suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> [www.nel.gov]
> 92
>
> You can find the checklist for all these studies
> by clicking on the rating symbols in the chart at
> the bottom of the link to the Conclusion Statement
> that I included in my original post.
>
> [www.nel.gov]
> d=250189



Wow, all those studies are fascinating and it is the most enjoyable reading l have done in years.


Check out this beauty.
[www.nel.gov]


They replaced saturated fat with a mono fat diet or with carbs, but the "Lipoprotein (a) concentrations increased with both the carb (20%) and Mono fat (11%) diets". WE now know these days that the increase in Lp (a) concentration is one of the major causes of CVD. And it seems that since the increase in carb diets and less consumption of saturated fat, that more people are getting CVD also, but of course other factors would play a role also, but the study is telling us something important here that likely was not recognised at the time because Lp (a) wasn't seen as the mr nasty.

Plasma triacylglycerols tended to be lower with the Mono fat diet, but were significantly higher with the Carb diet when those things reduce Saturated fat and replaced with those two things. Wow.


These studies are so awesome. Of course they are not perfect, but they make the most interesting reading ever!!! Thanks Suncloud, this link is absolutely beautiful. Fat is perhaps the most interesting health subject l have ever got into.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2014 06:13AM by The Sproutarian Man.

Here is another interesting study in JAMA that back up what many studies have shown. And from my common observations, most people in countries eating lower fat meals, less meat and eating more high carb meals are getting more heart disease than ever.

O.k, here is a major study, it is an eye opener and does line up with what many studies are showing. In time l will dissect many studies and show how many factors are related to certain variables so we can more easily see the patterns related to high carb and high fat. Eventually l will try to give really strong proof of the high carb low fat scam that has harmed the world.


Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial

Barbara V. Howard, PhD; Linda Van Horn, PhD
[jama.jamanetwork.com]


Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years

Intervention Intensive behavior modification in group and individual sessions designed to reduce total fat intake to 20% of calories and increase intakes of vegetables/fruits to 5 servings/d and grains to at least 6 servings/d.

Results By year 6, mean fat intake decreased by 8.2% of energy intake in the intervention vs the comparison group, with small decreases in saturated (2.9%), monounsaturated (3.3%), and polyunsaturated (1.5%) fat; increases occurred in intakes of vegetables/fruits (1.1 servings/d) and grains (0.5 serving/d). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure, and factor VIIc levels were significantly reduced. Respectively; levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and insulin did not significantly differ in the intervention vs comparison groups.

Conclusions Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk



When we look at this study we can see some very interesting things.

1). LDL significantly decreased and is `supposed' to be an indicator of heart disease according to the `experts', BUT we now know this is not true. Despite the LDL cholesterol being significantly decreased, CVD rates were hardly effected by this.

2). Factor VIIc is said to cause oxidative stress through excessive clotting caused through fats. Reduction of fats did not make a difference, but we know from other studies that factor VIIc does not increase propertionately to fat intake. So recommendations to decrease fat intake are not neccessarily going to be effective in this respect. Other strategies are needed such as taking raw sprouted foods and algaes because vegetables, fruits and grains are not necessarily enough due to being low in vitamin E and losing important phytochemical antioxidants and much of that food being cooked.

3). Triglycerides did not change much from lowering fat in the diet.


Other things could be said, but we will keep it all simple for now. What the study is telling us is that the factors said toi be related to heart disease by reducing fat are not effective to reduce it, so all the things the heart association tells us is basically nonsense. Truthfully, l would argue that the heart association is doing more harm than good, and none of this dubious low fat ideas seem to be reducing CVD at all, in fact, it seems to be getting worse. Are the carbs the big nasty for most people???


Lots of stuff still needs to be said, but for now we will take it slowly, but eventually l think we will be able to hang the low fat high carb diet out to dry once and for all.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2014 10:18PM by The Sproutarian Man.

"...Dr Clement is right when he said that eating coconut fat in New York etc is not the same as being in the tropics. Us city folk need to implement safety measures when eating higher fats."

