It's not a surprise that people become fat in an environment where food is cheap, delicious, and abundant.
But we do know how to stop it. You just have to eat a little less. A modest, sustainable change in your diet is all that is needed to make dramatic changes over a 6-12 month timescale.
Record what you eat to establish an honest food baseline, and reduce from there. Stop eating all food you don't enjoy, and stop eating when you aren't hungry.
I put off losing weight for the last decade because of the constant drumbeat of news, blogs, and anecdotal moaning I heard from everyone about how impossible it is to lose weight. But after monitoring my food as described above for 6 months, I am down 20% from my starting weight. Success feels inevitable now, because the changes I have made are small and sustainable for me; for example, I still eat candy, but fun size instead of king size. My main regret is not starting sooner. I lost my 20s to obesity because crash diets failed me and I listened when people said it wasn't possible.
reddit.com/r/loseit has been an amazing support community for me throughout this process. I'd encourage y'all to check it out if you want to make a change.
Pretty sad that this is top comment. Obviously increased consumption and decreased physical activity is the direct cause but everyone here knows this already. It's not the key problem. The key problem is that for most people this is hard. And doing it for the rest of your life is almost impossible (for a significant majority).
The fact that willpower/compliance is the core problem is also sufficiently well-known that I read this kind of assessment and think "and world peace too: we just have to get along with each other".
There is a greater need for lower calorie (or slightly higher protein), non-compromise, taste-equivalent or better replacements across most food products. If people can't stop eating, lower caloric density seems like the best way to reduce overall caloric intake.
It's very hard to eat less when you eat sugar and meat. The most calorie dense foods on the planet.
Having a diet abundant in veggies allows you to eat as much as you want any time you want. The best diet for those who like to eat a lot and often.
Given the evidence it is obviously true that majority of people have no emotional maturity to control themselves. They've been given, through tax incentives of meat and dairy, an opportunity to fill themselves with large amounts of cheap meat, and it is easy to overdose with meat.
Try eating carrots, kale, lettuce, eggplants, legumes, beans, buckwheat, corn like a madman (which is what obviously the majority is doing with meat) and see if you get fat.
People think meat has a place in every meal. It's obviously not a good choice.
Sounds like the solution is contained in the article??
More people are finding that the only work they can find is a desk job working long hours with a long commute and many expenses to worry about.
Throw in the US' massive subsidies for meat, soy, sugars, a cultural love of fried food (just go to any restaurant or convenience store)- and voila, you have a cheap vice for those overworked, unfit people to indulge in.
The solution would be for work to be less hours (more time to exercise), from home (no commute = live somewhere more active and financially sustainable), and for all food sources to be unsubsidized, so that people can decide that $2 for a pound of frozen veggies and some sauce is a great deal compared to the $3 box of oreos/goldfish
Everyone knows that obesity is caused by increase in food consumption. Except there's some evidence that suggests the cause is more complicated. Like why do Asians less likely to be obese, or some lab animals increasing in weight despite living in carefully controlled conditions? Why do fat people on diets have the metabolisms of starving people, and prisoners that intentionally overeat quickly return to their original weight? Why do separated identical twins have very similar weights and mortality?
I'm far from certain that any of it is correct, or have any idea what the real cause is. But I find it really interesting, and it makes me kind of angry when people make judgmental comments about fat people or the cause of obesity.
I mean even if it is environmental, it doesn't mean it's easy to control. Most people who try to diet fail. There's no such thing as free will, and even if a highly restricted diet would work in theory, we all have animal brains that can be overwhelmed by powerful desires to fulfill basic needs like eating. Some people can't stop eating any more than you can hold your breath for 3 minutes. Even if there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so.
One of the articles in the link I posted was about obese people in the 1950's held in a hospital on a carefully controlled diet. It worked, but the patients just obsessed about food and acted like starving people, despite being a normal weight. As soon as they were allowed to leave the hospital, they quickly returned to their normal weights.
The phenomenon of people quickly returning to their "normal weight" is explained perfectly by the Harris-Benedict equation. You can literally translate Harris-Benedict (i.e. calories in/calories out) into a differential equation, solve it, and get these results. Other immediate results include rapid weight loss at the start of a diet but very slow weight loss at the end.
