HFLC

Bruno26

In response to tilted brain.

"We now know that humans do not need carbohydrate to survive...it is entirely possible for humans to live and exercise without ever eating a single gram of carbohydrate-as have the Inuit and some other populations for thousands of years."

"Fat does not make you fat carbs do."

"Humans cannot survive without a constant supply of glucose....this glucose can be produced by the liver from fat and protein and does not need to be ingested as carbohydrates. We call this process gluconeogenesis."

"The ketogenic diet has been successfully used for decades, so clearly it is neither dangerous nor unhealthy."
Tim Noakes. Real meal revolution written by a scientist, a nutritionist and two chefs/athletes



Here is further reading for those who say I've no links to back up my views.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
http://www.health-matrix.net/2013/08/09/the-ketogenic-diet-an-overview/#more

Bruno26

Vilhjalmur Stefansson:

Stefansson documented the fact that most Inuit lived on a diet of about 90% meat and fish, often going 6–9 months a year on nothing but meat and fish—essentially, a no-carbohydrate diet. He found that he and his fellow European-descent explorers were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. When medical authorities questioned him on this, he and a fellow explorer agreed to undertake a study under the auspices of the Journal of the American Medical Association to demonstrate that they could eat a 100% meat diet in a closely-observed laboratory setting for the first several weeks, with paid observers for the rest of an entire year. The results were published in the Journal, and both men were perfectly healthy on such a diet, without vitamin supplementation or anything else in their diet except meat.

Zamboni

Thanks for the studies.
Think I'll put on the kettle for a cuppa and a packet of digestives and have a nice read.

Bruno26

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the studies.
Think I'll put on the kettle for a cuppa and a packet of digestives and have a nice read.

Could be your last packet of digestives!

JJayoo

Zamboni wrote: »

Thanks for the studies.
Think I'll put on the kettle for a cuppa and a packet of digestives and have a nice read.

Make me a cup please.

On the issue of "carbs are bad" there is a documentary coming out called Fed Up. It's about the sugar industry.

Personally I don't think carbs/sugar/anything is bad, I think the real problem is that people leave secondary school at 17/18 with zero knowledge of nutrition, meal prep or understanding labels.

Bruno26

JJayoo wrote: »

Make me a cup please.

On the issue of "carbs are bad" there is a documentary coming out called Fed Up. It's about the sugar industry.

Personally I don't think carbs/sugar/anything is bad, I think the real problem is that people leave secondary school at 17/18 with zero knowledge of nutrition, meal prep or understanding labels.

Yes I'm looking forward to watching Fed Up. Have you watched cereal killers?
I used to agree with everything in moderation. I now believe it to be incorrect.
I believe in keeping carbs below 150 grammes per day to maintain weight/ body fat and below 100 grammes to lose fat. That is grammes from food that does not include sugar and grains.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes I'm looking forward to watching Fed Up. Have you watched cereal killers?
I used to agree with everything in moderation. I now believe it to be incorrect.
I believe in keeping carbs below 150 grammes per day to maintain weight/ body fat and below 100 grammes to lose fat. That is grammes from food that does not include sugar and grains.

And what grams of protein and fat?

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

And what grams of protein and fat?

Yesterday according to fitness pal I had 163 g fat, 286 g protein, 154 g carb.
Calorie breakdown if you want is 45% fat, 36% protein,19% carb.
Ideally I'd like to be eating more fat.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yesterday according to fitness pal I had 163 g fat, 286 g protein, 154 g carb.
Calorie breakdown if you want is 45% fat, 36% protein,19% carb.
Ideally I'd like to be eating more fat.

Not having a go but I'm curious to know how counting macros isn't tantamount to counting macros since there's a direct relationship between grams of carbs/protein/fat and calories.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not having a go but I'm curious to know how counting macros isn't tantamount to counting macros since there's a direct relationship between grams of carbs/protein/fat and calories.

I never count now- I've probably counted it 4 times in 18 months.
I just did this yesterday due to other posts. However It is good to know the amount of macros (grammes and percentages) your eating - particularly that carbs are below or around 150 g. I'm not bothered if it's 2,900 or 3,500 calories
So rather than counting I just choose the right foods for me.

