Jump to content
Dean Pomerleau

New Documentary Featuring CR

Recommended Posts

[Admin Note: Over on the cold exposure thread, Gordo posted a link to a new documentary that features CR and two former leaders for the CR Society, Paul and Meredith McGlothin. It is of general interesting, so I figured I move my response to Gordo to a new thread that everyone might see. Ignore the first couple sentences about a paper related to cold exposure.]

 

Gordo,

 

Thanks for pointing us to the Ikeno paper, and Michael thanks for digging it up. It is extremely interesting as Michael indicates, and I'm in the midst of digesting/dissecting it now. I'll be posting about it in my next post, hopefully later today. But in the meantime, I'd just like to highlight what Gordo said in his post that others may have missed, namely:

 

I think there is a better way than the type of CR practice some follow that results in susceptibility to infections, osteoporosis, and eating only low GI foods all the time. See all this and more as a CRSociety leader is featured in the BBC's "Eat to Live Forever" (2015). I don't mean to offend anyone, this person has contributed a lot and I even recommend his book and have a lot of admiration for him. The show actually features two different types of CR practitioners - one is portrayed much more favorably than the other so you can compare and contrast different styles for yourself. Note: The giant dark sunglasses are the result of a serious eye infection which isn't discussed in the show. Also note that Bernando died late last year not long after this show aired, at the (disputed) age of 114, still doing speaking engagements and having good mobility right up until his heart stopped (possibly cardiac amyloidosis which is common in super centenarians).

 

-Gordo

 

That was a fascinating BBC documentary. Thanks for pointing to it. The main character / narrator obviously had a perspective / agenda, and a story to tell about the benefits of moderation. But it was nevertheless a really interesting profile of several very immoderate, interesting and passionate people, a famous CR proponent (Paul M.), a Paleo Diet proponent (Mark Sisson), a pretty wacky but likeable raw Paleo person, who slaughters his own goats in his backyard and eats them raw, nose-to-tail. and a bunch of seemingly hippie-Iike fruitarians.

 

He really did a hatchet job of Paul & CR, without being overtly mean about it, or questioning whether it will actually work to extend healthy lifespan. In fact, he seems to buy that it would, just that it's unliveable, a very common refrain. But you are right that Paul comes across as a bit of a nutjob and his practices & recommendations as equally bizarre. No criticism intended, but I think the portrayal wasn't all that inaccurate, or unfair. Paul does practice and recommend some pretty unusual diet and lifestyle habits. But that's par for the course around here ☺.

 

The documentary is well worth watching for anyone unfamiliar with Paul, or with The CR WayTM way of living. 

 

It wasn't just Paul and CR who were portrayed in an unflattering light. The "fruitarians" weren't very happy with the way their segment was edited, as discussed in this response video by two of my favorite high carb, low fat vegans, Ryan and Angie from Happy Healthy Vegan, who were part of the filming but got cut:

 

 

Unlike the narrator, I'm fine with going to extremes. In fact, for me life is all about pushing the envelope of human possibillity, and going out on a limb for a worthy or interesting cause. If life isn't a bold adventure, it's not really living.

 

I agree with you though - given the evidence for modest (at best) human health & longevity benefits of cutting calories to the bone relative to a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet & lifestyle, I'm inclined to look beyond CR for new challenges and for new potential ways of extending healthy lifespan.

 

As anyone whose been following this thread [the cold exposure thread] will know, my latest obsessive attempt in this direction is to combine cold exposure with copious low-intensity exercise and enough healthy calories to remain very thin but still feel energized, robust, vibrant and very alive.

 

So far so good, but it is still early days...

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dean, the documentary is very interesting indeed. I watched and paused at 17:01 where Paul and his wife did a meditation session with the host. You said, “Note: The giant dark sunglasses are the result of a serious eye infection which isn't discussed in the show.” Do you think the reason for her serious eye infection is because she has pushed her bmi too low? How do you prevent from having any serious infection while practicing “extreme” CR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grace,

Dean, the documentary is very interesting indeed. I watched and paused at 17:01 where Paul and his wife did a meditation session with the host. You said, “Note: The giant dark sunglasses are the result of a serious eye infection which isn't discussed in the show.” Do you think the reason for her serious eye infection is because she has pushed her bmi too low? How do you prevent from having any serious infection while practicing “extreme” CR?

