Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Muscle Preservation Discussion

NewAgeMayan said:
Im so adapted to fasted training now that I honestly feel like crap if I try and train fed.
Click to expand...

Funny how that works. I'm the exact opposite - I consume some sort of carb and BCAA during almost every workout. And honestly, even if it's not doing anything for strength/endurance/anabolism, it helps me not get hungry. Cause even with a pre-workout snack/meal, I will end up absolutely starving by the end of a workout if I'm not consuming anything but water.
 
Best thread since I've been a member on this forum. Lot of very useful information and no back and forth. Just good conversation
 
Would you guys say that, in general, muscle wasting during a cut is blown out of proportion in the bodybuilding world? How deep into a cut must we be until the body most likely switches to muscle tissue for energy? Are there any indicators that muscle wasting is occurring besides the scale and the mirror?
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
Would you guys say that, in general, muscle wasting during a cut is blown out of proportion in the bodybuilding world? How deep into a cut must we be until the body most likely switches to muscle tissue for energy? Are there any indicators that muscle wasting is occurring besides the scale and the mirror?
Click to expand...

Actual muscle tissue wasting is hugely blown out of proportion IMO, its pretty inevitable that water weight and glycogen weight will fall with a reduction in calories/increase in energy expenditure.
 
NoAddedHmones said:
Actual muscle tissue wasting is hugely blown out of proportion IMO, its pretty inevitable that water weight and glycogen weight will fall with a reduction in calories/increase in energy expenditure.
Click to expand...

When do you think muscle wasting occurs? How much of a deficit and under what circumstances?

I have always wondered this- if the body prefers carbs > fat > muscle/protein for energy in that order, then unless someone is such low bodyfat that all they have is essential body fat (4% bodyfat or less I would say) then why would the body ever need to burn muscle tissue until reaching deadly low body fat levels. In theory, shouldnt the body burn through all glycogen and non-essential fatty deposits until ever even considering muscle tissue for energy?
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
When do you think muscle wasting occurs? How much of a deficit and under what circumstances?
Click to expand...

Depends on the persons situation, natty/enhanced etc. Probably when a prolonged extreme deficit and the amount of cardio you are doing as well as how much you are regressing on your weekly volume, intensity etc all play their part. Pretty impossible to quantify.
 
NoAddedHmones said:
Depends on the persons situation, natty/enhanced etc. Probably when a prolonged extreme deficit and the amount of cardio you are doing as well as how much you are regressing on your weekly volume, intensity etc all play their part. Pretty impossible to quantify.
Click to expand...


Just added more to my post fyi
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
Would you guys say that, in general, muscle wasting during a cut is blown out of proportion in the bodybuilding world?
Click to expand...

Yes!

If you want to look at what muscle catabolism looks like at the extremes, look up studies on US Army Ranger School Students. I have no links, but since I was one (Class 13-87), I can tell you that at 1 MRE/ 2 Hrs Sleep per Day for 58 Days (a little less since you get a little more food and sleep when in Camp) I "only" lost about 15-20lbs. That's with humping a 70lb Ruck all over Ft. Benning, Dhalonoga, GA, Dugway, UT, and Camp Rudder in FL.

Eating only 500-1000kcals less than TDEE, way more protein than required (usually), and maybe 2-3 hrs of lifting/cardio, while taking HMB, PA, Creatine, Etc... and sleeping 8 hrs????

Catabolisim is Waaaaaay overblown IMO.

*** For the 99% - If your paycheck rests on the Olympia Stage, I get it, even an ounce can screw you.***
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
When do you think muscle wasting occurs? How much of a deficit and under what circumstances?

I have always wondered this- if the body prefers carbs > fat > muscle/protein for energy in that order, then unless someone is such low bodyfat that all they have is essential body fat (4% bodyfat or less I would say) then why would the body ever need to burn muscle tissue until reaching deadly low body fat levels. In theory, shouldnt the body burn through all glycogen and non-essential fatty deposits until ever even considering muscle tissue for energy?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that isn't the case. From my understanding, when the body is in a demand for energy when carbohydrates/glycogen isn't available, it will use whatever energy can be obtained. Stored fat is converted into energy at a slow rate, so if there is an immediate demand for energy the body will convert amino acids (muscle) into energy for use. Its more common for this to happen during high intensity training, when the body needs a source of quick energy. It cannot break down and utilize stored fat quick enough, so it begins to use amino acids. Again, this is my personal understanding of it haha, may not be 100% correct.

