Jump to content
Zeta

Nuts: which are best?

Recommended Posts

Update on Chestnuts

 

You'll recall from this post, chestnuts are remarkably high in polyphenols, but low in calories & fat. They are also very low in methionine relative to other nuts, even on a per-gram basis, to say nothing of a per-calorie basis, according to CRONometer.

 

I've been enjoying the Galil pre-roasted chestnuts available at Amazon for $6.50 / lb, which I discussed in the two posts immediately prior to this one. But I'd never had fresh-roasted chestnuts before, so I had nothing to compare these pre-roasted one too, until now (channelling my inner Dr. Greger ). 

 

I picked up some fresh (in shell) chestnuts at the Asian market last time I was there buying durian. I cooked the chestnuts using a hybrid of the microwave and pan-roasting methods described here. I agree with Sirtuin, who said they were a "royal pain in the ass" to shell. And honestly, from a palatability perspective, I found them pretty comparable to the pre-roasted Galil ones. So from my perspective, the pre-roasted ones are the way to go.

 

Given them a try! But if you're trying them for the first time, I recommend buying a smaller package than the 84oz (24 3.5oz packets) product I pointed to above. Once you've confirmed you enjoy them, you can buy them in bulk and freeze them like I do to save money.

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to eat lots of roasted chestnuts in my childhood as there were abundant in my birth-town, so I want to add what I know on this topic. AFAIK, most of the phenols in the nuts are concentrated in the pellicle. That's why I don't like the taste of peanuts or pistachios without pellicle, it's just not bitter and aromatic enough. However for chestnuts, it's very hard to eat with the pellicle since it's very bitter and cottony texture. I would eat them anyway though even if there is no health benefits since they are one of the most delicious snacks I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they still roast chestnuts in the streets of NY city? Last time I was there, 20 years ago, there were still chestnut vendors.

 

This thread takes me back to my childhood. This is how we roast them here traditionally, gas cookers or even BBQ & pan with holes, they need to be pierced before otherwise they are going to explode. Then my mother would wrap them in a wool cloth and let'em cool down slowly for a few minutes so that cooking could go on inside. Very good wintry food.

They are mainly starch but they are pretty filling to the stomach, so a few are usually enough (to me at least).

I agree with Burak, the pellicle in roasted chestnuts is hardly edible. I wasn't aware of particular health benefits.

 

caldarroste_brace.jpg

 

caldarroste.jpg

330px-Po%C3%AAle_%C3%A0_marrons.jpg

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mccoy:

 

Roasted chestnuts are even tastier the day after. Somehow I like them better when eaten cold, maybe due to its sweeter taste.

 

The information I know about pellicles comes from this study:

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1475-2891-9-3-S1.pdf

 

Almost all the nuts they presented in pellicle forms have at least 5 times more antioxidants than the stript ones. One more reason to eat them without roasting, well except chestnuts for obvious reasons :) though raw form is also not bad if it's fresh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

I'd like to change my nuts-eating habits.

Specifically, so far I've been eating at least 120 grams (4 ozs) and over of oily nuts per day, of which about 100 grams almonds and hazelnuts.

Now, for various reasons including the high cost of such products here, I'd like to change my nuts strategy, decreasing almonds+hazelnuts, increasing sunflower+pumpkin seeds, leaving unvaried walnuts (about 10 grams per day)+brazil (one nut per day)+ roasted peanuts (10-20 per day). Some say peanuts are rigorously legumes if so, we can just ignore them.

 

Sunflower have a treble advantage: low cost, hi proteins, hi minerals and micros, whereas the single con is hi omega6s. I can balance that by eating 3 tbs a day of ground flaxseed (more valuable proteins  and minerals)

 

My question: which is, according to you guys, the minimum amount of almonds+hazelnuts which would guarantee health benefits. In a posted article I read 25 grams per day, I'd settle for 50.

