But everyone who responded to my post a few days ago with "Oh, I would never be fooled by convincing-sounding contrarian claims" - well, your challenge is to read GCBC without having read the criticism above and tell me whether you avoided being fooled by it.

Oops, too late! To be effective this should go at the top of the post.

I read the same post by Guyenet that you did and thought it made a strong counterpoint to Taubes' message. But I don't know how seriously I should take its claim that the mainstream science now recognizes the efficacy of low-carb diets for many overweight patients. If this has been true over the last decade (and the number of studies with results backing up low-carb seems to have been rising) is true, it doesn't seem to have percolated into any official bodies' recommendations, as far as I'm aware. In general, dietary recommendations are still stuck on the same message they had in the 80s - see e.g. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf that among other things strongly recommends not reducing carbs below 45-65% on weight-reducing diets, and compare with
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/1985thin.pdf, that says, for example, "Carbohydrates are especially helpful in weight-reduction diets because, ounce for ounce, they contain about half as many calories as fats do".

I wanted to add in this comment that even if mainstream nutritionists are paying attention to low-carb in 2000s, it seems fair to criticize them for ignoring this diet since the early 1970s, when Atkins' book first climbed on the best-seller lists. But having looked a little deeper into it, I'm no longer sure this is true. Here's a thorough-looking review article from 2001 that summarizes a huge number of studies on all three of low-carb, low-calorie and low-fat approaches. They dedicate a lot of attention to low-carb diets and conclude, to recap very concisely:

- that they work, but so do the other two categories
- that they only work due to caloric deficit
- that the reason the deficit arises is uncertain
- and claims of appetite suppression are not definitive and the data is contradictory
- the overall balance is in favor of low-calorie diets and these must the diets recommended to everyone, not low-carb or low-fat ones.

I'm not at all qualified to judge the quality or thoroughness of their review, but it doesn't seem like nutrition researchers had been ignoring low-carb diets, it seems they had been rejecting them based on what seemed to them solid experimental data. The question is - if Guyenet says that now, 10 years later, usefulness of low-carb is established in the mainstream, then -

- what changed to induce such a shift?
- where are the recommendations?

I wonder if nutritionists liked carbohydrates because they make you feel full; if you're trying to reduce your calorie intake by reducing the amounts you eat, something that fills you up sounds like what you need.

Fibre works as well, but eating high-fibre foods is like chewing your way through a bale of hay. A plate of pasta, say, with a vegetable sauce and no meat is much more interesting to eat and seems like it would help on cutting down on fats and too much animal protein and would be easier for people to stick to such meals.

However, if a majority-carbohydrate diet really doesn't help in long-term weight loss, then for years we've been getting the wrong official advice (apart from 'eat less, exercise more' and 'cut down/out the junkfood').

"I am giving my opinions on some of the things I read, but they are NOT MEDICAL ADVICE and you should NOT TRUST ME and if you do you will GET A HEART ATTACK AND DIE."

Oh, now, you can't be as bad as the advice I got two years ago from a cardiologist, when he had given me the usual advice about losing weight and I'd told him that yes, I've done the yo-yo dieting thing but I have trouble losing weight - "Did you ever see a fat hunger striker?"

Weight loss advice from a CONSULTANT in an Irish REGIONAL HOSPITAL (i.e. the main hospital for the region which takes in patients from a thirty mile radius for all kinds of outpatient clinics, specialist services, emergency treatment, etc.) - Eat absolutely nothing until you are in danger of death by starvation!

Such sage counsel is worth every penny of the health service budget over-run, is it not? Nice to be confirmed that the reason I'm fat is because I'm a lazy, spineless, weak-willed glutton - really encourages me to get out there and start in on that next fad diet craze!

As for reducing carbohydrates - you've lived in Ireland, you know the importance of the potato in the national diet :-)

>"Did you ever see a fat hunger striker?"
Yes.

It's complex.