This is where the concept of low intensity cardio comes into the equation. By performing low intensity exercise, the body has time to break down and utilize stored fat as energy. I feel that muscle wasting and "burning muscle" is very blown out of proportion in bodybuilding, but it still can occur when the body is in demand for energy when there is a decreased amount of glycogen in the body due to calorie and carb restriction.
 
The_Old_Guy said:
Yes!

If you want to look at what muscle catabolism looks like at the extremes, look up studies on US Army Ranger School Students. I have no links, but since I was one (Class 13-87), I can tell you that at 1 MRE/ 2 Hrs Sleep per Day for 58 Days (a little less since you get a little more food and sleep when in Camp) I "only" lost about 15-20lbs. That's with humping a 70lb Ruck all over Ft. Benning, Dhalonoga, GA, Dugway, UT, and Camp Rudder in FL.

Eating only 500-1000kcals less than TDEE, way more protein than required (usually), and maybe 2-3 hrs of lifting/cardio, while taking HMB, PA, Creatine, Etc... and sleeping 8 hrs????

Catabolisim is Waaaaaay overblown IMO.

*** For the 99% - If your paycheck rests on the Olympia Stage, I get it, even an ounce can screw you.***
Click to expand...

Agreed. People are so scared for some reason, especially when they don't even compete. For one thing, there was a study where a group (athletes) went on a 1000 cal deficit for a month and they actually measured the LBM loss and it was minimal. Then there's all of the people who do a PSMF which is usually 800 calories a day for 14 days, with minimal LBM loss.

Then I see everyone here stacking 5000 natural anabolics, 2x bodyweight protein, BCAAs, HICA, and everything when they're on a 500 cal deficit. Haha...but hey, it's their money.
 
john.patterson said:
Unfortunately that isn't the case. From my understanding, when the body is in a demand for energy when carbohydrates/glycogen isn't available, it will use whatever energy can be obtained. Stored fat is converted into energy at a slow rate, so if there is an immediate demand for energy the body will convert amino acids (muscle) into energy for use. Its more common for this to happen during high intensity training, when the body needs a source of quick energy. It cannot break down and utilize stored fat quick enough, so it begins to use amino acids. Again, this is my personal understanding of it haha, may not be 100% correct.

This is where the concept of low intensity cardio comes into the equation. By performing low intensity exercise, the body has time to break down and utilize stored fat as energy. I feel that muscle wasting and "burning muscle" is very blown out of proportion in bodybuilding, but it still can occur when the body is in demand for energy when there is a decreased amount of glycogen in the body due to calorie and carb restriction.
Click to expand...

This is why high intensity weight training and adequate protein is necessary. Your body needs fat, carbs and protein. Since we have fat and protein on our body, we can burn that to get carbs if needed. We want to burn the fat, but not the protein - so making sure there is adequate protein in our blood for these intermediate energy calls will eliminate a need to burn protein from tissue to a large degree. High protein and intense training will also create signaling to retain protein tissue. As the old guy said, muscle wasting is way overblown.
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
When do you think muscle wasting occurs? How much of a deficit and under what circumstances?

I have always wondered this- if the body prefers carbs > fat > muscle/protein for energy in that order, then unless someone is such low bodyfat that all they have is essential body fat (4% bodyfat or less I would say) then why would the body ever need to burn muscle tissue until reaching deadly low body fat levels. In theory, shouldnt the body burn through all glycogen and non-essential fatty deposits until ever even considering muscle tissue for energy?
Click to expand...

Let's start with correcting something: the primary source of fuel for the body is fat, not carbs. The closer the body is to the resting heart rate, the higher percentage of fat being utilized. While you're sleeping or just hanging out, you're running off of fat.
 
There seems to be a limit to the amount of energy that can be derived from fat stores under normal physiological conditions.

IIRC ~290kcal/kg fat mass/24 hours
 
kdubson14 said:
There seems to be a limit to the amount of energy that can be derived from fat stores under normal physiological conditions.