 

Actually I didn't say anything about Meredith wearing big dark, wraparound sunglasses indoors. That was a quote from Gordo. Gordo, I presume you have evidence to back up that diagnosis? 

 

If it was an infection, it's obviously hard to say why she got it and whether it had anything to do with her CR diet. As we've discussed elsewhere recently, in general it seems both anecdotally and from controlled studies, that CR'ed organisms (including humans) may be less prone to get an infection, but may have more trouble fighting one off if/when they do. 

 

I think many people would dispute your suggestion that I'm practicing extreme CR, given my calorie intake. But I'm clearly practicing extreme something, and your question is a good one about how I (or CRers in general) avoid infections.

 

I personally live pretty much the cloistered life of a hermit/monk and so don't get exposed to too many human-borne infections as a result. I avoid dental infections via impeccable oral hygiene that you and I have discussed here. I'm similarly careful about washing my hands, and not touching my face when out in public. And I get a yearly flu vaccine. All the usual stuff to avoid colds & flus. Fortunately I've been very lucky. I can't remember when I last got a cold, flu or other infection.

 

I recently had an ingrown toenail which thankfully never got infected, and which I self-treated by careful (and pretty painful) clipping, and with topical coconut oil (discussed here), which I use prophylactically on my face, feet, hands and my 'bike seat contact points'as a moisturizer, and for its purported anti-viral / anti-bacterial / anti-fungal properties.

 

But in addition to just trying to avoid exposure to infections, it appears possible to boost the immune system's ability to fight off invaders, and slow cancer growth as a bonus, through either cold exposure alone, or a combination of cold exposure and exercise. Check out this post for details.

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a sad program. The person who seemed sensible was his doctor. The fruitarians were cool, but I've been there and it's true the sugar runs away out of control, teeth begin to decay, fruitarianism isn't the answer. Everyone sorta seems crazy and lost here in this show, and that was probably mainstream tv's ultimate goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a sad program. The person who seemed sensible was his doctor. The fruitarians were cool, but I've been there and it's true the sugar runs away out of control, teeth begin to decay, fruitarianism isn't the answer. Everyone sorta seems crazy and lost here in this show, and that was probably mainstream tv's ultimate goal.

 

I could only stomach a few minutes of the druggy vibe of the vegan couple video - they kept mispronouncing Giles' name for one thing. I've lived in California by far the majority of my adult life and I still find it hard to distinguish parody from reality :)xyz Sugar addiction does seem to be a hazard for fruitarians and even vegans in general. After reading Greger's book (I found it useful in parts BTW if a bit too evangelical) it's clear he has this problem. This is one reason that despite an almost totally vegan diet myself I eat little to no sweet fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow what a sad program. The person who seemed sensible was his doctor. The fruitarians were cool, but I've been there and it's true the sugar runs away out of control, teeth begin to decay, fruitarianism isn't the answer. Everyone sorta seems crazy and lost here in this show, and that was probably mainstream tv's ultimate goal.

I could only stomach a few minutes of the druggy vibe of the vegan couple video - they kept mispronouncing Giles' name for one thing. I've lived in California by far the majority of my adult life and I still find it hard to distinguish parody from reality :)xyz Sugar addiction does seem to be a hazard for fruitarians and even vegans in general. After reading Greger's book (I found it useful in parts BTW if a bit too evangelical) it's clear he has this problem. This is one reason that despite an almost totally vegan diet myself I eat little to no sweet fruit.
Actually, Martin, I didn't watch the Ryan and Angie response youtubed above until you mentioned it, and I really liked what they had to say. They said their lifestyle was poorly represented by this stupid BBC thing, and that was my suspicion. The fruitarians were very cool, they're committed, they're honest, they're following the science they choose, and their message is no, we're not "fruit only" and we're aware of sugar concerns, and to claim bananas will send you into potassium poisoning is asinine. I don't even think bananas are a proper potassium source anyway -- what are bananas Wrt to potassium, ranked like 200 or something?