How so?

Saturated fat is animal food. It's pork, lamb, chicken, eggs, dairy etc. There is always lesser amounts of saturated fats in the food nature provide us with, nuts for example. Saturated fat is only a small percentage of the fat in the natural fat sources intended for man. This should say something.

Not really an eye opener.

These women had BMIs just a tad below obese: around 29 in the intervention group. And yet after 3-6 years on this so called low fat intervention with 1500 kcal per day, they didn't lose any weight.

This defies the known physical laws.

They only explanation is that they did not eat as they claimed.

I do not believe any of them did 20% fat for all that time. I would put money on it that none of them did.

If I ate 1500 kcal/day for 6 years I would weigh maybe 50 lbs at the end of the intervention.

But this is probably why all this "low fat doesn't work" nonsense is coming about. The large majority of people can't do it when they are constantly surrounded by temptation.

That is no reason to suggest or conclude that high fat diets are healthy.

Lol arugula, you give very little reason for anyone to give you responses as you are in complete denial and clearly come from a brainwashed perspective that will never change. As long as Greger and McDougall keep regurgitating the same outdated and restricted information, so will their blindly loyal followers (such as yourself). The cold reality, however, is that the basis of all their condemnations of fat all come to a screeching halt when the very crucial distinctions are made (such as raw, plant-based fats versus cooked animal fats and the importance of maintaining a healthy omega-3 to omega-6 ratio). Now you can make all the blanket statements you want, but at the end of the day, you cannot provide one established study proving any detrimental effects of a high-fat raw, plant-based diet with healthy omega-3 to omega-6 ratios. In other words, you're just spewing out nonsense. I, however, can provide tons of established literature proving the cardiovascular benefits of omega-3's (FAT!). Until you can provide one shred of evidence that makes these key distinctions when attempting to claim high-fat diets are unhealthy, your opinion is moot.

Lol arugula, you give very little reason for anyone to give you responses as you are in complete denial and clearly come from a brainwashed perspective that will never change.

You mean I have standards that you lack.


The cold reality, however, is that the basis of all their condemnations of fat all come to a screeching halt when the very crucial distinctions are made (such as raw, plant-based fats versus cooked animal fats and the importance of maintaining a healthy omega-3 to omega-6 ratio).

The cold reality is that there are no clinical trials to support your statements.


Now you can make all the blanket statements you want, but at the end of the day, you cannot provide one established study proving any detrimental effects of a high-fat raw, plant-based diet with healthy omega-3 to omega-6 ratios. In other words, you're just spewing out nonsense.

I provide clinical trials in established, peer-reviewed literature. If this is what you call nonsense, it says volumes about your standards as well as your character.


I, however, can provide tons of established literature proving the cardiovascular benefits of omega-3's (FAT!).

The trials that use omega-3s are invariably in small quantities, i.e. 5 g per day or less, usually. This would not propel a very low fat diet out of the very low fat criterion.


Until you can provide one shred of evidence that makes these key distinctions when attempting to claim high-fat diets are unhealthy, your opinion is moot.

There aren't any trials suggesting that it is healthy and there are no trials suggesting that somehow not cooking a saturated fat will magically alter the properties of its number and placement of double bonds.

Thus you cannot with any confidence suggest that partaking of it in any quantity greater than modest will be beneficial. That you continually ignore this suggests that you have an emotional investment in your belief, and not a cognitive one.

You would be less inclined to believe this if you had taken organic chemistry (I highly recommend it but it is very difficult and requires a great deal of concentrated effort and precision of thinking).

But I very much doubt this is the case based on the quality of your thought processes and the quality of your output on this forum. Not to mention all of your name calling.

You are going out on a limb and it will break. It is not my wish to stop you from hurting yourself. Your body is yours to do with what you will. I truly don't care.

What I do care about is stemming the outrageous ridiculous low-to-zero standard stuff you believe without merit.

