gaining muscle
Blogs > omg.deus |
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
Ryps
Romania2740 Posts
| ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
keNNabis
Canada159 Posts
you have to literally eat three times as much as you normally eat and you need make sure you get an equal amount of rest (sitting and gettin fat time, what i call it) it takes a LONG time to go about it the natural way, but it's the strongest/healthiest way of going about it i don't recommend any supplements like creatine or whatever, just eat 3 times your normal diet (or more depending on your own personal metabolism) and make sure you sit and get fat during your workouts :D i quit working out cuz... it's too much work haha i'm a framer anyway | ||
rbkl
772 Posts
| ||
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
On May 25 2010 06:01 omg.deus wrote: for the last year I've been training to a hold a planche, one of the hardest feats of strenth out there. Even though I used to work out in a gym I never have gained as much upper body muscle and strength as I have through planche training. anyways, i think it's such a weird feeling when you start being able to flex muscles that you never knew you had. i dont know the names of the muscles but there are multiple areas of my back and shoulders that I can now flex that I never knew I could....it's such a weird but awesome feeling as far as my progress...i've been working my butt off almost on a daily basis for a year and on a really good day I can hold a straddle planche with perfect form for about 3-5 seconds. I'm really happy with my progress so far. I'm going to continue training until I can do a pushup in the straddle position. I really have no intention of achieving a true straight legged planche because it's pretty much impossible. You can DEFINITELY achieve a planche/planche push up. But not with that attitude. Do you have any specific questions in terms of gaining muscle/strength? Head over to the TL Health and Fitness thread in the tl community section, lots of good articles/info/helpful people there. | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
self-improvement is masturbation | ||
skronch
United States2717 Posts
On May 25 2010 07:23 rbkl wrote: Whey protein? I heard creatine works, but isn't good for you. i don't mean to hijack your thread, but what sort of whey protein do you recommend? i heard that muscle milk as creatine. are there any negative health consequences? | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
but ur prolly smaller than me(gotta make some excuse or something) but anyways straddle is good that's already incredible strength compared to normal people, so gj | ||
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
On May 25 2010 07:50 skronch wrote: i don't mean to hijack your thread, but what sort of whey protein do you recommend? i heard that muscle milk as creatine. are there any negative health consequences? Destroys your liver in the long term. | ||
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On May 25 2010 07:51 omg.deus wrote: yeah but i dont workout to look good but rather to get strong....i do a lot of roofing and it just makes my day easier if im strong Why not work out for both? You can get a good "cosmetic" or "superficial" appearance while at the same time being quite strong. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
ur doing a straddle planche already i mean come on, all u gotta do is keep doing what you've been doing and work on shortening your straddle. | ||
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
False. Excess creatine is filtered + pissed out. There's not really any negative side effects of creatine. It's completely natural and found in beef. As long as you take as directed and stay hydrated you'll be fine. Not all muscle milk products have creatine. The muscle milk i have is just a combination of whey/casein protein. Eat hard (and right) and train hard and you WILL get stronger and bigger. | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
For me I hit a wall at the advanced tuck stage that I could just couldn't seem to overcome. I had to change a lot of things before I was able to like wrist flexibility, stricter form (using a mirror to help) and hand position. I also realized I just wasn't trying hard enough...like obviously u try like hell when ur training...but to first push into that straddle i needed to try harder than I had ever done. edit: oh, and i'm 5'6 and 150 pounds | ||
Sashimi
58 Posts
For you to gain muscle, eat every 3 hours(full meals)that's roughly how long it takes for the food to be emptied from your stomach into the small intestine. You want to keep your body in an anabolic state, the moment you stomach is empty, your body will go into catabolic state and start breaking down shit to fuel itself. You don't need those whey proteins, they are just waste of money. I have used them for years. They don't do enough compared to full proper meals. It is a big investment and takes a lot of preparation and commitment. GL. | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
Adhesion
Canada8 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote: The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight. Eat more, eat better, eat at the right times. Lots of meat, peanut butter, milk, whole eggs. you should be taking in 3000-3200 calories a day. Guarentee you will put on lots of weight quickly. On May 25 2010 08:23 Sashimi wrote: Like many people said, it is your diet not workout... Asian diets cannot be used for body building, it does not provide enough calories and protein per meal. Unless you eat galbi and bulgogi every meal, 6 times a day then it is a whole different story. For you to gain muscle, eat every 3 hours(full meals)that's roughly how long it takes for the food to be emptied from your stomach into the small intestine. You want to keep your body in an anabolic state, the moment you stomach is empty, your body will go into catabolic state and start breaking down shit to fuel itself. You don't need those whey proteins, they are just waste of money. I have used them for years. They don't do enough compared to full proper meals. It is a big investment and takes a lot of preparation and commitment. GL. Yeah its hard to put on muscle when you eat rice and veggies every meal lol. But whey protein is important, there have been countless placebo studies on it. It is the fastest absorbed form of protein and should be taken within 30 minutes of working out. | ||
Sashimi
