Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Why Carbs Make Us Fat...

1356

Replies

  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    I'll be honest I would totally put cheese on my rice and it would probably be delicious.

    Now we're talking!
    edited September 19
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »

    zr4jys19qbn9.gif

    Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?

    I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.

    If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.

    I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.

    He also mentions...

    "Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."

    He takes into account the combo factor.


    Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.

    Um, obviously.

    Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them

    so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.

    Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it

    "Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."

    I doubt it from that quote...
    edited September 19
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 5,129Member Member Posts: 5,129Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »

    zr4jys19qbn9.gif

    Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?

    I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.

    If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.

    I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.

    He also mentions...

    "Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."

    He takes into account the combo factor.


    Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.

    Um, obviously.

    Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them

    so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.

    Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it

    "Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."

    I doubt it from that quote...


    That is one sentence.

    What I said was about the overall thrust of the article, not the one or two sentences giving the guise of being a balanced view.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »

    zr4jys19qbn9.gif

    Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?

    I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.

    If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.

    I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.

    He also mentions...

    "Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."

    He takes into account the combo factor.


    Heck so foods taste good in combinations of macros.

    Um, obviously.

    Cant say I really agree with thrust of the article - and I probably eat more carbs than many people and I certainly make no attempt to limit them

    so, yes, I have read the article and I disagree.

    Seems just another demonising carbs and pushing low carbs as the best way to lose weight under guise of being balanced about it

    "Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."

    I doubt it from that quote...


    That is one sentence.

    What I said was about the overall thrust of the article, not the one or two sentences giving the guise of being a balanced view.

    That one sentence summarizes his viewpoint...

  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 5,129Member Member Posts: 5,129Member Member
    Well it isn't the way he presented the main body of his article.

    So, like I said, I disagree with the overall thrust of his article.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    Well it isn't the way he presented the main body of his article.

    So, like I said, I disagree with the overall thrust of his article.

    Ok...
  • SarahAnne3958SarahAnne3958 Posts: 78Member Member Posts: 78Member Member
    What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.

    I've been on and off of MFP for a long time now and it doesn't seem to matter if people are following 'balanced' diets or 'fad' diets, most people fail at long term weight management, period.

    There's been threads where people have chimed in with how many times they've regained the weight they lost, or 'fallen off the wagon' and there are a LOT of people who have gotten stuck in the lose/regain cycle, regardless of what their macros splits were, what foods they ate/didn't eat etc. There's a lot of factors that go into successful long term weight loss management both physically and psychologically, plus all the stuff that gets thrown at us because of life's unexpectedness.

    It would be an interesting topic for a thread to see what the strategies of long-time maintainers are, (those who've maintained significant weight loss for more than 10 years).
    edited September 19
  • cmriversidecmriverside Posts: 28,693Member Member Posts: 28,693Member Member
    I'm also on Team kshama2001.

    But. It's specific foods in specific situations, not just carbs in general.


    Ice cream? No. Potatoes, baked or roasted, yes. French bread, no. Corn bread or rice? Yes. No to cookies and candy. Well, if there is only one available, then yes. If there is a bag of them available to me? No.
    edited September 19
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,358Member Member Posts: 3,358Member Member
    What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.

    Agree, but I don't think the linked article is actually supporting the fad diet approach.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,292Member Member Posts: 5,292Member Member
    "Make no mistake, I want you to eat carbs, and I want you to enjoy your carbs, I just don’t want you to overeat carbs, because I don’t want you to overeat, period..."
    –Brad Pilon
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,358Member Member Posts: 3,358Member Member
    I'm also on Team kshama2001.

    But. It's specific foods in specific situations, not just carbs in general.


    Ice cream? No. Potatoes, baked or roasted, yes. French bread, no. Corn bread or rice? Yes. No to cookies and candy. Well, if there is only one available, then yes. If there is a bag of them available to me? No.

    When I am in a frame of mind when abstaining is easier (and there are definitely times I am, which is one reason I hate the idea that people are either "abstainers about everything" or "moderators about everything" -- for me, depends on the food, depends on what else is going on in my life, depends on the specific circumstances surrounding consumption). However, like you, applying it to all carbs (or all fats or whatever) makes no sense to me. Vegetables are a carb, and I don't have trouble "moderating" them (in fact, I intentionally eat 10+ servings, and although not moderate compared to the average consumption in the US, that's not a calorie problem at all and helps me not fill up my plate with higher cal things sometimes, as well as making me feel good IMO).

