MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Does Time Under Tension Matter?
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

sgb2112

Is time under tension really important for hypertrophy? Let's take a deep dive into that topic.

https://www.T-Nation.com/...t-really-matter
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

It's almost right...

Just the fiber tension crossbridge info. is a bit off.
In-vitro, a fiber starts out at a pretty high rate coding level (close to tetany) then it increases firing rate to maintain force. So external load has about zero to do with per fiber tension.
Open User Options Menu

Donnie Hunt

sgb2112 wrote:
Is time under tension really important for hypertrophy? Let's take a deep dive into that topic.

https://www.T-Nation.com/...-matter


Great read. I love this type of stuff.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

All he had to do was read IART materials from 12+ years ago.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Brad Schofield's take on TUT.

https://www.T-Nation.com/...e-under-tension
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Nwlifter wrote:
It's almost right...

Just the fiber tension crossbridge info. is a bit off.
In-vitro, a fiber starts out at a pretty high rate coding level (close to tetany) then it increases firing rate to maintain force. So external load has about zero to do with per fiber tension.


So fibers are pretty much either full on or full off? (Memory kind of fuzzy on this...)

If so, then the benefits of high load are to recruit more fibers simultaneously, and recruit high threshold fast twitch sooner. In the absence of high external load, you'll need a lot of fatigue (reps/TUL) to get to the fast twitch fibers. That seems about right...

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
It's almost right...

Just the fiber tension crossbridge info. is a bit off.
In-vitro, a fiber starts out at a pretty high rate coding level (close to tetany) then it increases firing rate to maintain force. So external load has about zero to do with per fiber tension.

So fibers are pretty much either full on or full off? (Memory kind of fuzzy on this...)

If so, then the benefits of high load are to recruit more fibers simultaneously, and recruit high threshold fast twitch sooner. In the absence of high external load, you'll need a lot of fatigue (reps/TUL) to get to the fast twitch fibers. That seems about right...



yes spot on.
In a real 'person', fibers come online in non fused tetany (medium-highish rate coding), then can increase up to fused tetany (just plain on solid), but the tension they create is almost the same the whole time.

So you said it exactly right, higher load just has them firing more often sooner. It's why the stimulus is equal with various loads if the end effort level is the same.

If you look up recruitment thresholds, it's based on level of MVC (effort output), for example, all fibers in the biceps are being used at around 65% of full effort, after that, they are just used 'more often and more simultaneously'.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Nwlifter wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
It's almost right...

Just the fiber tension crossbridge info. is a bit off.
In-vitro, a fiber starts out at a pretty high rate coding level (close to tetany) then it increases firing rate to maintain force. So external load has about zero to do with per fiber tension.

So fibers are pretty much either full on or full off? (Memory kind of fuzzy on this...)

If so, then the benefits of high load are to recruit more fibers simultaneously, and recruit high threshold fast twitch sooner. In the absence of high external load, you'll need a lot of fatigue (reps/TUL) to get to the fast twitch fibers. That seems about right...



yes spot on.
In a real 'person', fibers come online in non fused tetany (medium-highish rate coding), then can increase up to fused tetany (just plain on solid), but the tension they create is almost the same the whole time.

So you said it exactly right, higher load just has them firing more often sooner. It's why the stimulus is equal with various loads if the end effort level is the same.

If you look up recruitment thresholds, it's based on level of MVC (effort output), for example, all fibers in the biceps are being used at around 65% of full effort, after that, they are just used 'more often and more simultaneously'.


Chris Beardsley's theories about hypertrophy are built around similar ideas. I suspect that, at points, he crosses the line from science-based conclusions into informed speculation. But still, his ideas are clearly presented, and they seem to fit a lot of the available evidence. Only time will tell, but he may have gotten it mostly right. So anyone interested in this thread ought to look him up. He has a couple of very cheap ebooks available on the Kindle, and a bunch of articles on Medium.


Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

It's natural, and common, yet incorrect and very misleading to think of a muscle as an 'entity'. A muscle is a group of individual fibers, it's the same as a 'crowd of people'.
Or thinking of an engine as a whole when considering the pistons. The engine output is based on how many pistons are firing and how fast. Engine is just a name for the collection of parts.
That's why whole muscle tension doesn't tell us what each individual fiber is experiencing, and tension, work, and stimulation is all 'per fiber'.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
It's almost right...

Just the fiber tension crossbridge info. is a bit off.
In-vitro, a fiber starts out at a pretty high rate coding level (close to tetany) then it increases firing rate to maintain force. So external load has about zero to do with per fiber tension.