Alf Veedersane

I know but monitoring macros isn't all that far removed from monitoring calories.

Having an idea of the quantity of your consumption being the general idea.

ford2600

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I know but monitoring macros isn't all that far removed from monitoring calories.

Having an idea of the quantity of your consumption being the general idea.

Macros posted isn't next or near to a high fat diet.

Not saying op diet is bad, but high fat from my reading is 60% plus from fat and up to 80%.

It takes a bit of practice to keep fat high and protein moderate; if you want to eat high fat you really need to get pure fat I.e. olive oil butter coconut fat in.

From my reading people with a tendency towards diabetes benefit most from high fat living, it is not necessary for most.

Eating whole foods and learning to cook will tick most boxes.

On ketosis some people have huge difficulty getting into it, others can stsy in ketosis on up to 100g of carbs while others need to go as low as 25g.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I know but monitoring macros isn't all that far removed from monitoring calories.

Having an idea of the quantity of your consumption being the general idea.

The similarity is in monitoring something. Yes calories have something to do with it as you are looking for a proportion of calories to be gained from certain macros.

Someone could eat 2,500 calories of nothing but carbs in a day. Close to 100% macros.

Someone else could eat 2,500 calories in ratio of 50/30/20 fat / protein / carb.

If we believe in the calorie counting theory, the effects on weight, fat and body composition are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bruno26

ford2600 wrote: »

Macros posted isn't next or near to a high fat diet.

Not saying op diet is bad, but high fat from my reading is 60% plus from fat and up to 80%.

It takes a bit of practice to keep fat high and protein moderate; if you want to eat high fat you really need to get pure fat I.e. olive oil butter coconut fat

Yes ideally I'd like it to be higher.

metamorphosis

Carbs, sugar, fat, protein ... none of it is the ****ing devil ... people eating **** imitations of food that fall into said bracket or too much is what the problem is.

I mean, **** sake, we have made a complete lucrative industry in muggery because common sense is ANYTHING but ****ing common.

/rant (have had several beers!!)

Bruno26

metamorphosis wrote: »

Carbs, sugar, fat, protein ... none of it is the ****ing devil ... people eating **** imitations of food that fall into said bracket or too much is what the problem is.

Since the 1970s due to US guidelines we have eaten far too many carbs and sugar. We under eat fat by massive amounts - I suppose we also don't eat enough protein.
Everything in moderation is a shocking statement

Bruno26

Bruno26 wrote: »

metamorphosis wrote: »

Carbs, sugar, fat, protein ... none of it is the ****ing devil ... people eating **** imitations of food that fall into said bracket or too much is what the problem is.

Since the 1970s due to US guidelines we have eaten far too many carbs and sugar. We under eat fat by massive amounts - I suppose we also don't eat enough protein.
Everything in moderation is a shocking statement

Before processed foods people (not many) still got fat due to excessive grains and sugar.

JJayoo

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27470115

"The combination of olive oil and leafy salad or vegetables is what gives the Mediterranean diet its healthy edge, say scientists.

When these two food groups come together they form nitro fatty acids which lower blood pressure, they told PNAS journal.

The unsaturated fat in olive oil joins forces with the nitrite in the vegetables, the study of mice suggests"

Very healthy mice around that region.

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

If we believe in the calorie counting theory, the effects on weight, fat and body composition are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nobody mentioned body composition. I completely agree that the macro breakdown has a huge effect on body composition but not bodyfat.

Everything in moderation is a shocking statement

I'd agree with this as well just due to the fact that moderation for everyone is wildly different! This is why I believe counting calories even just in the short term is so beneficial. It gives a very methodical approach to revealing your true intake and how it can be so out of whack from what you previously thought. Then when you adjust it you can see how much serving sizes really are.

Bruno26

Blacktie. wrote: »

Nobody mentioned body composition. I completely agree that the macro breakdown has a huge effect on body composition but not bodyfat.



