you need to avoid seed oils (PUFA's)

Buy Lab Tests Online

t_spacemonkey

Well-Known Member
many here know it, but I did a little compilation of some good studies.

These data indicate that, in male mice, LA induces obesity and insulin resistance and reduces activity more than saturated fat, supporting the hypothesis that increased LA intake may be a contributor to the obesity epidemic.
 
Defy Medical TRT clinic doctor

Cataceous

Super Moderator
Theoretical risks versus favorable observational studies. The jury is still out. Credit to Wiki for the references:

In prospective cohort studies, higher LA intake, assessed by dietary surveys or biomarkers, was associated with a modestly lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, and cancer. These data support the potential long-term benefits of PUFA intake in lowering the risk of CVD and premature death.

Overall, data from clinical studies and meta-analyses suggest an association between high dietary intakes or tissue levels of n-6 PUFA, and specifically LA, and the improvement of cardiovascular risk (mainly of the plasma lipid profile), as well as long-term glycaemic control and insulin resistance. ... High quality clinical trials are needed to assess both the actual amplitude and the underlying mechanisms of the health effects related to dietary intake of this essential fatty acid.
...
In particular, for years emphasis has been placed on the potential pro-inflammatory properties of some n-6 PUFA metabolites (e.g. some of the eicosanoids deriving from AA) [8] and on the competition between LA and ALA as substrates for the same metabolic pathway, possibly leading to reduced levels of the ALA derived n-3 long chain PUFA (LC-PUFA) in organs and tissues [9].
Yet, epidemiological studies indicate that an adequate intake of LA is associated with lower levels of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [10], and dietary intervention studies have shown that replacing 5% of the dietary energy derived from SFA with n-6 PUFA reduces LDL-C by up to 10%, consequently resulting in a significant reduction of CVD risk [11,12]. Furthermore, a diet enriched in n-6 PUFA reduced liver fat and resulted in a modestly improved metabolic status, with no signs of inflammation, compared with a diet enriched in SFA, in subjects with abdominal obesity [13]. Moreover, it has been observed that circulating concentrations of LA are inversely associated with incident type 2 diabetes in prospective cohort studies [14].

We found that a high intake of dietary LA and elevated concentrations of LA in the body were both significantly associated with a lower risk of T2DM. These findings support dietary recommendations to consume dietary LA.
 

Gman86

Member
Theoretical risks versus favorable observational studies. The jury is still out. Credit to Wiki for the references:

In prospective cohort studies, higher LA intake, assessed by dietary surveys or biomarkers, was associated with a modestly lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, and cancer. These data support the potential long-term benefits of PUFA intake in lowering the risk of CVD and premature death.

Overall, data from clinical studies and meta-analyses suggest an association between high dietary intakes or tissue levels of n-6 PUFA, and specifically LA, and the improvement of cardiovascular risk (mainly of the plasma lipid profile), as well as long-term glycaemic control and insulin resistance. ... High quality clinical trials are needed to assess both the actual amplitude and the underlying mechanisms of the health effects related to dietary intake of this essential fatty acid.
...
In particular, for years emphasis has been placed on the potential pro-inflammatory properties of some n-6 PUFA metabolites (e.g. some of the eicosanoids deriving from AA) [8] and on the competition between LA and ALA as substrates for the same metabolic pathway, possibly leading to reduced levels of the ALA derived n-3 long chain PUFA (LC-PUFA) in organs and tissues [9].
Yet, epidemiological studies indicate that an adequate intake of LA is associated with lower levels of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [10], and dietary intervention studies have shown that replacing 5% of the dietary energy derived from SFA with n-6 PUFA reduces LDL-C by up to 10%, consequently resulting in a significant reduction of CVD risk [11,12]. Furthermore, a diet enriched in n-6 PUFA reduced liver fat and resulted in a modestly improved metabolic status, with no signs of inflammation, compared with a diet enriched in SFA, in subjects with abdominal obesity [13]. Moreover, it has been observed that circulating concentrations of LA are inversely associated with incident type 2 diabetes in prospective cohort studies [14].

We found that a high intake of dietary LA and elevated concentrations of LA in the body were both significantly associated with a lower risk of T2DM. These findings support dietary recommendations to consume dietary LA.

