Trent Duke wrote in message ...
Now see, these types of articles are VERY MISLEADING.

Counting calories is important to an extent. No, it's not the be all and end
all to losing weight but it helps.

This article said the total number of calories for both groups was the same.
It did not say both groups continued to consume the same amount of calories
as previously before the diet.

So how much were their calories actually reduced here? It doesn't say.

It also does NOT define what a "low fat diet" is. The standard low fat diet
of 60g a day or 30% of your calories by the FDA is not low enough. It's
quite high!

Quite high? I've been eating well, well beyond 60g a day and losing
weight. I was on a low fat diet for many years (about 20), and all it
did was make me hungry. I could eat several plates of pasta and be
hungry an hour later.

One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been
completely absorbed.

Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all
don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the
same amount of calories, your body isn't.

Again, very misleading article.

Trent



But if what you say is true, then the article is correct. People who
are eating almonds and the like -- by your reasoning -- are taking in
more calories but digesting less of them. But then you'd have to
deal with the fact that the "low fat" diet folks are also eating fiber
(I assume), so the fiber must also be removing their low amounts of
fat. What's the difference?