John Pavao wrote:

> I'm sorry, but that couldn't be any more vague.  It sounds like prime
> establishment low-fat, high-carb propaganda.  I mean, this study is
> completely invalid as relates to people on a paleo diet as there is no
> classification of what type of carbohydrates were being eaten by the
> children (I notice they classified the fats, however).  In other words,
> these kids were on the SAD.  Of course they got fat!

Certainly none of these kids were on low-carb. But I thought the article was
interesting because it dismisses the over-simplistic idea that the higher
percentage of carbohydrate you eat, the fatter you become. I agree with you that
the type of carbohydrate (glycemic index, fiber, etc) is important.

> I know I can be a little slow, but guess I'm not getting your point in
> posting studies that seem to be products of the mainstream nutrition lobby
> to this particular list, where many if not most of us are here because
> we've independently or otherwise come to the conclusion that this kind of
> stuff is corporate-backed, profit-driven misinformation.  Am I
> misunderstanding something here?  Unless your point is that combining fats
> and refined carbohydrates makes for obesity, I don't get it.  And if that
> is your point, well, I thought that was a given...

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.

JL