Unanswered Frustrations... Best Stack For This Scenario?

cuthere100

New member
Awards
0
Ok guys,

I'm sure this question pops up often, but let me explain the context of why I am asking this...

After a motorcycle accident that left me pretty f'ed up, I'm finally back to working out after more than 2 years out of the gym.

I never really took much in the way of supplements and focused primarily on my food intake and a 6 workout per week regimen.

However, things are different this time. Just hit 40+ years of age, and it's as if someone stood on the brakes of my metabolism or something as my old standby of macros and routine are doing very little for fat loss this time. Now I'm no stranger to tweaking and fine-tuning my diet to toggle down the calories and adjust my macros. But this go-round I had to scale waaaaay back on calories just to see the tiniest of blips in my BF... It was quite disheartening and I've been quite patient... Father time, you royally suck...

Anyhow, after working my ass off just to shave 1/4 inch off the waist (I've used this regimen for years and fat loss has always been very predictable and came quite easy for me. This time things were very, very different + energy levels very low) I came to terms with the fact that maybe I need some additional help this go-round. Problem is I haven't touched anything for fat loss over the last 15 years outside of the old faithful ECA stack a few years back before it was banned again.

Never really felt the need to use anything other than ECA over the years, and had always just figured that most supplements for fat loss were a gimmick.

So question is, now that I'm more open minded to the idea, what would you recommend for someone in this situation? What's the current reigning champ in the world of fat loss supplements? I understand things have changed over the years and I will continue focusing on my food intake to adjust for my age - But I'd be ecstatic if something gave me a nice boost or shove in the right direction.

I'll add to this that I am new to TRT over the last few months after confirmed low free androgen levels and sky high SHBG. But the doc is still changing up protocols to fine tune. In the meantime, I could sure use a win.

My ears are open! Haha - I've browsed through the forums here and read many a glowing review for product after product. But figured it'd be best to just ask and listen. I'm skeptical that anything will have that large of an impact for me, as the kitchen is king for fat loss... But at a time where I am struggling with low energy and a crawling metabolism, I realized that perhaps it's time to reconsider that skepticism.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'd jump on the good old eca, nothing will touch that. Outside that, SNS has new stim-free and stimmed fatburner options out now, worth a look.
 

cuthere100

New member
Awards
0
I'd jump on the good old eca, nothing will touch that. Outside that, SNS has new stim-free and stimmed fatburner options out now, worth a look.
That was my original knee-jerk reaction. But I used to get my ECA online back in the day. All the sites dried up, and the Canadian pharmacies won't ship outside Canada. Sorry if I'm overlooking obvious sources, but again I'm new to buying supplements outside of the most basic. If I could get my hands on ECA, I'd be ecstatic. It wasn't a rush of energy for me, but it certainly gave me a reasonable assist.
 
Ptlhains

Ptlhains

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
I would use the least amount of stims you can to get some results. Your conditioning will keep improving as you push it. If your not doing Intermittant fasting - I would highly recommend it. It will raise your metabolism among many other benefits. I am 52 and wished I had implemented it when I was 30. Good luck!
 

cuthere100

New member
Awards
0
I would use the least amount of stims you can to get some results. Your conditioning will keep improving as you push it. If your not doing Intermittant fasting - I would highly recommend it. It will raise your metabolism among many other benefits. I am 52 and wished I had implemented it when I was 30. Good luck!
Agreed, I'm doing IF and switched to keto. In the past this always worked very well. Now it's taking extreme effort and cut-backs in calories to get the smallest of results, which tells me I'll have nowhere to go as my BF% drops without eating into my muscle as I continue cutting back calories.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
iron legion vii-kt/invicts stack works really well. the 7-keto in vii-kt will increase metabolism while the b-AET in Invictus curbs cortisol. I've used these 2 together many times with great success.

use code thebigt at ironlegion.com and save 25%.
 
