Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 451 (468830)
06-01-2008 8:08 PM


Ancel Keys
"Who the heck is Ancel keys?" most people will ask.
And as Gary Taubes, Michael Pollan and Jonny Bowden will tell you, he is the single individual most responsible for today's dire situation concerning CVD (CardioVascular Disease), obesity and diabetes. Wikipedia neatly summarizes what happened in their article on Ancel Keys:
Wikipedia on Ancel Keys writes:
Keys postulated a correlation between cholesterol levels and CVD and initiated a study of Minnesota businessmen (the first prospective study of CVD), culminating in what came to be known as the Seven Countries Study. These studies found strong associations between the CVD rate of a population and average serum cholesterol and per capita intake of saturated fatty acids. Then, as now, critics have rightfully pointed out that this "strong association" vanishes when data from other countries are added to the mix and there have been allegations that Keys "cherry picked" the data to support his hypothesis.
If it had just been a case of a set of studies being added to the mix of other studies the result would not have been too damaging, but Keys was influential, and he was well known in government circles. He was, for example, responsible for the development of K-rations. Wikipedia goes on to describe what happened next:
Wikipedia on Ancel Keys writes:
From the early 1950s, Keys actively promoted his findings to an increasingly health-conscious public...While Keys was able to convince the US government to promote his idea that reducing the intake of fat would reduce the incidence of CVD, what happened in the intervening years when Americans took this advice indicates that Keys' basic premise was wrong. While consumption of dietary fat decreased from the 1960s to the 1990s, the rate of CVD did not change substantially and the incidence of obesity and Type II diabetes soared.
The "government" that Ancel Keys was able to convince took the form of hearings before Senator McGovern's Senate Nutrition Committee whose culmination in 1977 was the issuance by the United States government of the report Dietary Goals for the United States. It said that the avoidance of heart disease could be accomplished through the reduction of dietary fat because that would reduce levels of serum cholesterol, and that Americans should immediately begin reducing their intake of fat.
As I've been saying throughout this thread, just walk into any supermarket and you can see the legacy of Ancel Keys: aisle upon aisle of low fat foods. We have Ancel Keys to thank for low fat and skim milk, low fat cheese, low fat potato chips, and low fat bacon and hot dogs.
It is difficult to understand how this misapplication of science has survived for so long. For some it actually compromises their faith in science itself, and I confess that I'm a bit shaken myself, because apparently for the past 30 years the United States government has been pushing dietary recommendations that are killing us. Here, for example, is the food pyramid:
What's the foundation of the food pyramid? Bread, cereal and other food made from grains, in other words, foods high in carbohydrates, often highly refined carbohydrates, the worst type (refined carbohydrates are very, very low in fiber and are absorbed into the bloodstream extremely quickly causing blood sugar spikes). Combined with the reluctance of the mainstream nutritional establishment to condemn sugar, which appears at the top of the pyramid, this is a recipe for disaster. And a health disaster is just what has happened.
The food pyramid could easily be adjusted like this (not a bad job, if I do say so myself):
Meat is the foundation of this revised food pyramid, and just above are healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables and dairy products - and not low fat dairy products, either! And if you need to lose weight then just lop off the top two levels of the pyramid until you achieve your desired goal.
I'm no nutritionist, of course, but a food pyramid modified somewhat along these lines would finally bring an end to Ancel Keys legacy, restore sanity to modern diets, and end the obesity and diabetes epidemics. And it would hopefully change our supermarkets to have row upon row of low-carbohydrate high-fiber foods and make the low fat hysteria a distant memory.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 451 (468837)
06-01-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by randman
06-01-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
randman writes:
So why were his findings so universally accepted by the medical and scientific community?
They weren't. The Senate hearings included the views of many dissenters, but probably the opinion that was the most widespread received the least expression and attention: more research is required.
What happened is that Key's opinions received the imprimatur of the United States government by way of McGovern's committee, and the United States government through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies is the single largest source of funds for health research.
I mean clearly there was universal and wide acceptance of this empirical study....probably still is.
I'm not sure why you say this since the Wikipedia excerpts I provided make clear that "universal and wide acceptance" wasn't the case, here it is again: "Then, as now, critics have rightfully pointed out that this 'strong association' vanishes when data from other countries are added to the mix and there have been allegations that Keys 'cherry picked' the data to support his hypothesis."
What happened was that the views of Keys' and people who agreed with him carried the day before the McGovern committee. This is more an argument that the government should not be making decisions that are better left to scientists, but we can't forget the temper of the time. At the time America was a hotbed of heart disease compared to the rest of the world, and the government was under pressure to "do something," and it did. Maybe we should blame McGovern, not Keys.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:38 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 451 (468841)
06-01-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by randman
06-01-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
It's been apparent for while now that you actually had another topic in mind. I suggest you take these comments to a thread where they would be on topic.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 451 (468894)
06-02-2008 7:54 AM