There are free guest terminals at most universities and I would suggest that you start using them, but it does take the ability to actually read the data, sort through the tables, check references, check for statistical significance, and so forth, and these are not skills that you pick up on a dime. But after you have them, you will be far more skeptical and less inclined to follow charlatans because they are promoting soft ideas that you find particularly palatable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 10:43PM by arugula.

"The cold reality is that there are no clinical trials to support your statements."

Except all the one's proving that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease, that a variety of populations who eat large amounts of coconut have very low rates of heart disease, that omega-3's are fantastic for cardiovascular health, etc. You don't even know what causes heart disease (inflammation), you just parrot things you read on nutritionfacts.org under the false impression that you are reading accurate and complete information. It's quite easy to connect the dots - heart disease is caused by inflammation and omega-3's are powerful anti-inflammatory fats. Hence, omega-3's do not cause heart disease even though they are fat.

"If this is what you call nonsense, it says volumes about your standards as well as your character."

I think your inability to distinguish says volumes about your standards as well as your character.

"It is not my wish to stop you from hurting yourself. Your body is yours to do with what you will. I truly don't care."

Sounds like you're hurting your brain by eating such low amounts of omega-3's.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] - "Flaxseed and flaxseed oil do not have antioxidant activity except they suppress oxygen radical production by white blood cells. Flaxseed oil/ALA has variable effects on inflammatory mediators/markers (interleukin [IL]-1beta, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-gamma, C-reactive protein, and serum amyloid A). Doses of ALA less than 14 g/d do not affect inflammatory mediators/markers, but 14 g/d or greater reduce inflammatory mediators/markers.... Flaxseed oil suppresses oxygen radical production by white blood cells, prolongs bleeding time, and in higher doses suppresses serum levels of inflammatory mediators and does not lower serum lipids.

jtprindl Wrote:
Doses of ALA less than 14 g/d do not
> affect inflammatory mediators/markers, but 14 g/d
> or greater reduce inflammatory
> mediators/markers.

14 g of isolated ALA per day is a lot. That is more than 5 tablespoons of ground flax seed.

Could you please list the precise inflammatory mediators/markers that were reduced?

Also could you please list the specific percentages by which they are reduced?

When you provide those specifics, I will be happy to provide a list of green leaves that do the same with far fewer calories while at the same time providing greater micronutrient and phytochemical delivery.

If you are unable to supply this information, perhaps you could reconsider this particular abstract as one worth promoting.

"When you provide those specifics, I will be happy to provide a list of green leaves that do the same with far fewer calories while at the same time providing greater micronutrient and phytochemical delivery."

1.) You can consume plenty greens on a high-fat diet.

2.) This does not have any relevance to your initial claim, which is that all high-fat diets are unhealthy and promote cardiovascular disease simply because they are high in fat, with zero distinction between raw versus cooked fats, plant versus animal fats, or omega-3 to omega-6 ratios. Heart disease is caused by inflammation, this study just demonstrated that high doses of ALA (FAT) reduced inflammation, therefore not promoting cardiovascular disease but actually providing protection.


"If you are unable to supply this information, perhaps you could reconsider this particular abstract as one worth promoting."

I don't need to be able to supply this information because the end result of the study provided evidence for my claims while refuting yours.

By the way, what type of education do you have in nutrition?

what's interesting about the original post in this thread is that it is utterly unconvincing.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [treeoflifecenterus.com]
> l-cousens-m-d-holistic-veganism-letting-the-fat-ou
> t-of-the-bag-2/
>
> "So here’s letting “the fat out of the bag”:
> Saturated fats have nothing to do with heart
> disease. I will say it again. Saturated fat has
> nothing to do with heart disease. And every
> holistic physician knows that.
>
> Heart disease is driven by inflammation.
>
> It doesn’t matter whether your fat is low or
> your fat is high; if you are inflamed, there is a
> high chance that you are going to get heart
> disease. From just that one idea, everything about
> heart health and nutrition will start to make
> sense.
>
> 30 studies with a total of 150,000 people studied
> showed that people who had heart attacks had not
> eaten any more saturated fat or polyunsaturated
> oil than other people who had not had heart
> attacks (references included in footnotes).
>

this does not mean anything at all.
there are too many other factors and you cannot just draw a conclusion about type of fat from that.

