 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / December 2005Sugar vs Carbs
I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be appreciated (links are fine). TIA Lou |I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, | except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Lou Hi Lou, Sugar IS a carb. There are two types of carbs, simple and complex. The simple carbs are usually your "fast acting" carbs which hit you very quickly, like a quick boost then are all used up and gone. A few examples are sugar(s), regular coke, etc... Complex carbs are what gives us overall energy for the day, which last longer. Some examples are rice, bread, potatoes, pasta... most "white" foods. Some veggies have quite a bit of natural sugar in them, such as peas, carrots, tomatoes and corn. All carbohydrates will raise your glucose, just a matter of what type of carb you eat and when. Protein once digested (between 5-6hrs after eating) will convert 58% into glucose as well (this is mostly seen in T1's, not so much T2's) therefore, you should still test those off times after having a nice steak or high protein meal. Fat helps slow the impact of carbs on the system.. This is what some call the "pizza effect" because after a high fat meal, you can see the peak at 4-5hrs after you've eaten instead of at 1hr or 2hr. So, remember again to test at those off times if you have a high fat meal. :-) This is one reason chocolate isn't good for hypos, because of the fat in chocolate, delays the impact of the needed sugar to rise the glucose immedately. -- for me, if i'm out running around (shopping), a snickers works well. hth.. RK, t1 pumper - who's a diet idiot because of never having to watch my diet... I've only learned by trial and error with needed adjustments to own insulin needs. > Complex carbs are what gives us overall energy for the day, which last > longer. > Some examples are rice, bread, potatoes, pasta... most "white" foods. Some > veggies > have quite a bit of natural sugar in them, such as peas, carrots, tomatoes > and corn. Except that some of the complex carbs are as fast acting as table sugar. Cooked potatoes have actually tested as higher GI than sucrose. Glucose gives us energy for the day. Protein provides a much more stable, longacting source of it than carbs do. Susan > I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, > except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be > appreciated (links are fine). It's no worse in terms of raising BG than things like fruit juice or white bread. All are considered simple carbs, as opposed to complex carbs. Fast acting and little to no fiber. In overall terms of diet and nutrition, sugar is merely empty calories. It provides calories but no vitamins or minerals.  SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm >I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, >except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Lou "Other carbs" usually means complex carbohydrates which are actually polymers of the simple sugar glucose. Our digestive systems depolymerize them to produce glucose which is metabolized more or less harmlessly to meet the body's needs. Sugar (common table sugar, sucrose) is composed of a molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose joined together. Once inside your body, it is split apart to form glucose and fructose. Fructose in quantify is not healthy for humans in general and is particularly nasty for T2 diabetics. It acts to increase the unhealthy fractions of our lipid collection (i.e. raises triglycerides and LDL, two lipid fractions which T2 must constantly seek to minimize) http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/5/740. ". . .Total plasma cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were higher after the men consumed 7.5 and 15% fructose than when they consumed the 0% fructose diet. Plasma triglyceride increased significantly as fructose in the diets of the hyperinsulinemics increased, but was not affected in the controls. These changes in blood lipids are associated with heart disease. . ." Much more than you probably want to know about carbs, fructose, sweeteners, and general nutrition for diabetics from a good medical source at the URL below http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/1/202 Regards Old Al >>I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, >>except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Regards > Old Al exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful. You do know that you consume it every time you eat fruit and honey. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q >exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful. You do know >that you consume it every time you eat fruit and honey. In my case - to stay under 8(145) at 30 minutes (fruit and honey work quickly in me:-) the exact quantity is 1/2 apple or a lick of the teaspoon my wife used for her honey. And only after midday. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:13:44 +1100, Alan S <loralweightandcarbs@optusnet.com.au> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >>exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful. You do know >>that you consume it every time you eat fruit and honey. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. I am not asking about BG levels. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh >>In my case - to stay under 8(145) at 30 minutes (fruit and >>honey work quickly in me:-) the exact quantity is 1/2 apple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I am not asking about BG levels. You specifically asked: "exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful. You do know that you consume it every time you eat fruit and honey." Well, as Quentin indicated, the question is too wide to answer. About 50Kg would probably harm me if it fell out of the sky. If thrown at me hard, a jar of honey or a hard apple could cause injury. But, I suspect the question was to do with eating fructose in the forms you indicated. Harmful, to me as a diabetic, is the harm those foods may do by causing excessive BGs and the consequent harm from that. So, whether you thought your question was about BGs - any question to do with harmful levels of ingested food is seen by me in the light of BGs. It's more than just a "quantity" of fructose, it's also form and timing. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:01:54 +1100, Alan S <loralweightandcarbs@optusnet.com.au> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >>>In my case - to stay under 8(145) at 30 minutes (fruit and >>>honey work quickly in me:-) the exact quantity is 1/2 apple [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. dude, the discussion in the thread was about the effect fructose has on trig levels and lipids. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh > dude, the discussion in the thread was about the effect fructose has > on trig levels and lipids. It's just way too general a question to be given an meaningful answer. I think it's interesting to note that fructose is what's used to induce diabetes in experimental rats because it's so efficient at doing so. But that's not to say we can extrapolate a direct measure of effect on lipids. Susan >I am not asking about BG levels. PS. I may have misunderstood one thing from your cryptic question - if you meant (but didn't say) lipids levels - I don't have a bioscanner or a cardiochek, so my direct indications have to remain BGs. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. This post not CC'd by email On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:41:26 -0500, Ma¢k <youknow@youAreAnut.com> wrote: >exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful. You do know >that you consume it every time you eat fruit and honey. G'day G'day Mack, The URL Old Al drew to our attention contained the following. "In subjects with diabetes, fructose produces a lower postprandial response when it replaces sucrose or starch in the diet; however, this benefit is tempered by concern that fructose may adversely effect plasma lipids. Therefore, the use of added fructose as a sweetening agent is not recommended; however, there is no reason to recommend that people with diabetes avoid naturally occurring fructose in fruits, vegetables, and other foods." FWIIW although fructose is sometimes called fruit sugar in the popular press, most fruit contains sucrose, (the sugar found in sugar bowls) and/or a mixture of glucose and fructose in similar proportions to sucrose. A couple of exceptions are apples and pears which contain more fructose than glucose. While some T2s eat fruit, not many eat honey. I don't suppose anyone is interested in answering the question, "exactly in what quantity does fructose become harmful" mainly because it is a profoundly silly question. In Japan there is a prefecture where people produce and eat large quantities of crude sugar. They have one of the best records for longevity in Japan. Currently they have better longevity amongst men than men in Okinawa. The Okinawans used to be outstanding in terms of longevity amongst the Japanese but they have recently lost that status. OK, so for some people sugar and hence fructose appears not be harmful even in large quantities. However, many people reading asd, are T2 diabetics. They are damaged people. Their livers do not response normally in several respects. There is a pathway that leads to the conversion of carbohydrate to a saturated fat, palmitic acid. The mechanisms that should shut off this pathway when appropriate does not appear to function normally in T2s. As has been observed frequently on asd, YMMV. Put simply T2s are at a disadvantage when it comes to handling fructose in that large intakes alter the blood lipid profile and probably accentuate abdominal obesity. Most people agree T2 diabetics should have a lower intake of sucrose and hence fructose than the general US population. That doesn't mean they need to become fanatical about it to the point where they exclude fruit etc. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin | This post not CC'd by email | [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] | | Best wishes, Okay, question again then, from what you've said Quentin and from what OldAl said... going back to Mack's question.. then at what quantity does fructose become harmful? Even if it's a YMMV type... would that be 2 pieces of fruit a day? which fruit? (we'll just exclude honey completely) -- would that be 1 piece of fruit a day? if so, does that one piece then become "too much" and being to raise a persons lipids such as OldAl claims? Again, we've two long time respected posters to me giving complete contradicting information... Very confusing to a newbie trying to sort things out.. So, can the answer be answered? Reisa. t1 - thankfully my lipids are just fine. This post not CC'd by email >Okay, question again then, from what you've said Quentin and from what >OldAl said... going back to Mack's question.. then at what quantity does >fructose become harmful? > >Even if it's a YMMV type... would that be 2 pieces of fruit a day? which >fruit? G'day G'day RK, Not likely. >(we'll just exclude honey completely) -- would that be 1 piece of fruit a >day? Not likely. >if so, does that one piece then become "too much" and being to raise a >persons lipids such as OldAl claims? Here is the article Old Al refers to. "Total plasma cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were higher after the men consumed 7.5 and 15% fructose than when they consumed the 0% fructose diet. Plasma triglyceride increased significantly as fructose in the diets of the hyperinsulinemics increased, but was not affected in the controls. These changes in blood lipids are associated with heart disease." Notice triglycerides didn't increase in the CONTROLS ie the non-diabetic men. There was a significant increase in an LDL and hence total cholesterol in both groups. Put simply fructose is doubly less kind to T2 diabetics. They are already at greater risk of CVD and fructose pushes up triglycerides which is an independent risk factor for CVD. This bit of research doesn't discuss why some Japanese manage to live until a ripe old age on a high sucrose diet. Put simply there