    Ice cream I'm not eating lately (I have 0 sweet tooth other than for fruit lately), but I moderate it fine. Pie or certain other sweet baked goods? No, but if I have a piece at a holiday dinner and then don't keep more on hand, I'm not going to be unable to keep myself from baking or go to a bakery and buy some afterwards. Potatoes, I moderate fine and eat frequently. Fries? I have them rarely and if I have good ones I tend to eat what's on my plate, so save them for times when that's workable (so rarely). But again I don't eat fries and then go buy fries the next several nights. Rice, nothing could be easier for me to moderate, it's a food I like fine with other foods but don't find exciting. Same with plain pasta and I can moderate pasta with protein and veg easily. Plain bread I mostly don't eat since it's not that interesting for me, but homemade fresh out of the oven bread, no, I can't moderate, so I rarely bake it. Cornbread (if good, warm), yeah, I can't moderate it easily so it's a rare treat, etc.

    Fruit, I love, but moderate fine, in part because it takes a lot to overdo it and in part because I don't snack very often so it's usually eaten as part of or right after a meal.
  • nighthawk584nighthawk584 Posts: 896Member Member Posts: 896Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    What happened to a WELL BALANCED DIET being the right thing? All these fad diets are a joke for long term success FOR MOST PEOPLE.

    I've been on and off of MFP for a long time now and it doesn't seem to matter if people are following 'balanced' diets or 'fad' diets, most people fail at long term weight management, period.

    There's been threads where people have chimed in with how many times they've regained the weight they lost, or 'fallen off the wagon' and there are a LOT of people who have gotten stuck in the lose/regain cycle, regardless of what their macros splits were, what foods they ate/didn't eat etc. There's a lot of factors that go into successful long term weight loss management both physically and psychologically, plus all the stuff that gets thrown at us because of life's unexpectedness.

    It would be an interesting topic for a thread to see what the strategies of long-time maintainers are, (those who've maintained significant weight loss for more than 10 years).

    I'd wager that if people kept following a balanced diet into maintenance along with a regular exercise schedule people would maintain just fine. People fail to maintain because they see what they're doing for weight loss as temporary...when they get to where they want to be, they just go back to old eating habits, stop exercising, etc.

    I've maintained for about 6.5 years...my diet when losing weight consisted of mostly whole foods and minimally processed foods. Plenty of whole grains, legumes, lentils, veg, fruit, lean proteins and healthy fats...along with pizza night most Friday nights. I eat the same in maintenance...just more calories, and I've maintained a regular exercise schedule.

    Amen to this. That is what I am doing or at least trying to do.... I'm still in the deficit stage but I'm tweaking my diet to a variety of foods that I can eat for long term success instead of just the quick fix. I admit I started very low carb during my first 50 lbs of weight loss. I am currently down 70 on my way to 100 goal with a balanced approach. Way more satisfied now.
  • earlnabbyearlnabby Posts: 7,473Member Member Posts: 7,473Member Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »

    zr4jys19qbn9.gif

    Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?

    I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.

    If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.

    I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.

    He also mentions...

    "Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."

    He takes into account the combo factor.

    As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.

    Not on it's own...

    I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.

    Rice for me...

    I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.

    Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.

    I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?

    At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good :)

    @SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you ;)

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator

    When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”

    I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.

    For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”

    Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”

    I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.

    There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.

    In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »

    zr4jys19qbn9.gif

    Wow. Did the "disagrees" even read the article?!?

    I didn't disagree and I did read the article, but I don't disagree with most of the articles conclusions (besides that carbs are in fact awesome). I still think plays into a lot of anti-carb myths. I don't think it's that easy to overeat "carbs", in eating foods that are high in carbohydrates. Eating a 73 ounce steak for 3500 calories is certainly difficult. But so is eating 5 pounds of cooked pasta, or 35 slices of bread, or 25 medium potatoes, or 15 pounds of Pineapple. While everyone is different, and for some people these could be problem/trigger foods, when most people talk about "carbs", they are usually talking about things like sweets, chocolate, cookies, chips, fast food, etc. And all those things are not really "carbs" in the traditional sense, which I would define as foods with 70% or more in carb content. Most of those items could better be described as "fats" because they usually derive most of their calories from fats rather than carbs. The truth is it's that moderate carb, high fat mix that are a lot of these items that make them delicious and easy to overeat for a lot of people. But somehow fat gets to escape by Scott free while carbs take all the blame.