58 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote: The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight. PURE BS, there is no way you are eating enough. You will gain weight if you eat enough. How many times do you eat a day? What do you eat each meal? A bow of rice, little kimchi and some meat? If that's what you eat, no wonder you can't gain weight and build muscle. Watch this video and if you can eat like this, you will gain weight. Stop with your excuses and eat, if you can't afford to eat like this then there's nothing I can help you. And don't argue with me with steroids and shit, I am strictly talking about EATING! | ||
Sashimi
58 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:43 decafchicken wrote: Eat more, eat better, eat at the right times. Lots of meat, peanut butter, milk, whole eggs. you should be taking in 3000-3200 calories a day. Guarentee you will put on lots of weight quickly. Yeah its hard to put on muscle when you eat rice and veggies every meal lol. But whey protein is important, there have been countless placebo studies on it. It is the fastest absorbed form of protein and should be taken within 30 minutes of working out. Whey is ok if you use it between meals. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
to give you an idea, i am 6'1 170lbs. eshlow who is a strength gymnastics badass, like super badass, is taller than you and weighs less. all these people giving u advice of eating more aren't really giving u good advice in regards to your pursuits. if your only goal was to put on more muscle it would be good advice. but that doesn't seem to be your goal right? | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
yeah I know i kind of weigh a lot but I think the real reason I can't do a straight legged is will power...I can't put in that much effort for something that I don't really want that badly edit: yeah, i'm not really looking to gain any weight...just maintain my weight...but I have to eat a crapload just to do that...it's just that i titled this blog really bad...im really bad at organizing my thoughts and such but people ahve just talked about weight gaining and stuff | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really. | ||
Sashimi
58 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:47 omg.deus wrote: i work a regular full time job so I can't eat every couple hours... I eat 4-5 eggwhites in the morning with some toast and eat about 4-5 sandwiches during the work day. At night I load up on some kind of protein...chicken.fish...pork...steak....w/e....i'm eating as much as i can but you burn a lot when your sweating all day and running around. See, you are not eating enough times.... just pack 3 large sandwiches with lots meat in them and eat them during work. It takes like 2min or less to eat a sandwich. Stop with the excuses and start eating. There is NO way for anyone to help you if you keep using work as an excuses. Unless you can triple the amount you eat each meal( 3 times a day) then you might have a chance. But I doubt you can eat triple the amount in one setting. | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote: Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months? I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really. ...troll? | ||
Ursad0n
United States523 Posts
| ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:59 decafchicken wrote: ...troll? No? | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
| ||
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote: Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months? I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really. How can say that eating a lot in general shortens your life span? If you have a high metabolism, you have to eat more calories than someone with a slow metabolism. In general, men have higher metabolism than women, just as people who work out usually have a higher matbolism than people who don't work out. If your goal is to gain weight, you need to consume more calories than you burn every day, and if you want to lose weight: consume less calories. While it's true that too much of anything is harmful to your body, not all types of food are harmful (duh). Being overweight on the other hand will generally reduce your lifespan, as it puts you at much higher risk for aquiring corony heart disease etc. Eating a lot of fast food is bad for you. Eating varied, healthy food though, is not. However, as long as you maintain a healthy weight and get the nutrition you need, you're fine. When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat. If OP or anyone else who works out regularly eat a lot because their metabolic rate is higher than before they started working out, then they should eat more. OP even says that he has to "eat a crapload" just to do that, so just why exactly shouldn't he? | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists. I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average). On May 25 2010 09:22 iMarshall wrote: [When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat. It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems. | ||
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote: I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average). i didn't read your links but you say that vegetarians live longer...which I believe...but it could have nothing to do with them not eating meat. A vegetarian would be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle overrall and therefore live longer. A vegetarian who is concerned about being healthy probably wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink excessively and also be proactive in being healthy by exercising regularly, getting enough sleep...etc.. doesn't surprise me at all that vegetarians live longer on average | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 25 2010 10:06 omg.deus wrote: i didn't read your links but you say that vegetarians live longer...which I believe...but it could have nothing to do with them not eating meat. A vegetarian would be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle overrall and therefore live longer. A vegetarian who is concerned about being healthy probably wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink excessively and also be proactive in being healthy by exercising regularly, getting enough sleep...etc.. doesn't surprise me at all that vegetarians live longer on average I agree with you too. This could turn into a huge debate about vegetarians hehe, probably don't need that here. I always wanted to gain some extra weight myself but I would go as far as eating 3k+ calories a day, that would be pretty hard on my body. I just work out hoping to slowly add muscle. | ||