are other factors involved and as yet no one has elucidated what they might be. Perhaps cholesterol levels don't matter too much provided one has lignans from seaweed and omega-3 from fish oil in one's diet. I hope you can see how easy it would be to engage in speculation without much hope of rapid resolution. >Again, we've two long time respected posters to me giving complete >contradicting information... Very confusing to a newbie trying to sort >things out.. Firstly I don't for one moment believe Old Al and I are giving contradictory information. Secondly I wouldn't have described you as a newbie. Let's take a look at the first point. What does the 7.5 and 15% refer to? OK it refers to fructose. In a typical diet where people don't take straight fructose we must immediately double the percentages to convert them to common sugar. Fructose Table sugar 7.5% 15% 15% 30% Now what the heck is that a percentage of? Most likely it is a percentage of calories WITHIN the 45% carbohydrate by calories. If it were percentage calories of their total diet it would be horrendous. We would have to roughly double the sugar number again. The US average diet has or had, 40% of carbohydrate calories from ordinary sugar. 36% of carbohydrate calories from refined grains. 7 % of carbohydrate calories from fruit 5 % of carbohydrate calories from potatoes 4 % of carbohydrate calories from vegetables. 2 % of carbohydrate calories from legumes and nuts Put simply there is reason to believe this is not healthy for some subpopulations within the US. Old Al and I are agreed. Some people "get away with it" or average eating patterns include people who have more sense than others and some who have less. >So, can the answer be answered? It has to be answered differently for different populations. >Reisa. t1 - thankfully my lipids are just fine. At least two things tell you not to be too concerned. One, you are not a t2. Two, your lipids are fine. Probably three, you are not abdominally obese. SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > "In subjects with diabetes, fructose produces a lower postprandial > response when it replaces sucrose or starch in the diet; however, this [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Best wishes, One thing to consider is that fructose intolerance grows along with IGT. I don't have the abstract, but I've seen several that document the phenomenon of worsening fructose tolerance as GT worsens. Susan This post not CC'd by email On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:09:34 -0500, Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote: >One thing to consider is that fructose intolerance grows along with IGT. > I don't have the abstract, but I've seen several that document the >phenomenon of worsening fructose tolerance as GT worsens. > >Susan Agreed. G'day G'day Susan, As often happens discussions between T1s and T2s can quickly polarize because they most often fit on different parts of the insulin resistance spectrum. For newbies it is a crucial distinction. Most people talk about what is true for them. What is true for T2s isn't always what is true for T1s in matters of diet. At the risk of oversimplifying, T1s must calculate carbohydrate and protein intakes more carefully than T2s but living T1s never, never attempt to control their disease by diet and exercise. Thus diet and exercise for T2s take on dimensions that are hidden from the attention of T1s. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:14:53 +1300, Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >This post not CC'd by email > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Best wishes, T1s do control their disease with diet , exercise and insulin. All three. We are concerned with our lipid profiles, we do suffer from CVD complications of diabetes. just because the study was conducted on type 2s does not mean the data is irrelevant to type 1s. That kind of thinking is foolish and dismissive. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh This post not CC'd by email On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:57:01 -0500, Ma¢k <youknow@youAreAnut.com> wrote: >T1s do control their disease with diet , exercise and insulin. Glad you added "and insulin". Some T2 can achieve control with JUST diet and exercise. T1s can't. For that reason the approach to diet for T2s differs from that of many T1s. >All three. We are concerned with our lipid profiles, we do suffer from >CVD complications of diabetes. just because the study was conducted >on type 2s does not mean the data is irrelevant to type 1s. That kind >of thinking is foolish and dismissive. Heaven knows why you had this little burst of thinking that was both foolish and dismissive. It wasn't a shared experience. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:57:31 +1300, Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >This post not CC'd by email > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Best wishes, Oh I don't know, I keep reading how type 1s don't control with diet and exercise, don't worry about lipids, don't have as many problems with CVD and other diabetic complications as type 2s. you're right, there's no way I could have come to that thought that it was dismissive and foolish. The complications are the same regardless of the type of diabetes. The timing of the onset may be different or may at least "appear" to be different. But the complications and their causes are the same. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh This post not CC'd by email On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:54:12 -0500, Ma¢k <youknow@youAreAnut.com> wrote: >The complications are the same regardless of the type of diabetes. >The timing of the onset may be different or may at least "appear" to >be different. But the complications and their causes are the same. G'day G'day Mack, IMHO that is a dangerously simplistic assumption. Let us take one simple example. Age related macular degeneration. One factor that is likely to be present in T2 diabetics but less likely to be present in T1 diabetics is diversion of zeaxanthin from the macula of the eye into body fat. That is not to say there aren't fat T1s or slim T2s, just that the prevalence of certain complications related to obesity are more likely to appear in T2s. That is also not to say that high blood sugar is a factor for both T1s and T2s in macular degeneration. Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin This post not CC'd by email On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:18:47 +1300, Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote: >That is also not to say that high blood sugar is a factor for both T1s >and T2s in macular degeneration. Should have read. That is also not to say that high blood sugar isn't a factor for both T1s and T2s in macular degeneration. SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:45:44 +1300, Quentin Grady <quentin@paradise.net.nz> Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet: >This post not CC'd by email > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Best wishes, ever here of K.I.S.S. anyway, it's okay to say, nobody really knows the answer to that question yet. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q http://tinyurl.com/aw4mh > I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, > except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would > be appreciated (links are fine). You are right in that respect. Sugar also has empty calories. I like to make every bite count when I eat a carb or fat. If you are thinking of the little one, she is way better getting nutrition from the "sugars" she eats but being a child she needs some treats factored in. A friend's child was diagnosed type 1 about 7 years ago, age 11. My friend got a huge shock one day seeing him eating a chocolate bar. The kid said don't worry dad, I have counted and shot for it. It wasn't a regular thing for him but occasionally kids need to eat like their peers. So right! My youngest son's best friend had T1 from age 10 months. He was delighted when he was taught carb-counting at around age 12. You should have seen him looking at my kids "treat drawer" when he was finally able to choose and shoot. It was fun to see how delighted he was to be like my kids, who weren't DM, to choose fruit rolls or candy bars. I sure learned a lot from him... >>I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and shot for it. It wasn't a regular thing for him but > occasionally kids need to eat like their peers. > > I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than > other carbs, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and shot for it. It wasn't a regular thing for him but > occasionally kids need to eat like their peers. Thanks to all who replied! This reply is very interesting because I believe the doc told parents child can eat anything so long as parents count the carbs (child is 5 1/2). Also think parents were told anything under 5 carbs is OK in moderation. I saw them let the child eat a brownie on sunday night. BTW I am not about to say anything to the family unless asked because I am an outsider. Lou >> > I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than >> other carbs, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Lou that part about the under 5 carbs bit is often mistaken for eat anything so long as it under 5 carbs and ignore the fact that it adds up so one piece of candy under 5 carbs plus one piece of fruit under 5 carbs plus etc etc etc will put the individual over that very quickly and they will sit there and not know why. but generally, if a type 1s basal is correct and they are active an occasional snack under 5 carbs and for many even under 10 carbs will have little to no effect on their BG. the only way to tell is to test. SignatureMâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o o) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Jesus never hated anyone. http://tinyurl.com/dgb3q > Thanks to all who replied! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BTW I am not about to say anything to the family unless asked because I > am an outsider. Type 1's can usually eat what they want to, but they have to compensate with insulin. Children usually have more leeway with their diet because they are growing. Used to be anything with 4 g of carbs or less and no fat were considered "free" foods. These could be eaten at any time provided you eat only the one portion at that time. I don't know about type 1's but as a type 2, I was told by the dietician that I could have 3 such servings of "free" foods per day. Reason being, this small amount of carbs isn't enough to push you BG. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm >I thought I read somewhere that sugar is no worse than other carbs, >except for the quickness of the uptake. A little clarification would be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Lou Hi Lou In addition to the explanations offered by the others, browse through this link and associated pages: www.glycemicindex.com Then go back and read this again (yeah, I have a one-track mind:-) http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > Marywrote: So right! My youngest son's best friend had T1 from age 10 months. I remeber seeing a similar post a while back. I will search for it and post its address later. what's this??? >>Marywrote: > > So right! My youngest son's best friend had T1 from age 10 months. > > I remeber seeing a similar post a while back. I will search for it > and post its address later. > what's this??? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> I remeber seeing a similar post a while back. I will search for it >> and post its address later. I don't think they have learned how to post. Dave Hi David : What is your home email address, I got some ?? Don't think Newsgroup needs to see . It looks like Dec 7 is the day I start the pump. What state do you live in . Thanks Isaac > Hi David : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks Isaac you can email me at dave filler 1812 more filler dave filler at yahoo dot com that should confuse the bots but hopefully not you! :) I can call you anywhere in the US, if you'd like. Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.