    If you look at the nutritional menus of any restaurant, most of their meals that are 1000 calories or more will derive most of their calories from fats, not carbs. The carbs may help make it tasty, but the fat is there to do most of the work.

    I think why a lot of people feel the need to "cut carbs" is because they don't really understand which foods are carbs, and which are not. I don't think this article helps much in that regard, as it still makes carbs out to be this evil driver of weight gain (a delicious evil, but still), when I don't believe that it is really the case.

    He also mentions...

    "Carbs are everywhere. They taste great, they can be crunchy or soft, thick or airy, chocolate or vanilla. They’re convenient, they’re easy to carry, they don’t need to be refrigerated but can taste great hot or frozen, They have a great shelf-life… really, they’re awesome. Heck, carbs can even make protein and fat taste better, and protein and fat make carbs taste better..."

    He takes into account the combo factor.

    As a one line throwaway but still places the blame on the carbs. The truth is that fats are used to make bland carbs taste good as much as the other way around. Have you ever tried to overeat Boiled potatoes or plain pasta? It's hard. But throw the potatoes in a frier with oil, or bake/mash them and add butter/sourcream/bacon and you've got yourself something worth eating. Take that pasta and slather it with butter or add a bunch of cheese or a cream sauce and some meat and then you have something you can scarf through. There's a reason why most dressings are primarily fat. Because fat tastes super good too.

    Not on it's own...

    I'd take plain cheese (mostly fat) over plain rice (mostly carbs) any day.

    Rice for me...

    I posted in another thread that of all the things I miss the most from my dietary changes, it's white rice that I miss the most. Plain with a bit if salt or soy sauce.

    Why not have some occasionally? There are 2 rice dishes that are my favorites. One is kind of carribean thing with cilantro, sesame oil, red onion and lime juice. The other is spanish saffron rice. Both very yummy and not too calorically dense in a reasonable portion.

    I read a little of your back story so I understand your current approach but would flexibility lead to a problem occasionally?

    At this point I don't have any interest in veering off of my current woe. I'm in such a good place right now that I just don't feel like making any changes. I may adjust things down the road but right now I'm good :)

    @SarahAnne3958 sounds like for right now you need to be an abstainer. I'm not going to try to convert you ;)

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-happiness-project/201210/are-you-abstainer-or-moderator

    When dealing with temptation, I often see the advice, “Be moderate. Don’t have ice cream every night, but if you try to deny yourself altogether, you’ll fall off the wagon. Allow yourself to have the occasional treat, it will help you stick to your plan.”

    I’ve come to believe that this is good advice for some people: the “moderators.” They do better when they avoid absolutes and strict rules.

    For a long time, I kept trying this strategy of moderation–and failing. Then I read a line from Samuel Johnson, who said, when someone offered him wine: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”

    Ah ha! Like Dr. Johnson, I’m an “abstainer.”

    I find it far easier to give something up altogether than to indulge moderately. When I admitted to myself that I was eating my favorite frozen yogurt treat very often–two and even three times a day–I gave it up cold turkey. That was far easier for me to do than to eat it twice a week. If I try to be moderate, I exhaust myself debating, “Today, tomorrow?” “Does this time ‘count’?” “Don’t I deserve this?” etc. If I never do something, it requires no self-control for me; if I do something sometimes, it requires enormous self-control.

    There’s no right way or wrong way–it’s just a matter of knowing which strategy works better for you. If moderators try to abstain, they feel trapped and rebellious. If abstainers try to be moderate, they spend a lot of precious energy justifying why they should go ahead and indulge.

    In my experience, both moderators and abstainers try hard to convert the other team. A nutritionist once told me, “I tell my clients to follow the 80/20 rule. Be healthy 80% of the time, indulge within reason, 20% of the time.” She wouldn’t consider my point of view–that a 100% rule might be easier for someone like me to follow.

    I have to be both. Technically I am an abstainer but long term it works out to be more like moderation. I usually abstain but when I want something I avoid I need to eat all of it. What this means is I buy a pint of ice cream and eat it in one sitting, then don’t buy it again for a long time. Having some in the freezer and eating a little st a time just does not work for me.
  • brenn24179brenn24179 Posts: 1,749Member Member Posts: 1,749Member Member
    Thank you, loved this article. Works for me, I agree with the person who says if it quits working I will worry about it then.
Sign In or Register to comment.