 

Ryan and Angie didn't seem like druggies at all to me, and I agree their portrayal was totally twisted. So all the other segments in this slap-job piece were probably equally unfair. And for what it's worth, this production managed to make the CR people (Meredith and Paul) look like creepy spiders. The presenter's facial reactions to Paul were totally over the top rude and disrespectful.

 

I'd let this little program serve as a warning to future calls from future mainstream television crews .... They're prob gonna make us look like wack jobs for attempting to live a (counter culture) healthy lifestyle. Look at these stupid bizarre freaks was the message here. And the entire production felt totally disingenuous to me. What's your opinion?

Edited by Sthira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sthira & Martin,

I (like Sthira) didn't think Angie and Ryan came across as druggies or hippies in their own video. They are both really quite rational people based on watching many of their videos. They are just passionate about their diet and lifestyle, as many of us are.

Sure Giles the documentary guy had an agenda, which as far as I can tell was to pander to 'the herd' - to convince them and himself that a lifestyle of moderation (aka mediocrity) is the best way to go. And for the vast majority of them, it probably is. Someone has got to "hold the center" while the rest of us pioneers venture forth, with many of us ending up with arrows in our back.

That phrase "arrows in their back" has always been telling to me. It's often not the dangers of the frontier that do the pioneers in. Instead their downfall results from those who stay behind shooting them in the back...

That's what this documentary was all about - convincing the masses to stay behind by taking potshots at the pioneers.

Paul & Meredith, Angie & Ryan, and especially the raw Paleo guy, are weird - by choosing a different path from the majority. So are quite a few of the rest of us. And that's a good thing in my book. it's takes all kinds, and variety is the spice of life.

I long ago stopped trying to proselytize serious CR to anyone, even before I became skeptical of its longevity benefits relative to a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet. It's just not a lifestyle that is tenable for the vast majority of people. Paul & Meredith think otherwise, and continue to put themselves out there in an attempt to help others see the light, and adopt a CR lifestyle. More power to them, but in doing so they have to expect to be the occasional victims of hatchet job media pieces like that documentary.

Those few for whom CR (or raw paleo, or fruitarianism) make sense, will see through the media spin, investigate further, and perhaps become pioneers themselves, while the herd continues chugging along conservatively bearing the flag of what seems to have work well in the past.

In this way humanity will continue to explore the "adjacent possible" (Stewart Kauffman phrase I really like) in new and unique ways.

It's all good.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wow what a sad program. The person who seemed sensible was his doctor. The fruitarians were cool, but I've been there and it's true the sugar runs away out of control, teeth begin to decay, fruitarianism isn't the answer. Everyone sorta seems crazy and lost here in this show, and that was probably mainstream tv's ultimate goal.

I could only stomach a few minutes of the druggy vibe of the vegan couple video - they kept mispronouncing Giles' name for one thing. I've lived in California by far the majority of my adult life and I still find it hard to distinguish parody from reality :)xyz Sugar addiction does seem to be a hazard for fruitarians and even vegans in general. After reading Greger's book (I found it useful in parts BTW if a bit too evangelical) it's clear he has this problem. This is one reason that despite an almost totally vegan diet myself I eat little to no sweet fruit.
Actually, Martin, I didn't watch the Ryan and Angie response youtubed above until you mentioned it, and I really liked what they had to say. They said their lifestyle was poorly represented by this stupid BBC thing, and that was my suspicion. The fruitarians were very cool, they're committed, they're honest, they're following the science they choose, and their message is no, we're not "fruit only" and we're aware of sugar concerns, and to claim bananas will send you into potassium poisoning is asinine. I don't even think bananas are a proper potassium source anyway -- what are bananas Wrt to potassium, ranked like 200 or something?

 

Ryan and Angie didn't seem like druggies at all to me, and I agree their portrayal was totally twisted. So all the other segments in this slap-job piece were probably equally unfair. And for what it's worth, this production managed to make the CR people (Meredith and Paul) look like creepy spiders. The presenter's facial reactions to Paul were totally over the top rude and disrespectful.