I'd agree with this as well just due to the fact that moderation for everyone is wildly different! This is why I believe counting calories even just in the short term is so beneficial. It gives a very methodical approach to revealing your true intake and how it can be so out of whack from what you previously thought. Then when you adjust it you can see how much serving sizes really are.

The macro breakdown has a massive effect on body fat. Eg 70% macros from carbs versus 15 % macros from carbs.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

"We now know that humans do not need carbohydrate to survive...it is entirely possible for humans to live and exercise without ever eating a single gram of carbohydrate-as have the Inuit and some other populations for thousands of years."

"Humans cannot survive without a constant supply of glucose....this glucose can be produced by the liver from fat and protein and does not need to be ingested as carbohydrates. We call this process gluconeogenesis."

I don't think anybody disputes that. It's completely possible to live without ingesting carbs.
Whether its optimal, is a different story.

"Fat does not make you fat carbs do."

Overeating any macro will make you fat.
A diet that is in excess of your maintenance energy requirements will cause weight gain, whether it is high in;

• Carbs
• Fat
• Both Carbs & Fat

In all three instances, the body will store dietary fat in fat stores around the body.

This is really simple stuff.

"The ketogenic diet has been successfully used for decades, so clearly it is neither dangerous nor unhealthy."

Did somebody say it was dangerous? I'd disagree with that too.
I've followed it in the past. I like it, at the right time. It's not suitable for me right now.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yesterday according to fitness pal I had 163 g fat, 286 g protein, 154 g carb.
Calorie breakdown if you want is 45% fat, 36% protein,19% carb.
Ideally I'd like to be eating more fat.

Thats unlikely to be a ketogenic diet imo. 150g carbs will keep you out of ketosis for a large part of the day, if not all day.
It's not LCHF either.

I'm not really sure what your point is.
You are a little zealous about a keto diet, which is strange because you aren't actually following one. In another thread you firmly stated that wheat is pretty much the highest GI food there is - when I named 5 or so more you complain one wasn't a real food and ignored the rest.

You are just making statements about sugar and fat without providing any actual opinion. What exactly are you trying to say in the OP?

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think anybody disputes that. It's completely possible to live without ingesting carbs.
Whether its optimal, is a different story.


Overeating any macro will make you fat.
A diet that is in excess of your maintenance energy requirements will cause weight gain, whether it is high in;

• Carbs
• Fat
• Both Carbs & Fat

In all three instances, the body will store dietary fat in fat stores around the body.

This is really simple stuff.


Did somebody say it was dangerous? I'd disagree with that too.
I've followed it in the past. I like it, at the right time. It's not suitable for me right now.


Thats unlikely to be a ketogenic diet imo. 150g carbs will keep you out of ketosis for a large part of the day, if not all day.
It's not LCHF either.

I'm not really sure what your point is.
You are a little zealous about a keto diet, which is strange because you aren't actually following one. In another thread you firmly stated that wheat is pretty much the highest GI food there is - when I named 5 or so more you complain one wasn't a real food and ignored the rest.

You are just making statements about sugar and fat without providing any actual opinion. What exactly are you trying to say in the OP?

Indeed who knows if it's optimal but people have lived on it and remained perfectly healthy . Unfortunately doesn't appear to be any very long term study.

It's near impossible to overeat fat when eating the right foods- therefore one will
find it near impossible to get fat eating this way.

Yes someone said it was very dangerous- that's why I pointed that out and this was the basis of my post to show it wasn't.

I know I never said I was on a ketogenic diet - I'm not- I don't eat enough fat.

I thought I went through most foods listed- pointless comparing one to wheat if it's not a real food. I was pointing out effects of wheat. I've provided my opinion in most posts but have been told I was spamming and a troll.

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

It's near impossible to overeat fat when eating the right foods- therefore one will
find it near impossible to get fat eating this way.

This is not what you were saying before. Before you were saying even if you are over eating fat you will not gain weight.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

The similarity is in monitoring something. Yes calories have something to do with it as you are looking for a proportion of calories to be gained from certain macros.

Someone could eat 2,500 calories of nothing but carbs in a day. Close to 100% macros.

