http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html

Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
By DARIUSH MOZAFFARIAN and DAVID S. LUDWIGJULY 9, 2015

BOSTON €” SINCE the publication of the federal governments 1980 Dietary
Guidelines, dietary policy has focused on reducing total fat in the
American diet €” specifically, to no more than 30 percent of a persons
daily calories. This fear of fat has had far-reaching impacts, from
consumer preferences to the billions of dollars spent by the military,
government-run hospitals and school districts on food. As we argue in a
recently published article in The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 35 years after that policy shift, its long past time for
us to exonerate dietary fat.

The guidelines changed how Americans eat. By the mid-1990s, a flood of
low-fat products entered the food supply: nonfat salad dressing, baked
potato chips, low-fat sweetened milk and yogurt and low-fat processed
turkey and bologna. Take fat-free SnackWells cookies. In 1994, only two
years after being introduced, SnackWells skyrocketed to become
Americas No. 1 cookie, displacing Oreos, a favorite for more than 80 years.

In place of fat, we were told to eat more carbohydrates. Indeed,
carbohydrates were positioned as the foundation of a healthy diet: The
1992 edition of the food pyramid, assembled by the Department of
Agriculture, recommended up to 11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice
and pasta. Americans, and food companies and restaurants, listened €” our
consumption of fat went down and carbs, way up.

But nutrition, like any scientific field, has advanced quickly, and by
2000, the benefits of very-low-fat diets had come into question.
Increasingly, the 30 percent cap on dietary fat appeared arbitrary and
possibly harmful. Following an Institute of Medicine report, the 2005
Dietary Guidelines quietly began to reverse the governments campaign
against dietary fat, increasing the upper limit to 35 percent €” and
also, for the first time, recommending a lower limit of 20 percent.

Yet, this major change went largely unnoticed by federal food policy
makers. The Nutrition Facts panel on all packaged foods continued to
use, and still uses today, the older 30 percent limit on total fat. And
the Food and Drug Administration continues to regulate health claims
based on total fat, regardless of the food source. In March, the F.D.A.
formally warned the manufacturer of Kind snack bars to stop marketing
their products as €œhealthy€� when they exceeded decades-old limits on
total and saturated fat €” even though the fats in these products mainly
come from nuts and healthy vegetable sources.

The €œWe Can!€� program, run by the National Institutes of Health,
recommends that kids €œeat almost anytime€� fat-free salad dressing,
ketchup, diet soda and trimmed beef, but only €œeat sometimes or less
often€� all vegetables with added fat, nuts, peanut butter, tuna canned
in oil and olive oil. Astoundingly, the National School Lunch Program
bans whole milk, but allows sugar-sweetened skim milk.

Consumers didnt notice, either. Based on years of low-fat messaging,
most Americans still actively avoid dietary fat, while eating far too
much refined carbohydrates. This fear of fat also drives industry
formulations, with heavy marketing of fat-reduced products of dubious
health value.

Recent research has established the futility of focusing on low-fat
foods. Confirming many other observations, large randomized trials in
2006 and 2013 showed that a low-fat diet had no significant benefits for
heart disease, stroke, diabetes or cancer risks, while a high-fat,
Mediterranean-style diet rich in nuts or extra-virgin olive oil €”
exceeding 40 percent of calories in total fat €” significantly reduced
cardiovascular disease, diabetes and long-term weight gain. Other
studies have shown that high-fat diets are similar to, or better than,
low-fat diets for short-term weight loss, and that types of foods,
rather than fat content, relate to long-term weight gain.

This is not to say that high-fat diets are always healthy, or low-fat
diets always harmful. But rather than focusing on total fat or other
numbers on the back of the package, the emphasis should be on eating
more minimally processed fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt,
vegetable oils and whole grains in place of refined grains, white
potatoes, added sugars and processed meats. How much we eat is also
determined by what we eat: Cutting calories without improving food
quality rarely produces long-term weight loss.

Recognizing this new evidence, the scientists on the 2015 Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee, for the first time in 35 years have sent
recommendations to the government without any upper limit on total fat.
In addition, reduced-fat foods were specifically not recommended for
obesity prevention. Instead, the committee encouraged consumption
according to healthful food-based diet patterns.

The limit on total fat is an outdated concept, an obstacle to sensible
change that promotes harmful low-fat foods, undermines efforts to limit
refined grains and added sugars, and discourages the food industry from
developing products higher in healthy fats. Fortunately, the people
behind the Dietary Guidelines understand that. Will the government,
policy makers and the food industry take notice this time?

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html
>
> Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

Well, science is a funny thing. When you get new data that challenges
your old conclusions, you might have to draw new conclusions.

The federal government is a big bureaucracy. They tend to be slow
to maneuver.

I'm not afraid of fat, yet I limit my intake of calorie-dense foods
because I'm losing weight. Still, a tablespoon of extra-virgin olive
oil is a regular player on my salads. I've slashed (but not
eliminated) simple carbs. Everything in moderation.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html
>>
>> Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
>
> Well, science is a funny thing. When you get new data that challenges
> your old conclusions, you might have to draw new conclusions.
>
> The federal government is a big bureaucracy. They tend to be slow
> to maneuver.
>
> I'm not afraid of fat, yet I limit my intake of calorie-dense foods
> because I'm losing weight. Still, a tablespoon of extra-virgin olive
> oil is a regular player on my salads. I've slashed (but not
> eliminated) simple carbs. Everything in moderation.

Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed Atkins
and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed Atkins
> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.

The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
than you burn.

G.

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:54:16 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html
> >>
> >> Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
> >
> > Well, science is a funny thing. When you get new data that challenges
> > your old conclusions, you might have to draw new conclusions.
> >
> > The federal government is a big bureaucracy. They tend to be slow
> > to maneuver.
> >
> > I'm not afraid of fat, yet I limit my intake of calorie-dense foods
> > because I'm losing weight. Still, a tablespoon of extra-virgin olive
> > oil is a regular player on my salads. I've slashed (but not
> > eliminated) simple carbs. Everything in moderation.
>
> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed Atkins
> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.

Not really following anything except "less carbs; more veg."

Probably portion control is in there, too. I find a small amount of
meat to be plenty. I eat all the veg I want.

I'm not obsessive about it. I've had french fries a couple times
in the last eight months, and if I feel like some good white bread,
I eat it. I shoot for losing a pound a week, but I think I've
been a little less than that overall. If I have a week where
I gain a couple of pounds, I just get back on the plan and don't
look back. The slow loss has worked well for me; my body doesn't
seem to have switched into famine mode, and I'm losing slowly but
surely.

Cindy Hamilton

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed
>> Atkins
>> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
>> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.
>
> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
> than you burn.

It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it for a
few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:54:16 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:20:03 PM UTC-4, Travis McGee wrote:
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html
>> >>
>> >> Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
>> >
>> > Well, science is a funny thing. When you get new data that challenges
>> > your old conclusions, you might have to draw new conclusions.
>> >
>> > The federal government is a big bureaucracy. They tend to be slow
>> > to maneuver.
>> >
>> > I'm not afraid of fat, yet I limit my intake of calorie-dense foods
>> > because I'm losing weight. Still, a tablespoon of extra-virgin olive
>> > oil is a regular player on my salads. I've slashed (but not
>> > eliminated) simple carbs. Everything in moderation.
>>
>> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed
>> Atkins
>> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
>> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.
>
> Not really following anything except "less carbs; more veg."
>
> Probably portion control is in there, too. I find a small amount of
> meat to be plenty. I eat all the veg I want.
>
> I'm not obsessive about it. I've had french fries a couple times
> in the last eight months, and if I feel like some good white bread,
> I eat it. I shoot for losing a pound a week, but I think I've
> been a little less than that overall. If I have a week where
> I gain a couple of pounds, I just get back on the plan and don't
> look back. The slow loss has worked well for me; my body doesn't
> seem to have switched into famine mode, and I'm losing slowly but
> surely.

If it works for you then that is just right)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/11/2015 1:11 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed
>>> Atkins
>>> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I
>>> used to
>>> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.
>>
>> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
>> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
>> than you burn.
>
> It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it
> for a few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
>
Before Jeb Bush joined InnoVida in 2007 as a $15,000 a month consultant
there were many red flags that would turn any politician and even
average citizen away. The company was involved in lawsuits, they were
getting bad headlines and some of their top businessmen were convicted
drug dealers.

Yet according to CNN, Jeb Bush joined the firm shortly after he left the
governor’s mansion and Bush also became a member of the board and had
stock options.

Some speculate the former governor was not looking at the risks, he was
simply looking to replenish his bank accounts after eight years of
public service. Others believe Bush was caught up with the smooth
talking CEO who in the end would end up in prison for running a $40
million investment fraud. All of Bush’s ties to InnoVida’s CEO and now
inmate, Claudio Osorio are starting to surface since he is considering
running for President.

Read more at
http://shark-tank.com/2015/03/30/jeb...he-never-knew/

On 7/10/2015 3:09 PM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
> Yet according to CNN,
Bodine FRAUD!

On 7/11/2015 9:20 AM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 3:09 PM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
>> Yet according to CNN,
> Bodine FRAUD!
>
>
Barbara Llorente FRAUD!

On 7/10/2015 5:50 PM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
> On 7/11/2015 9:20 AM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
>> On 7/10/2015 3:09 PM, Acme Bully Control wrote:
>>> Yet according to CNN,
>> Bodine FRAUD!
>>
>>
> Barbara Llorente FRAUD!
>

http://www.nationalbbqrankings.com/ranking/team/4202

Chicken Contests
Contests since 14/Jun/2008
Current rank: 2747th (Updated: 25/Feb/2013)

Ribs Contests
Contests since 23/Apr/2010
Current rank: 818th (Updated: 25/Feb/2013)

Pork Contests
Contests since 24/Apr/2009
Current rank: 2016th (Updated: 25/Feb/2013)

LOL!!!!!