 

I'd let this little program serve as a warning to future calls from future mainstream television crews .... They're prob gonna make us look like wack jobs for attempting to live a (counter culture) healthy lifestyle. Look at these stupid bizarre freaks was the message here. And the entire production felt totally disingenuous to me. What's your opinion?

 

It may have been disingenuous but no more than most other documentaries; they all have their agenda and it's generally not just the pursuit of the truth. The agenda here was simply entertainment, to indulge the prejudices of the audience with perhaps a bit of fear and envy mixed in. I don't find TV informative unless it's purely science or nature based and even videos of lectures are less productive for me than simply reading about it. It's been said that TV has "a bias against understanding" that the written word doesn't seem to have. A well known UK presenter also said that the difference between working in radio and television was that in radio he could sometimes ask a question that he didn't know the answer to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I missed this "spin off" thread when it was created.  I have high regard for what Paul and Meredith have accomplished and the work they are currently involved with, like most of us, they continue to update their "health practices and recommendations" and to organize expert conferences and research -- all great things.  Their book is actually the only "CR" book I've read, and I personally benefitted greatly from following their advice (but I also do things they do NOT do) so I don't want to be overly negative, in fact I edited my original comment in the cold exposure thread to make it less harsh.  

 

Like Dean said, most of us (myself included) are "weird".  That said, if P&M's "CR Way" is working (long term), they themselves may not be the best evidence for this, that was my biggest concern when seeing the documentary, in fact I was so concerned about their health and wellbeing that I immediately contacted them upon seeing the video (which is when I found out all the details about Meredith's eye infection).  No one else mentioned it, but it seems to me like Paul's speech is slurred in parts of this documentary - to me that is a red flag (latent health issue?).  Paul seems to have osteoporosis, and just all round in general they don't look like they are aging extraordinarily well.  Obviously based on what I've posted in the cold exposure thread, I think there are better ways to keep your blood glucose low than having to eat the types of meals they served the host of that show (the barley, onion, lemon peel meal for example).   

 

Also no one else mentioned it, but the show wasn't a hatchet job toward EVERYONE -- they DID portray Bernando favorably, and he was just as "weird" as the rest of us, a lifelong vegan (+fish) eater and calorie restrictor who got started at the age of 5!!  Claimed to have never gotten sick A SINGLE DAY IN HIS LIFE!  Rubbed himself down in olive oil DAILY!  The oil rub down, interestingly enough, according to things I've been reading recently, namely Mike Lustgarten's slightly wacky new book on infectious disease ("THE" cause of aging, hah! Where we are outnumbered "6 to 1" (hillarious math error, only off by 21 orders of magnitude) by evil microbes) may actually have had a protective (acidic) effect for Bernando, and certainly looked like it kept his skin youthful.  Bernando lived to 114 (yes its disputed, but my own research led me to believe this age was accurate and even if it wasn't he was still a centenarian even according to critics).  Bernando has been described as a "five star chef" foods he loved were "blueberries the most",  cantaloupe, cabbage, broccoli, nuts, seeds, “rabbity foods”, collard greens, kale, spinach, fresh fruit, garlic, honey, he ate a large fruit salad every morning with his superfood and cinnamon bark tea.   He ate soaked black beans, barley, and rice, lightly cooked. He called barley "the strengthening food of choice" and claimed his cinnamon tea helped keep his blood sugar under control.

 

Anyway the reason I'm so interested in Bernando is because he seemed to have a sharp mind, no signs of osteoporosis, fantastic skin (no wrinkles), and was still doing speaking engagements and meeting with visitors right up until the day he died (most likely from Cardiac Amyloidosis but no autopsy was done).  If anyone could be used as a good anecdote for a longevity lifestyle, it's that guy.  He claimed his Dad, a doctor, taught him “Never be in a hurry. Everybody’s rushing… rushing to the cemetery. But they don’t want to die. Never overload your stomach. Always want a little more.”

 

I bring this up because I think it's worth noting that there are many different approaches to a lifestyle that promotes longevity, even within the so called "CR" umbrella, and some obviously will produce better results than others, and to me, this documentary highlighted in my mind some thoughts about my own approach and the long term outcomes.

