I have this theory.
 

Ok so I did alot of studying on human diseases and have found myself in biochemical pathology after a year, yah thats right without gay ass college lol. In my understanding of how the body works, its really freakin' complicated but has basic and simple rules. there are enzymes that the body produces for certain reasons, for example, tryptophan can be turned in to Niacin, its takes about 3 pathways to do so, which mean 3 other chemicals in between tryptophan and niacin from 3 different enzymes. I've also leaned that when there are deficiencies, the body can only convert so much of one chemical to the other, so if you had a niacin deficiency cause by a malabsorbtion disorder, only so much tryptophan(and definitely not enough) can be turned in to niacin, meaning there will still be a deficiency. Now... where am I getting at with this? Well, only so much glucose(sugar(im sure you knew that lol)) can be turned in to fats, i once read approx. 13 grams of fat on average is converted from glucose, so if you are on a low fat diet, your body is deficient in fat, so where could the fat possibly come from?? Sugar is the only answer to that except that the average non active person burns around 25 grams of fat daily, on average, causing a deficit of 12 grams that your body has burned... the only place that could come from is the stored fat. Therefore a lowfat diet SHOULD work. This would also render the atkins diet the weaker diet of the two because fats that are from direct consumption are stored about 4 times more easily than if the fats were converted from sugar, in which you eat alot of fat in the atkins diet. So thats my theory, based on biochemical pathology of the human metabolism, and its basic rules of functions, the low fat diet should work. Unfortunately I see alot of clinical data that shows fat diets work, then some that say carb diets work, or dont or whatever its all way mixed. There always seems to be flaws in the data though, one that is posted on this forum states that low carbers lost more weight faster but then it all evened out, but I looked at the data and the low carbers had a diet restriction around 500 calories, where the low fat dieters only had a 100 calorie differential, which means the whole trial is flawed. I have found one very controlled clinical trial though, http://www.carbs-information.com/low...diet-trial.htm, in which clearly the low fat diet worked better, but they were also dieting on calories. So if anyone has a clear cut clinical trial on this subject please post, Im looking for uncontrolled calories, low fat diet, and how much wieght was lost over a peroid of time. On top of that, just give me any thoughts that you have, expecially some positive results if you use the low fat diet.

Thanks
Bronson