Ptlhains

Ptlhains

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Agreed, I'm doing IF and switched to keto. In the past this always worked very well. Now it's taking extreme effort and cut-backs in calories to get the smallest of results, which tells me I'll have nowhere to go as my BF% drops without eating into my muscle as I continue cutting back calories.
A product like (the new) BMP could really help provide endurance, strength and muscle retension while cutting (which is where I think it really shines). Keep those calories as high as possible brother. Good luck!
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Sorry, gonna call it like I always do.

No method of dieting will "increase" your metabolism.

Supplements can be useful, they have a place but - here are my thoughts and questions.

You had an accident and were injured enough to take 2 years off from the gym. I would suspect this means your activity level has dropped a lot. It isn't just about going to the gym, it is your total daily activity. Your gym time MAY burn 500 calories a day but for a lot of people it is more like half that and we far over estimate the effects of the gym.

You may also have lost quite a bit of muscle mass. The good news is, even if you lost 30 pounds of muscle, your metabolism would only drop 200-300 calories. I think this highlights just how foolish it is to focus on "speeding up" or "slowing down" your metabolism.

Do you have a fit bit? Do you weigh and log your food intake to a T?

What is your current caloric intake? Current height and weight?

The "no where to go" line always makes me laugh a little too BTW. Ethiopians are never like, "Hey, I am starving now but, there is no where to go now, so much weight loss will stop in a little while."

I think this is part of the "slowing metabolism" mentality that was invented to sell diet books and is well loved among non-dieters to justify their lack of dieting. "Oh, I don't want to eat too little, my metabolism will crash! I am eating a lot so that it revs up my metabolism".

So, you have experience with this and have been successful. My guess is you know what is wrong and you are willing to put aside your skepticism in the hope that you won't have to actually correct the problem. Tell me I am wrong? :D
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
That was my original knee-jerk reaction. But I used to get my ECA online back in the day. All the sites dried up, and the Canadian pharmacies won't ship outside Canada. Sorry if I'm overlooking obvious sources, but again I'm new to buying supplements outside of the most basic. If I could get my hands on ECA, I'd be ecstatic. It wasn't a rush of energy for me, but it certainly gave me a reasonable assist.
Where are you located? US?
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
HIT4ME pretty much covered it all. I would stick with stims (I use them more to find some energy rather than any claims of fat burning) and really just increase your intensity. You might think you're already going balls out, but sometimes we need somebody else to force us to go one step further.

It doesn't get any easier and I constantly find myself having to reassess everything every five years or so as metabolism continues the downward spiral. I would advise against using anything that is hormonal or going to "boost" your test in anyway while your doctor dials in your TRT. That said, between taking 2 years off and now jumping back in and starting TRT, your body might need a little while to figure out what the hell is going on, so definitely have a little patience.
 
ValiantThor08

ValiantThor08

Board Sponsor
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
High SHBG?

Take nettle root extract. 300 to 600mg per day, in the morning.

Viron, by BLR, take in the morning.

Those will free up testosterone/androgens.

If your e2 is high, lowering it a bit could help with fat loss.

Forskolin95 I supposed to be a great non stim fat burner that you could stack with ECA. Then you have yohimbe HCL that you can take fasted.
 
LeanEngineer

LeanEngineer

Legend
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
Check out true shred by hard rock supplements. Many members have logged it and noted shredding around the waist and increased vascularity.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I am going to go way off my usual course here and agree with most of what @HIT4ME said and not even address the parts I don't.... Ouch Jeff, now I know how it feels!!!

Okay so I can't do it. He states that he does not believe in the slowing down of the metabolism which we know of as fact. It is an adjustment made for efficiency, and survival depending on the situation. However we both agree that metabolic damage is just an extreme survival method that is completely reversible unless someone has an actual metabolic problem like thyroid issues or something. SO the lack of activity as well as muscle loss on top of aging our metabolism is going to be slower, and fat burn not as easy due to that alongside of hormonal changes.

Unfortunately that means you are going to have to go lower than you want to until you get to where you are comfortable and then start increasing your calories slowly to get metabolism back up a bit.

Although typical bodybuilding style fasting does not really increase metabolism at all it does often help with spurring fat loss due to taking advantage of and lengthening the advantageous hormonal situation for using fat as energy so a lot of people are able to make better progress this way. SOmething to consider anyway. Also another thing to consider is how is your insulin sensitivity. If not good then fat loss is going to be very hard unless doing keto or low carb.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I am going to go way off my usual course here and agree with most of what @HIT4ME said
There. Now your post is perfect. Nothing you said is wrong.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I am going to go way off my usual course here and agree with most of what @HIT4ME said and not even address the parts I don't.... Ouch Jeff, now I know how it feels!!!

Okay so I can't do it. He states that he does not believe in the slowing down of the metabolism which we know of as fact. It is an adjustment made for efficiency, and survival depending on the situation. However we both agree that metabolic damage is just an extreme survival method that is completely reversible unless someone has an actual metabolic problem like thyroid issues or something. SO the lack of activity as well as muscle loss on top of aging our metabolism is going to be slower, and fat burn not as easy due to that alongside of hormonal changes.

Unfortunately that means you are going to have to go lower than you want to until you get to where you are comfortable and then start increasing your calories slowly to get metabolism back up a bit.

Although typical bodybuilding style fasting does not really increase metabolism at all it does often help with spurring fat loss due to taking advantage of and lengthening the advantageous hormonal situation for using fat as energy so a lot of people are able to make better progress this way. SOmething to consider anyway. Also another thing to consider is how is your insulin sensitivity. If not good then fat loss is going to be very hard unless doing keto or low carb.
And, it's been a long day. I just wrote and actually posted a long post...only to re-read what you wrote and realize, we pretty much agree. I just have a knee jerk reaction.

I guess my clarification is just that, your diet, doesn't really slow down your metabolism. It is overblown and limited. If you shut down some processes to conserve energy, which would be extreme and usually in someone who is already lean, then maybe you go from a BMR of 1800 to even 1500. But it won't keep going, you've already shut down the processes.

One of the things people over estimate is how many calories are gained from shut down. I mean, I can run 3 miles at a good clip before burning 300 calories. How much energy do people think is saved when they lose their period?

Plus, people view this as, if you burn 2000 cals/day and put 500 calories in your mouth, your body is in a deficit. But unless you are super lean, it is not actually - it still eats 2000 calories that day anyway. It just eats 500 calories of fat from your body. Now, the game will change if you are super lean - but 99% of people on a diet are not in this situation.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Your post is perfect. Nothing you said is wrong.
Thanks!!! It's about time you figured this out!!!!
And, it's been a long day. I just wrote and actually posted a long post...only to re-read what you wrote and realize, we pretty much agree. I just have a knee jerk reaction.

I guess my clarification is just that, your diet, doesn't really slow down your metabolism. It is overblown and limited. If you shut down some processes to conserve energy, which would be extreme and usually in someone who is already lean, then maybe you go from a BMR of 1800 to even 1500. But it won't keep going, you've already shut down the processes.

One of the things people over estimate is how many calories are gained from shut down. I mean, I can run 3 miles at a good clip before burning 300 calories. How much energy do people think is saved when they lose their period?

Plus, people view this as, if you burn 2000 cals/day and put 500 calories in your mouth, your body is in a deficit. But unless you are super lean, it is not actually - it still eats 2000 calories that day anyway. It just eats 500 calories of fat from your body. Now, the game will change if you are super lean - but 99% of people on a diet are not in this situation.
Someone is using semantics here... the diet is in a caloric deficit, not the body, the body has a surplus of energy storage known as fat... All facts. I can't argue with that. However, going by the way you are presenting the data there is no actual deficit as long as the body has at least 500 calories worth of substrate it can convert to energy then it is not in a deficit, even if muscle tissue is being catabolized... I guess that could be considered to be true, but then the body itself becomes in a deficit when things shut down due to this because other systems are no longer functioning or are functioning less efficiently. Started with 20 processes, now down to 15 = the body being in a deficit.

Bottom line the body uses negative feedback loops to regulate things, when the body realizes it has not been getting enough intake for a period of time those feedback loops tell the body to produce less T3 and T4 effectively slowing the metabolism down in an effort to spare muscle and survive. You don't even have to get into the point where other processes are shutting down for this to take place. It happens before they do so that they do not have to shut down other processes. It is how we are designed, checks & balances being taken all over the place and adjustments made to enhance the chances of survival.

If we are being as cut and dry as your statement above though then I will say you are correct... The diet does not slow down the metabolism. The body slows down it's own metabolism in order to adapt to a deficient diet.

Also your statement that once processes shut down to a certain point they will not shut down any further is erroneous. You are acting like their are only so many processes the body will slow or cut out all together. I assure you during starvation things continue to shut down, all the way up until death based on which things are most important for survival. Lots of physical "damage" or ailments can arise from this situation being extended as well. You can't think of this as 1+1 equals 2, it is more like a major algebraic equation with multiple and consistently changing variables.

The bigger proof of the ability to adjust is the fact that you can build your metabolism back up through controlled increases in calories, and take it up to a point higher than it has ever been while maintaining weight. Then you can go on a steep deficit diet for several months and run into multiple plateaus. You see this happen quite frequently when bodybuilders do too many shows in a row and find they have to cut calories deeper and deeper with each prep even if they are larger than the last show... Is it irreversible, no but it is certainly a legitimate problem.

Anyway much further and deeper than the OP wanted to get I am sure...
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
everyone has a theory...I get up and do 30-45 minutes of weight training 6 days a week, then go to work outdoors in the heat at a occasionally physically demanding job for 8 hours-sometimes more. I am struggling to keep my weight up at 175, I don't eat a whole lot thru the day but totally pig out after work and eat snack including icecream drumsticks before bed.

in winter months I am much less active and have to watch my diet to stay under 190, vii-kt/Invictus is truly beneficial in winter months when I am less active-this is solid truth!!!
 
Last edited:
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Thanks!!! It's about time you figured this out!!!!

Someone is using semantics here... the diet is in a caloric deficit, not the body, the body has a surplus of energy storage known as fat... All facts. I can't argue with that. However, going by the way you are presenting the data there is no actual deficit as long as the body has at least 500 calories worth of substrate it can convert to energy then it is not in a deficit, even if muscle tissue is being catabolized... I guess that could be considered to be true, but then the body itself becomes in a deficit when things shut down due to this because other systems are no longer functioning or are functioning less efficiently. Started with 20 processes, now down to 15 = the body being in a deficit.

Bottom line the body uses negative feedback loops to regulate things, when the body realizes it has not been getting enough intake for a period of time those feedback loops tell the body to produce less T3 and T4 effectively slowing the metabolism down in an effort to spare muscle and survive. You don't even have to get into the point where other processes are shutting down for this to take place. It happens before they do so that they do not have to shut down other processes. It is how we are designed, checks & balances being taken all over the place and adjustments made to enhance the chances of survival.

If we are being as cut and dry as your statement above though then I will say you are correct... The diet does not slow down the metabolism. The body slows down it's own metabolism in order to adapt to a deficient diet.

Also your statement that once processes shut down to a certain point they will not shut down any further is erroneous. You are acting like their are only so many processes the body will slow or cut out all together. I assure you during starvation things continue to shut down, all the way up until death based on which things are most important for survival. Lots of physical "damage" or ailments can arise from this situation being extended as well. You can't think of this as 1+1 equals 2, it is more like a major algebraic equation with multiple and consistently changing variables.

The bigger proof of the ability to adjust is the fact that you can build your metabolism back up through controlled increases in calories, and take it up to a point higher than it has ever been while maintaining weight. Then you can go on a steep deficit diet for several months and run into multiple plateaus. You see this happen quite frequently when bodybuilders do too many shows in a row and find they have to cut calories deeper and deeper with each prep even if they are larger than the last show... Is it irreversible, no but it is certainly a legitimate problem.

Anyway much further and deeper than the OP wanted to get I am sure...
Couple of quick questions here.

Which do you believe - reverse dieting is a thing that actually happens, or metabolic slowdown is a survival mechanism?

Given that my statement is erroneous in thinking that the body only has so many processes (not just to shut down - altogether, I assumed there is a limit to how many processes the body has) - and with your assurance that "during starvation things continue to shut down" - How low exactly are you suggesting your metabolism will go? Can it go to 500 calories? 100? 10?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Couple of quick questions here.

Which do you believe - reverse dieting is a thing that actually happens, or metabolic slowdown is a survival mechanism?

Given that my statement is erroneous in thinking that the body only has so many processes (not just to shut down - altogether, I assumed there is a limit to how many processes the body has) - and with your assurance that "during starvation things continue to shut down" - How low exactly are you suggesting your metabolism will go? Can it go to 500 calories? 100? 10?
unless you are planning to starve yourself to death-what does it matter?
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Couple of quick questions here.

Which do you believe - reverse dieting is a thing that actually happens, or metabolic slowdown is a survival mechanism?

Given that my statement is erroneous in thinking that the body only has so many processes (not just to shut down - altogether, I assumed there is a limit to how many processes the body has) - and with your assurance that "during starvation things continue to shut down" - How low exactly are you suggesting your metabolism will go? Can it go to 500 calories? 100? 10?
You say those as if they are mutually exclusive when they are simply the same negative feedback loop mechanisms responding to a different imposed environment.

Well, I am not even suggesting a number and wouldn't due to all of the constantly changing variable in the equation as I stated above, but if you need a concrete number that number would obviously be 0 because as I said things will slow down and or shut down right up until death and then you are no longer metabolizing but beginning to be metabolized. ( By bacteria that is) Now what the number would be before death / 0 depends on the individual. Again way too many factors but the fact of the matter is we have both medical and anecdotal proof that the body cuts out and slows down processes based on insufficient caloric intake in order to survive.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
unless you are planning to starve yourself to death-what does it matter?
lol - yeah, point taken but....

It matters because people trying to lose weight read this stuff and are afraid to cut calories and they get bad advice and are never able to achieve their goals. And because it sounds like it is "scientific" - it gets even more traction.

You say those as if they are mutually exclusive when they are simply the same negative feedback loop mechanisms responding to a different imposed environment.

Well, I am not even suggesting a number and wouldn't due to all of the constantly changing variable in the equation as I stated above, but if you need a concrete number that number would obviously be 0 because as I said things will slow down and or shut down right up until death and then you are no longer metabolizing but beginning to be metabolized. ( By bacteria that is) Now what the number would be before death / 0 depends on the individual. Again way too many factors but the fact of the matter is we have both medical and anecdotal proof that the body cuts out and slows down processes based on insufficient caloric intake in order to survive.
Actually, mutually exclusive is THE term I had in mind. So - do you really believe your logic for either? I know you are going to have a gut reaction here because you may THINK you believe it, but examine it more closely. Because, you say that our body can adapt to a lower caloric intake as a form of survival - and the standard drivel is that during times of starvation our body will turn down the caloric expenditure in order to survive. BUT, if you believe this, then why would you ever turn UP the thermostat to begin with?

When would it EVER be a good survival tactic to run on more calories than you need? You know, like, we could accomplish this task with 1000 calories, but what the hey, I'm feeling spendy - let's use 1200!

So, if you believe that you can adjust your metabolism downward because it is an intelligent survival technique - then you CANNOT believe that adjusting it upward happens, because...it's NOT an intelligent survival technique.

I also notice you won't pick a number for how low it can go, even though you claim there is no limit - and granted, everyone has a different metabolism - but I threw out a few numbers for the lows. So, let's take it a step further. What percentage of the population do you think has EVER reduced their metabolic rate to 500 calories/day? How about 100/day? How about 10?

It will be a very small percentage for any of those numbers, and it would probably require some serious outliers - like someone who is a bed-ridden midget weighing 50 pounds would be able to hit 500 calories a day - but even they wouldn't quite qualify because they didn't "reduce" their metabolism to that. Their metabolism lying around in bed would have always been around that.

Do you actually believe that if you started feeding an Ethiopian 800 calories/day instead of 300 - they would start gaining weight because their metabolism had actually slowed down to accommodate? (I'm saved!)

How about the idea of shutting down processes? Let's take a super extreme situation - well beyond anything someone would self impose upon themselves with a diet. Let's take a comatose patient. These people get caloric nutrition that is equal to most people's BMR's for the same weight and height.

But, wait, isn't everything shut down? Isn't there no limit? Shouldn't they not lose weight then?

What about critically ill patients? Why do their caloric needs often increase, even doubling? But aren't they in "survival mode"? Haven't they shut down processes?

Plus, you can test this for yourself, I HAVE. Go on a 600 calorie a day diet for 6 months. Track your weight loss. In the 6th month, use basic math and calculate your new body mass and what your TDEE SHOULD BE (if you had not f'd yourself up with starvation mode) - and calculate the weight loss you SHOULD see while dieting at 600 calories. Yup, it will be pretty dang close. Like I said, I have done this. Actually, my weight loss at the 6 month mark was in line with what would be expected from the fit bit calculations for caloric expenditure, which we all know are high. I.e. - if the fitbit says I burned 2200 calories I probably only burned 2000. If I burned 2000 and ate 600 then I actually lost 1400 calories of fat/3500 calories per pound = 0.4 pounds. Yet over the course of a week I would lose closer to 3.2 pounds when I should have been losing 2.8 (suggesting both that the fitbit is somewhat accurate and that there was no metabolic slowdown).

And your idea that it is erroneous to think the number of processes that can be shut down is limited is "erroneous" is, itself, erroneous. Of course there are a limited number of processes that can be shut down - our body only has a limited number of processes to begin with - it isn't infinite. And out of those limited processes, there are only a limited number of processes that can be "shut down" before death happens. And shut down would be the most extreme caloric reduction - slowed down would be less extreme.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
but the fact of the matter is we have both medical and anecdotal proof that the body cuts out and slows down processes based on insufficient caloric intake in order to survive.
This is a part that I want to differentiate a little here. I am not saying SOME things cannot get shut down. Women lose their periods on extreme diets all the time - so yeah, processes stop. But the impact on caloric expenditures is minimal and the combined impact is very limited.

Also, to your point about the complex algebra involved - it isn't always that these things get shut down due to caloric insufficiency - it is often nutrient insufficiency.

Finally, this still falls under "work load" - the body is reducing its workload and that will reduce caloric need. Just like we know that if we are starving we don't have the energy to lift weights and are more likely to lie on the couch.

Adjusting the metabolism by more than about 300 calories/day (15%) though, is highly unlikely. Actually, the science on this is probably more conservative.

Your metabolism will never be 0, or 100, or even 500 calories/day no matter what you do.

If you want to get fancier about this - your body needs how many grams of carbs a day to fuel your brain? Some people place the number as high as 130 grams (I understand ketosis) - but that alone is 520 calories, JUST for your brain. Good luck opening your eyes that day. Or breathing. Or pumping blood.

The bottom line is, we are efficient from the start. If it could get more efficient, we would be more efficient.
 
MrKleen73

MrKleen73

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Sorry guys the response to these was going to be too fun, and too long so we decided to take it offline so we wouldn't derail the thread any further.
 
BCseacow83

BCseacow83

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Sorry guys the response to these was going to be too fun, and too long so we decided to take it offline so we wouldn't derail the thread any further.
BOOOOOO............if it's too longwinded for the twitter crowd they can simply kick rocks and go elsewhere. The forums need MORE of this and less, "Whats the best pre flavor?"
 

Similar threads


Top