 

Regards,

Gordo

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gordo,

 

Unfortunately the DailyMotion links that you and I posted to the "Eat to Live Forever" documentary featuring Paul and Meredith seems to have been taken down, and the documentary isn't available any longer on the BBC website either. You can't even buy it from the BBC in the US or Canada for some strange reason.

 

So people who haven't seen it will just have to take our word for it that it was unflattering for P&M, as well as for CR in general. You are right Gordo, the host (Giles Coren) really liked Bernardo and his "moderate" approach to life (which didn't seem that moderate to me). I too think Bernardo and his way of life had a lot going for it - whatever age he was when he died he was obviously quite old and had lived a long and full life. It is too bad the documentary is no longer available for others to learn from.

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Drew - that link to the Eat to Live Forever documentary works here in the US as well! Weird why our old links to the same website (DailyMotion) broke. People can judge for themselves how P&M, the fruitarians, paleo eaters (including the raw meat guy) and Bernado come off. It is really worth watching for anyone who hasn't, before it disappears forever!

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the only interesting part was how CR came across public-image wise. Otherwise, it was the kind of standard dreck BBC does whenever they tackle some public health issue - the science is almost entirely lacking, and what there is, is completely distorted; basically you're watching a personality who traipses around gawking at various "weird" people, places and situations, with no effort at getting in deeper than about a mm into any serious subject. I suppose they feel that they need to be entertaining, and they are addressing themselves to the broad public that is pretty science-illiterate. I don't mind amusing or witty commentary documentaries, cultural explorations, travel shows and the like - f.ex. there's the excellent Stephen Fry travel series documentaries including one "across America" - highly enjoyable (IMHO) - but the difference is that it bills itself as exactly what it is - a witty personality making interesting observations about people, places and situations to which we might not otherwise be exposed to. In contrast, this documentary is in the crappy category where they bill themselves as serious reportage, instead of personality driven pure entertainment with zero pretension of getting at the "truth". And when the subject is something you know about, it is merely irritating to see the garbage job they do of it all the while pretending to uncover this or that. Recently there was a BBC doc called "The Truth About Alcohol" (it's a series all with "truth" in the title, like "The Truth About Food" etc.) - it was infuriating trash, where they would test to see if red wine - as opposed to white, they stressed - had health benefits - they had our intrepid personality drink a glass of red wine and they'd measure his blood vessel dilation. Having ascertained that indeed his blood vessels were dilated, they proclaimed red wine to have health benefits. No control test for white wine, or indeed any other alcohol. Then, they proceeded to assert - with no evidence whatsoever supplied - that it was "polyphenols" in red wine that were responsible for the dilation and health benefits. Then they measured levels of "polyphenols" in various alcoholic drinks, and showed that white wine had fewer, and therefore was obviously less healthy. QED. This kind of rubbish - with doctors in surgical gowns and various lab settings to make it all look sciency - is what passes for "informative" documentaries. And that is the category of rubbish this documentary belongs to. It's interesting how people's perceptions and evaluations can differ. Obviously some found it an interesting and worthwhile documentary. I found it insufferable junk, and wish I had those 60 minutes of my life back. As they say: different strokes for different folks. 

Edited by TomBAvoider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it a second and third time, and agree with TomB's criticisms above. But the problem probably isn't so much in the documentary (and others like it) itself. The problem is more general -- the prob is nutrition science itself. The field is young, immature, and confused. Many of its studies we read and take seriously are industry financed. And we wonder what isn't published, what's suppressed, what's inconveniently conflicting. "A muddle" as Michael writes is probably apt not just for the CR macaque studies, but for nutrition science as well. If scientists continue to assert "...more research is warranted..." for each and every study ("...leafy greens are healthy; but more research is required...") then how are mainstream journalists and documentary producers expected to get it right?

 

So I'm saying the failure is the science -- the journalists attempt to put entertaining spins on science that just kinda leaves us all hanging here in suspension.

Edited by Sthira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw. The claim of Bernando LaPallo being 113 in the documentary is pretty much fiction:

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199661/worlds-second-oldest-man-may-be-lying-about-his-age-still-crazy-old/

 

There is no birth record or any reliable evidence for the man's age, and the only official paper on him doesn't bear out his age claims.

