Silly study.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet....eut/index.html

"But one of the studies showed that after 12 months, both groups had lost
about the same amount of weight."

They did not discuss the starting weights of the group.

Say one has to lose 20 pounds. LC will allow you to lose it in 20 weeks,
while low fat will allow you to lose it in say 40 weeks.
After a year both have lost the same amount of weight. Duh.

I wonder how much this study cost the taxpayers.

They also neglect blood work, quality of life etc... but oh well.

The runes were cast, the portents thundered and then Michael Varney
proclaimed:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet....eut/index.html

"But one of the studies showed that after 12 months, both groups had
lost about the same amount of weight."

They did not discuss the starting weights of the group.

Say one has to lose 20 pounds. LC will allow you to lose it in 20
weeks, while low fat will allow you to lose it in say 40 weeks.
After a year both have lost the same amount of weight. Duh.

I wonder how much this study cost the taxpayers.

They also neglect blood work, quality of life etc... but oh well.

They also don't talk about how many drop out, and which ones, and
whether that has skewed the results or whether they discarded the data
on those. Whether the lowcarbers got just as much information/training
as the lowfatters did. (Does anybody remember the days when lowfat
studies started with a lowfat *coach* leading you thru the diet by the
hand, because they found that training and support helped you stick to
the diet?) Whether the lowcarbers were actually following a lowcarb
plan, and if they were all following the same one. Lots of variables to
consider.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html
USENET filter program NFILTER/NEWSPROXY with FAQ and sample filters
available he www.geocities.com/tanirevek/usefulfiles.html "I've
heard the best revenge is living well, but suing the pants off someone
comes in a close second." Luna aka Michelle Levin