Correcting Misinformation
Just correcting more misinformation provided by Molbiogirl in Message 135:
molbiogirl writes:
Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.
Taubes makes no such claim.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 139 of 451 (468905)
06-02-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by randman
06-02-2008 2:41 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
Molbiogirl incorrectly claimed the French paradox included obesity. It's actually only about heart disease.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Slight rewording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 2:41 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 451 (468967)
06-02-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Joe T
06-02-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Joe T writes:
I'm not Molbiogirl, but maybe she got that from this excerpt from Taubes' book. From ABC News
quote:
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
Hi Joe,
Molbiogirl has Taubes book in hand and so not only knows that he doesn't say they are the *sole* cause of these diseases, but also knows that this short excerpt from the introduction is written in a specific context. Taubes is writing in the context of the chronic diseases of western civilization, the responsibility for which has been laid at the door of dietary fat over the past 30 years, ever since the McGovern committee released the report Dietary Goals for the United States. This he calls the dietary fat hypothesis.
As an alternative to the dietary fat hypothesis Taubes offers the carbohydrate hypothesis, and he backs it up with a lot of science in his book. Rather than increased intake of dietary fat, Taubes argues that it is increased intake of refined carbohydrates that are responsible for the greatly increased incident rates of the chronic diseases in western civilization.
Chinks are finally starting to appear in the armor of the dietary fat hypothesis, primarily because during the 30 years that it has held sway in nutritional circles the incident rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes have skyrocketed even more. Our supermarkets are filled to overflowing with low fat food, yet we get fatter and fatter, and it is very likely due to increased intake of carbohydrates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 7:02 PM Percy has replied
 Message 157 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 3:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 150 of 451 (468998)
06-02-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Joe T
06-02-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Hi Joe,
Now that I'm home and have Taubes book in front of me I can provide you a little more information. The excerpt provided at the ABC News site, Read an Excerpt: 'Good Calories, Bad Calories', is from the epilogue of Taubes book. It begins on page 453.
This explains why it doesn't set the context for the controversy between the dietary fat and carbohydrate hypotheses that I explained in my previous message, because it's a summary of everything he's already laid out in excruciating detail through the previous 24 chapters and 452 pages.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Joe T, posted 06-02-2008 2:11 PM Joe T has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 151 of 451 (468999)
06-02-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by randman
06-02-2008 7:02 PM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
The biggest problem of nutritional research is the complexity and interrelatedness of human metabolism. It has proven exceedingly difficult to find the underlying metabolic pathways responsible for what we observe with respect to health at a macro level in populations that adhere to modern western diets.
That being said, the failure of the dietary fat hypothesis cannot be denied, because the US essentially carried out an experiment using the American people as guinea pigs who now suffer under the weight of this bad decision (literally ).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 7:02 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by randman, posted 06-03-2008 12:47 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 153 of 451 (469041)
06-03-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by randman
06-03-2008 12:47 AM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
randman writes:
Percy, I hope you receive this in a positive manner but while I agree wholeheartedly with you, it's not really an experiment current science would accept.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that this isn't a *scientific* experiment. It's being conducted by the government, after all, not scientists. That doesn't make the American public any less guinea pigs.
But the increases in obesity and diabetes across all segments of society during the same period when the dietary fat hypothesis has held sway call it into serious question, and in his book Taubes calls for more research into the carbohydrate hypothesis, which has received insufficient attention because nutritional science believes the culprit has already been identified.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by randman, posted 06-03-2008 12:47 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 154 of 451 (469051)
06-03-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by randman
06-03-2008 12:47 AM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
Here's a short quote from Taubes' 2002 New York Times article, What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?, which he wrote while working on his more recent book (access to the article may require a subscription, but it's free). This describes the current state of dietary health research:
Taubes writes:
Scientists are still arguing about fat, despite a century of research, because the regulation of appetite and weight in the human body happens to be almost inconceivably complex, and the experimental tools we have to study it are still remarkably inadequate.
If you've read through the entire thread then you'll recall that I earlier noted that Michael Pollan, another science/health writer and author of The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, likened the current state of diet/health research to the state of science in 1650.
Here's another quote from Taubes' NYT article that contains a few interesting statistics about the increases in obesity and diabetes:
Taubes writes:
With these caveats, one of the few reasonably reliable facts about the obesity epidemic is that it started around the early 1980's. According to Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of obese Americans stayed relatively constant through the 1960's and 1970's at 13 percent to 14 percent and then shot up by 8 percentage points in the 1980's. By the end of that decade, nearly one in four Americans was obese. That steep rise, which is consistent through all segments of American society and which continued unabated through the 1990's, is the singular feature of the epidemic. Any theory that tries to explain obesity in America has to account for that. Meanwhile, overweight children nearly tripled in number. And for the first time, physicians began diagnosing Type 2 diabetes in adolescents. Type 2 diabetes often accompanies obesity. It used to be called adult-onset diabetes and now, for the obvious reason, is not.
Here's another excerpt about the involvement of the US government:
Taubes writes:
The case was eventually settled not by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ''Dietary Goals for the United States,'' advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of "killer diseases" supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become "this greasy killer" in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter -- a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates.
Those of us over a certain age have no trouble recalling the period when eggs were evil. Then, "Oops, changed our mind, what do you know, there's these things we didn't understand well enough before called LDLs and HDLs, and eggs are good for keeping them in the right ratio. So sorry. You can go back to your eggs now."
So we have a macro-level observation that causing the population to reduce fat intake while encouraging the consumption of refined carbohydrates makes it fatter and more diabetic, but we're having incredible difficulty identifying the causative metabolic pathways within the body.
The macro-level observation of increased levels of obesity and diabetes coincident with increased intake of refined carbohydrates cannot be denied, but the cause/effect relationship at a metabolic level is proving exceedingly difficult to tease out.
What these excerpts also make clear is that Taubes is not claiming he has a cure for obesity, diabetes and heart disease, the so called diseases of western civilization, and neither is he claiming that carbohydrates are their sole cause. What he's saying is that it is carbohydrates and not dietary fat that is most responsible for these diseases of western civilization.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by randman, posted 06-03-2008 12:47 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 06-03-2008 9:59 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 156 of 451 (469055)
06-03-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by randman
06-03-2008 9:59 AM