IIRC ~290kcal/kg fat mass/24 hours
Click to expand...

What textbook is this from? I haven't seen this equation previously.
 
Rodja said:
What textbook is this from? I haven't seen this equation previously.
Click to expand...


Invalid Link Removed

It is 290 KJ/kgd which is more like 31 calls per kg/d I guess.
 
Last edited:
HIT4ME said:
Invalid Link Removed

It is 290 KJ/kgd which is more like 31 calls per kg/d I guess.
Click to expand...

Hard to draw anything from that since it says that this data is inconsistent with other data. It's impossible to throw a broad brush like that as is when it comes to fat loss. There's also no mention of resistance training in there, which changes the game (duh).
 
Rodja said:
Hard to draw anything from that since it says that this data is inconsistent with other data. It's impossible to throw a broad brush like that as is when it comes to fat loss. There's also no mention of resistance training in there, which changes the game (duh).
Click to expand...

Well, duh. It's inconsistent with other starvation studies because other studies were poorly controlled.

The paper itself is just an analysis of the data from the Minnesota Experiment

32 young male volunteers of military status were semi-starved in order to evaluate optimal rehabilitation methods for use in treatment of the food deprived population of parts of wartime Europe. The data of the ME are used in this paper because of the long period of controlled semistarvation(24 weeks), the multiple measurements of the FM, and the militarily mandated and enforced dietary compliance.

In the ME, the FM was measured at three different times during the 24-week semi-starvation period by densitometric means and corrections were applied to take account of excess fluids and minerals.

...


The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290725) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.

Experimental studies to determine the value and distribution of the energy transfer factor need not be so difficult and time consuming as the original work by Keys et al. (1950). Further studies would require that both the TBM and FM be frequently measured during a dietary period which would be designed to spare the FFM initially. At the transition between FFM sparing and non-FFM sparing, there will be no obvious change in the FM, but there should be an observable change in the FFM which will go from a constant value to decreasing values. If this behavior can be clearly observed, Eq. (18) can be used to calculate the value of the realizable energy transfer factor.

The ME employed a severe dietary restriction which immediately put the subjects into a non-FFM sparing situation. In a sense, this was fortunate because it allowed for a direct interpretation of the limiting energy transfer phenomenon. If the ituation had allowed for both FFM sparing and non-FFM sparing as shown in Fig. 5, the interpretation might have been less obvious.

If the concept of a limiting energy transfer rate for fat is valid, the important question arises as to whether or not such a transfer rate can be increased in order to allow for greater loss of the FM. The macroscopic linear energy theory employed in this paper gives little insight into the mechanisms of this possibility. Very likely such an intervention would be a pharmacological one based on a clear understanding of the relevant microscopic biochemical interactions. Our model does not consider nonlinear processes which might become important in unusual situations but which could still be tested by Eq. (18). An unexpected feature of the maximum energy transfer factor is that it is quite modest in its magnitude. Alpert (1982) has demonstrated that the low value of s0 or s is near optimal for increasing the duration of the change in the FFM. This optimization allows for a prolongation of the FFM by a factor of two when compared to the hypothetical case of an unlimited transfer rate.

Another optimization consideration is presented in the exact solution for the FFM displayed in Eq. (13). In this equation the final term represents a fast decay (28.6 d) of an unshielded or unprotected part of the FFM. In the case of the ME, the initial magnitude of this term is 2.72 kg or 22% of the total expected loss of the FFM. In an optimal situation, this term should be zero since it represents a rapid reduction of the FFM. Even though we consider the FFM to be a single energy entity, we in no way imply that the FFM is a uniform structure. Possibly the shielded part of the FFM deals with vital organ systems while the unprotected part has less survival significance. If we mathematically force the last term of Eq. (13) to be zero and keep all other variables constant, we calculate that the maximum energy transfer rate from the FM has a value of 358 kJ/kg d. This is to be compared with the observed value of 290 kJ/kg d.

As indicated in Eq. (3), the only non-invasive means an individual has to control the size of the energy stores are by modifying the rate of ingested food energy and/or the level of physical activity. For individuals living in modern industrial societies, the level of activity is mainly determined by occupation and life style and is not easily changed. Professional athletes and dedicated body builders, however, have been able to control their energy stores by extreme activity.