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote: http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/calorie_life.htm http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists. I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average). It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems. First of all, in the second article you posted they clearly state that While such studies based on epidemiological data establish correlation, not causation, the weight of these findings among human populations in addition to laboratory proof that CR extends the lifespan of other mammals tends to favor the hypothesis that CR will also extend human lifespan. so you have to remember that they haven't really proven anything yet. In the first article they also state that it wouldn't be effective for all people - actually quite the contrary for people with a low body fat percentage.Of course, if you're huge and suddenly stop exercising, a lot of the lean muscle will become fat, that's why Arnold looks so bad now I'm talking about people in general, and how they need to be more aware of how their bodies work. And I don't see how you can call something as widely studied as calorie requirements bs. You post two vague, non-conclusive studies and say that this is truth, while everything we think about calorie reqs. is false. Sorry man, but before I read about this in the New England Journal of Medicine, I won't read to much into it. I also believe what my med. school professors are teaching us instead of this, so I don't really care about what's taught in biology or not. You may believe what you want, and that's fine by me Also, about vegetarians living longer, as omg.deus said, they're more likely to have a healthy lifestyle, so that's also something you have to consider. Vegetarians usually need nutritional supplements if they don't have a well-planned diet, though, something that should tell you that it's not really natural. Vegetarians usually don't get enough iron, proteins, calcium etc, pretty important stuff for the body tbh. | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote: Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know? Yes real studies would have to take place. They would probably have to take a while and require a lot of work. That is how studies usually work. Playing around with raw data can lead to a lot of false conclusions and a lot of correlation vs causation and isn't exactly "scientific" I can eat 4k calories a day because i work out and have the metabolism to support it. If i do the same when i'm older and my metabolism is slower and if i stopped working out, obviously that would have negative effects on my health but unrelated to what i did in my ounger years.. What i would do is a) keep exercising and b) adjust my intake to my metabolic rate. I don't see any logic or conclusive studies as to how eating a lot and becoming more muscular now will take years off my life later. | ||
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote: Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know? Of course it's science, and I agree with the fact that it's hard to do a study that would only take a year or two, when you would need to study a lot of people for decades to get any very hard evidence. The thing is that I've been reading a lot about this now since we started discussing it, and all of the articles I've read about this (and their sources) are just so inconclusive. The discussion did start with talking about the quantity of food you should eat while exercising regularly. My point is that even though there may be several benefits of eating less calories (in terms of longevity, the body still needs calories. A lot of the studies I read also dealt with people with different diseases going on low calorie-diets, most times ending badly. This is especially true for children, who can often experience lacking growth due to huge calorie- and fat restrictions. Now if you want to build more muscle, you have to eat more. While I may have misunderstood your point with regards to this, I'm still sure that you can't expect to maintain big muscle growth while doing calorie restrictions and not eating any proteins. You also haven't adressed what you define as "eating less", other than restricting your calories. If you wanted to get as many calories from broccoli as is found in 100g of snickers, you'd have to eat 1,7kg (for 509 kcal), which I would define as a huge meal, at least in volume. It's all about what you eat, and how many calories your body needs. | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 25 2010 10:50 decafchicken wrote: Yes real studies would have to take place. They would probably have to take a while and require a lot of work. That is how studies usually work. Playing around with raw data can lead to a lot of false conclusions and a lot of correlation vs causation and isn't exactly "scientific" I can eat 4k calories a day because i work out and have the metabolism to support it. If i do the same when i'm older and my metabolism is slower and if i stopped working out, obviously that would have negative effects on my health but unrelated to what i did in my ounger years.. What i would do is a) keep exercising and b) adjust my intake to my metabolic rate. I don't see any logic or conclusive studies as to how eating a lot and becoming more muscular now will take years off my life later. This should count for a study: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php I'm not saying people should randomly start eating less, often times it makes no sense. If you play rugby and work out to get that mass - there's no other way for you besides eating 4k calories a day. I doubt that bodybuilders care much about their life span shortening by 10-20 years. What surprises me is that you don't think it's harder on your body compared to someone who eats twice as little. Every time you digest food you waste energy too. Your liver, your heart, your kidneys - everything's involved and isn't meant to last forever. If you process 2x the amount of food through your digestive system than why would it last just as long as if you didn't. And I'm sure it isn't all lean meat and veggies that you eat. | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 25 2010 11:08 iMarshall wrote: Of course it's science, and I agree with the fact that it's hard to do a study that would only take a year or two, when you would need to study a lot of people for decades to get any very hard evidence. The thing is that