 

Typical of the documentary to simply perpetuate the fiction with zero digging for facts. Not to put too fine a point on it, but vast numbers of BBC "documentaries" of the format like here are utter dreck, and worth exactly nothing. They're designed to titillate and attract viewership with zero regard for such niceties as veracity. In my opinion, you'll do yourself a favor if you skip watching this "documentary", it's just 60 minutes wasted. Opinions will vary, but this is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy Tom,

 

You are the skeptic/critic.

 

Even if Bernardo LaPallo was "only" 105 in that documentary, as his birth certificate attests, I think you've got to admit he was a pretty impressive gentleman at that age. Would you complain about being as physically and mentally fit at that age as he was?

 

-Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that the Florida certificate he has, is not a certificate of live birth - for the very good reason that he was born in Brazil and not Florida. And oops - there is no record of his birth in Brazil either! The Florida certificate is something he got upon someone's word or self-report. We don't even know for a fact - how would we - that the Florida certificate is his to begin with. Therefore the Florida certificate is very poor evidentiary support for his age regardless of what year is written on it. It is substantially worse evidence than a certificate of live birth, which in turn is by itself not enough (as it does not establish identity), to qualify for any list of centenarians, as that requires much more proof than a mere birth certificate, even a live birth certificate (which this is not!). Extraordinary claims and all that, meanwhile in this case all the guy has is this one highly dubious piece of paper. The pits. As to your question: "Would you complain about being as physically and mentally fit at that age as he was?" - well, what was his age? There is zero evidence for 113, and very poor evidence for 105 (in fact so poor that he could not make it into any list of centenarians compiled by reputable actuarial organizations devoted to keeping track of the super aged).

 

I in turn have a question for you, Dean. I trust that in your life you deploy more skepticism regarding evidence and claims for health effects of various interventions than you seem to display in the case of dodgy claims by a BBC TV crew - isn't that so ;)xyz?

 

Anyhow, my focus was not the vagaries of Mr. LaPallo's claims, as what it says about the integrity and reliability of what's reported in this documentary - once you've been shown to lie (and Mr. LaPallo certainly has been), your credibility as a witness is not worth much, and that's where the BBC documentary stands as a whole - not worth much.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

You've clearly looked into Bernardo's birth records more than I have, and I trust you that they are indeed dodgy and riddled with inconsistencies.

 

I generally try give old folks the benefit of the doubt out of respect, but you're right, some of them can and do get involved in scams to capitalize on their supposed extraordinary lifespan.

 

It's unfortunate Bernardo doesn't have better records. But unless he was planning way ahead, the Florida certificate issued in 1930, when Bernardo was allegedly around 20-30, is unlikely to be that far off, it seems to me. But if you want to continue to question his credibility, that's your prerogative. He was clearly an old guy, and doing quite well for his age, even if that age was only 95 in 2015 when that documentary was filmed. If he was only 95, that would have put him at only 10 years old in 1930 when Florida issued a certificate stating he was 20 - a discrepancy it would seem someone in Florida couldn't help have noticed. Not many 10 year olds look like they are 20. But as I said, whatever...

 

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the response from Bernando and family on his age and the circumstances that led to the dispute about it.

 

I think his family's side of the story seems believable but obviously no one can prove anything.  I just think if his goal was really to "trick the world" he would have just made up some fake documents instead.  At any rate, no one disputes that he was a centenarian, and his health as a centenarian was extraordinary. There are other centenarians, less controversial, that seem similar to Bernando, one of them is Dr Ellsworth Wareham (search for his interviews), he was actively performing surgeries on patients until age 95.

 

At any rate, I agree that the Eat to Live Forever video was poorly done, I prefer science oriented productions.  Has anyone seen the newer BBC 2 part series "How to Stay Young?"  Its pretty good but probably nothing new to most here (V. Longo and IGF-1 are featured, they mention taking inulin, talk about rapamycin, new tests for rate of aging, etc.).  The BBC also did a decent series called "The Truth About Food" that I thought was interesting but again nothing earth shattering.

Edited by Gordo

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

×