Someone else could eat 2,500 calories in ratio of 50/30/20 fat / protein / carb.

If we believe in the calorie counting theory, the effects on weight, fat and body composition are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Someone looking to institute a healthier lifetsyle won't be bombing in 100% of carbs. They will also be eating less processed food, by and large.

For every gram of fat you're monitoring for your fat intake, you're monitoring 9 kcals.

Bruno26

Blacktie. wrote: »

This is not what you were saying before. Before you were saying even if you are over eating fat you will not gain weight.

What's overrating fat? The point I've been trying to make is if it means eating more fat so you go over your recommended calorie intake- you will still lose fat. To overeat fat would be quite easy based on conventional wisdom. I believe conventional wisdom to be wrong. Again when you eat a lot of fat you become satiated. Google 'appestat'. Yes this would be overrating but our nutritional guidelines are wrong- they serve the grain industry well but not optimal human health. Eat more fat- fat is good.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Someone looking to institute a healthier lifetsyle won't be bombing in 100% of carbs. They will also be eating less processed food, by and large.

For every gram of fat you're monitoring for your fat intake, you're monitoring 9 kcals.

Yes a bit of an extreme example! However there is a common belief that if you stick to certain number of calories you will lose fat regardless of sources.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes a bit of an extreme example! However there is a common belief that if you stick to certain number of calories you will lose fat regardless of sources.

So if someone is operating off a 400 kcal deficit, based on an accurate TDEE, they won't lose fat?

In a non-extreme example.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So if someone is operating off a 400 kcal deficit, based on an accurate TDEE, they won't lose fat?

In a non-extreme example.

If it's high carb I believe it to be quite difficult. Mentally i believe it to be punishing. I would imagine very unsatisfying due to hunger cravings. Some carbs bread and sugar quite addictive.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

If it's high carb I believe it to be quite difficult. Mentally i believe it to be punishing. I would imagine very unsatisfying due to hunger cravings. Some carbs bread and sugar quite addictive.

What do you class as high carb?

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

What's overrating fat? The point I've been trying to make is if it means eating more fat so you go over your recommended calorie intake- you will still lose fat. To overeat fat would be quite easy based on conventional wisdom. I believe conventional wisdom to be wrong. Again when you eat a lot of fat you become satiated. Google 'appestat'. Yes this would be overrating but our nutritional guidelines are wrong- they serve the grain industry well but not optimal human health. Eat more fat- fat is good.

Over eating fat is eating fat over your TDEE. I'm not referring to any general guidelines at all here.

Correct conventional wisdom is wrong but that's not what we're discussing. Unless your calling TDEE conventional wisdom..?

If it's high carb I believe it to be quite difficult. Mentally i believe it to be punishing. I would imagine very unsatisfying due to hunger cravings. Some carbs bread and sugar quite addictive.

But physically possible yes?

Bruno26

Blacktie. wrote: »

Over eating fat is eating fat over your TDEE. I'm not referring to any general guidelines at all here.

Correct conventional wisdom is wrong but that's not what we're discussing. Unless your calling TDEE conventional wisdom..?



But physically possible yes?

Yes I imagine so.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What do you class as high carb?

Eating over 200 grams a day. Anything where wheat is main ingredient. All bread, Pasta, noodles , rice to a lesser extent.
Most processed foods and drinks. Soft drinks, alcohol, juices and smoothies made with mostly fruit over veg.
Most fruit except berries. Some starchy veg. Many low fat items.

ford2600

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So if someone is operating off a 400 kcal deficit, based on an accurate TDEE, they won't lose fat?

In a non-extreme example.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89455957&postcount=37

Blacktie.

ford2600 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89455957&postcount=37

400 calories is hardly considered too low.

I disagree with this whole starvation mode thing as well. It's a myth that's taking its time to die.

Alf Veedersane

ford2600 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89455957&postcount=37

Is your point that 400 kcals below your TDEE is extremely low to the point that it's too close to or below your BMR?

Really?

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

It's near impossible to overeat fat when eating the right foods- therefore one will
find it near impossible to get fat eating this way.

Your definition of the right foods must be incredibly boring.