A result discussed in this paper is that a severely restricted dietary regimen ultimately will lead to significant loss not only of the FM but also of the
FFM. Avoiding the loss of FFM when the FM is challenged up to its limited energy transfer capabilityrequires that the severe dietary restriction must be
terminated or relaxed before this situation occurs. The previous section of this paper quantitatively suggests how this may be done. The common adage that ‘‘if a little bit is good, more is better’’ does not apply to severe dietary restrictions.

Although the main dietary condition discussed in this paper is that of hypophagia, some of the same considerations apply to overeating (Alpert, 1990). Eq. (3), which is a statement of the conservation of energy, should be valid in both dietary regions. A basic difference is that in hyperphagia, energy is added or accreted to either or both the FM and the FFM. The main problem of an accretion model is that it is not clear how the body determines the division of excess energy between the two energy stores. An interesting feature of the accretion model can be derived from Eq. (3) by assuming that either the FM or FFM is held constant and the growth of the other isolated energy reservoir is determined. It can be shown by this means that an increase in the FM is several times less costly in energy terms than is an equal increase of the FFM. The main reason that it takes much more energy to grow the FFM is that the ingested food must also supply adequate energy for the increase in the RMR. The significant difference in energy costs for FM and FFM growth empirically suggests why some people remain lean and others get fat on overeating. Sims et al. (1968) performed a long-term overeating experiment on Vermont state prisoners and showed by means of a bar graph for eight subjects that weight gain division between the FM and FFM was quite diverse.

We expect that overeating response times for the FM to be long and the FFM to be short since their isolated exponential growth expressions formally
use the same quantities already introduced in the undereating situation. Ravussin et al. (1985) has found considerable FFM growth on overeating in only 5 days (Alpert, 1990). Finally, we conclude that in semi-starvation, the FFM is buffered against modest changes in activity and also ismostly shielded by energy transferred from the FM which must be of adequate size in order to provide complete shielding. In the case of hyperphagia, we infer that the FM is easily enlarged. It appears that the human body is well adapted to a feast-famine evolutionary environment. The problem now developing in most of the world is that the feast-famine algorithm is no longer operational. The outstanding question is how do we deal with the historically recent situation of ever present plentitude?
Click to expand...
 
Hockeyaus33 said:
if thats the case then why isnt the keto diet muscle wasting
Click to expand...

Because not all aminos will be supplied via muscle tissue, and any that are will just be resupplied via the diet. If your protein is adequete, you won't risk losing much muscle during a Calorie deficit.
 
Rodja said:
Hard to draw anything from that since it says that this data is inconsistent with other data. It's impossible to throw a broad brush like that as is when it comes to fat loss. There's also no mention of resistance training in there, which changes the game (duh).
Click to expand...

Well, I figured it would be better than a text book reference - since it was actual observation. Whether or not it was the genesis of the advice, it does explain why everyone points to a 500 cal/day deficit being a good goal - if someone is 200 pounds (for simple math) and has 10% bodyfat, that's 20 pounds of fat times 31 calories = 620 calories is the maximum amount of lipids their body can release from storage and utilize in a day. If you exercise, this study suggests your body will have to get its fuel from other sources (lean tissue). This also fits with the observable fact that people at lower body fat percentages probably have more to be concerned with as far as "muscle wasting" when they try to lose fat quickly.

Beyond that broad observation, I agree, putting a specific number on this from one study may not be accurate. Even within the study, there appears to be differentiation and the final outcome allowed for a roughly 10% variance. I would add to the hypothesis that beyond how much fat you have, how much fat you once had may also play a role - more fat = more fat cells = more pathways for release (in theory).
 
The 500 kcal deficit is based on the assumption that a week long deficit will result in one pound of fat since its ~3500 kcals.
 
Rodja said:
The 500 kcal deficit is based on the assumption that a week long deficit will result in one pound of fat since its ~3500 kcals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, but I'm just saying this study provides more evidence for that being a good guide to some degree. Someone who is 10% bodyfat and burning 1,000 cals/day in deficit, in other words, may lose 2 pounds a week but this study would suggest some significant muscle loss for this person.

