If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Labspaces.net)   New study finds that countries that use a lot of HFCS have more type 2 diabetics than countries that don't use as much HFCS   (labspaces.net) divider line 236
    More: Interesting, high-fructose corn syrup, Keck School of Medicine, percent higher, trade policies, dietary guidelines, preventive medicines, trade restriction, International Association of Educators  
•       •       •

6867 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 06:57:23 AM  
You will eat what we give you and you will act like you like it. Ungrateful bunch of serfs keep thinking they are elite!
 
2012-11-29 07:00:31 AM  
I could be wrong, but I don't think the problem with HFCS is that it's HFCS. You body metabolizes HFCS just like it's sugar. Because it is. The problem is this industry is so heavily subsidized that they put HFCS in EVERYTHING. I'm amazed it hasn't turned up in plain bottled water.
 
2012-11-29 07:02:13 AM  

Shyla: But.... "Sugar is sugar!"


Ask anyone who homebrews if "sugar is sugar" and see what they tell you. Especially someone who does an all-grain process.
 
2012-11-29 07:06:12 AM  

Metalithic: Fruit also has fructose, but no-one is concerned about fruit intake because it is much harder to eat too much fruit than it is too drink too much soda or eat too many Twinkies.


Whole fruit regularly gives you fiber, too.

That's why fruit juice is not a great alternative.
 
2012-11-29 07:07:39 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Wait.... A difference of 1.3%? This is news-worthy?


No, a difference of 1.3 percent points. But to just go with it, if we take the US population and round it down to 314 million, that would mean that you'd have a difference of (314 * 0.08 - 314 * 0.067) = (roughly) 4 million people with diabetes. Just think about those 4 million people who suddenly cost less in healthcare, cost less in benefits (some people with extreme diabetes get all kinds of funky side effects and secondary issues) etc. And at what cost? Putting less HFCS in the food. People would need to grow up and stop going for the sweetest crap out there.
 
2012-11-29 07:09:28 AM  

born_yesterday: Why sugars would be treated any differently than amino acids or fatty acids, whose structures can be quite similar but can each involve different individual metabolic enzymes, is beyond me.


This. I mentioned home brewing in my last post above, but this is a great example. When doing your grain conversion, you have to target very specific temperatures for certain targeted results. Different sugars are created at different temperatures by different enzymes. In turn, these sugars are processed differently by the yeast. Some are metabolized by them and others cannot be. When you carbonate you have to take into account what TYPE of sugar you're using to prime. Some have only a 50% conversion rate while others are 100% fermentable. Sugars are different. It's the same in the body I have no doubt.
 
2012-11-29 07:18:07 AM  
Uhh, because it's sugar, and companies use HFCS instead of sucrose because it's cheaper so they can put more in everything?

"People eat too much sugar" is too simple. We need more conspiracies so we can't blame ourselves!
 
2012-11-29 07:23:06 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Nope, it means you need to establish the latter from the former with a causal link.

Which has been done.

ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance.


Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze -- they're both alcohols, after all. You're about 40 years behind the curve here.
 
2012-11-29 07:25:21 AM  

dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze


HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.
 
2012-11-29 07:32:42 AM  

Magorn: As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.


How often did/do you exercise?
 
2012-11-29 07:34:41 AM  

Ehcks: dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze

HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.


But different proportions

That's like saying ..... oh never mind, people like you are hopeless, I'm tired of splaning.
 
2012-11-29 07:35:48 AM  
How about this. Show me a study of people who eat other sweeteners like cane sugar, honey, molasses and etc vs corn syrup at the same caloric level.

Why would corn syrup vs. cane sugar matter? I don't think it does because I've never seen any study that says it does. The US has a lot of cheap sweats, people like sweats, and sweats cause diabetes. That doesn't build a case that corn sweeteners are evil.

It bothers me that this the poorly thought scare of the day. Monsanto monsanto monsanto. Jesus Christ do they even top seed corn market? They top seed production but do they specifically lead in corn.

Step 1: Look at the most successful companies in every industry.
Step 2: Envy the profits of those companies because those companies are all run by 1 space alien apiece that enslaves 10s of thousands of ignorant people with "money" and "benefits"
Step 3: Masturbate while you imagine having 4 billion dollars in revenue redistributed to you and your friends.
Step 4: Profit
 
2012-11-29 07:37:45 AM  
www.chickenhead.com
 
2012-11-29 07:38:35 AM  

mrlewish: Ehcks: dragonchild: Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze

HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.