Seems more like people are refusing to listen to those who do actually know how to stop it. The resistance to LCHF/IF I've seen and experienced has been ridiculous. People just do not want to change or give up their precious carbs/sweets.
Of course LCHF promoters can do a lot more about concerns with sustainability, animal exploitation/ethics, convenience and so on, but anyone interested in fixing this problem already has the knowledge and tools to do so.
Yeah, I've yet to jump on this whole low-carb fad...lol.
Look, I'm not saying it doesn't work for some people, or some people just don't like the taste of bread/pasta - but to sell it as some instant weight-loss cure, or a magic cure-all for illness is overdoing it a bit.
It's like saying, I'm only going to eat seafood - damn, everybody else should eat seafood as well!
Ultimately, just being aware about what you eat - whether it is not eating eating carbohydrates, or only eating seafood, or only eating organic food from a certain brand - is better than just mindlessly eating what's in front of you, or near to hand.
The article states:
> The causes of the worldwide weight gain are complicated, and the story is different from country to country. There are some common trends: Rising incomes, global trade, changing food supplies, and declines in physical activity all contribute.
Basically - we're eating more, and exercising less.
So if we did the opposite - ate less, and exercised more - that would go some way to reversing the trend.
How exactly you choose to do those things is really a personal preference - I don't think we should prescribe that you need to do by eating less carbohydrates.
I have switched to an lchf based diet, and I have seen some tremendous health benefits such as lower weight, better mood and higher overall energy.
I saw a movie recently called That Sugar Film that explores this kind of eating. One of the key takeaways is it actually important where the calories come from and not just the amount.
LCHF promoters have a marketing issue because it feels like a cult or a religion.
If they could just focus their message to "eat as little artificial sugar and starch as possible", I think fewer people would cry out in protest.
It's my takeaway, anyway. I lost 10 pounds in a month when I quit eating soft bread, pasta, potatoes and most sweets. My diet was basically hard bread with cheese for breakfast, salad for lunch, meat and vegetables for dinner.
It can be a very effective start to a lifestyle change. It can be hard to keep up, though (and expensive, depending on where you live).
I'm starting to think more and more the culprit is easy access to alcohol (bars everywhere, large quantities and selections of beverages in stores everywhere) - which pauses your metabolism to be broken down as it cannot be stored by the body, and the ease of purchasing sugary (everywhere, in everything!) foods.
In addition, humans used to live in towns where they'd always be walking around whereas the now suburban lifestyles require cars to get around and so less exercise.
The problem is that the easiest ways to lose weight often cost less or nothing so there is no financial incentive for business to advertise them. That means they don't hit the media because there's no PR driving it, they're not on TV or radio and on it goes.
Eating less is cheaper than eating more. Drinking water instead of sugary drinks is free or cheaper, assuming you avoid bottled water. Walking more is free. Running is free.
Instead, the things you see advertised are: big meals, value for money eating, exercise equipment, gym memberships, soft drinks, juices, supplements (my god, the advertising of supplements in Australia is insane).
And so, because of the onslaught of advertising, people think the ab-roller is going to eliminate their gut or they're tempted by the advertising of treats or "healthy" juice and so on.
The one point they kind of sold me on is supplements, as in vitamins and minerals. The argument is that even fresh veg these days don't contain the same amount of nutrients as before, so it's a "good idea" to top up with supplements.
Today, automated cooking makes food that is unhealthy. Industrially processed food equals bad food. I think this is a large part of the reason for obesity. There is so little healthy food that is cheap and requires no manual effort to cook.
With sufficiently advanced robotics, the equation changes. All food that humans can cook well today becomes available with no cooking-cost. The availability of tasty and healthy food, at low cost, with no effort involved in preparing it, should be a game changer in more ways than one - and obesity ought to go down.
(Side-note: that the cost of cooking today is not in money, but in effort and time, doesn't make it less deterring but rather more so.)
In future robots will make it worse, because the wealthiest 1% will control the robots with patents and money, they don't care what you eat, so you won't decide about it. Less and less people will care.
I bet most here never had nutrition/sport theory in school, I did have that. If you know how your body works, how food is processed internally and what is good/bad fats/sugars/carbs then it is not hard to eat healthy.
I don't do much sport and still don't gain.
The rest is selfdiscipline
We're doing the same mistakes from the very same reason in different areas of our lives. We don't have financial education in schools so as kids we take loans. We don't have law education so we don't understand how administration works. Instead we are educated what is speed of light and what energy is need to send a rock on orbit in perfect conditions where g=10m/s^2. Why.
It is clearly known how to do this. I lost 15 kg in 3 months after changing my eating habits and I can tell it is simple (but not necessarily easy).
Key changes to introduce to your diet:
1. Eat less carbohydrates, especially those with high glycemic index (eg. pasta, pizza, bread). Ideally replace them with beans, lentils, peas (they have lower glycemic index).
2. Remove alcohol from your diet. It is highly caloric and increases your insulin levels (which will make you eat more).
3. Remove sugar and sweets from your diet. Use xylitol as alternative to sugar (it has lower glycemic index).
Additionally:
1. Drink water, avoid soft drinks, juices or milk. Do not add sugar or milk to your coffee.
2. Eat more protein (fish, chicken, beef, eggs).
3. Eat more high quality fats (fish oil, nut oil, olive oil, coconut oil).
4. Eat more vegetables, but avoid potato, sweet potato, corn.
5. To maintain results, motivation and high energy - excercise (eg. running, gym) for 1 hour every 2-3 days. It will make you feel great, after 1-2 months you will start missing the training day :)
6. Let yourself enjoy anything, in any quantity once in a week (but consider avoiding alcohol) to deal with your cravings and temporarily boost metabolism.
The advice is based on Tim Ferris recommendations from his "4 Hour Body" book [1]. I followed it and it simply works.
There is an industry pushing us to eat more, there is another industry pushing us to lost weight through exercise but there is no one pushing us to lost weight through fasting.
There shouldn't be a 'we' stopping it, at least not in a free society. As it is, every individual does know how to stop it, should it be a problem. This isn't to belittle the difficulty experienced by most of us in putting that knowledge into action by selecting and restricting what one consumes.
The UK Government's sugar tax disproportionately hits the poor and only applies to some sugary foods. Indeed,sugar consumption per capita has been falling. Which food will be taxed next? Ultimately it's up to individuals to solve their own problems. If people elect to spend what money they have on healthy foods, suppliers will meet the challenge because that's their business.
[ Correction: all foods are healthy though not if you eat inappropriate amounts of them. ]
"Ultimately it's up to individuals to solve their own problems."
Sure, but the problem is the externalities. We don't say 'it's up to factories to solve their emission problems on their own' either - well, we do, but we impose limits on their emissions. It's politically (and arguably morally) infeasible to do the same for weight, so we do the next best thing.
I would like to believe that, in the future, we'll use bikes for intracity transit, and few people will own cars, renting them when they need to drive long distances or move large loads. I think this would help with both obesity and global warming.
your surroundings are doing it. the economy is finely tuned to sell and this includes food. the approaches to losing weight that work for the individual will fail when applied to the general population because of reactionary changes in the economy.
e.g cut out fat = products that have more sugar and salt sell more. cut out sugar = products that have more fat and salt sell more. end result will still be bad eating.
Here's a crazy theory of mine - just planting some seeds.
Industrial scale farming is creating "institutionalized" plants - we call them "fields", but they could be looked at as industrial plant camps, were plants don't have to do any effort to grow - there are no pests, there is no competition from other plants, there's plenty of food (fertilizer) and water, etc. We take care of everything for them so the plants grow up big and "lazy".
Similar thing is happening to farmed animals, who are fed these "lazy" plants and kept in similar "food camps" in conditions which prevent physical movement, competition or effort.
Plants or animals, goal is to obtain highest weight in shortest amount of time in order to increase profits.
I remember the taste of the vegetables from my grandmother's garden. Rich, full and powerful. Plants were strong, showed signs of fighting for survival - having scars and being bitten by insects, etc.
My grandmother took care of those plants personally. She talked to them, she touched them, she collected pests manually.
Similar thing with the animals that she had on her farm.
Of course there was no obesity in my grandmother's village.
I think there is a connection between "lazy" plants and low energy that it generates in their consumers - be it humans or animals. This "laziness" and the instruction to grow to large sizes may be transmitted from species to species by mechanisms which might not be known yet.
I don't think that's the problem, I think you need to go one level deeper.
I've lost 52kg in the last year, and a large part of that was eating less processed food. Not because I am a hippy, but because almost every part of food processing leads to easier to digest, more calorie rich, food.
It is almost impossible to get fat (in my experience) from eating unprocessed vegetables, leafs, and whole cooked pieces of meat -- the food is mostly not calorie rich enough. It is however a much more expensive and time consuming way to live.
Do you believe in homeopathic therapies too? (This is asked mostly in good faith -- if you do, at least you're consistent, if you don't, then I'd be curious about the contradiction.)
[+] [-] jurassic|10 years ago|reply
But we do know how to stop it. You just have to eat a little less. A modest, sustainable change in your diet is all that is needed to make dramatic changes over a 6-12 month timescale.
Record what you eat to establish an honest food baseline, and reduce from there. Stop eating all food you don't enjoy, and stop eating when you aren't hungry.
I put off losing weight for the last decade because of the constant drumbeat of news, blogs, and anecdotal moaning I heard from everyone about how impossible it is to lose weight. But after monitoring my food as described above for 6 months, I am down 20% from my starting weight. Success feels inevitable now, because the changes I have made are small and sustainable for me; for example, I still eat candy, but fun size instead of king size. My main regret is not starting sooner. I lost my 20s to obesity because crash diets failed me and I listened when people said it wasn't possible.
reddit.com/r/loseit has been an amazing support community for me throughout this process. I'd encourage y'all to check it out if you want to make a change.
[+] [-] sambe|10 years ago|reply
The fact that willpower/compliance is the core problem is also sufficiently well-known that I read this kind of assessment and think "and world peace too: we just have to get along with each other".
[+] [-] cat-dev-null|10 years ago|reply
PS: I need to lose 20 lbs myself
[+] [-] akerro|10 years ago|reply
Not less, but smarter, less sugar, more vegetables and meat, but not highly processed meat, more water, less water-sugar-juice.
>Stop eating all food you don't enjoy, and stop eating when you aren't hungry.
I enjoy donuts, but I don't enjoy cauliflowers, yet I don't eat donuts.
[+] [-] pitchka|10 years ago|reply
Having a diet abundant in veggies allows you to eat as much as you want any time you want. The best diet for those who like to eat a lot and often.
Given the evidence it is obviously true that majority of people have no emotional maturity to control themselves. They've been given, through tax incentives of meat and dairy, an opportunity to fill themselves with large amounts of cheap meat, and it is easy to overdose with meat.
Try eating carrots, kale, lettuce, eggplants, legumes, beans, buckwheat, corn like a madman (which is what obviously the majority is doing with meat) and see if you get fat.
People think meat has a place in every meal. It's obviously not a good choice.
[+] [-] alecbaldwinlol|10 years ago|reply
More people are finding that the only work they can find is a desk job working long hours with a long commute and many expenses to worry about.
Throw in the US' massive subsidies for meat, soy, sugars, a cultural love of fried food (just go to any restaurant or convenience store)- and voila, you have a cheap vice for those overworked, unfit people to indulge in.
The solution would be for work to be less hours (more time to exercise), from home (no commute = live somewhere more active and financially sustainable), and for all food sources to be unsubsidized, so that people can decide that $2 for a pound of frozen veggies and some sauce is a great deal compared to the $3 box of oreos/goldfish
[+] [-] Houshalter|10 years ago|reply
I've been collecting links about this stuff here: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/hpz/open_thread_june_16...
I'm far from certain that any of it is correct, or have any idea what the real cause is. But I find it really interesting, and it makes me kind of angry when people make judgmental comments about fat people or the cause of obesity.
I mean even if it is environmental, it doesn't mean it's easy to control. Most people who try to diet fail. There's no such thing as free will, and even if a highly restricted diet would work in theory, we all have animal brains that can be overwhelmed by powerful desires to fulfill basic needs like eating. Some people can't stop eating any more than you can hold your breath for 3 minutes. Even if there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so.
One of the articles in the link I posted was about obese people in the 1950's held in a hospital on a carefully controlled diet. It worked, but the patients just obsessed about food and acted like starving people, despite being a normal weight. As soon as they were allowed to leave the hospital, they quickly returned to their normal weights.
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|10 years ago|reply
https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.htm...
Many of the "complicated" phenomena are simply people not doing the math and not understanding what the simple model actually predicts.
[+] [-] earljwagner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiaopingguo|10 years ago|reply
Of course LCHF promoters can do a lot more about concerns with sustainability, animal exploitation/ethics, convenience and so on, but anyone interested in fixing this problem already has the knowledge and tools to do so.
[+] [-] victorhooi|10 years ago|reply
Look, I'm not saying it doesn't work for some people, or some people just don't like the taste of bread/pasta - but to sell it as some instant weight-loss cure, or a magic cure-all for illness is overdoing it a bit.
It's like saying, I'm only going to eat seafood - damn, everybody else should eat seafood as well!
Ultimately, just being aware about what you eat - whether it is not eating eating carbohydrates, or only eating seafood, or only eating organic food from a certain brand - is better than just mindlessly eating what's in front of you, or near to hand.
The article states:
> The causes of the worldwide weight gain are complicated, and the story is different from country to country. There are some common trends: Rising incomes, global trade, changing food supplies, and declines in physical activity all contribute.
Basically - we're eating more, and exercising less.
So if we did the opposite - ate less, and exercised more - that would go some way to reversing the trend.
How exactly you choose to do those things is really a personal preference - I don't think we should prescribe that you need to do by eating less carbohydrates.
[+] [-] joch|10 years ago|reply
I saw a movie recently called That Sugar Film that explores this kind of eating. One of the key takeaways is it actually important where the calories come from and not just the amount.
http://thatsugarfilm.com/film/synopsis/
[+] [-] soft_dev_person|10 years ago|reply
If they could just focus their message to "eat as little artificial sugar and starch as possible", I think fewer people would cry out in protest.
It's my takeaway, anyway. I lost 10 pounds in a month when I quit eating soft bread, pasta, potatoes and most sweets. My diet was basically hard bread with cheese for breakfast, salad for lunch, meat and vegetables for dinner.
It can be a very effective start to a lifestyle change. It can be hard to keep up, though (and expensive, depending on where you live).
[+] [-] smn1234|10 years ago|reply
In addition, humans used to live in towns where they'd always be walking around whereas the now suburban lifestyles require cars to get around and so less exercise.
[+] [-] nikanj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanCal|10 years ago|reply
Your metabolism most certainly does not just pause. There is a well known term for people whose metabolism isn't doing anything. It's "dead".
[+] [-] prawn|10 years ago|reply
Eating less is cheaper than eating more. Drinking water instead of sugary drinks is free or cheaper, assuming you avoid bottled water. Walking more is free. Running is free.
Instead, the things you see advertised are: big meals, value for money eating, exercise equipment, gym memberships, soft drinks, juices, supplements (my god, the advertising of supplements in Australia is insane).
And so, because of the onslaught of advertising, people think the ab-roller is going to eliminate their gut or they're tempted by the advertising of treats or "healthy" juice and so on.
[+] [-] miseg|10 years ago|reply
The one point they kind of sold me on is supplements, as in vitamins and minerals. The argument is that even fresh veg these days don't contain the same amount of nutrients as before, so it's a "good idea" to top up with supplements.
[+] [-] Torkel|10 years ago|reply
Today, automated cooking makes food that is unhealthy. Industrially processed food equals bad food. I think this is a large part of the reason for obesity. There is so little healthy food that is cheap and requires no manual effort to cook.
With sufficiently advanced robotics, the equation changes. All food that humans can cook well today becomes available with no cooking-cost. The availability of tasty and healthy food, at low cost, with no effort involved in preparing it, should be a game changer in more ways than one - and obesity ought to go down.
(Side-note: that the cost of cooking today is not in money, but in effort and time, doesn't make it less deterring but rather more so.)
[+] [-] akerro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grp|10 years ago|reply
Time and effort is what make life fun!
[+] [-] kinai|10 years ago|reply
I bet most here never had nutrition/sport theory in school, I did have that. If you know how your body works, how food is processed internally and what is good/bad fats/sugars/carbs then it is not hard to eat healthy. I don't do much sport and still don't gain. The rest is selfdiscipline
[+] [-] akerro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madaxe_again|10 years ago|reply
Do people really not notice the correlation between eating crappy food and feeling like crap?