Re: Incorrect Assertions
randman writes:
I remember when they said eggs were bad and also that margerine was better than butter.
The butter/margarine issue is a situation similar to eggs. This has been described not by Taubes but by the aforementioned Michael Pollan, who notes that given what we know today, margarine is bad for you and butter is good for you. Sorry, I don't recall the details.
Never believed mainstream science for a minute on that although I do think you can eat too much fat if you eat too many carbs, and by that, I have found the combinations of food to be very important.
Pollan has a name for the practice of choosing foods by their nutritional content—he calls it nutritionism. I guess you stick "ism" on the end of anything and it sounds evil, but he has a point. While not true until I started this diet, I now buy food based upon the nutrition label. Anything that has more than 15 grams of carbohydrates per serving is disallowed, and I'm trying to stay below 70 grams of carbohydrates daily.
If I cut my carbs down, the fat doesn't bother me, but if I eat fatty meals along with carbs, it does.
The worst possible combination is high carbs with high fat. A nice greasy pork fried rice is ideal for gaining weight.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 06-03-2008 9:59 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 451 (469243)
06-04-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by bluescat48
06-04-2008 3:52 PM


Re: Carbs are the SOLE cause of cancer and Alzheimer's
bluescat48 writes:
BRAVO!!!! Excellent post
What am I missing?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 3:52 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 160 of 451 (469256)
06-04-2008 8:28 PM


Taubes' Message
Molbiogirl has Taubes' book in her possession and has no excuse for the misrepresentations she is making. This is from the prologue to Good Calories, Bad Calories, page xxvii:
Taubes writes:
The reason for this book is straightforward: despite the depth and certainty of our faith that saturated fat is the nutritional bane of our lives and that obesity is caused by overeating and sedentary behavior, there has always been copious evidence to suggest that those assumptions are incorrect, and that evidence is continuing to mount. "There is always an easy solution to every human problem," H. L. Mencken once said—"neat, plausible, and wrong." It is quite possible, despite all our faith to the contrary, that these concepts are such neat, plausible, and wrong solutions. Moreover, it's also quite possible that the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets we've been told to eat for the past thirty years are not only making us heavier but contributing to other chronic diseases as well.
When Taubes talks about carbohydrates causing obesity, diabetes and heart disease he is talking in the context of the diseases of western civilization. His meaning is never that carbohydrates are *the* cause of these diseases, but that they, and not dietary fat, are the primary cause of elevated levels of these diseases in western civilization.
--Percy

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 162 of 451 (469358)
06-05-2008 8:33 AM