But different proportions

That's like saying ..... oh never mind, people like you are hopeless, I'm tired of splaning.


Sucrose is always 50/50. HFCS is either 55/42 or 42/53 with the rest water. Oh noes 8% different proportions of sugars!
 
2012-11-29 07:39:22 AM  
There is also this:
www.ge.com
The #1 disease in the world isn't diabetes it's starvation followed by bullet wounds. How much HFCS is sold in central Africa?
 
2012-11-29 07:40:37 AM  
Whoops wrong chart and I can't edit that:
www.ge.com
 
2012-11-29 07:46:42 AM  

Metalithic: I suspect the problem is too much over-sweetened junk food and too many calories, not HFCS specifically. Granted, corn syrup may be the worst offender, but good old-fashioned sugar or honey can cause just as much trouble if you eat it by the tub-full, and just about any source of excess calories will cause health problems eventually. Fruit also has fructose, but no-one is concerned about fruit intake because it is much harder to eat too much fruit than it is too drink too much soda or eat too many Twinkies.


Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver. So consuming fructose in fruit that is conveniently packaged with fiber doesn't cause the trouble that drinking a can of fructose soda does. And as you pointed out it is hard to eat enough fruit do do yourself much harm (because of the fiber bulk).
 
2012-11-29 07:48:51 AM  

Ehcks: Uhh, because it's sugar, and companies use HFCS instead of sucrose because it's cheaper so they can put more in everything?

"People eat too much sugar" is too simple. We need more conspiracies so we can't blame ourselves!


I think the issue is that it's in everything, like you just said.

So you're right, people are eating too much sugar. But not necessarily because they're binging on cupcakes.
 
2012-11-29 07:49:47 AM  

bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.


But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.
 
2012-11-29 07:50:10 AM  
Part of the problem with HFCS is that it's in everything these days. It's almost impossible to moderate your intake.

Plus it makes food (and I use the term loosely) cheaper, leading to bigger portions at lower prices.

A brick of Coke here in Australia costs $25. At Shaws back in the States you can find Coke on sale every other week, 4 x 12pks for $9.99 or $5 for a brick.

In 9 months I went from 265lbs to 205lbs and the biggest difference in my diet was eliminating HFCS and drinking fewer cans of soda containing it.

Your mileage may vary, but for my money HFCS and low cost food that uses HFCS are the two biggest culprits.
 
2012-11-29 07:50:47 AM  

bestie1: There is also this:
[www.ge.com image 500x350]
The #1 disease in the world isn't diabetes it's starvation followed by bullet wounds. How much HFCS is sold in central Africa?


What is your argument here?

People in central Africa die from gunshot wounds and starvation, so HFCS doesn't contribute to diabetes?
 
2012-11-29 07:51:30 AM  

Ehcks: HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.


HFCS is not a molecule; it's a blend. Nutritionally there's no distinction between it and sucrose, yes, but it helps if you get the basic facts right.

The negative health effects of HFCS and sucrose have been isolated to the fructose. Monosaccharides also include glucose, galactose, and lactose, among others. They should NOT be considered equivalent. Fructose is nothing like glucose (which is benign to the point that your body makes the stuff) and a lot of people can't even digest lactose.

If it was as simple as "sugar" then the Japanese diet, which is very glucose-heavy, shouldn't result in one of the highest life expectancies in the world. And no, quantity isn't the whole story. If you swapped all the glucose they consume with pure fructose, keeping the portions and everything else exactly the same, the country's number of diabetics would skyrocket.
 
2012-11-29 07:52:19 AM  

dragonchild: EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation

Nope, it means you need to establish the latter from the former with a causal link.

Which has been done.

ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance.

Treating all simple sugars like they're the same molecule is as ignorant as swapping methanol for booze -- they're both alcohols, after all. You're about 40 years behind the curve here.


High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels.
Bocarsly ME, Powell ES, Avena NM, Hoebel BG.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010 Nov;97(1):101-6. Epub 2010 Feb 26.