You literally are what you eat.
[+] [-] seele|10 years ago|reply
Key changes to introduce to your diet: 1. Eat less carbohydrates, especially those with high glycemic index (eg. pasta, pizza, bread). Ideally replace them with beans, lentils, peas (they have lower glycemic index). 2. Remove alcohol from your diet. It is highly caloric and increases your insulin levels (which will make you eat more). 3. Remove sugar and sweets from your diet. Use xylitol as alternative to sugar (it has lower glycemic index).
Additionally: 1. Drink water, avoid soft drinks, juices or milk. Do not add sugar or milk to your coffee. 2. Eat more protein (fish, chicken, beef, eggs). 3. Eat more high quality fats (fish oil, nut oil, olive oil, coconut oil). 4. Eat more vegetables, but avoid potato, sweet potato, corn. 5. To maintain results, motivation and high energy - excercise (eg. running, gym) for 1 hour every 2-3 days. It will make you feel great, after 1-2 months you will start missing the training day :) 6. Let yourself enjoy anything, in any quantity once in a week (but consider avoiding alcohol) to deal with your cravings and temporarily boost metabolism.
The advice is based on Tim Ferris recommendations from his "4 Hour Body" book [1]. I followed it and it simply works.
[1] http://fourhourbody.com/
[+] [-] felhr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raincom|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otabdeveloper1|10 years ago|reply
Well, actually, we do. Just stop eating sugar like it's food. (Yes, I know it's addictive, that's part of the problem.)
[+] [-] vixen99|10 years ago|reply
The UK Government's sugar tax disproportionately hits the poor and only applies to some sugary foods. Indeed,sugar consumption per capita has been falling. Which food will be taxed next? Ultimately it's up to individuals to solve their own problems. If people elect to spend what money they have on healthy foods, suppliers will meet the challenge because that's their business.
[ Correction: all foods are healthy though not if you eat inappropriate amounts of them. ]
[+] [-] roel_v|10 years ago|reply
Sure, but the problem is the externalities. We don't say 'it's up to factories to solve their emission problems on their own' either - well, we do, but we impose limits on their emissions. It's politically (and arguably morally) infeasible to do the same for weight, so we do the next best thing.
[+] [-] fabulist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deepnet|10 years ago|reply
"Daisy, daisy..." sings HAL while pedalling...
[+] [-] jimjimjim|10 years ago|reply
e.g cut out fat = products that have more sugar and salt sell more. cut out sugar = products that have more fat and salt sell more. end result will still be bad eating.
[+] [-] dawhizkid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjg007|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justsaysmthng|10 years ago|reply
Industrial scale farming is creating "institutionalized" plants - we call them "fields", but they could be looked at as industrial plant camps, were plants don't have to do any effort to grow - there are no pests, there is no competition from other plants, there's plenty of food (fertilizer) and water, etc. We take care of everything for them so the plants grow up big and "lazy".
Similar thing is happening to farmed animals, who are fed these "lazy" plants and kept in similar "food camps" in conditions which prevent physical movement, competition or effort.
Plants or animals, goal is to obtain highest weight in shortest amount of time in order to increase profits.
I remember the taste of the vegetables from my grandmother's garden. Rich, full and powerful. Plants were strong, showed signs of fighting for survival - having scars and being bitten by insects, etc.
My grandmother took care of those plants personally. She talked to them, she touched them, she collected pests manually. Similar thing with the animals that she had on her farm.
Of course there was no obesity in my grandmother's village.
I think there is a connection between "lazy" plants and low energy that it generates in their consumers - be it humans or animals. This "laziness" and the instruction to grow to large sizes may be transmitted from species to species by mechanisms which might not be known yet.
[+] [-] CJefferson|10 years ago|reply
I've lost 52kg in the last year, and a large part of that was eating less processed food. Not because I am a hippy, but because almost every part of food processing leads to easier to digest, more calorie rich, food.
It is almost impossible to get fat (in my experience) from eating unprocessed vegetables, leafs, and whole cooked pieces of meat -- the food is mostly not calorie rich enough. It is however a much more expensive and time consuming way to live.
[+] [-] Jach|10 years ago|reply