I've been reading a lot about this now since we started discussing it, and all of the articles I've read about this (and their sources) are just so inconclusive. The discussion did start with talking about the quantity of food you should eat while exercising regularly. My point is that even though there may be several benefits of eating less calories (in terms of longevity, the body still needs calories. A lot of the studies I read also dealt with people with different diseases going on low calorie-diets, most times ending badly. This is especially true for children, who can often experience lacking growth due to huge calorie- and fat restrictions. Now if you want to build more muscle, you have to eat more. While I may have misunderstood your point with regards to this, I'm still sure that you can't expect to maintain big muscle growth while doing calorie restrictions and not eating any proteins. You also haven't adressed what you define as "eating less", other than restricting your calories. If you wanted to get as many calories from broccoli as is found in 100g of snickers, you'd have to eat 1,7kg (for 509 kcal), which I would define as a huge meal, at least in volume. It's all about what you eat, and how many calories your body needs. Yeah I am not a vegetarian myself, I drink and I eat a lot of garbage food like most people do. I've just always thought that this concept had some merit. I do agree that you need all that calorie intake if you want to be muscular and have that buff body. Most people are willing to take this risk (especially with somewhat inconclusive evidence). People do steroids, how can this even compare. Few things might change though, just like it turned out that excessive carbohydrates will lead to obesity while not that long ago higher carb intake was recommended as a part of a diet to lose weight | ||
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
On May 25 2010 11:18 condoriano wrote: Yeah I am not a vegetarian myself, I drink and I eat a lot of garbage food like most people do. I've just always thought that this concept had some merit. I do agree that you need all that calorie intake if you want to be muscular and have that buff body. Most people are willing to take this risk (especially with somewhat inconclusive evidence). People do steroids, how can this even compare. Few things might change though, just like it turned out that excessive carbohydrates will lead to obesity while not that long ago higher carb intake was recommended as a part of a diet to lose weight Sure, people do a lot of stupid things (like taking anabolic steroids for muscle growth when they don't need it per se). And yeah, it might have some merit, but the most important thing is just leading a healthy life. A healthy, fit body is naturally superior to the body of an obese person who only eats McDonalds, as well as someone who's a little underweight who just sits at his computer all day. What I'm saying is that you should calculate the number of calories according to your metabolic rate, and adjust your calorie intake accordingly. What's important is consuming less "bad calories". For example, if you were to live on just one happy meal every day, and otherwise drink coca-cola for a daily total of your required calories, you'd still have a horribly diet. If people (me included) would eat only healthy foods and exchange their consumption of coke with water and vegetables, they would naturally be healthier, even though they'd still consume the same number of calories. So it's more about "which" calories you eat, than if that number is a little over or under your daily requirements. Over time it should balance itself out, and if you want to gain/lose weight, you'll have to adjust your diet accordingly. | ||
DallasTx
47 Posts
On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote: http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/calorie_life.htm http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists. I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average). It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems. Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll. Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that. | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 25 2010 12:04 DallasTx wrote: Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll. Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that. Nice edit, I was about to QQ Way to jump the gun, as if someone uses "muscle turns into fat" literally. You lose muscle mass and gain fat, thus the expression. Btw with your metabolism slowing down you would have to eat almost nothing. Try doing that after ~20 years of >3000 calories a day diet. You won't just lose weight either, your body will look like a huge stretched sack. | ||
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On May 25 2010 12:19 condoriano wrote: Nice edit, I was about to QQ Way to jump the gun, as if someone uses "muscle turns into fat" literally. You lose muscle mass and gain fat, thus the expression. Some people think its the other way around.... ------------------- Also for the OP... Planche is definitely doable. But you MUST be willing to put in the hard work and time. Here is someone considerably heavier than most of us doing a planche (probably in excess of 200 lbs): It can be done... | ||
iMarshall
Norway189 Posts
| ||
Bub
United States3517 Posts
Oh man I feel like going for some big macs and shake right now, mmm! | ||
GeMicles
Canada307 Posts
| ||
decafchicken
United States19904 Posts
On May 25 2010 11:11 condoriano wrote: This should count for a study: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php I'm not saying people should randomly start eating less, often times it makes no sense. If you play rugby and work out to get that mass - there's no other way for you besides eating 4k calories a day. I doubt that bodybuilders care much about their life span shortening by 10-20 years. What surprises me is that you don't think it's harder on your body compared to someone who eats twice as little. Every time you digest food you waste energy too. Your liver, your heart, your kidneys - everything's involved and isn't meant to last forever. If you process 2x the amount of food through your digestive system than why would it last just as long as if you didn't. And I'm sure it isn't all lean meat and veggies that you eat. So you think that if i burn 4000 calories a day and eat 4000 calories a day compared to someone who burns 2000 and eats 2000 he will live longer than me? | ||
condoriano
United States826 Posts
| ||
| ||