So fibers are pretty much either full on or full off? (Memory kind of fuzzy on this...)

If so, then the benefits of high load are to recruit more fibers simultaneously, and recruit high threshold fast twitch sooner. In the absence of high external load, you'll need a lot of fatigue (reps/TUL) to get to the fast twitch fibers. That seems about right...



yes spot on.
In a real 'person', fibers come online in non fused tetany (medium-highish rate coding), then can increase up to fused tetany (just plain on solid), but the tension they create is almost the same the whole time.

So you said it exactly right, higher load just has them firing more often sooner. It's why the stimulus is equal with various loads if the end effort level is the same.

If you look up recruitment thresholds, it's based on level of MVC (effort output), for example, all fibers in the biceps are being used at around 65% of full effort, after that, they are just used 'more often and more simultaneously'.

Chris Beardsley's theories about hypertrophy are built around similar ideas. I suspect that, at points, he crosses the line from science-based conclusions into informed speculation. But still, his ideas are clearly presented, and they seem to fit a lot of the available evidence. Only time will tell, but he may have gotten it mostly right. So anyone interested in this thread ought to look him up. He has a couple of very cheap ebooks available on the Kindle, and a bunch of articles on Medium.




He has some good stuff for sure.

One thing, I wish one of these 'effective rep' authors would state, is that effective reps are a simplified way to think of the whole muscle (see my previous post). In reality, any fiber that is highly activated from the start, is getting effective reps for every rep of the set. Fibers that are highly active say on rep 3 on, then 3 through the end are effective.
If a person did 5 sets of 4 reps with 8RM, many fibers would get 20 good reps, many would get zero good reps, the rest somewhere in between.
Just had to babble that out since I think Chris' article on that is one if his most popular ones.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.
Open User Options Menu

Donnie Hunt

entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.


I head ya loud n' clear. I do enjoy reading about all the different methods, techniques, and what not. I personally got a lot from Science by Body and McGruff, lol. But yea, I go do my workouts and do what makes sense to me. Sometimes I might do a lot of, if not all of the variation you mentioned. And I'm also one those that enjoys working out but still dip into the discomfort zone too. I remember my Grandfather making a comment to me many years ago. How reading all those muscle magazines wasn't gonna make me get bigger and stronger when I coukd be lifting, lol. So yea I hear ya Scott. I also think this is similar to somebody following sports, learning new golf techniques, talking about modifying cars, and what not.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Donnie Hunt wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

I head ya loud n' clear. I do enjoy reading about all the different methods, techniques, and what not. I personally got a lot from Science by Body and McGruff, lol. But yea, I go do my workouts and do what makes sense to me. Sometimes I might do a lot of, if not all of the variation you mentioned. And I'm also one those that enjoys working out but still dip into the discomfort zone too. I remember my Grandfather making a comment to me many years ago. How reading all those muscle magazines wasn't gonna make me get bigger and stronger when I coukd be lifting, lol. So yea I hear ya Scott. I also think this is similar to somebody following sports, learning new golf techniques, talking about modifying cars, and what not.


Yeah not sure why some think talking about lifting theories is an either/or with lifting. (Like someone reads 'instead' of lifting). Nah, it's just a way to be involved mentally, and something to do with this stuff when we aren't lifting. Like you said, reading about golf, car repair, etc.
Most of us aren't talking this stuff to learn what to do in the gym, that part is separate for me, talking about it, reading, theorizing, that's a different branch of the hobby and doesn't really affect my actual workouts. Just fun to talk about these theories (even hokey weird ones lol).

Open User Options Menu

Donnie Hunt

The hokey weird ones are the best lol 😁👍
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Donnie Hunt wrote:
The hokey weird ones are the best lol 😁👍


LOL funnest to talk about! lol
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.


Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Average Al wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?


Yeah if we don't talk lifting on a lifting forum, what's it for then?