> Another huge study showed people with blood
> cholesterol of 160 developed just as many
> cholesterol plaques as people with higher
> cholesterol up to 260. How do you explain that?
> Again, simply, the plaques come from inflammation,
> not from cholesterol intake.
>

it is explained the same as the above. it does not mean anything as there are too many factors involved.


> In light of these findings, it is interesting that
> without even trying to, I have found the
> healthiest results of any program I have seen in
> my career happening in our live, plant-sourced
> food cafe running at about 25-45% fat at the Tree
> of Life Center US. The performance outcomes of
> this dietary program, which is high in vegetables
> and nuts, are great when looked at through
> measures that matter – holistic measures. That
> is, we achieve the goal that we want, which is not
> lowering cholesterol, but is turning off the
> inflammation switch.

no evidence provided to support this statement.


This works because
> inflammation is the age-accelerating,
> disease-generating agent. With low inflammation,
> and plenty of dietary fat, your brain works
> better, you reverse heart disease, and you reverse
> diabetes, etc.
>
> In the early 80?s I came across people on the 10%
> fat live-food diet, and noticed them having
> problems such as mental and physical imbalances,
> weakness, memory loss, and low vitality.

gabriel again draws a conclusion without any justification at all.
first of all he would need to provide evidence that those people were actually eating 10% fat. he has not. secondly there are many many things that can cause those problems. and many people have reported the opposite - high fat, low vitality.


I do not
> say avoid all carbohydrates. To me, the greens,
> sprouts, green vegetables, and low-glycemic fruits
> are the carbohydrates and do help my program be
> effective in lowering accelerated aging and
> reversing disease.

I await the evidence. he has provided none. how exactly is he going to show reduced "accelerated aging". he's makes vague unsupported statements because he's a pseudoscientist.

When you have people in live
> food out there saying you shouldn’t have nuts
> and you shouldn’t have seeds, at that point we
> need to know the scientific data."

you don't need scientific data. there are many reasons that nuts and seeds might be better minimized that does not require scientific data.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "When you provide those specifics, I will be happy
> to provide a list of green leaves that do the same
> with far fewer calories while at the same time
> providing greater micronutrient and phytochemical
> delivery."
>
> 1.) You can consume plenty greens on a high-fat
> diet.

That depends on how you define "plenty." Alloting
700 relatively empty kcal per day to fats
that have extremely low nutrient density instead of
eating 700 kcal of very high nutrient dense whole
plant foods along with their wide spectrum of phytochemicals
and fibers will mean you miss out on improvement
of many critical changes.


> 2.) This does not have any relevance to your
> initial claim,

You have no access to the paper and you have no
idea of its contents and specifics. In fact I have
read this paper and there is nothing in this study
that vegetables can't do as well or better, with far fewer
calories.

whole foods can do it
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
lower levels of IL-6, TNF-alpha, and IFN-gamma. Significant inverse associations were reported between IL-6, TNF-alpha, and IFN-gamma levels and quartiles of total reported carotenoid intake.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

vegetables can do it
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
Multivariable-adjusted circulating concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-alpha interlukin-1beta, and IL-6 were lower among women with higher intakes of cruciferous vegetables. The differences in concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers between extreme quintiles of cruciferous vegetable intake were 12.66% for TNF-alpha, 18.18% for IL-1beta, and 24.68% for IL-6.

broccoli in specific can do it
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
Circulating levels of carotenoids, folate, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 6 receptor (IL-6sR) and adiponectin were measured. Plasma CRP decreased by 48% following broccoli diet


> I don't need to be able to supply this information
> because the end result of the study provided
> evidence for my claims while refuting yours.

You mean you do not have any idea how to respond so you
say that you don't "need" to.

The truth is that just because a diet is raw and vegan,
it will not be the optimal diet. This has been addressed
by Luigi Fontana. He writes:

Interestingly, we found that men and women consuming energy
unrestricted strict vegan diets also have extremely low blood pressure, LDL
cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting glucose concentrations, suggesting
that the quality of the diet plays a major role in modulating blood
pressure, lipid and glucose metabolism (Fontana et al., 2007). Nevertheless,
unlike in the CRONies, serum HDL-cholesterol and adiponectin concentrations
were not significantly increased in these vegetarians and serum
concentration of fasting insulin, TNF-alpha and triiodothyronine were higher
than in age- and sex-matched individuals practicing CR.

ref:
Long-term low-calorie low-protein vegan diet and endurance exercise are associated with low cardiometabolic risk.
Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO.
Rejuvenation Res. 2007 Jun;10(2):225-34.

So, more inflammation in the high-fat raw vegans than the "optimal diet"
high vegetable eaters who were not necessarily raw.

Just because it's raw does not mean it's healthy. Raw vegans
can't compete with these science guys who aim for perfection
in every calorie. They would never dream of drowing in oil
as you suggest because you found a buzzword in an abstract
of a paper that you did not read.

> By the way, what type of education do you have in
> nutrition?

I took biotech methods courses in protein and dna/rna
manipulation, histology, microbiology, and did a study on
glycation (fructose vs. fruit) with cultured cells.
I've performed most of the experiments that you see in
papers when particular proteins are measured or when
DNA is isolated and/or manipulated. I've even gene
manipulation.

arugula,

brilliant.



there's nothing particularly horrible about ingesting small amounts of oils, but if a coconut oil promoter can tell me what they think the advantage of consuming oil is over ingesting the coconut water (that contains the same saturated fats, with all other nutrients and calories) I would love to hear about it. if the answer is that you can get MORE saturated fat, and that we NEED this MORE saturated fat to take medicinally, then no thanks.

Good point fresh.
I am also waiting for the evidence.

"That depends on how you define "plenty." Alloting
700 relatively empty kcal per day to fats
that have extremely low nutrient density instead of
eating 700 kcal of very high nutrient dense whole
plant foods along with their wide spectrum of phytochemicals
and fibers will mean you miss out on improvement
of many critical changes."

Green juices


"You have no access to the paper and you have no
idea of its contents and specifics. In fact I have
read this paper and there is nothing in this study
that vegetables can't do as well or better, with far fewer
calories."

Again this has ZERO relevance to your initial claim which was that ALL high-fat diets are unhealthy and promote cardiovascular disease simply because they are high in fat. I just showed that high amounts of ALA reduce inflammation - it doesn't matter if it reduced it by .01% or by 99%, the fact that it reduced inflammation at all shows that it does not promote cardiovascular disease.

"The truth is that just because a diet is raw and vegan,
it will not be the optimal diet. This has been addressed
by Luigi Fontana. He writes:"

I agree with the bolded statement, however, that study you provided revealed absolutely nothing when it comes to condemning well-planned, raw, high-fat diets. The first one compared unrestricted vegans to people practicing caloric restriction - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION. The second one simply showed that a calorie restricted low protein raw diet and exercise is associated with low cardiometabolic risk - NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION.

"I took biotech methods courses in protein and dna/rna
manipulation, histology, microbiology, and did a study on
glycation (fructose vs. fruit) with cultured cells.
I've performed most of the experiments that you see in
papers when particular proteins are measured or when
DNA is isolated and/or manipulated. I've even gene
manipulation."

Okay so really not much at all - got it.

jtprindl going off on arugula is like george bush accusing john kerry of being a draft dodger.


this seems misleading

[ajcn.nutrition.org]

they say there was no correlation to CVD but there was a correlation to CHD.
they say no "significant evidence"
but isn't 1.07 for CHD "evidence"?

i mean according to some nutrition experts on this board the numbers don't matter right?

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not really an eye opener.
>
> These women had BMIs just a tad below obese:
> around 29 in the intervention group. And yet after
> 3-6 years on this so called low fat intervention
> with 1500 kcal per day, they didn't lose any
> weight.
>
> This defies the known physical laws.
>
> They only explanation is that they did not eat as
> they claimed.
>
> I do not believe any of them did 20% fat for all
> that time. I would put money on it that none of
> them did.
>
> If I ate 1500 kcal/day for 6 years I would weigh
> maybe 50 lbs at the end of the intervention.
>
> But this is probably why all this "low fat doesn't
> work" nonsense is coming about. The large majority
> of people can't do it when they are constantly
> surrounded by temptation.
>
> That is no reason to suggest or conclude that high
> fat diets are healthy.


that howard study depended on self reporting and is invalid.

ornish and others have gotten results on better controlled trials.

these so called low fat studies have already been shown to be bogus with respect to what they call "low fat" by tccampbell.

I found that online. I wonder what that means. You know I read all his books, I know him, I lived at the Tree, walked a mile to the cafe at dawn and meditated to sunrise and sunset with him, took two indian sweat lodges with him, practically naked, ....and the man is a complete enigma. He is a mystery to me.

He is.
One of the strangest yet captivating men I ever met in my life!!!!

He dances for three days straight without stopping and outdances the indians at their own ceremonies. He said he felt the kundalini energy once so powerful that his fingernails flew off.

But understanding him...he really is spiritual. That is all I can say. I think thats what I took with me, his spirituality, love of energy and god, who to me was this flower of life drawing or this big esoteric tree of life drawing in his waiting room outside his office. Thats what god is to them, right?

Its like the wildest trip you will ever take, out there to see Gabriel. You have to walk through the desert....literally...to get there.

Its another mans reality...you are walking into. You are in a spiritual place filled with essene prophets and doctors who have full beards and wear white and have crystal collections. The smell of cacao superfood smoothies, or green juices THEY FIGHT OVER, and the trays of wheatgrass juiced, like a drug.

I met a famous channeler when I was there who actually took Gabriel to the pyramids where they invoked spirits .VERY VERY FAMOUS. I was there, I met him, I spoke to him. A weird chap. This guy is one of the more famous channelers.
He walked around with Gabe with a cane with hieroglyphics all over it. That was his present from Gabriel.

This is me with the man. He looks good in person!! I been to his house. I been in his kithchen. Ask me anything!



I will never forget holding hands at shabbat singing dancing wearing white...eating raw challah. Look I am wearing a tachyon necklace! He wrote a book on that too.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 09:26AM by coconutcream.

Coconutcream, have you noticed any benefits from wearing the tachyon necklace?

Prana I knew a guy at the Tree who slept on them and had them all over his teepee and I was so jealous. They do work, kind of like the rice bowl saying you love it and the other rice bowl saying you hate it experiment...it does work. They have experiments where they put hamsters in cages with them and the hamsters always live 6 months or so longer at least. And food does not go bad as quick and same with flowers. The book Gabriel wrote had lots of interesting studies, he co wrote it.

That tachyon necklace I ordered from tachyon technologies and I loved it. It was in the shape of a heart. I also got a scarf that was tachyonized for life.

Something about it constantly being moved, I cannot explain it, but its put into a machine that does something to the product.

I have one I post facing the inside of my electrical box. It turns the whole house into some kind of neutral energy.

Did I feel effects? I am not sure what turning of the energy to neutral feels like, no. NO PRANA, I cannot say for sure.

But like belief it has its sentimental value.

I am telling you the spiritual world, the unseen sciences, quantum energy, all that, you need to experience it.

If you research it, you will fascinate yourself and money cannot buy that. I mean
experience. Self searching..ideas, am I god?

Spirituality and Tachyon with Gabriel Cousens, M.D.. Tachyon Energy is a way of complete attunement with All That Is. Complete and total attunement means





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 09:57AM by coconutcream.

I found that on my computer reminded me of this topic. I took this pic of Gabe and David, with a third man, I cut out, this little baker, whose tooth fell out while he was eating a raw bagel. I remember David would eat a papaya or mango while Gabe was talking about the evils of tropical fruit, it was a riot.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2015 05:34AM by coconutcream.