 

Also, would you suggest any alternative schemes? I've always been an avid nuts-eater so I'd like to keep a minimum of 50-100 grams per day of nuts+seeds. To keep an high level of micros, I'm planning to increase cereals which are relatively inexpensive and nutrients-dense, choosing some selected varieties like organic pumpernickel bread, buckwheat cakes and so on, although I can rarely eat more than 100 grams of cereals per day right now. I've also started to include beans like black beans and garbanzos, which I'm cooking, draining, saving in the fridge and eating in limited quantities (3-4 tablespoons per day). I'm allowing more carbs and less fats.

 

I just started to keep tab of grocery bills and the figures there are scaring (includes all family - they eat meat and that's really costly, even chicken, let alone beef cuts). Almost half of my salary spent in groceries sounds preposterous. Maybe the subject of another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many threads around here that deal with nuts, I'd suggest looking at some of them for the science. Econcomis is a different matter, and depends on your location. Really the evidence seems to show that benefits from nuts accumulate from even pretty low amounts of consumption, so I would not sweat it, especially if you already have good EVOO daily. Modest amounts of walnuts seem a good bet, because f.ex. almonds have high n9 which is not an EFA and which is already present in your EVOO, so walnuts give you greater coverage for EFA, although as you say, you get your n3 from flaxseed. So I'd think modest amounts of walnuts (as you are consuming now) should cover you for nuts more or less - personally I'd definitely drop the Brazil on account of unpredicatability wrt. selenium content etc. Oh, and also, I personally stay away from peanuts, even though epidem studies show benefits - I am somewhat uneasy about aflatoxins and have still doubts about impact on artherosclerosis. 

Edited by TomBAvoider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks TA, for the tips. Yes, EVOO is a guarantee as far as healthy fats are concerned (barring the view of Dr. Greger),  and far cheaper than nuts. My next step, as per this forum-awakened awareness, will be to ensure about the  hi polyphenols content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, for various reasons including the high cost of such products here, I'd like to change my nuts strategy, decreasing almonds+hazelnuts, increasing sunflower+pumpkin seeds, leaving unvaried walnuts (about 10 grams per day)+brazil (one nut per day)+ roasted peanuts (10-20 per day). Some say peanuts are rigorously legumes if so, we can just ignore them.

Funny, this has been my recent behavior, too, because of the high prices of nuts. I've backed off eating so many pistachios, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, pine nuts, and I've started eating way more sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds. This is because of the price only, though, probably due to drought conditions in Cali, where USA residents get most nuts, it's nothing to do with perceived health benefits of what's better and what's worse. Ain't it awesome that the prices of junk food fries and burgers and poisonous sugar beverage addict-makers keep going down while the healthier alternatives (like nuts and seeds) keep increasing in price. Sarcasm hat: beautiful.

 

Peanuts I don't eat -- just because I don't like how peanuts make my poops stink like, ugh, peanuts. What about expensive nut butters? Where are you with those? I admit I have a hard time with portion control and almond butter, so I just don't purchase it.

 

My question: which is, according to you guys, the minimum amount of almonds+hazelnuts which would guarantee health benefits. In a posted article I read 25 grams per day, I'd settle for 50.

My opinion is no food has guaranteed health benefits; some foods are just less harmful to the body than others. Like, no oxygen is healthy, either, but we're stuck with breathing this toxic stuff to keep alive. Stop eating, stop breathing, stop voluntarily moving: freeze us for a century in pods so we can come back during a presumably better future when someone actually knows something useful about human longevity extension. Now, there seems to be little to nothing beyond hopes and dreams, another mouse study, maybe DIY senescent cell clearance. Like, megadose quercetin to maybe clear out senescent epithelial cells. But no one knows, and it'll be decades and still more rodent fascination.

 

I just started to keep tab of grocery bills and the figures there are scaring (includes all family - they eat meat and that's really costly, even chicken, let alone beef cuts). Almost half of my salary spent in groceries sounds preposterous. Maybe the subject of another thread.