J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1242S-1245S. Epub 2009 Apr 29.
The effect of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on triglycerides and uric acid.
Angelopoulos TJ, Lowndes J, Zukley L, Melanson KJ, Nguyen V, Huffman A, Rippe JM.

The second one is a review, with a glaring comment in the abstract: "Evidence shows that fructose bypasses many of the body's satiating signals, thus potentially promoting overconsumption of energy, weight gain, and the development on insulin resistance." I'm curious what the evidence is, but it's probably better than some random dudes on FARK saying "sugar is sugar".

And to show that I'm not heartless, that it's not just all dollars and cents:

Misconceptions about high-fructose corn syrup: is it uniquely responsible for obesity, reactive dicarbonyl compounds, and advanced glycation endproducts?

White JS.

J Nutr. 2009 Jun;139(6):1219S-1227S. Epub 2009 Apr 22.

Here's one for the "sugar is sugar" people. I can spot some glaring errors in his [lack of] methodogy, and his refusal to address specific methodological errors in the work he criticizes, as well as some logical holes in the points he addresses, but if you're going to take a stand on this issue, at least have a peer-reviewed review to cite.
 
2012-11-29 07:57:47 AM  

Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.


Sucrose doesn't affect the liver as much as fructose. That step to break it do sucrose is where the extra liver fat is produced.
 
2012-11-29 07:57:54 AM  

dragonchild: Ehcks: HFCS is glucose and fructose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. They ARE the same molecules.

HFCS is not a molecule; it's a blend. Nutritionally there's no distinction between it and sucrose, yes, but it helps if you get the basic facts right..


HFCS is two molecules. The very first thing your body does to sucrose is to break it into exactly the same two molecules in almost exactly the same ratio. There is no functional difference in your body between HFCS and sucrose. The only real difference is that HFCS is much cheaper, so it's used in higher quantities in more foods. The problem is that people eat too much sugar, partly because they make food with too much sugar.
 
2012-11-29 07:59:15 AM  

bmongar: Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.

Sucrose doesn't affect the liver as much as fructose. That step to break it do sucrose is where the extra liver fat is produced.


Ignore what I just said. I had my chemistry backwards
 
2012-11-29 08:03:05 AM  

Ehcks: There is no functional difference in your body between HFCS and sucrose.


Hi! Can you get me a citation on this? Preferably not the one I just posted?

Thanks!
 
2012-11-29 08:06:04 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Say it with me, everyone!
 
2012-11-29 08:06:42 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


And therefore, we can just keep using HFCS until everyone is diabetic...'cuz it certainly ain't the HFCS doing it!

/If you don't wanna say it, don't imply it.
 
2012-11-29 08:09:06 AM  
anytime i've gone overseas long enough for my tastebuds to adjust and then come back i always realize how sweet everything is in the states - even the healthy stuff

after awhile you start to become desensitized to it, but it's kind of ridiculous
 
2012-11-29 08:12:32 AM  
How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies
 
2012-11-29 08:13:56 AM  
I find the idea that people are scanning labels with the sole purpose of learning which sugar is in their food pretty silly. I know two things about HFCS: 1) it's cheaper 2) it doesn't taste as good.
 
2012-11-29 08:15:52 AM  

Ehcks: bmongar: Fructose may cause fatty liver disease thought that is still being researched. Fiber reduces the impact of fructose on your liver.

But that doesn't change anything as far as "Real Sugar" drinks go. Or anything else with "Real Sugar" instead of corn sugar. Sucrose is still 50% fructose. What you're saying is that sugar is bad.


It actually makes a big difference. Liver biochemistry is effectively different than brain and muscle biochemistry. The brain is a pig for glucose. The liver doesn't treat fructose like it does glucose even if there exist nice biochemical pathways to interconvert. They just aren't active in the liver and that's where the action is. You can have solid university level knowledge of biochemistry and not understand this. I was a huge skeptic about the dangers of fructose and then read about 40 papers and coupled that to some metabolomics studies I was involved in. I hated admitting it, but HFCS is actually really bad stuff.
 
2012-11-29 08:16:26 AM  

born_yesterday: Hi! Can you get me a citation on this? Preferably not the one I just posted?


wildcardjack's link to Lustig's lecture is more educational than informational, but that's why it's so damn good.