I eat butter, cream, all cuts of meat, nuts and nut butters, amount other stuff like veg. I think these are perfectly healthy but I'm also aware of the energy content. If I'm not careful with my portion size I won't be on weight in a month.

I know I never said I was on a ketogenic diet - I'm not- I don't eat enough fat.

Not quite. You are it not keto because you are, ironically, eating too many carbs. If you cut carbs to 50g or less you'll be in ketosis. And fat would rise to 50-60% of consumption.

I thought I went through most foods listed- pointless comparing one to wheat if it's not a real food. I was pointing out effects of wheat.

You were talking about ice cream and chocolate. I never mention them. It should be obvious that they aren't that high.


I said potato, baked sweet potato, parsnip (when cooked), rice and watermelon were higher wheat. How are they not real foods?
Your comment about wheat was incorrect. You also ignored the part about ingredients in isolation.

GI and higher fat diets are concepts that I generally like. And you could say I follow a similar diet. Bit I don't agree with picking out random snippets or repeating rules without understanding the underlying reasons.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

Your definition of the right foods must be incredibly boring.

I eat butter, cream, all cuts of meat, nuts and nut butters, amount other stuff like veg. I think these are perfectly healthy but I'm also aware of the energy content. If I'm not careful with my portion size I won't be on weight in a month.


Not quite. You are it not keto because you are, ironically, eating too many carbs. If you cut carbs to 50g or less you'll be in ketosis. And fat would rise to 50-60% of consumption.


You were talking about ice cream and chocolate. I never mention them. It should be obvious that they aren't that high.


I said potato, baked sweet potato, parsnip (when cooked), rice and watermelon were higher wheat. How are they not real foods?
Your comment about wheat was incorrect. You also ignored the part about ingredients in isolation.

GI and higher fat diets are concepts that I generally like. And you could say I follow a similar diet. Bit I don't agree with picking out random snippets or repeating rules without understanding the underlying reasons.

Don't know how you can define foods as boring. If you can cook , food doesn't have to be boring- lots of spices etc.

Yes if I eat more fat it's likely id eat less carbs.

They are real foods- don't know if I said they weren't- if I did then I withdraw that. All are very close in GI range. The population tends to eat more wheat than any of those therefore effects can be worse.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Don't know how you can define foods as boring. If you can cook , food doesn't have to be boring- lots of spices etc.

I'm a pretty good cook. My point was that some of the best foods are quite indulgent. It's easy to overeat with these, if you avoid then to be safe - it's boring.

Yes if I eat more fat it's likely id eat less carbs.

Read what I said again.
You don't eat more fat.
By dropping carbs to 25-50g, the same fat intake (163g) is a higher % of overall intake.
It's carbs that keep you out if ketosis there.

They are real foods- don't know if I said they weren't- if I did then I withdraw that. All are very close in GI range. The population tends to eat more wheat than any of those therefore effects can be worse.

I'm aware of the problems with over consumption of wheat. I'm just pointing out that not the highest GI, by a long shot.
Bread is the devil, but nobody bats an eye at 200g of paleo sweet potatoes

metamorphosis

Bruno26 wrote: »

metamorphosis wrote: »

Carbs, sugar, fat, protein ... none of it is the ****ing devil ... people eating **** imitations of food that fall into said bracket or too much is what the problem is.

Since the 1970s due to US guidelines we have eaten far too many carbs and sugar. We under eat fat by massive amounts - I suppose we also don't eat enough protein.
Everything in moderation is a shocking statement

That's a different arguement altogether and one I don't hugely argue with.

70's saw the food pyramid which saw another increase in grain consumption. i see most grains as processed and imitation of real food in most instances

Things tend to balance out and work themselves out (not everything) when people don't rely on a package to eat from or out of

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

I'm a pretty good cook. My point was that some of the best foods are quite indulgent. It's easy to overeat with these, if you avoid then to be safe - it's boring.


Read what I said again.
You don't eat more fat.
By dropping carbs to 25-50g, the same fat intake (163g) is a higher % of overall intake.
It's carbs that keep you out if ketosis there.