Yeah I hear ya, man: food prices are a travesty. And the thing is as the diets of common citizens continue to degrade, the waves of obesity drown all of us down, even us the non-obese, we're just gonna have to pay on the back ends of their bad habits. That is, because healthy food is just so out of reach for so many, and unhealthy food is addictive and cheap, our upcoming medical catastrophes will be in the hundreds of billions, and I think I read yesterday "trillions..." Yet here we are: pretending it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traditionally, the way to economize on food, is exactly the same as it's been for literally thousands of years: the cheapest way is grains and legumes. It's the whole reason why agriculture developed in the first place: grains are energy dense, and hence inexpensive in the grand scheme of things. That's what allowed our ancestors to develop civilization - cheap food, i.e. grains. That is still true today. Meat is higher up the chain and so more expensive as it frequenlty incorporates the cost of grain anyway (in modern agricultural practices). 

 

Grains are the cheapest, but you gotta be careful re: nutrition. Not all grains are created equal - and to be fair, not all grains are equal in price. If you go the way of grain, select something that's not expensive, but yet provides at least some nutrition: barley, oats, buckwheat. Avoid rice for a variety of reasons. Throw in some pulses - cheap.

 

Other ways of getting cheap protein: small amounts of whey protein - I guess depending on where you are, it can be a lot cheaper than meat etc., and don't get anything fancy, just whey protein concentrate, cheaper and better.

 

On oils, I'm afraid it's never going to be super cheap, as good quality EVOO is pricy no matter where you are. Although if you are in Italy, I am a bit surprised you have so few resources - depending on what region you're in, it's always possible to hook up with a farmer and buy stuff directly - things like nuts - that can be a lot cheaper than buying retail. I have friends in Tuscany and they get tons of top quality wine, EVOO, nuts and so on from local farms. Even if you live in a big city, you must have relatives out in the country - see what they have, make a trip a couple of times a year and stock up. Very economical.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to change my nuts strategy, decreasing almonds+hazelnuts, increasing sunflower+pumpkin seeds, leaving unvaried walnuts (about 10 grams per day)+brazil (one nut per day)+ roasted peanuts (10-20 per day). Some say peanuts are rigorously legumes if so, we can just ignore them.

 

Sunflower have a treble advantage: low cost, hi proteins, hi minerals and micros, whereas the single con is hi omega6s. I can balance that by eating 3 tbs a day of ground flaxseed (more valuable proteins  and minerals)

I would avoid roasted peanuts because they're roasted oily protein: glycotoxins, peroxidized fats, etc. On the other hand, I wouldn't ignore them as part of your nut count if you're eating them: no, they aren't actually nuts, but they function just like them in the diet and are included in the "nuts" category in the epidemiology for which we're largely consuming them.

 

I would be careful Brazil nuts. As I noted earlier in this thread,

 

Analysis was performed on 72 individual nuts obtained in stores as shelled nuts in bulk and shelled and unshelled nuts in packages. Their average selenium content was 14.66 ppm with a range of 0.2 to 253.0.(5)

 

(citation in previous post). An average Brazil nut is 5 g: that's between 1 and 126.5 µg of Se/d.

 

And I would certainly not be increasing my intake of sunflower and/or pumpkin seeds, especailly if you're still planning to consume walnuts. Trying to "balance" excessive omega-6 with excessive omega-3 is a bad strategy: you want to get your RDA for both and not more, keeping them in balance within those constraints. See here and here. And, quoting again my previous post:

 

The IOM "Adequate intake" for linolenic acid omega-6 (meaning, not the mimimum you actually need, but a level that is confidently judged to be more than enough cover whatever the as-yet-undetermined real requirement) is 17 g LA/d for young men and 12 g/d for young women, but there's epidemiological and mechanistic reasons to want it to be lower, particularly if you get your n3 from ALA rather than fish (oil); the World Health Organization (WHO)  recommendations for fats and fatty acids posit an acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) of 2.5-9% of energy, with av'g requirement at 2% of energy and an individual nutrient level  ("the recommended level of nutrient intake for all healthy people in the population, which is set at a certain level x above the mean requirement") of 2.5% of energy.(6) At 1850 Calories, eg, that's just 5 g! Again, arachidonic acid counts "extra" because it's already metabolized.