The meat of the lecture is when he goes into detail on the metabolic processes for glucose and fructose. Starts at 42:30. That's not the part to skip; it's the part to pay attention.

Hopefully, SOME people here might learn enough to distinguish between basic sugars before the day is out.
 
2012-11-29 08:19:23 AM  

mr_a: I'll wager that countries that have a lot of doctors have more reported cases of diabetes as well, as do countries with more doctors, lawyers and maybe even Indian Chiefs.


They controlled for GDP according the abstract, which should be a pretty strong indication of the number of physicians in the country. I don't have access to the full article to read the rest, but this does seem suggestive. They propose an established mechanism for cause, and seem to have controlled for the most obvious factors.

They may be wrong and something else may be happening of course, but this isn't a bit of woo that can be dismissed out of hand. Someone is going to have to do a real study that contradicts it, not post snark to a non-peer reviewed web site.
 
2012-11-29 08:19:57 AM  

BHShaman: How will the corn industry survive if we continue to criticize;
- Ethanol
- HFCS
- Subsidies


If we would just kill the subsidies the other two would work themselves out.. but you know.. elections.
 
2012-11-29 08:20:43 AM  
Hmm, it's almost like food that has to be loaded with a bunch of wacky preservatives to be able to be shipped hundreds of miles and remain stable on a store shelf for a few weeks has to be loaded with a bunch of added sugar and salt to make it actually sorta taste good.

Learn to cook and buy locally sourced food when you can, your wallet and your waistline will thank you.
 
2012-11-29 08:27:09 AM  

vharshyde: EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation

Say it with me, everyone!


But causation does force correlation. In particular, we do not have someone saying "oh look, when the Redskins win the last game before the election, the incumbent wins, isn't that weird?" Instead we have a hypothesis: that known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose, and that liver dysfunction is the prime cause of Type II Diabetes, so it is possible that one could lead to the other so that a correlation may exist. It does so, which makes their hypothesis plausible. Yes, it is not proved (although you'd be hard pressed to find anything in science that is), but now instead of simply stating the old saw, you need to advance a plausible hypothesis that explains why their hypothesis is wrong, and your hypothesis needs to agree with their data, and provide a prediction that contradicts theirs or you need to show that their data does not actually support their conclusion. Chanting a slogan does neither.
 
2012-11-29 08:27:55 AM  

CheatCommando: Someone is going to have to do a real study that contradicts it, not post snark to a non-peer reviewed web site.


Again, there's a huge misunderstanding of the purpose of correlations here. Correlations are not the result of study; they are the trigger for study. It's just the first step. You first find a correlation, then find the cause, and it's the latter part that's a million times more important. But in this case, we're going backwards. We already know what fructose does. The increasing rates of obesity and diabetes in developed countries justified the research, but it's now well-understood at a biochemical level. We do not need to toss around more correlation studies; people need to know what fructose does to the body. Another correlation study just throws a few more papers into a shouting match.
 
2012-11-29 08:28:52 AM  

Metalithic: I suspect the problem is too much over-sweetened junk food and too many calories, not HFCS specifically. Granted, corn syrup may be the worst offender, but good old-fashioned sugar or honey can cause just as much trouble if you eat it by the tub-full, and just about any source of excess calories will cause health problems eventually. Fruit also has fructose, but no-one is concerned about fruit intake because it is much harder to eat too much fruit than it is too drink too much soda or eat too many Twinkies.


Bingo, no one complains about high fructose agave syrup for some reason. HFCS is sugar, plain and simple, and since it is cheaper than food it gets put into everything, even things like soup that one would not normally expect to contain sugar. A visitor from the UK once complained that even the mashed potatoes he was served in the US were too damn sweet.
 
2012-11-29 08:29:12 AM  

wademh: The liver doesn't treat fructose like it does glucose even if there exist nice biochemical pathways to interconvert. They just aren't active in the liver and that's where the action is. You can have solid university level knowledge of biochemistry and not understand this.


Being introduced to liver biochemistry was like being introduced to an entire exciting new world of chemistry. It's one thing to "know" that it is responsible for the breakdown and detoxification of virtually everything, it is quite another to learn exactly what level of complexity this entails. It almost makes me feel bad for how I treat mine.
 