I'm aware of the problems with over consumption of wheat. I'm just pointing out that not the highest GI, by a long shot.
Bread is the devil, but nobody bats an eye at 200g of paleo sweet potatoes

It's possible to eat more fat as you could be hungrier- I get the %s

I'd rather eat 200 g of sweet potato. There are much more damaging consequences from the wheat on overall health over a lifetime.

ford2600

Mellor wrote: »

Not quite. You are it not keto because you are, ironically, eating too many carbs. If you cut carbs to 50g or less you'll be in ketosis. And fat would rise to 50-60% of consumption.

Not sure you are 100% right there.(not looking for an arguement, there is enough of them going on!)

Many need to drop carbs to 25g to get into ketosis, others can get away with 100g.

Also even if carbs are low, but protein is high, the protein will keep you out of ketosis.

Bruno26

ford2600 wrote: »

Not sure you are 100% right there.(not looking for an arguement, there is enough of them going on!)

Many need to drop carbs to 25g to get into ketosis, others can get away with 100g.

Also even if carbs are low, but protein is high, the protein will keep you out of ketosis.

That is spot on.

Mellor

ford2600 wrote: »

Not sure you are 100% right there.(not looking for an arguement, there is enough of them going on!)

Many need to drop carbs to 25g to get into ketosis, others can get away with 100g.

Also even if carbs are low, but protein is high, the protein will keep you out of ketosis.

I'd agree with that. I never said 50g was always the limit. My point was that 150g would keep virtually everyone out of keto. I was suggesting 50g as a start point, but everyone should vary from there to see what works.

I don't think protein would be too high for the macros posted.

Davei141

Bruno all your posts read like some body who has just discovered low carbing and is getting decent results from it, so you are in the "This is the only way to do things phase" that many people go through. I don't eat wheat or sugar in my diet as they make me feel sluggish, but saying carbs are the only thing that make people gain weight is stupid. You say you never count calories yet you count macros, it is the exact same thing, just a more simplified version of it.

Blacktie.

Davei141 wrote: »

Bruno all your posts read like some body who has just discovered low carbing and is getting decent results from it, so you are in the "This is the only way to do things phase" that many people go through. I don't eat wheat or sugar in my diet as they make me feel sluggish, but saying carbs are the only thing that make people gain weight is stupid. You say you never count calories yet you count macros, it is the exact same thing, just a more simplified version of it.

To be fair I don't think he counts macros. I think he just done it over a few days because of this and similar threads.

traco

Eskimo studies for those interested, haven't read them so no idea of the diest involved but the findings seem to indictae overweight, obesity and abdominal fat. BTW I am very pro paleo / primal or whatever but don't see carbs as the be all and end all. Proper carbs as in fruit and veg opposed to bread and donuts are the way forward from my experience. Also use dairy as a protein carb source with protein powder after workouts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10951530
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10702767

Alf Veedersane

traco wrote: »

Proper carbs as in fruit and veg opposed to bread and donuts are the way forward from my experience.

Would a jam donut be a happy medium?


Well, if it was a berry jam, obvz.

traco

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Would a jam donut be a happy medium?


Well, if it was a berry jam, obvz.

Could it be made with spelt flour and stevia instead of sugar??? Is that organic wild berry jam???

I'm making coffee here and all I see in the press are Avoca cup cakes

Bruno26

Davei141 wrote: »

Bruno all your posts read like some body who has just discovered low carbing and is getting decent results from it, so you are in the "This is the only way to do things phase" that many people go through. I don't eat wheat or sugar in my diet as they make me feel sluggish, but saying carbs are the only thing that make people gain weight is stupid. You say you never count calories yet you count macros, it is the exact same thing, just a more simplified version of it.

Carbs are the only thing that people fat.

This is the easiest sustainable way. Easier than calorie counting in my view .

Alf Veedersane

traco wrote: »

Could it be made with spelt flour and stevia instead of sugar??? Is that organic wild berry jam???

It's just better to assume so.

Alf Veedersane

traco wrote: »

I'm making coffee here and all I see in the press are Avoca cup cakes