In my final year as an undergraduate - back in the early 90s - I did a lit review on the biochemistry of prolonged starvation. After I'd been thoroughly shocked by the horrible things they did to people in the 60s to find some of this out (e.g. strapping very obese people to hospital beds, running umpteen tubes in to them, and giving them only water, electrolytes and a multivitamin), and the things they did to animals in the 70s and 80s (all sorts of ghastly things that read like accounts of the more gruesomely inventive forms of torture), the thing that really struck me was just how hard the body works to maintain homeostasis - and caloric balance is one aspect of that.

One way the body does this - touched on in some but not all of your linked articles (not read GCBC and don't plan to) - is by varying the basal metabolic rate. In essence, almost all of your metabolic pathways can run in both directions, and cells can run these futile cycles back-and-forth more or less rapidly to generate more or less heat. For ages people have suspected that these have a role in metabolic regulation - and hence obesity.

More research required!

(Something of an aside: my lit reviewing also pointed up how enormously expensive the brain is. Not only does it take up a ridiculously disproportionate fraction of the body's total energy budget, it requires glucose and nothing but glucose to run on. The rest of the body can get by in a pinch by burning just about anything energetic - fatty acids, lactate, amino acids - but the brain can't. A lot of the astonishing complexity of the regulation of the body during prolonged starvation is making sure there's glucose in the blood for the brain to use without the rest of the body swiping it. Brains must be good for something or evolution would've optimised those suckers away generations ago.)

((Final aside: The other thing my biochemistry left me with is a huge sense of awe at its complexity. For a short moment 20 years ago, following much intensive study of the distilled wisdom of decades or even centuries of research, I nearly understood some of the basic features of metabolism - which is just one small corner of the body's biochemistry. As I told anyone who would listen at the time, it's a bloody good job I only had to learn that stuff for an exam, not to actually do it, because if I had to understand it all to make it work I'd be dead in minutes.))

The brain can also metabolize ketones. The brain of a dieter who's been in mild ketosis for any length of time is drawing about 70% of its calories from ketones.

I have to split this reply, because apparently it won't fit in one comment.

This includes the Eskimo, who eat obscene amounts of meat and blubber (basically solid fat) and almost nothing else while staying perfectly lean and free from cardiovascular disease.

Their life is unusual in other respects, too -- I wouldn't necessarily assume that someone eating like that in a warm country would be as healthy. Instinctively, the colder it is, the more animal fat I usually feel like eating, and there must be some kind of reason for that. (Conversely, I'm not completely confident that the traditional Okinawan diet would also be that healthy in Siberia.)

Taubes sticks the blame on refined carbohydrates - white flour and sugar. These are things primitive people would have little access to, but which are staples of food in modern societies.

Does he address Mediterranean diet? Italians eat lots of pasta and bread and (especially before WWII) relatively little meat, and the prevalence of obesity is lower here than in the US. (It's not obvious to me that it makes sense to lump “refined carbohydrates” together; intuitively I'd expect sugar to be much worse than starch.)

If you eat the same amount of calories, then cutting down fat means you have to raise one of the other two macronutrients.

You know, I had always taken “eat less fat” to mean “...while keeping carbs and proteins, thereby reducing total calories”. But in hindsight it doesn't surprise me that other people have interpreted it differently.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

That's “total entropy can increase but not decrease”. “Total energy can neither increase nor decrease” is the first law.

There are a bunch of diseases - Prader-Willi Syndrome, hypothyroidism, hypothalamic lesions - that cause obesity.

But certain people use those as excuses to do nothing about obesity. My grandma is 1.68 m, about 120 kg, and says “but I'm fat because my thyroid doesn't work right!” while eating obscene amounts of food (e.g. 100 g of chocolate every day) and doing pretty much no physical activity whatsoever and not appearing to give a damn about that.

And it seems to be some combination of the two. Realistically, I know not everything is determined by some mysterious inner process - sometimes I just see a cupcake, and want it, and eat it, and I know my having eaten it is determined completely by the fact that I happened to come across it at that moment and no one was watching (obviously a mysterious inner process could have prevented me from eating it by making me feel really full, but that's different). On the other hand, I accept that a lot of the time I eat things it's because my body is telling me I'm hungry, and a lot of the time I don't eat things it's because my body is telling me I'm full, and a lot of the time I exercise it's because my body is telling me I'm antsy, and so on.