2012-11-29 08:30:34 AM  

Cpl.D: I could be wrong, but I don't think the problem with HFCS is that it's HFCS. You body metabolizes HFCS just like it's sugar. Because it is. The problem is this industry is so heavily subsidized that they put HFCS in EVERYTHING. I'm amazed it hasn't turned up in plain bottled water.


It turns up in a brand or two of 'vitamin fortified' water marketed as enhanced.Like Dragonchild, I do think that HFCS is metabolized differently. I also think it and other sugars turn up in our processed foods way, way too often.

Growing up we couldn't afford many store bought foods. We had a huge garden and everyone was required to help in it. My mother had an enormous freezer that she used to put food up for the year. When she made spaghetti, she started with tomatoes from our garden. There was no sugar of any kind in the sauce. Most commercial spaghetti sauce contains HFCS. The remaining jars contain sugar. I always wonder why? Sugar is not needed in spaghetti sauce.

Also, did you see the thread about the WW I vet who flew his plane something like 30 feet (?) off the ground in France to deliver a flag and boost french morale? His photograph looked a bit like your photograph. In the subsequent comments I either demoted or promoted you referring to you as Capt.D. Being civilian it's hard for me to keep the ranking system straight in my mind.
 
2012-11-29 08:31:20 AM  

CheatCommando: known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose


The liver doesn't see sucrose. Sucrose is either hydrolyzed in the stomach or broken down by intestinal enzymes. When you consume sucrose, half the caloric energy winds up as fructose in the liver.

Nutritionally, the only real difference between fructose and sucrose, in terms of fructose load, is concentration.
 
2012-11-29 08:34:09 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


came for this

/reaches for a tissue
 
2012-11-29 08:35:05 AM  
We also have twice as many dishwashers per capita. Something must be done
 
2012-11-29 08:37:05 AM  

Lunaville: Like Dragonchild, I do think that HFCS is metabolized differently.


It's not metabolized differently. The reason why I got grumpy is because ZipSplat went on a Taubes-ian derp-spree about "simple carbs" which equates glucose and fructose when the Japanese diet blows open a HUGE hole in that idiocy. Sucrose and HFCS are both basically half fructose, and it's that fructose that does the damage. Nutritionally, metabolically, they're the same for all intents and purposes.

It's not being pedantic because the failure to distinguish between various molecules of the same type is what led to all this nutritional misinformation in the first place. There are HUGE differences between molecules of the same type. Hell, prions and black widow venom are "proteins" but they'll kill you FFS.
 
2012-11-29 08:37:25 AM  
Although there is mounting evidence that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose, some of which was already posted, arguing about it is a bit like arguing about whether you should ingest Ricin instead of Polonium-120. Their both poison and even if one is worse you should stay well clear of both.

The American food supply is hopelessly poisoned with billions of advertising dollars have gone into covering that up. Most "food" is pure crap, yet everything in a box proclaims all sorts of misleading nonsense on it. I dread the coming (here already?) "HFCS FREE!!!" label that is inevitable. As if trading out one toxic substance for another makes something healthy. But screw me in the behind, it really does WORK. Baffle people so much that out of confusion they stop trying and just buy your worthless non-food. It is a pandemic in slow motion.

/Seriously though, don't eat either. Stick to food without an ingredients label as much as possible. Grass-fed meat, veggies, and some fruit. If you must each bread make your own. Also make your own condiments (mayo, mustard, ketchup). Don't drink ANY Calories aside from whole milk, that is seriously the #1 reason people get fat. Juice = Soda.
//It is hard and it pisses people off (for some reason), but eventually you kind of lose your taste for really sweet things. Even when I do indulge I can't eat nearly as much as I used to, a couple of squares of sweet chocolate and I don't want any more.
 
2012-11-29 08:46:04 AM  

Kazan: Listen, and understand. Monsanto The American Crystal Sugar Company is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are morbidly obese.

 
2012-11-29 08:49:19 AM  

EvilEgg: Correlation is not causation


Except for all the times that things are correlated BECAUSE of a causal link...
 
2012-11-29 08:53:04 AM  
Spend some time in the Fark cooking threads and learn how to make real food out of real ingredients that instead of eating processed foods full of chemical crap.

Between crock pots and pressure cookers, you can work full time, cook healthy meals and still have plenty of time to sit on your ass in front of your television, Murica.
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report