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.