What's cool about a forum, is if you aren't interested in a thread, you don't have to read it
Open User Options Menu

StuKE

Yes, seeing how quiet it is on here, I welcome any posts. My feelings about all this, TUT, progressive resistance, the works basically is that most of us probably don't gain muscle to any real noticeable degree any more and haven't for ages. I could maintain what I have with an hour workout 4 times a week or with 20 mins 2-3 times a week. Maybe I could put a bit of muscle on if I dialled everything in but it wouldnt be much.
Still, doesnt stop me experimenting and trying different things
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

StuKE wrote:
Yes, seeing how quiet it is on here, I welcome any posts. My feelings about all this, TUT, progressive resistance, the works basically is that most of us probably don't gain muscle to any real noticeable degree any more and haven't for ages. I could maintain what I have with an hour workout 4 times a week or with 20 mins 2-3 times a week. Maybe I could put a bit of muscle on if I dialled everything in but it wouldnt be much.
Still, doesnt stop me experimenting and trying different things


Me too, love the discussions!
I myself have been doing pretty good lately, almost back to my old younger 'size pr' level, so I'm up for training and gaining and talking about it.
Open User Options Menu

StuKE

Nwlifter wrote:
StuKE wrote:
Yes, seeing how quiet it is on here, I welcome any posts. My feelings about all this, TUT, progressive resistance, the works basically is that most of us probably don't gain muscle to any real noticeable degree any more and haven't for ages. I could maintain what I have with an hour workout 4 times a week or with 20 mins 2-3 times a week. Maybe I could put a bit of muscle on if I dialled everything in but it wouldnt be much.
Still, doesnt stop me experimenting and trying different things

Me too, love the discussions!
I myself have been doing pretty good lately, almost back to my old younger 'size pr' level, so I'm up for training and gaining and talking about it.


That's great that you are doing so well!
I think the main problem for me, if it even is a problem, is that I love to train, have done for over 30 years now, but also I kind of get bored with it these days sometimes. It comes down to time, how much time do I have to spare and what do I actually want? Sometimes I think I want bugger arms or traps, or a PB in chin ups etc, but mostly, I think the truth is I just want to keep training in a more spur of the moment, how I feel on the day basis. I don't want any specific goal for long enough to keep plugging away it seems!

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

StuKE wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
StuKE wrote:
Yes, seeing how quiet it is on here, I welcome any posts. My feelings about all this, TUT, progressive resistance, the works basically is that most of us probably don't gain muscle to any real noticeable degree any more and haven't for ages. I could maintain what I have with an hour workout 4 times a week or with 20 mins 2-3 times a week. Maybe I could put a bit of muscle on if I dialled everything in but it wouldnt be much.
Still, doesnt stop me experimenting and trying different things

Me too, love the discussions!
I myself have been doing pretty good lately, almost back to my old younger 'size pr' level, so I'm up for training and gaining and talking about it.

That's great that you are doing so well!
I think the main problem for me, if it even is a problem, is that I love to train, have done for over 30 years now, but also I kind of get bored with it these days sometimes. It comes down to time, how much time do I have to spare and what do I actually want? Sometimes I think I want bugger arms or traps, or a PB in chin ups etc, but mostly, I think the truth is I just want to keep training in a more spur of the moment, how I feel on the day basis. I don't want any specific goal for long enough to keep plugging away it seems!



thanks!
yes that's what I had been doing too, mostly just what ever was fun and felt good, take a notion for a goal, then change my mind. Just been sticking with the 'size goal' for a bit now so seems to be working. But trainging just to train and enjoy it is a super fun thing to do. It's still training, it's still healthy so I totally get that idea for sure!
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Average Al wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?


== Scott ==
I?m all for talking about things but I just think too many people get to thinking I didn?t make progress because my time under tension, or rep cadence , or rep speed or workout frequency or whatever was wrong when more than any of those it?s probably that they aren?t really working hard with what ever they are doing. If you?re kicking Butt when you workout you?ll build muscle to a certain point no matter what you?re doing . No wonder I couldn?t build 21 inch arms, my time under tension was off a little , hah! I don?t think most people know how to really push their muscles hard. There?s no better secret tricks to induce muscles to grow than just plain old gut busting effort be it 30 reps or 6. It?s not so much what you do as how you do it ! I saw Viator train. He trained like his life depended on it, like an animal! While your worring about what you are doing think about how you are doing it. Are you really pushing yourself?
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

entsminger wrote:
Average Al wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?

== Scott ==
I?m all for talking about things but I just think too many people get to thinking I didn?t make progress because my time under tension, or rep cadence , or rep speed or workout frequency or whatever was wrong when more than any of those it?s probably that they aren?t really working hard with what ever they are doing. If you?re kicking Butt when you workout you?ll build muscle to a certain point no matter what you?re doing . No wonder I couldn?t build 21 inch arms, my time under tension was off a little , hah! I don?t think most people know how to really push their muscles hard. There?s no better secret tricks to induce muscles to grow than just plain old gut busting effort be it 30 reps or 6. It?s not so much what you do as how you do it ! I saw Viator train. He trained like his life depended on it, like an animal! While your worring about what you are doing think about how you are doing it. Are you really pushing yourself?