The Pima Indians: What Taubes Really Says
In his lecture at the University of California, Berkeley on November 27, 2007, titled The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care, Gary Taubes uses the Pima Indians as one of his examples, in this case to make the point that it is the composition of diet and not prosperity, with its coincident overeating and sedentary lifestyles, that is responsible for general obesity in a population.
About the Pima in 1846 Taubes says in this lecture:
Taubes writes:
They were perhaps the most affluent native American tribe in America. They hunted and fished, they got fish and clams from the Gila River, they hunted widely from the fields, they raised their own crops.
But the Pima lived on a primary east/west trade route, and when the gold rush began in earnest in the 1850s the Pima's fortunes took a turn for the worse. Eventually they were moved to a government reservation, their diet consisting primarily of government rations, which Taubes thinks means that as much as 50% of their calories came from carbohydrate sources like sugar and flour.
Taubes traces the fortunes of the Pima tribe in order to eliminate the possibility of a genetic component. As he asks in his lecture:
Taubes writes:
So here's an example, here's an observation, about the prosperity, overeating hypothesis. Why would they be lean when they have an abundance of food, and fat when they're so poor that the only way they can survive is to get government rations from the US government?
At no point does Taubes draw any direct comparison between the nature of the prosperity of the pre-1850 Pima with modern 21st century prosperity, and especially not at 11:22 of the lecture as Molbiogirl claims, which is where Taubes says this:
Taubes at 11:22 writes:
And the Pima at the time, interestingly enough, had gone from being extraordinarily prosperous to extraordinarily impoverished. Now remember that our hypothesis is that prosperity causes obesity, but in 1846 a battalion went through Pima territories...etc...
He simply never makes the comparison with modern prosperity that Molbiogirl claims he did. He is making the point that prosperity doesn't necessarily correlate with obesity, and that poverty does not necessarily correlate with leanness, and he does this to support his position that it is the composition of the diet that is the most significant factor, specifically the proportion of carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2008 12:36 PM Percy has replied
 Message 164 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2008 1:48 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 165 of 451 (469417)
06-05-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by bluegenes
06-05-2008 12:36 PM


Re: The Pima Indians: What Taubes Really Says
bluegenes writes:
Here in the U.K. at the moment, obesity seems to be more likely the lower down the socio-economic scale people are.
Same here, and Taubes explains in his book that this counterintuitive phenomenon comes about because the cheapest calories come from high carbohydrate sources.
I think the main problem for the Pima might have been that they stopped hunting, fishing and farming, all good exercise, but kept on eating. I mention this because what strikes foreigners about Americans is that you've stopped walking from A to B, but you keep on eating.
Researchers exploring these issues about a century ago (Taubes mentions their names in his lecture) included that hypothesis among their alternatives, but they were unsatisfied with it because other Indian tribes that had been sedentary for centuries, e.g. Pueblo Indians, had never been fat and as long as they stayed off reservations remained unfat.
Humans evolved walking, and probably walking a lot. It's something we should do. What does Taubes say about exercise?
He says that it's not a zero sum game. If you exercise more you'll be hungry if you don't eat more. If you eat less then you'll be able to exercise less due to lack of energy. Young people don't experience this much because they have such huge reserves of energy and recover from exertion very quickly, but as you grow older it takes less and less exercise to reach your limits, and how much you've eaten in the past 24 hours has a significant effect upon endurance for the older athlete. If you're an active adult (meaning rigorous exercise) and have been dieting, an increasingly likely possibility as you grow older, then you'll run out of energy more quickly and will have to stop.
What Taubes' says the "calorie is a calorie is a calorie" crowd leaves out of the equation is that exercise and food intake are not independent variables. Each feeds back and has an effect upon the other.
In addition, hormones and other factors both related and unrelated to hormones that we're still working to uncover, have much more to do with fat uptake by adipose tissue (fat tissue) than does what you eat and how much you exercise. For example, if you have elevated insulin levels in the bloodstream then this will encourage the uptake of fatty acids by adipose tissue, making them unavailable for energy use by the muscles. Once the muscles have used up their supply of glucose, usually in 10 to 15 minutes, then they tire quickly if they cannot draw upon other sources of energy like fatty acids, and if insulin levels are elevated then those fatty acids will be unavailable and you'll tire quickly. Elevated insulin levels is one possible cause (among many) for exercise intolerance.
Taubes key argument is that during the past 30 years during which the dietary fat hypothesis (this is the hypothesis that intake of unfavorable forms of dietary fat is responsible for the diseases of western civilization, which are obesity, diabetes and heart disease) has held sway within nutritional circles, and during which there has been increasing emphasis by both health authorities (the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, personal physicians, etc.) and the food industry (low fat foods are now ubiquitous in grocery stores and restaurants), the American public has gotten fatter and more diabetic, and the incidence rate of heart disease has not diminished.
Based upon this observation, and supported by many others but this is the most profound observation, Taubes argues that the dietary fat hypothesis is clearly wrong, and in his book he makes the point based upon references to the scientific literature that the dietary fat hypothesis was never validated by the research, and that the research actually provides better support for the carbohydrate hypothesis.
As I noted in a recent message, bread and pasta are the foundation of the food pyramid, its broadest level, yet these are just the foods that were never part of any human diet until the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. We can't live without protein and fat in our diet, but we can get by just fine without carbohydrates.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : "dietary hypothesis" => "dietary fat hypothesis"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2008 12:36 PM bluegenes has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024