 

My question: which is, according to you guys, the minimum amount of almonds+hazelnuts which would guarantee health benefits. In a posted article I read 25 grams per day, I'd settle for 50.

 

 It's clear that there are benefits at 1 oz; there's no particular reason to think that there are further food-specific benefits for more.

 

 

I just started to keep tab of grocery bills and the figures there are scaring (includes all family - they eat meat and that's really costly, even chicken, let alone beef cuts). Almost half of my salary spent in groceries sounds preposterous. Maybe the subject of another thread.

Yeah I hear ya, man: food prices are a travesty.

 

Let's keep this in perspective. Food prices as a share of income have been plummeting for decades, with occasional spikes in commodities (which are major components of junk food and only modest components of any healthy diet), often related to a broader commodity bubble and/or the price of oil.

 

food-prices_fig09_revised1213.0.png

(Source)

 

USfoodExpChart2.png

(Source)

 

-wed-real-prices_us-foods_450px.jpeg

(Source)

 

Less so, but even so, for the poor in industrialized countries:

 

food_spending_fed-01_450px.jpeg?v=42626

(Source)

 

 

And the thing is as the diets of common citizens continue to degrade, the waves of obesity drown all of us down, even us the non-obese, we're just gonna have to pay on the back ends of their bad habits. That is, because healthy food is just so out of reach for so many, and unhealthy food is addictive and cheap, our upcoming medical catastrophes will be in the hundreds of billions, and I think I read yesterday "trillions..." Yet here we are: pretending it doesn't exist.

This is, of course, a quite disastrous problem — but to the extent that food prices play into it, it's too much cheap crap food, not that healthy food is expensive. I suspect a very large proportion of the obesity crisis would disappear if people would were eating less crap and continuing with the same intake of Good Stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, thanks very much for all the detailed tips. One doubt though:

 

 

 

And I would certainly not be increasing my intake of sunflower and/or pumpkin seeds, especailly if you're still planning to consume walnuts. Trying to "balance" excessive omega-6 with excessive omega-3 is a bad strategy: you want to get your RDA for both and not more, keeping them in balance within those constraints. See here and here. And, quoting again my previous post:

 

Now, and I just checked, my present 1-week cronometer average for omega6 is 18 grams (130% based on 14 g minimum), whereas average for omega3 is 2.5 grams (156% based on 1.6 g minimum). Hence, based on cronometer minima, an advised omega6/3 ratio would be about=9, whereas you suggest as low as 1/1 in previous posts. An ideal 1/1 ratio would entail that I consume 14 grams of omega3s, 9 times the minimum reccomended. Which you strongly disadvise.

What am I missing here?

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: shtira:

Prices of selected varieties of almonds & hazelnuts (mostly non-organic) here are about 18 US$ (shelled) per kilogram (1 kg=2.2 pounds=35 ozs)

 

Organic sunflower seeds instead cost about 7 US$ per kg shelled, about one third as almonds & hazelnuts. They've got lots of omega6, but also they are  rich in proteins and micronutrients, a very attractive characteristic for vegans

 

Nuts butters: here they are obscenely priced - not an option for regular use, unless very sparingly or as an holiday treat

 

Peanuts: I just buy them shelled and lightly roasted. They are delicious like that. Must verify the price, correcting for shell weight less than almonds though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I would certainly not be increasing my intake of sunflower and/or pumpkin seeds, especailly if you're still planning to consume walnuts. Trying to "balance" excessive omega-6 with excessive omega-3 is a bad strategy: you want to get your RDA for both and not more, keeping them in balance within those constraints. See here and here. And, quoting again my previous post:

 

Now, and I just checked, my present 1-week cronometer average for omega6 is 18 grams (130% based on 14 g minimum), whereas average for omega3 is 2.5 grams (156% based on 1.6 g minimum). Hence, based on cronometer minima, an advised omega6/3 ratio would be about=9, whereas you suggest as low as 1/1 in previous posts. An ideal 1/1 ratio would entail that I consume 14 grams of omega3s, 9 times the minimum reccomended. Which you strongly disadvise.