THAT is a much better way to put that and very true, now I see what you were meaning
Open User Options Menu

StuKE

entsminger wrote:
Average Al wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?

== Scott ==
I?m all for talking about things but I just think too many people get to thinking I didn?t make progress because my time under tension, or rep cadence , or rep speed or workout frequency or whatever was wrong when more than any of those it?s probably that they aren?t really working hard with what ever they are doing. If you?re kicking Butt when you workout you?ll build muscle to a certain point no matter what you?re doing . No wonder I couldn?t build 21 inch arms, my time under tension was off a little , hah! I don?t think most people know how to really push their muscles hard. There?s no better secret tricks to induce muscles to grow than just plain old gut busting effort be it 30 reps or 6. It?s not so much what you do as how you do it ! I saw Viator train. He trained like his life depended on it, like an animal! While your worring about what you are doing think about how you are doing it. Are you really pushing yourself?


I get what yiu're saying, but just pushing super hard is not the clear cut answer you think. When I was younger I would push like a maniac, smelling salts before squats, slaps etc. I would regularly get another 2 reps when people thought I was done, I would really grind.
Now, I pretty much never push like that and it's not because I don't like hard work. I found out as I got older it wasn't proving anything, working that hard. Got harder and harder to recover from and feeling ill the following day, beat up, drained and nauseous was always a pain.
I realised going that hard wasn't necessary, doing something that took my body the best part of a week to recover from was overkill. I was wotking hard, lifting more on some lifts that much bigger guys at the gym were doing, eating bodybuilding foods when I wasn't hungry at all and getting plenty of rest. I never even reached 168 pounds bodyweight.
Training hard like that may suit some, but there is no way it is a necessity, there are other, probably better ways, and that is where time under tension and other methods come in.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

StuKE wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Average Al wrote:
entsminger wrote:
== Scott==
I know you guys don?t like to hear this and want to spend hours on end arguing over this stuff but stop over analyzing everything. Time Under tension, full reps, slow or fast reps, half reps, stutter reps, etc etc, the important thing is to hit the weights consistently and from trial and error do what ?you ? feel works your muscles the best . Who cares what Science by Body or McGruff the crime dog or anyone else says. Try many of the different ways you?ve heard on here and if you have half a brain you?ll figure out what works for you and then consistently kick ass doing it.

Your timing is odd, as this thread had pretty much died after just a few comments. In fact the board has been pretty quiet lately as no one is arguing about anything, a situation that should meet with your approval.

As for understanding why things work: it is kind of cool if a theory happens to support a mode of training that you had come to prefer by trial & error. Don?t we all love a dose of confirmation bias now and again?

== Scott ==
I?m all for talking about things but I just think too many people get to thinking I didn?t make progress because my time under tension, or rep cadence , or rep speed or workout frequency or whatever was wrong when more than any of those it?s probably that they aren?t really working hard with what ever they are doing. If you?re kicking Butt when you workout you?ll build muscle to a certain point no matter what you?re doing . No wonder I couldn?t build 21 inch arms, my time under tension was off a little , hah! I don?t think most people know how to really push their muscles hard. There?s no better secret tricks to induce muscles to grow than just plain old gut busting effort be it 30 reps or 6. It?s not so much what you do as how you do it ! I saw Viator train. He trained like his life depended on it, like an animal! While your worring about what you are doing think about how you are doing it. Are you really pushing yourself?

I get what yiu're saying, but just pushing super hard is not the clear cut answer you think. When I was younger I would push like a maniac, smelling salts before squats, slaps etc. I would regularly get another 2 reps when people thought I was done, I would really grind.
Now, I pretty much never push like that and it's not because I don't like hard work. I found out as I got older it wasn't proving anything, working that hard. Got harder and harder to recover from and feeling ill the following day, beat up, drained and nauseous was always a pain.
I realised going that hard wasn't necessary, doing something that took my body the best part of a week to recover from was overkill. I was wotking hard, lifting more on some lifts that much bigger guys at the gym were doing, eating bodybuilding foods when I wasn't hungry at all and getting plenty of rest. I never even reached 168 pounds bodyweight.
Training hard like that may suit some, but there is no way it is a necessity, there are other, probably better ways, and that is where time under tension and other methods come in.


Great points too....
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy