[fgummett]

OK... just because you say something does not make it a fact... even if you put "very" or "extremely" in front of it OR PUT IT IN UPPER CASE or even BOLD.

This same - low-fat, 50% carbs, normal, balanced, counting calories - dietary advice has been handed out for at least the last 50 years... do you really think it is working... I don't think so... why not?

Look at even your choice of words, "avoiding simple, high-carb foods; avoiding unhealthy, high-fat foods"... why are the "bad" carbs characterised as just "simple" while high-fat is "unhealthy".

By the way can you please (as a professional) cite me an actual scientific study which shows that high-fat food is "unhealthy"..? Not a quote from an "expert" but an actual study. For that matter, please show me where ketones or high-protein are unhealthy.

Where do you get these "90% of the time" figures from... can you please quote your source or did you just grab them out of thin air to try and make a point? I'd much rather have a discussion that revolves around proven facts.

As REDLAN points out above, the low-carb is at least as good as the low-fat... in terms of compliance and weight-loss... but what he forgot to mention is that the low-carb improved lipid profile (at least HDL-C and Trigs) over the low-fat. In addition, people on low-carb report a loss of hunger cravings... so why is low-fat the preferred method again?

Another point about the studies REDLAN mentioned above is that at 6 months the low-carb was ahead in weight loss, but at 12 months both low-fat and low-carb where equal... I strongly suspect that this occured becauis during that later 6 months, carbs where incrementally added back to the low-carb diet.. a la Atkins.