What am I missing here?

 

I don't know ;)xyz. I'm surprised that your n6 isn't higher, based on what sounded like a lot of sunflower nuts and some walnuts and others, but in any case, my point is: your n6 is too high, and you are still proposing making up for excessive n6 with excessive n3; I am saying you should instead be bringing your n6 down.

 

We really don't know the ideal ratio, but the actual requirements (something less than 14 g for linoleic and less than 4 g for α-linoleic) are within the range of (squishily) recommended ratios of ≈4:1 to ≈1:1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, thanks very much for all the detailed tips. One doubt though:

 

And I would certainly not be increasing my intake of sunflower and/or pumpkin seeds, especailly if you're still planning to consume walnuts. Trying to "balance" excessive omega-6 with excessive omega-3 is a bad strategy: you want to get your RDA for both and not more, keeping them in balance within those constraints. See here and here. And, quoting again my previous post:

Now, and I just checked, my present 1-week cronometer average for omega6 is 18 grams (130% based on 14 g minimum), whereas average for omega3 is 2.5 grams (156% based on 1.6 g minimum). Hence, based on cronometer minima, an advised omega6/3 ratio would be about=9, whereas you suggest as low as 1/1 in previous posts. An ideal 1/1 ratio would entail that I consume 14 grams of omega3s, 9 times the minimum reccomended. Which you strongly disadvise.

What am I missing here?

Ahem, well you're doing better than I am here; my 7-day intake of omega 6 is 24/g and omega 3 is 4/g. So.... I'm eating way too many pumpkin seeds it turns out. I'll dial that back. For omega 3s my primary source has been (yikes said the vegan) sardines. I feel like a terrible person -- eating sardines and preaching street corner vegan extremes -- but with all this scary fasting I've been up to I worry about lack of nutrition. And that's my excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sthira, sardines is a superfood for those who are nor rigorously vegetarian, unexpensive, rich of protein and omega3s, B12, ergocalciferol, iron, you say it. And relatively poor in mercury and cadmium, since it's low in the foodweb.

 

On my side, I found very useful your suggestion to grind flaxseed, I didn't do that last week, otherwise my n6/n3 ratio would have been closer to unity. But that according to Michael, might have meant too many ALAs... I wouldn't have imagined proper nutrition could be so intricate, I almost wish I were back to my ignorant days when I simply ignored omega 3s and 6s.

 

Anyway, back to budget, I have more calcs:

 

Peanuts, hi-quality slightly roasted with shell, minus 25% shell = 8 US$ per kilo. less than half as almonds and hazelnuts. These peanuts are not the ones salted and roasted in oil, which I think Michael refers to. Slightly roasted into the shell makes an healthier and exquisite treat.

 

Selected Walnuts, organic, with shell. minus 53% shell= 15 US$ per kilo. Less than non-organic almonds but not cheap. Good though to reach the minimum omega3s ADI.

 

Pine nuts are simply unreachable, a real treat I now relish a few time a year

Pistachio nuts, occasionally.

Macadamia, ditto.

 

I shop around in 6 different outlets now, picking the best quality to price ratio items. Time consuming, but wallet-friendly. 

 

Based on some of the above suggestions, I believe the following daily nut optimization scheme sounds good, although it needs to be refined and optimized in relation to proteins and micros. shelled amounts.

 

-15 grams almonds

-15 grams hazelnuts

-10 grams walnuts

-10 grams peanuts

-10 grams pumpkin seeds

-15 grams sunflower seeds

 

=75 grams total nuts (about 3 ounces)

 

The likely imbalance in omega3/6 could be then adjusted by flaxseed or flaxoil.

 

total daily cost: about 1 US dollar

Any desired increase in vegan proteins and minerals may be obtained with minimum additional expense by adding more sunflowers (and more flaxseeds).

