> The other objection I have to a diet of thirds is that it involves
> counting.  I believe that deciding what to eat should be simple -
> there's no way I'd ever put anything in my mouth if I had to
> calculate what percentage of my carb allowance it was.

But, that's the point. Both authors basically said, "Instead of trying to
hit specific percentages, shoot for a third of each, and you'll get close"
to what they considered proper ratios. Keeping in mind, of course, the
differences between the caloric values for proteins and carbs vs. fat. At
the time, Duchaine was responding to a trend of *strict* adherence to the
Zone inspired 40-30-30 diet ratios. His was really an "anti-counting"
philosophy.

Personally, I think some members on this list are a bit *toooo* dietary fat
oriented. Yes, fat is certainly prized by primitives, but rarely at the
expense of all other food groups. We are omnivores, not lipi-vores (I think
I just made that up :). And, it's the right fat that counts.

On that note, the "largest" study of low-fat diets was just released, with
terrible news for the low-fat advocates. A low-fat diet did not prevent or
reverse all of the things (cancer, heart disease, etc.) among the group of
women studied that researchers were expecting (hoping). Quote:

"The results, the study investigators agreed, do not justify recommending
low-fat diets to the public to reduce their heart disease and cancer risk."

"As for the cancer society, Dr. Thun said, with these results that he
describes as 'completely null over the eight-year follow-up for both
cancers and heart disease,' his group has no plans to suggest that low-fat
diets are going to protect against cancer."

One researcher said he was more concerned with the quality of the fat than
the quantity. Hmmmm. Where have I heard that......?