Jury is absolutely still not out. Saying processed seed oils are bad for us is like saying sex feels good. It’s one of the biggest durrrs there is, when it comes to diet and health. I would normally say, imo, but it’s not an opinion, it’s simple and clear facts

Anyone/ any study that thinks lowering LDL will result in a significant reduction of CVD risk is unfortunately misinformed. So anytime I see a study citing this, it’s an easy decision to disregard it, as far as a credible source of information goes
 

t_spacemonkey

Well-Known Member
this is an anecdote but since avoiding nearly all PUFA's about a year ago, I get 0 sunburn. i tan darker, and typically could do 2h in the sun. i can 4-6h now. there is thousands of anecdotes confirming the same. what is the mechanism? highly unstable fats which do oxidize when exposed to UV light. Also since stopping them, on the rare occasion I have them i feel a major impact on my well being. being sluggish, low energy, no gym/cardio endurance, which lasts about 24h. my understanding is that those are especially toxic when heated. and why to consume them cold when you can do olive/avocado and animal sources. i think it is fairly safe to recommend avoidance of all seed ois
 

Gman86

Member
this is an anecdote but since avoiding nearly all PUFA's about a year ago, I get 0 sunburn. i tan darker, and typically could do 2h in the sun. i can 4-6h now. there is thousands of anecdotes confirming the same. what is the mechanism? highly unstable fats which do oxidize when exposed to UV light. Also since stopping them, on the rare occasion I have them i feel a major impact on my well being. being sluggish, low energy, no gym/cardio endurance, which lasts about 24h. my understanding is that those are especially toxic when heated. and why to consume them cold when you can do olive/avocado and animal sources. i think it is fairly safe to recommend avoidance of all seed ois

So does u avoiding all PUFAS include u avoiding all fish oil supplements, and even avoiding any seafood?

I’ve heard the same exact anecdote many times over btw. That theory on why makes pretty good sense, thanks for sharing it. Referring to the tanning better/ not getting as sunburnt stuff
 

t_spacemonkey

Well-Known Member
So does u avoiding all PUFAS include u avoiding all fish oil supplements, and even avoiding any seafood?

I’ve heard the same exact anecdote many times over btw. That theory on why makes pretty good sense, thanks for sharing it. Referring to the tanning better/ not getting as sunburnt stuff
i stopped using fish oil. most is rancid and oxidizes easily as well. have not exp. any benefits at all. on occasion I do wild caught fish and smoked salmon or ideally local lake fish.
 

Phil Goodman

Active Member
Jury is absolutely still not out. Saying processed seed oils are bad for us is like saying sex feels good. It’s one of the biggest durrrs there is, when it comes to diet and health. I would normally say, imo, but it’s not an opinion, it’s simple and clear facts

Anyone/ any study that thinks lowering LDL will result in a significant reduction of CVD risk is unfortunately misinformed. So anytime I see a study citing this, it’s an easy decision to disregard it, as far as a credible source of information goes
This.


Its well established that there are lots of negative impacts from consumption.




While the evidence is still conflicting in some instances, the mechanisms underlying excessive LA intake are reflected in a wide variety of chronic diseases. A recent study [99] found that high-fat diets increased the formation of vitamin A degradation products, known as bisretinoids, in ocular tissues. These degradation products are known to cause damage to the retina directly, but they also participate in the formation of lipofuscin in the retina. Lipofuscin is a byproduct of PUFA peroxidation. The study found the PUFA linoleic acid to be a causal factor of eye damage.

Soy oil is by far the most widely produced and consumed seed oil in the US. Using mice, researchers in 2020 found that a high soybean oil diet not only led to obesity and diabetes, but could also affect neurological conditions such as autism, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression [100]. The same research team found in 2015 [101] that soy oil induced obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and fatty liver in mice. Then, in a 2017 study [102], the same group learned that if soy oil was engineered to be low in LA, it induced less obesity and insulin resistance.

Type I diabetes is an autoimmune condition. The beta-cells of the pancreas are attacked by antibodies from the immune system, over time leading to their destruction and the inability to produce insulin. One study [103] found that the reason for antibody production was the overexpression of the enzyme 12/15-lipoxygenase, which is an enzyme involved not only in synthesizing inflammatory leukotrienes, but also metastatic cancer.

Leukotrienes are PUFA metabolites and are responsible for the development of type I diabetes. This suggests that a 12/15-LOX inhibitor would be therapeutic. This study administered a leukotriene inhibitor and found it effective in preventing the development of beta-cell autoimmunity. A more fundamental approach would be to avoid or replace the source of leukotrienes, which would be dietary PUFAs.

7.1. Obesity and LA​

In the US, nearly 43% of adults 20 years of age and older are obese [104], while approximately 74% of all adults are overweight or obese [105]. Although these statistics are alarming, the American Obesity Association suggests that by 2025, 50% of Americans may be obese. Predictions also indicate that the percentage is likely to rise to 60% by 2030 [106]. There is a growing body of evidence based on animal studies suggesting that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as those found in vegetable oils, contribute to the obesity epidemic [107,108,109,110].
It is also important to note that the US has both the highest obesity rate in the developed world [111] and the highest consumption of seed oils per person than any other nation [112]. Figure 3illustrates the ongoing shift in vegetable oil consumption that began in the early 20th century, as industrially processed vegetable and seed oils entered the food supply and gradually displaced natural animal fats.

While there appears to be a coincident rise in both the consumption of LA-containing seed oils and obesity, it should be noted that this does not imply causality. There are a number of other dietary (e.g., refined sugars, ultraprocessed foods, etc.) and nondietary (e.g., physical inactivity, environmental toxicants, poor sleep, etc.) risk factors that have also increased during this time. Nonetheless, LA is one such risk factor worthy of consideration.


The dramatic increase in LA intake in the standard American diet appears to contribute to the simultaneous rise in a wide variety of chronic diseases. While modest amounts of LA support human health, deleterious mechanisms of excessive LA intake include the formation of oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs) and a suboptimal cardiolipin composition. These disruptions to optimal physiology cause impairments in mitochondrial function, compromised metabolic function, and excessive inflammation, all of which contribute to obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other chronic conditions that plague our healthcare system.

While other dietary factors, such as refined sugars and ultraprocessed foods, more generally, contribute to the rise in chronic diseases, the long half-life of LA and its integration into cardiolipin with excessive intake is particularly pernicious. Future prospective studies of low-LA diets in humans appear warranted and should consider the relatively long timeframe for the reduction in the harms of an excessive LA intake. Furthermore, while the standard American diet has become more pervasive worldwide, including in China [57.89] and India, the hypothesis that excessive LA intake may be contributing to chronic disease explored in this review should be evaluated more closely in populations outside of the United States.
 

Golfboy307

Active Member
It will be the worst thing we can eat like all of these other "worst" foods we were taught not to eat.

Eggs
Butter
Cholesterol
Saturated fats
Trans fats
Sugar
Red meat
Bread/High Glycemic foods

Just wait until the next series of studies come out debunking all of the above on LA.

I have given up long ago trying to make sense of the diet wars.
 

Cataceous

Super Moderator
It will be the worst thing we can eat like all of these other "worst" foods we were taught not to eat.
...

Just wait until the next series of studies come out debunking all of the above on LA.

I have given up long ago trying to make sense of the diet wars.
Exactly. It's too tempting to blame particular foods/nutrients for your health problems, when the alternative is to admit that the real problem is eating too many calories and not exercising enough.
 

Phil Goodman

Active Member
Exactly. It's too tempting to blame particular foods/nutrients for your health problems, when the alternative is to admit that the real problem is eating too many calories and not exercising enough.
Or you could realize that both of those are issues. Some foods are absolutely worse for you than others and should be avoided or minimized. The explosion in autoimmune disorders, neurological conditions, cancers, and lots of other things can’t all be attributed to simply caloric excess. And yes there are many factors like chemicals in the environment or other things that have dramatically increased over the past 100 years, but changes in diet(beyond simple caloric amounts) absolutely contribute to the terrible health we see in America(and increasingly in the Western world as a whole).
 
So does u avoiding all PUFAS include u avoiding all fish oil supplements, and even avoiding any seafood?

I’ve heard the same exact anecdote many times over btw. That theory on why makes pretty good sense, thanks for sharing it. Referring to the tanning better/ not getting as sunburnt stuff
Gman86, I think you know where I stand on this. Yes, IMO avoid all fish oil supplements. But not all seafood. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, oysters, squid, mussels and other shellfish are low PUFA. They are fine. I do believe cold-weather fatty fish (high in Omega 3s) should be avoided. Cod is a leaner fish and supposedly lower in Omega 3. Warmer weather fish are lower in PUFA. So salmon and herring are out. But I do understand some species have different levels of PUFA, such as sardines. So one would need to be careful. Same with tuna. Some have more fat that others. Unfortunately, our nutrition paradigm doesn't really track for excluding higher Omega-3 fish. We've been convinced to seek out such foods.
 

Cataceous

Super Moderator
Or you could realize that both of those are issues. Some foods are absolutely worse for you than others and should be avoided or minimized. ...
They can both be issues, but as @Golfboy307 implies, it's best to wait for the science to settle down so you don't fall for the scare of the week. The evidence against PUFAs is currently weak compared to that against obesity, sedentary lifestyle, eating trans fats, etc. In the meantime it's hard to go wrong if you eat a balanced diet of minimally processed foods that works for you; ignore all the clickbait.
 

Gman86

Member
It will be the worst thing we can eat like all of these other "worst" foods we were taught not to eat.

Eggs
Butter
Cholesterol
Saturated fats
Trans fats
Sugar
Red meat
Bread/High Glycemic foods

Just wait until the next series of studies come out debunking all of the above on LA.

I have given up long ago trying to make sense of the diet wars.

The truth always comes to light in the end. It just takes time. But once the truth is out there, u can’t put it back in the box. So in regards to diet, we will always make progress, that’s the new baseline, make progress on top of that, then thats the new baseline, etc. With information being so readily available today, we actually understand the why, when it comes to which foods are good for us, and which ones aren’t. Opposed to when we were all growing up, where we blindly had to trust what the government told us was healthy, and what wasn’t.

So now all it takes is some dedication to researching food, in regards to overall health, and figuring things out for yourself. The information is there, u just have to go over it. Once u do, it becomes very obv what foods are healthy, and what foods aren’t. Again, the information is all there at everyone’s fingertips


If u want me to sum up ur list for u, here ya go

Eggs (good, as long as ur getting pastured eggs)

Butter (good if ur getting grass fed butter)

Cholesterol (good for u, and u also want ur cholesterol levels high. Both HDL and LDL. In studies, people with the highest cholesterol levels had the least amount of cardiovascular events, and the people that had the lowest cholesterol levels had the most)

Saturated fats (good)

Trans fats (bad, stay far away from)

Sugar (natural sugars from fruits and raw honey, for a few examples, are fine in moderation. Stay away from added sugar in foods, and high fructose corn syrup in foods/ drinks

Red meat (healthiest food a human can consume)

Bread/High Glycemic foods (stay away from bread, if u can. And high glycemic foods is too much of a generalization to comment on really, but for the most part, it’s most likely ideal to stay away from most high glycemic foods/ limit their intake)

Again, the truth always comes to light. So the more research someone does, in regards to food and overall health, the more they will agree with the comments I made, in regards to this list. It’s just inevitable. Truth/ facts don’t change based on people’s opinions. Truth/ facts remain constant, no matter what
 
Last edited:

Gman86

Member
Exactly. It's too tempting to blame particular foods/nutrients for your health problems, when the alternative is to admit that the real problem is eating too many calories and not exercising enough.

Are u saying that certain foods aren’t responsible for negative health outcomes? I would argue that diet is the absolute biggest factor, when it comes to people’s health issues. We literally are made up of what we eat

But yes, being too overweight, and not exercising regularly, can absolutely be big factors, in regards to people experiencing negative health issues
 

Cataceous

Super Moderator
Are u saying that certain foods aren’t responsible for negative health outcomes? I would argue that diet is the absolute biggest factor, when it comes to people’s health issues. We literally are made up of what we eat
...
Do you remember this?
In March, Kevin Maginnis embarked on a 100-day journey to lose 50 pounds by only eating McDonald's.
...
On Thursday, Maginnis stopped by Studio 1A to celebrate the last day of his unconventional experiment and revealed that he'd lost 58.5 pounds. When he started, he weigh[ed] 238 pounds and he's now down to 179.5 pounds.
...
Nothing on the McDonald's menu was off limits — including fries and dessert — and Maginnis didn't work out or count calories during the experiment.
...
Maginnis said his bloodwork shows that his health has improved. He said he lowered his level of triglycerides, a type of fat that circulates in the body, by 205 points and his cholesterol by 65 points.
Beforehand, Maginnis was prediabetic, but he said his A1C levels (which measures your average blood sugar levels over the past three months) are now in a healthy range.

...
Red meat (healthiest food a human can consume)
...
That's a risible claim, but somewhat less so if you're referring to lean game meat, which virtually nobody eats. Factory-farmed meat is in some ways analgous to white bread. Start with a food source we evolved to eat and process the heck out of it so it's barely recognizable.
 

Gman86

Member
Do you remember this?
In March, Kevin Maginnis embarked on a 100-day journey to lose 50 pounds by only eating McDonald's.
...
On Thursday, Maginnis stopped by Studio 1A to celebrate the last day of his unconventional experiment and revealed that he'd lost 58.5 pounds. When he started, he weigh[ed] 238 pounds and he's now down to 179.5 pounds.
...
Nothing on the McDonald's menu was off limits — including fries and dessert — and Maginnis didn't work out or count calories during the experiment.
...
Maginnis said his bloodwork shows that his health has improved. He said he lowered his level of triglycerides, a type of fat that circulates in the body, by 205 points and his cholesterol by 65 points.
Beforehand, Maginnis was prediabetic, but he said his A1C levels (which measures your average blood sugar levels over the past three months) are now in a healthy range.


That's a risible claim, but somewhat less so if you're referring to lean game meat, which virtually nobody eats. Factory-farmed meat is in some ways analgous to white bread. Start with a food source we evolved to eat and process the heck out of it so it's barely recognizable.

Ya obv anyone that loses that much weight is going to see in improvement in their lab markers, regardless of how they lost the weight

If optimal health is the goal, u actually want to consume fatty red meat over lean red game meat. Fatty red meat will have all the same micronutrients (assuming the animal was also eating its natural diet) that lean red game meat will have, plus all the very important micronutrients that are in the fat of the animal. Plus, fat is obv vital for proper hormone production, and many other things, such as protecting neurons in our brains, for one example.

Factory farmed meat is always going to be a way better choice, health wise, than any white bread u can find on the market. But not all factory farmed meat is created equal. If ur gonna go factory farmed, as far as ur meat goes, u want to stick to ruminant animal meat, as much as u can. Ruminant animals have 4 chambers to their stomachs, and food goes through a fermentation type process while getting digested through all 4 chambers, and even if they consume food that’s not very good for them, they can still turn that food into high quality meat. Opposed to monogastric animals, where if they eat food that’s not that great for them, and not great in general, it means their meat and fat are going to be considerably less healthy to consume (mainly the fat), compared to monogastric animals fed their natural diets.
 
Last edited:

Phil Goodman

Active Member
Ya obv anyone that loses that much weight is going to see in improvement in their lab markers, regardless of how they lost the weight

If optimal health is the goal, u actually want to consume fatty red meat over lean red game meat. Fatty red meat will have all the same micronutrients (assuming the animal was also eating its natural diet) that lean red game meat will have, plus all the very important micronutrients that are in the fat of the animal. Plus, fat is obv vital for proper hormone production, and many other things, such as protecting neurons in our brains, for one example.

Factory farmed meat is always going to be a way better choice, health wise, than any white bread u can find on the market. But not all factory farmed meat is created equal. If ur gonna go factory farmed, as far as ur meat goes, u want to stick to ruminant animal meat, as much as u can. Ruminant animals have 4 chambers to their stomachs, and food goes through a fermentation type process while getting digested through all 4 chambers, and even if they consume food that’s not very good for them, they can still turn that food into high quality meat. Opposed to monogastric animals, where if they eat food that’s not that great for them, and not great in general, it means their meat and fat are going to be considerably less healthy to consume (mainly the fat), compared to monogastric animals fed their natural diets.
Yeah, absolutely no one should be surprised that someone going from morbidly obese to a healthy weight resulted in improvement of health markers. If he ate tiny amounts of McDonald’s to get there that isn’t really important after a few months. And there’s a reason he didn’t stay with that diet. If it was so great, and would obviously be really cheap, he could just do it for life if it’s optimal. But it isn’t. And if you take two people of comparable weight and have one eat high amounts of McDonald’s or other trash while one eats healthy foods like you mentioned above the VAST majority of times the person with the better diet will be healthier, despite the fact that they weigh the same.
 