 

I'll be back when I'll have macros and micros.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. brazil nuts. There is a maybe a way around the huge uncertainty in the selenium content. I've noticed they often sell sustainably-farmed nuts, produced by small villages in remote areas of Brazil. On the boxes, they usually report the location. We know that Se content is a function of the geographical area of production. Barring some potential acreages exceptionally deficient in Se for any reasons, this sounds like a resonable way around.

 

Brazil nuts are on the expensive side, but as you guys all know one a day together with other food will ensure us to be over the Se RDI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuts optimization scheme 1: This is one possible scheme, with a basic breakdown.

Monetary Value: 0.96 EUro, about 1.0 US$ (flaxseed included, EVOO not included)

it includes 25 grams of EVOO and one tablespoon ground flaxseed to hit the Ω3s RDA.

Its Ω6/Ω3 ratio is 5.5 to 1. It is 'Michael friendly', that is Ω3s is only 170% RDA, whereas Ω3s is 106% RDA, so it respects the condition that ALAs must not be too high

Pumpkin seeds are valuable in protein and minerals content, sunflower seeds come next. I wonder if peanuts might be eliminated, to me it just constitutes a palate indulgence.

 

post-7347-0-08976900-1487413923_thumb.jpg

post-7347-0-50635600-1487413996_thumb.jpg

 

Last but not least, proteins and aminos: 28% of RDA is satisfied by this scheme and some AAs are close to the RDA

post-7347-0-78713900-1487415355_thumb.jpg

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One detail:

 

A post was made that whole grains are "nutrient dense".  I don't agree-- they are "calorie dense", for the nutrients obtained.  Also, what protein is available in, e.g., whole wheat, is high in methionine -- not something that most of us want.

 

But, true, whole grains are cheap.  They are a good source of mostly empty calories.

 

Ugh!

 

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saul, to tell the truth, I found that a 2000 kCal vegan meal, as balanced as possible, tends always to have >100% RDA methionine and >100% RDA Leucine. This is true of nut-based and starch-based (wheat, rice+potatoes + vegetables).

I posted some examples in the thread on budget friendly dietary schemes.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eating whole grains is a great way to reduce methionine intake without changing calories beside fruits. Almost every vegetable you substitute for grains without lowering caloric intake is going to increase your met intake. My diet is predominantly based on whole grains & tubers, and my met intake is no more than 1.0g for 2200 calories. 

 

I also found apricots to be a perfect food for methionine restriction. Actually, you can be met deficient but protein adequate if all you eat is apricots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burak, 1 g methionine in my case is 160% RDA.

 

I wonder if there is some study where methionine is correlated to IGF-1 and if it is possible to estimate a suggested methionine threshold not to cause excessive IGF-1 signals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mccoy, it seems that there are many benefits of methionine restriction and this paper summarizes quite well:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049285/

 

I actually saw some of these benefits after reducing animal proteins to very low levels. After reading cold exposure topic, I tend to relate the benefits to BAT activation without actually doing cold exposure, i.e, burning sensation around my neck and kidney area after meals, improved blood glucose levels probably result of this, and increased resistance to cold despite losing 5-6 kg of which mostly fat.

 

Edit: I remember Michael Rae mentions we should not go above 1700mg of methionine, I forgot the topic though.

Edited by Burak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, burak, strangely enough, that article does not mention the methionine-IGF-1 link, which was what I believed was the main correlation in longevity issues.

 

I found very interesting the part where they write that abundant cystine may counteract the effects of MR. This because I noticed that in some days cronometer displays a lot of cystine, coming from some plant based foods (crucifera?). Actually, I remember in a discussion in this forum it was mentioned that cystine and methionine go together.

So we should speak more rigorosuly of (MR+CR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer not to add cystine to the equation simply because it's the least digestible AA in food, and even less for plant foods. I wonder if this was discussed in the forum before. All all know is that Michael considers M+C rather than M alone. Cystine blunts the effect of met. restriction because they give the bioavailable form of Cys as a supplement and not via food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Burak!

 

You've got it backwards -- protein in whole grains, such as wheat, is high in methionine; vegetables are low in methionine.

 

  --  Sauk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×