Luckily I have plenty of fat so I don't have to worry about this.
 
It's not a good guide, though. There's nothing to really support it as it doesn't take into account the incalculable factors of fat loss. Much like age predicted max heart rate, it's something that lives on despite nothing to really support it.
 
Rodja said:
It's not a good guide, though. There's nothing to really support it as it doesn't take into account the incalculable factors of fat loss. Much like age predicted max heart rate, it's something that lives on despite nothing to really support it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a lot of that, even at a high level. Look at the AHA and their stance on sodium intake and cardiovascular health.
 
Rodja said:
Wasn't that recently changed since they found little correlation?
Click to expand...

Nope, they still stick to their "low sodium is good for your heart" stance, even though the former director (or whatever title they had) disagrees with the current policy, etc. and in spite of their lack of evidence. I've been fighting this battle with my aunt and with doctors because my grandmother (90 years old) is being told to have limited sodium despite the fact she is showing signs of dehydration and low electrolytes and physically shaking and having confusion from it.

Not to get too far off track - but to your point, there are few absolutes in all of this. Unfortunately, everything has a limit, and in this case there has to be a limit to how much fat your body can burn for fuel in a given timeframe. However, we often accept limits that are well below our actual capabilities without reason. At one point in time, it was thought no one would ever run a 4 minute mile.
 
HIT4ME said:
Nope, they still stick to their "low sodium is good for your heart" stance, even though the former director (or whatever title they had) disagrees with the current policy, etc. and in spite of their lack of evidence. I've been fighting this battle with my aunt and with doctors because my grandmother (90 years old) is being told to have limited sodium despite the fact she is showing signs of dehydration and low electrolytes and physically shaking and having confusion from it.

Not to get too far off track - but to your point, there are few absolutes in all of this. Unfortunately, everything has a limit, and in this case there has to be a limit to how much fat your body can burn for fuel in a given timeframe. However, we often accept limits that are well below our actual capabilities without reason. At one point in time, it was thought no one would ever run a 4 minute mile.
Click to expand...

The Sodium thing cracks me up. Top level athletes (and schmoes like me) are consuming up to 12,000mg pre-training, via Sodium Bicarbonate loading... with nary a tick on the Systolic/Diastolic meter. Sodium induced Hypertension = Genetic Defect.
 
^I wouldn't call it a genetic defect, for certain people with many existing types of cardiac concern (genetic or not), lowered sodium is a first step suggestion.

Also in some diabetics enduring enough kidney strain as it is.



But with athletes, or healthy individuals (tons of which employ low sodium) it's just silly and possibly even inhibiting performance
 
Even worse than that is BB guys abusing diuretics.
So. Pointless.

And uneducated...
I will laugh at anyone using lasix, enjoy losing all pump and muscle fullness.
(The intelligent use potassium sparing diuretics in conjunction or solo but this is more contest prep topic)

And weight class athletes depleting everything then smashing sodium, carbs, water before an event. I'm talking MMA/other where they want to pack on weight for advantage; I have seen extremely stupid and dangerous practices...
 
Driven2lift said:
Even worse than that is BB guys abusing diuretics.
So. Pointless.

And uneducated...
I will laugh at anyone using lasix, enjoy losing all pump and muscle fullness.
(The intelligent use potassium sparing diuretics in conjunction or solo but this is more contest prep topic)

And weight class athletes depleting everything then smashing sodium, carbs, water before an event. I'm talking MMA/other where they want to pack on weight for advantage; I have seen extremely stupid and dangerous practices...
Click to expand...

That's how MMA, wrestling, and powerlifting work. MMA more so due to the longer time between weigh ins and event (this applies to PL as well sans the ****ty IPF). Outside of a last minute replacement, almost every fighter is cutting at least a weight class the week of the fight. It can't be as extreme anymore thanks to the IV ban implemented by USADA.
 
I know, and I don't like it.

I'd be happier to go from weigh in to stage immediately with water,
Maybe people would screw with their body less leading up to it.

Who am I kidding though lol, something would be done.
 
Driven2lift said:
I know, and I don't like it.

I'd be happier to go from weigh in to stage immediately with water,
Maybe people would screw with their body less leading up to it.

Who am I kidding though lol, something would be done.
Click to expand...

Weigh ins are a cluster**** of an event. They're never on time and horribly inefficient. It's not practical to do what you're suggesting for MMA and it would also take money out of the promoters pocket.
 
Alright well I will just remain glad I'm not in MMA then I suppose.

Weight class never mattered much for me in Aikido, I can throw around
My 250 lb. buddy easy enough
 
Driven2lift said:
Alright well I will just remain glad I'm not in MMA then I suppose.

Weight class never mattered much for me in Aikido, I can throw around
My 250 lb. buddy easy enough
Click to expand...

Aikido is a joke. Ask Seagal how well it did for him against a real grappler.
 
Rodja said:
Aikido is a joke. Ask Seagal how well it did for him against a real grappler.
Click to expand...

Aikido has served me well enough,
Taught my youngster ass some discipline.

Haven't been part of that in a long while, but I can see any MMA guy finding aikido insufficient

It's for self defence, not getting into the ring
 
Driven2lift said:
Aikido has served me well enough,
Taught my youngster ass some discipline.

Haven't been part of that in a long while, but I can see any MMA guy finding aikido insufficient

It's for self defence, not getting into the ring
Click to expand...

Not familiar with the story I see. Seagal was running his mouth to Gene LeBell about how judo wouldn't work on him. This was during the filming of Under Siege as LeBell did stunt work back then as well. Despite being almost 20 years older, LeBell not only wiped the floor with Seagal, he choked him out to where Seagal pissed himself.
 
Rodja said:
Not familiar with the story I see. Seagal was running his mouth to Gene LeBell about how judo wouldn't work on him. This was during the filming of Under Siege as LeBell did stunt work back then as well. Despite being almost 20 years older, LeBell not only wiped the floor with Seagal, he choked him out to where Seagal pissed himself.
Click to expand...

Was it on camera by chance?

Watching him get his ass kicked would trump watching any of his movies, for me

I didn't even know who Seagal was when I started lol.
 
Driven2lift said:
Was it on camera by chance?

Watching him get his ass kicked would trump watching any if his movies, for me

I didn't even know who Seagal was when I started lol.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was off camera. It was the early 90s. IIRC, LeBell choked him out twice. Seagal wanted a do over after the first time. I guess Judo Gene held it a little longer for emphasis that second time.
 
Pure curiosity because we've drifted into this talk, last off topic question,

Fave martial art?
 
Driven2lift said:
Pure curiosity because we've drifted into this talk, last off topic question,

Fave martial art?
Click to expand...

MMA. It integrates every element and, unlike many TMA, it's continuing to evolve. If I were to name literally one base, though, either wrestling or Sambo. Sambo is basically ammy MMA.
 
Driven2lift said:
That's why I couldn't be bothered starting again.

I have alternate athletic endeavours,
All you need is a gun license
Click to expand...

Funny story: Back in the 90's, during the hey-day of Dick Marcinko/Red Cell (ST6), he was interviewed by one of the big (again, 90's) "Tactical" Knife Magazines. They asked him if he ever had to use a blade, or go hands on during a lethal force encounter. He answered: "Nope, always had enough bullets. Say what you will about Dick, but it was a pretty funny (and realistic comment) :) There was at least one known use of a knife in Iraq though - IIRC it was an El Sal guy that got caught outside the wire during a dust up - knifed a few bad guys and hauled ass back inside, LOL. An acquaintance of mine in a sister company held a big ceremony for him - Gave him a Bronzed K-Bar or something, haha. Edit: It was custom Chris Reeve blade.
 
Been thinking about something lately as I'm trying to cut down - anybody have any thoughts about mini-workouts before and after meals (mostly carb meals) in order to partition nutrients to muscle instead of fat? Obviously normal length, intense workouts improve insulin sensitivity quite a lot so why not try mini-workouts before a big carby dinner? Curious to know what the minimum time/intensity would need to be to see effects. Every once in a while if I'm about to eat a big carb meal and didn't just workout before it I'll crank out a set of pushups to failure and some body squats - no idea if it's helping yet lol. I know there are some people here educated in the matter, let me know what you think!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top