Dishonest? In what way? Are you saying I have an agenda? Of course I do. I've tried both sides of the diet debate. Did I read your post four or five times looking for the kind of detail that might lend it any kind of validity? You bet. Am I sure that it's propaganda? Of course not. I don't know who funded the study. But I have to tell you, I find it very suspicious how vague it is. From a scientific standpoint, it is preliminary at best. You are pointing to a scientific article that has at it's basis a presumption that I find invalid, yes. The presumption is that fat is, as you put it, the "source of all evils", and we're going to prove that by showing which types of fats these kids are eating and correlate that to their physical condition. The findings are completely invalid except as an invitation to more precise study, as there are too many variables left open in the way it was done. There are different kinds of carbohydrates. There are different kinds of proteins. But the only differentiation I see is in the types of fats. The only possible way for this study to be of any value whatsoever is if the children studied were forced to eat the same carbohydrates and the same proteins as each other. This is not part of what I read. So, it's entirely conceivable that Johnny was eating plenty of saturated fats and plenty of refined carbs and getting plenty fat while Sally was eating unsaturated fats and mostly fruits and not getting fat. So what is the culprit here, the fats or the carbohydrates? How can we know? It's completely irresponsible for the researchers to state that it's the fault of the fats when the other aspects of the diet have been given such a cursory examination. Personally, I know which from experience will have that effect on me, and it's not the fats. Furthermore, I don't even have the slightest idea what effect protein sources might have (or not have), not to mention the combination of refined carbohydrates with the different fats, and this study gives no indication whatsoever. It's little better than innuendo. It's a convenient way to get the required result, whether intentionally or accidentally. I mean, it's entirely possible that combining saturated fats with carbohydrates results in more weight gain than combining other fats with carbohydrates. Does that mean that the fats are to blame, does it mean that the types of carbohydrates should be researched, or does it mean that it is possible to say that saturated fats cause weight gain because children who eat them in combination with refined and unrefined carbohydrates gain weight? Remove the carbohydrates and do the study again. Then let me see the result. All this study says is that saturated fats seem to cause more trouble in the standard American diet. And again, I ask what relevance does this have here? John Pavao ---------- Here, I see you are a little dishonest. I am pointing to a scientific article that doesn't correspond to your pre-conveived ideas, and you dismiss it because it supposedly emanates from the propaganda of the high-carb lobby. Reality is not as simple as you would it like to be. It is not true that the source of all evils is an excessive intake of carbohydrate, even if that factor is certainly one of the most important. My point is not to make any propaganda, since I certainly have no financial interests, just to examine with a critical eye the opinions and arguments expressed by the advocates of low-carb regimens.