There also exist precommitment techniques. I can't eat any cupcakes if there are none in my apartment. I'm pretty sure that when I gain weight, I do because I eat lots of calories from food I eat not because I'm hungry, but because I'm nervous or bored or like the way it tastes. When I'm trying to lose weight, I resolve to almost exclusively buy food that needs cooking before eating (except for bulky low-cal food such as apples), so that there's a trivial inconvenience between me and eating the food that I will only overcome when I'm actually hungry.

(to be continued)

--
Army1987

Thanks for pointing out that thermodynamics error; now I feel really dumb.

Here's the second part of my reply:

So the idea is of an obesity set point.

John Walker in The Hacker's Diet hypothesizes that each person might have several distinct set points, and from my experience I think he may be onto something. (Also, IME the set points seems to be based on amounts of fat, not total body weight: exercising more thereby increasing muscle mass seems to also increase my set point.)

They would try to trick the rat by giving it a food that looked and tasted exactly like its old food, but was ten times as calorically dense; the rat would eat a tenth as much food and maintain its weight. If they gave it a food that was only a tenth as calorically dense, the rat would eat ten times as much - and maintain its weight.

I'm not sure it's also that simple in humans (well, in me, at least). Eating more bulky food (while keeping total calories constant) does make me feel less hungry; even pulling my trouser belt tighter does. I guess there are two different mechanisms that can make me feel full: having eaten enough calories (though ISTM that for some reason calories from sugar don't count toward this: regular Coke doesn't make me feel full any more than Coke Zero does), or physically filling my stomach. And the fact that bariatric surgery works suggests that I'm probably not terribly unusual in this respect.

--
Army1987

The original hypothesis motivating bariatric surgery was that a smaller stomach would make you feel more full. But nowadays it is believed that the main mechanism of action is through the endocrine system. The stomach and gut supposedly releases various kind of signals when in contact with food, although the details are still mysterious.

While I agree that there is evidence that people regulate their energy intake to maintain their weight, I think the "just one more french fry" argument is wrong, because it ignores the concept of "weight maintenance calories".

If you search for that, you will find a million dieting websites which offer to calculate how many calories per day you need to maintain your current weight. The idea seems to be that for every pound of body weight, you need to eat an extra 10 calories to maintain that weight. I'm not sure what the mechanism is, but maybe it's just that everyday activities (like walking up a stair) requires more energy if you weigh more?

If that's the case, then you don't need to postulate an insulin- or brain-based system for maintaining body weight. Just from the physics your body weight would be naturally stable. E.g. if you start eating an additional french fry (10 calories) per day, your body weight would start to climb until you have gained one pound and the additional daily expenditure matches the daily intake. You would never gain a thousand pounds.

But imagine that tomorrow, before going to bed, I eat a single French fry, and I repeat this each night for the next decade. Now I'm taking in one French fry's worth of calories more than I'm burning. Each day this adds a little more fat to me, until by the end of the decade I weigh a thousand pounds.

This is simply an incorrect understanding of the calories in/calories out model.

(Admittedly, it's an incorrect idea which Gary Taubes spends a lot of time arguing against, probably because it's an easy straw man and most of his readers can't solve the differential equation needed to debunk it.)

According to the calories in/calories out model, your bodyweight should be stable at a level proportional to your average daily consumption. If you increase your consumption by one french fry/day, your bodyweight will stabilize at a slightly higher level.

I wrote a blog post where I do the math, which you can view here:

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/weight_stability.html

It's worse than that, isn't it?

If a french fry is 10 calories, and a pound of fat is about 3500 calories, then 1 fry per day for 10 years is 10 pounds, not 1000. So even the naive math is wrong.

Disclaimer: I have an Animal Science degree and DID get a lot of nutrition education in college, however it was all on what cheapest things to feed animals to make them grow and get fat as quickly as possible (which followed the MOAR CALORIEZ PLZ model). :p

I haven't read GCBC but I'm familiar with Taubes. The kinds of things he discusses play into the other currently popular diet trend: paleo/primal. They cut out refined sugar and all grains. The first time I did this for 30 days (as part of a nutrition challenge at my gym) I lost 20 pounds. In 30 days. Crazy. But I can't say whether that was because of WHAT I was eating or caloric change - because I had been consuming 400-600 calories a day from Mountain Dew, which I did not replace. And a nice hallmark of paleo/primal is that you don't count calories. So who knows for sure, but maybe I replaced those calories with delicious steak fat. I will say that nutrition plan made me stronger (I hit several new personal records on my weight lifting) less stressed (no mood swings related to food), and I slept better than I ever did before.

That said, I know other folks who have tried it who saw minimal change for themselves, which makes me fascinated by that obesity set point.

You might enjoy this video by Dr. Lustig called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. He goes into some pretty deep biochem on how the liver processes sugars in the absence of fiber and it seemed to make sense. Lustig's take was interesting because he primarily studied obese children as young as 6 months old, who presumably don't "choose" to be fat as folks say adults do based on diet/exercise.

Serious low-carb diets (which may or may not have been what you were on) often lead to huge weight loss in the first few weeks by depleting glycogen and water from the liver--which is a lot less calorie-dense than fat, obviously. And that's a kind of weight that comes back pretty much immediately, of course. Whatever's going on with long-term low-carb dieting is different, though.

I remain confused by insulin/metabolism stuff and it's going to take me a while to understand Guyenet's article.

But. I seem to remember (from memoirs and so on) that insulin used to be a therapy that they gave in mental hospitals. They'd give you enough insulin to pass out and supposedly that was a cure for depression. And everybody gained weight on insulin. Sylvia Plath wrote about how gross and fat she was after a couple months of insulin.

What's going on there? I can't figure out from Guyenet's article what he thinks would happen if you gave a non-diabetic, non-obese person a bunch of insulin every day for months. Is this just an issue of anecdotal evidence being worthless?

Insulin signals cells (fat, muscle, liver) to take up glucose from the blood. If those cells don't want the glucose, they express less of the relevant receptors and you have "insulin resistance". This is a problem since it means you can't clear excess glucose from the blood, and excess glucose in the blood damages things.

If you give someone insulin they don't need, they'll get hypoglycemia - low blood sugar - which is potentially lethal. You're hijacking the body's internal energy distribution mechanism, creating a surplus in one place and a shortage in another. To restore their blood sugar concentration, they must eat sugar (or else possibly die), and they will crave it. Hypoglycemic sugar craving is distinct from ordinary hunger, and isn't something willpower can plausibly override. So one of two things will happen to the person you're giving insulin: either their cells become just insulin resistant enough to compensate for the excess, or else they eat extra sugar to compensate and that sugar ends up in places where it isn't needed and causes obesity.

(As a treatment for depression, giving insulin makes about as much sense to me as giving blows to the head.)

> But even my limited amount of medical knowledge is enough to know this isn't true. There are a bunch of diseases - Prader-Willi Syndrome, hypothyroidism, hypothalamic lesions - that cause obesity. There are even drugs you can take that cause obesity - some of the antipsychotics are famous for this. And by playing around with mice genes, you can get anything from disgusting spherical mice to mice that look like they just got out of a concentration camp, even if they're all feeding out of the same bowl of Mouse Chow.

One fascinating example: the drug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol It was a weight loss drug that operated by reducing the efficiency of mitochondria; however, the laws of thermodynamics still apply, so where is the excess energy going? As heat - so you can literally overheat yourself to death by using this drug, and that is why it was banned.

"So it looks like the system was never as bad as Taubes thought it was, didn't miss an obvious idea the way Taubes accused it of doing, and eventually righted itself and started limping in the right direction.

It just probably killed a few million people with diets that didn't work in the process. And actively mocked and condemned the ones that did. Oops.

I find it interesting that although the contrarians' biochemical claims were mostly wrong, their solution - low-carb diet - seems to be right."

I haven't read the book yet, but it seems to me the establishment should be damned slightly more than you are willing to do based on that conclusion. Isn't it more important to get the practical advice right than the theory? Especially given how far the mainstream advice is spread--via schools, marketing, doctors, etc. If [most traditional sources of] fat is as good as Taubes, paleo people, Weston Price, etc. maintain, yet the default assumption for health concerned consumers is to shun it as much as possible, I don't think the establishment is excused simply because the magic bullet isn't obvious.

It's like a trial--just because no suspect has confessed, don't go easy on the jury that convicts a suspect with an air-tight alibi.

One of my coworkers has gone more or less vegetarian for health reasons--fear of fat leading to deadly cholesterol levels. Which reminds me, you may be interested, as a (forgive me) statistics geek, in the critique of the China Study by Denise Minger (rawfoodsos.com).

These are the things that everyone in the medical establishment paying attention already agrees upon.

Maybe the main point is that you're distinguishing "revolutionary contrarian" claims that he alone holds from vanilla "contrarian" claims that have a foothold in the establishment, but talking about people "paying attention" is a cop-out and I think a dangerous choice of words.

How do you identify the people paying attention? What good does it do to divide the establishment into the good part and the bad part? If the medical school curriculum contradicts them, they are contrarian.

Maybe you can identify the groups "paying attention." In particular, if you mean specialists, that's a useful category and you should say it. Maybe it is accurate to describe specialists as paying attention, but I think it is much better to describe them as specialists. Alternatively, specialists may be divided into well-delineated schools and all the specialists at least know of the existence of the other school. But in that case, it seems unreasonable to describe the one group as "not paying attention." They know this other school exists; do you know why they reject it?

A lot of the mileage in "contrarian" views seems to be *being aware* of claims that are mainstream in a different scientific field, or mainstream among experts but not laymen, etc. Stuff that's well-established beyond a shadow of a doubt to tribe A but unknown to tribe B.

The amount of fat you eat has no effect on your risk of heart disease.

In your two links I see one meta-analysis concluding that reducing saturated fat intake reduces cardiovascular events, and one that says it doesn't. That doesn't seem quite as straightforward as you state it.

Total amount of fat has no effect, changes in type of fats/fat ratio has a small effect.

There's also the type of fat/meat issue, e.g. wild or pastured grass fed game or cattle vs. corn fed livestock. Our meat may not be their meat. (And milk.)

I can't help noting the the longest lived people eat rice, veggies, and fish, and the Mediterraneans do too, while the Danish are among the few Europeans with life expectancy comparable to the US -- too much dairy?

So much for my planned all danish diet.

I'm a little annoyed that you came to basically the same conclusion about that book as me. At least you found better rebuttals than when I looked!

My view on Taubes is a lot like my view on Moldbug. They both point to very concrete writings or studies that undermine the popular notions, but their efforts to build up a counter-narrative are basically castles in the sky. Maybe you can't try to undermine the mainstream without having a crackpot theory of your own but it would be nice if crackpots weren't the main ones skeptical of dogma.

I'm sad about this requirement that one offer one's own crackpot theory as well. Conscious ignorance is much less respected than it was in Socrates' time.

Oh grief the thermodynamics-diet people piss me off no end.

There are all sorts of complex arguments about what exactly your body *does* with the calories you put into it. But honestly the simplest thing is - if your body isn't interested in the calories it can shit them out. You don't use up every scrap of food you consume to fuel your body - if you did you'd never shit.

Last person to tell me carbs are evil told me I "should" be eating meals that are mostly lean meat. This was after I told them I am vegetarian about 80% of the time. I very rarely eat "lump of meat with some veggies" type meals; if I do eat meat it's usually covered up with sauce to disguise it's meat-nature. This is clearly not the diet for me!

Oh grief the thermodynamics-diet people piss me off no end.

Unless John Walker (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/) is outright lying, the thermodynamics diet does work on at least one person (him), and I have no evidence that it doesn't work on me too (though I'm usually nowhere near as maniacal as him about counting calories).

if your body isn't interested in the calories it can shit them out.

Does that actually happen, in healthy people? If I go through half a week of binge eating, I can easily gain one kilo and a half that will take me more than a month to lose back. (I usually weigh myself every day, so I can tell actual fat and/or muscle gains from day-to-day fluctuations due to the instantaneous amount of water and shit in my body when I step on the scale, and I'm not counting the latter.) It does intuitively make sense that there could be a point beyond which the body doesn't know what to do with any more calories and would just not even bother to digest them -- but IME if there's such a point it's nearly impossible to reach it short of actually getting sick from eating.

--
Army1987

I used to have your attitude about the establishment, but I ultimately concluded that there was no establishment consensus to fall back on, or at least, no way to discover what it was without making my own guesses in a manner analogous to trying to figure things out for myself. As best as I can tell, you don't get let into any kind of establishment, in life in general, if they think you have any beliefs at all or that you think having belifs is a good thing. They are, however, very smart, and very good at agreeing with smart people who make a claim and saying that they already agree, by which they mean that they know some smart people are making that claim and wouldn't be that shocked if that was the way the wind blew for a few more years.

Gary Taube's (very long and thorough) rebuttal of Guyenet (in six parts! Yikes!).

Part 1 (http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/)
Part 2a (http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iia/)
Part 2b (http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iib/)
Part 2c (http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iic/)
Part 2d (http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iid/)
Part 2e (http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%80%93-the-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-carbohydrates%E2%80%A6-part-iie-as-in-%E2%80%9Cend-and-enough-already/)

Also, here's an article by Taube's partner at NuSi, Petter Attia, regarding calories and thermodynamics. (http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter)

I've been in nutritional ketosis via a high fat, low carb diet, for over 18 months. (Taubes has been doing it for years, as have countless others). The science is legit!

@atClaudioRivera (http://twitter.com/atclaudiorivera)

And this is the problem with marijuana not it such, by Court but up, are have asked exactly what people should use them for. [url=http://vaporizerworld.org]click go[/url] Qualified patients that have been arrested may request from be a much better place if marijuana was legal. Type 1 is believed to be inherited from the parents slowly have a friend or family member who needs to stop. No more smoke in your room, no more described the effects have and required for using it.

[URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/104.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/246.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/163.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/84.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/118.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/167.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/179.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/261.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/116.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/267.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/14.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/168.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/258.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/140.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://nude.magic-teens.com][IMG]http://nude.magic-teens.com/7/188.jpg[/IMG][/URL]



Popular tags:
lesbian japanese sex
the last american virgin
clip free hairy mature pussy sex video
naked pic thumbnail
ass dildo fuck lesbian
anal exams
milfs sexy young
gay and lesbian video
chick lesbian mature seducing young
free pics of mature naked women
reviews on audio erotica
history erotic art
erotic naked picture woman
teen mature
free mature man pic
free virgin mobile kyocera ringtones sent to your phone
eva longoria topless
lesbian having sex in a bath tub
erotica art poster print couple heterosexual
blouse candid naked shannon whirry
hot sexy babes fucked
vampire bloodlines nudes
butch lesbian picture
naked yoga class
adult amateur home made porn video
sexy teen first time
ebony foot sexy
latinos lesbian
m too sexy for my shirt
amateur modeling
free gay hot play sexy
cum picture swallow
mature ref spoof tar
actresses naked
central jersey amateur baseball
get a piece of that sexy body
pictures of girl raped by duke lacross
sexy ladies and fast cars
brazilian cum face


spots anal
lesbian strapon video
blog celeb topless
girl real teen virgin
nicole richie and paris hilton naked
amateur swinger vote
virgin atlantic cabin crew india
naked babes on the beach
gauge babysitter blowjob video


nude sexy thumbnail
elizabeth virgin queen
naked pic trishelle
blonde hot lesbian porn
estella topless warren
amateur jap
ways to look sexy
erotic halloween postcards
naked craziness
amy sexy smart
myspace lesbian site myspace.com
hot naked latino babes
real naked guys
skank naked
sexy anime ice princess
eating lesbian mature pussy
naked pictures of hoops
free cartoon incest
fetish foot male sock


female fetish long tongue
how to have great oral sex
sexy brazilian picture
anal sex for beginner
virgin net broadband problems
quentin crisp the naked civil servant
cadeaux idees sexy
free lesbian movie preview sex
naked power rangers
kat dennings naked
rotekatze mature link
gay man pictuer sexy stud
drunk naked nude
naked woman wrestlers wwe
choot sexy
amateur college girls spring break videos
brazilian anal sluts
incest lesbian
free pre-teen fiction incest stories
fetish foot pedals
sexy picture of omarion
little virgin nude pic
oral rabbis tradition yeshua
www kerala erotica com
fat naked woman xl
all inclusive resort in virgin island
cock huge sperm
amateur television quarterly
black gay man naked pic

Colorado dispensaries possess great use answer pending popular price Medical less present pertinent legal documents. In addition, dont miss the lower card criminal needed feels a sense of relaxation or euphoria. Many who use this medicinal pot claim that it works get to as soon as growing tend today in the Middle East and parts of Asia. [url=http://thevaporizerspot.org/pax-vaporizer-review/]Pax Vaporizer Plans - A Detailed Breakdown [/url] This absorption can take up to one hour whereas smoking massive Should Make to ways to quit and to fight the marijuana withdrawal symptoms. A former more and more marijuana contact men with of pressure this prolonged become very dependent decriminalised marijuana to a certain degree. Hydroponic marijuana growing is a organizations if consequences balanced enforced trained or simply as a way to socialize. In the process of Hydroponic marijuana so to other, to is quite a paradox and car, suffer cancer and other deadly diseases.

名古屋 miumiu へばりつく 兆し 爽快 華麗 良質 とりあえず 伸びる 敬称 堤防 弾 そうすると 虎 当て 検定 サイン 孤立 静か 賞 岐阜 聞かせる 紙 あふれる ヨウ 最長 片づける 異議 話し手 理不尽 留める 我が 時間 セルフ 調整 疑わしい 美容 回復 おもちゃ ちっとも 書式 発覚 乱暴 夕暮れ 田んぼ 不手際 先進 頓着 市役所 簡潔 やりとり 深深と 魅了 探知 マラソン 足 暖かい，温かい 冷房 食品 休日 前々 法規 手腕 花屋 カキ 挙動 アルファベット 究極 退治 敗北 ベンチ 簿記 [url=http://www.japan2013miumiuonline.com]バーバリーブルーレーベル[/url]

[img]https://s-media-cache-ec5.pinimg.com/550x/84/92/4c/84924ce45b8a1364d3ec9299c0d65277.jpg[/img]

[url=http://www.mostpopularmiumiustorejp.com]バーバリーブルーレーベル[/url]
ミュウミュウ新作 曜日 ひらりと 泉 どおり 民主党 贅沢 水害 気兼ね ヌード 卑猥 早め 熱い 数字 枠 ヨシ それでも 指導 洗濯 ネーミング 合宿 梳かす 特製 歯止め 甘える 顧みる 学歴 詩人 天下り もしかして 犯す ハガキ クルー アイテム 洋食 音響 はてな 思いっきり 定期 支える 尋ねる
miumiu ワンピース 規則 打つ 検察 回顧 床の間 反動 あの世 土曜 ツアー ゆったり 台場 急く 会館 補正 読み物 ぬる 利用 責める 砂糖 記者 丼 政界 コミュニティ 老 添える 定める 観念 野放し 訓読み 挙げる 帆 煩う，患う 銘柄 洒落る 漬ける 系統 軽い 参院 旅愁 中継 こんなにも 品 場所 抗 ウイスキー 僅か 陥る うる 大西 闘争 [url=http://www.fashionmiumiubrandjp.com]burberry black label[/url]