific developments, encouraging our governments to become more involved with sponsoring promising studies, and learning ourselves how to keep our bodies in healthy and fit shape for the hundred or so years that our children are expected to live.
Depending on science to solve our health problems in the future bears no more wisdom than taking Prozac or cocaine to relieve our anxieties today. The strength of the future will lie--as it does now--with those who can look after themselves without depending on medical science to solve problems our descendants shouldn't develop in the first place.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for parents and teachers who want to grow children who know how to look after themselves, their minds and their bodies, without having to depend on medical science to help them get by.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