Gman86

Member
Yeah, absolutely no one should be surprised that someone going from morbidly obese to a healthy weight resulted in improvement of health markers. If he ate tiny amounts of McDonald’s to get there that isn’t really important after a few months. And there’s a reason he didn’t stay with that diet. If it was so great, and would obviously be really cheap, he could just do it for life if it’s optimal. But it isn’t. And if you take two people of comparable weight and have one eat high amounts of McDonald’s or other trash while one eats healthy foods like you mentioned above the VAST majority of times the person with the better diet will be healthier, despite the fact that they weigh the same.

Ya I mean even the most ignorant person, when it comes to food and health, knows that eating processed fast food is about as bad as u can get, when it comes to food negatively affecting a person. And u don’t even have to err on the side of caution, and say “the vast majority”. 100% of people eating high amounts of processed fast food will be unhealthier than people that eat carnivore, or at least a carnivore base. If ages are equal obv. Or let’s say 99.999999%, to make sure we account for EXTREME genetic outliers
 
Last edited:

Cataceous

Super Moderator
Ya obv anyone that loses that much weight is going to see in improvement in their lab markers, regardless of how they lost the weight
...
Yeah, absolutely no one should be surprised that someone going from morbidly obese to a healthy weight resulted in improvement of health markers. ...
So you concede the point, though try to obscure it by mislabeling the guy as morbidly obese. In fact he's pretty typical — especially of Americans, and the case illustrates that getting to a good weight is orders of magnitude more important than quibbling over macronutrients.

... If optimal health is the goal, u actually want to consume fatty red meat over lean red game meat. ...
It's easy to show that the science is against you in this, even if not definitively. If you want to eat fatty red meat in moderation then it's probably not going to kill you. Go full carnivore on the stuff and you increase your risk of issues due to the lack of balance.
 

Gman86

Member
So you concede the point, though try to obscure it by mislabeling the guy as morbidly obese. In fact he's pretty typical — especially of Americans, and the case illustrates that getting to a good weight is orders of magnitude more important than quibbling over macronutrients.


It's easy to show that the science is against you in this, even if not definitively. If you want to eat fatty red meat in moderation then it's probably not going to kill you. Go full carnivore on the stuff and you increase your risk of issues due to the lack of balance.

Yes, decreasing a persons weight to get them closer to a healthy weight for their frame will always result in their health improving, but that doesn’t mean losing weight is magnitudes more important than what the person is actually eating. It’s not as black or white as that. They’re both very important, when it comes to optimal health.

And there’s many flawed studies out there showing that red meat increases cardiovascular disease/ rates of cancer. It’s just not the case when u look at people that are actually doing full carnivore. Plus, the first article u posted talks about people that ate both red meat and processed meats at the same time. Those things are not the same. Processed meats will increase ur risk of cardiovascular disease/ cancer, unprocessed red meat will not. If u follow anybody that does full carnivore, and tracks their health very well, u’ll see that 100% of the time their health gets to a place where their cardiovascular risk becomes about as low as it can possibly get. Zero calcium in their arteries, hdl high, ldl moderate to high, triglycerides extremely low, inflammation extremely low, fasting insulin levels extremely low, HbA1c low. Literally exactly what u want to see if optimal health/ low cardiovascular risk/ low cancer risk are ur goals. Studies are hit and miss with things. A high majority of the time all studies have flaws in them, and then a high number of studies are also corrupt and involve conflicts of interest. So studies do have their place, but what u want to look at more is anecdotal experiences, and what people are actually experiencing in the real world. At the end of the day, that’s obv what’s more important
 
Last edited:
Buy Lab Tests Online
Defy Medical TRT clinic

Sponsors

enclomiphene
nelson vergel coaching for men
Discounted Labs
TRT in UK Balance my hormones
Testosterone books nelson vergel
Register on ExcelMale.com
Trimix HCG Offer Excelmale
Thumos USA men's mentoring and coaching
Testosterone TRT HRT Doctor Near Me

Online statistics

Members online
3
Guests online
9
Total visitors
12

Latest posts

bodybuilder test discounted labs
Top