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:15:00 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
> > Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >> Whenever I have felt the need to lose a few pounds, I have followed
> >> Atkins
> >> and it has worked just fine. May I ask what you are following? I used to
> >> pop onto the low carb group but is has all changed.
> >
> > The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
> > diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
> > than you burn.
>
Atkins is not "all fat." It IS high fat, low carb, high fiber. It IS a
"balanced diet," but the balance is high fat, rather than high carb. Why is
a regimen that is 25% calories from protein, 65% fat and 10% carb less
"balanced" than 25% protein, 65% carb and 10% fat?
>
> It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it for a
> few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
>
It is very effective.
>
>
--Bryan

Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> > "Gary" wrote
> > > The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
> > > diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
> > > than you burn.
> >
> Atkins is not "all fat." It IS high fat, low carb, high fiber. It IS a
> "balanced diet," but the balance is high fat, rather than high carb. Why is
> a regimen that is 25% calories from protein, 65% fat and 10% carb less
> "balanced" than 25% protein, 65% carb and 10% fat?
> >
> > It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it for a
> > few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
> >
> It is very effective.

So are all the other fad diets. I used the Scarsdale diet and lost a
lot of weight very quickly. Good thing about the Adkins diet is that
it's high fat. Eat a high fat meal and you don't feel hungry so
quickly.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>
>> Ophelia wrote:
>> > "Gary" wrote
>> > > The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
>> > > diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
>> > > than you burn.
>> >
>> Atkins is not "all fat." It IS high fat, low carb, high fiber. It IS a
>> "balanced diet," but the balance is high fat, rather than high carb. Why
>> is
>> a regimen that is 25% calories from protein, 65% fat and 10% carb less
>> "balanced" than 25% protein, 65% carb and 10% fat?
>> >
>> > It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it
>> > for a
>> > few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
>> >
>> It is very effective.
>
> So are all the other fad diets. I used the Scarsdale diet and lost a
> lot of weight very quickly. Good thing about the Adkins diet is that
> it's high fat. Eat a high fat meal and you don't feel hungry so
> quickly.

My appetite is small anyway, but on Atkins I get full up even faster

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 11/07/2015 7:26 AM, Gary wrote:
> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> "Gary" wrote
>>>> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
>>>> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
>>>> than you burn.
>>>
>> Atkins is not "all fat." It IS high fat, low carb, high fiber. It IS a
>> "balanced diet," but the balance is high fat, rather than high carb. Why is
>> a regimen that is 25% calories from protein, 65% fat and 10% carb less
>> "balanced" than 25% protein, 65% carb and 10% fat?
>>>
>>> It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on it for a
>>> few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
>>>
>> It is very effective.
>
> So are all the other fad diets. I used the Scarsdale diet and lost a
> lot of weight very quickly. Good thing about the Adkins diet is that
> it's high fat. Eat a high fat meal and you don't feel hungry so
> quickly.
>
The only diet that works for me is the Graham Diet! I cut out or
strictly ration bread, eat more non-sugary vegetables (e.g. carrots),
eat smaller amounts and get out on my bike more often.
Graham

--

On 11/07/2015 11:07 AM, graham wrote:
> On 11/07/2015 7:26 AM, Gary wrote:
>> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>>
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>> "Gary" wrote
>>>>> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
>>>>> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
>>>>> than you burn.
>>>>
>>> Atkins is not "all fat." It IS high fat, low carb, high fiber. It IS a
>>> "balanced diet," but the balance is high fat, rather than high carb.
>>> Why is
>>> a regimen that is 25% calories from protein, 65% fat and 10% carb less
>>> "balanced" than 25% protein, 65% carb and 10% fat?
>>>>
>>>> It has always worked for me, but I have to say, I only ever went on
>>>> it for a
>>>> few weeks and I always dropped the pounds I wanted it to.
>>>>
>>> It is very effective.
>>
>> So are all the other fad diets. I used the Scarsdale diet and lost a
>> lot of weight very quickly. Good thing about the Adkins diet is that
>> it's high fat. Eat a high fat meal and you don't feel hungry so
>> quickly.
>>
> The only diet that works for me is the Graham Diet! I cut out or
> strictly ration bread, eat more non-sugary vegetables (e.g. carrots),
> eat smaller amounts and get out on my bike more often.
> Graham
>
Just to clear up the ambiguity, I avoid carrots!
Graham

--

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:22:13 -0400, Gary wrote:

> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
> than you burn.

True. Your bottom line is actually a re-telling of simple physical laws.

Where I believe the low-no carb diet has merits is based on the conjecture
that human hunger regulatory systems have not evolved sufficiently during
the time since the advent of agriculture. (~10K BCE).

This has been mentioned before, probably by people with better credentials
than me, but I will re-state it again in my own manner.

Before agriculture (and territorial boundaries, land ownership, etc.), our
ancestors ate food without a lot of carbohydrates. Simply stated, our
regulatory systems (hunger / fat accumulation etc.) were balanced to
optimize the dangers of accumulating fat versus the danger of starving to
death. We evolved for thousands of years getting most of our winter
calories from animal fat, although we would readily eat fruit when it was
in season, and we constantly sought ways to preserve all types of food for
the winter.

Complex carbohydrates were/are a blessing and a curse. They provided a
manner to have an energy source (grains) that could last years without
going rancid. But the complex carbohydrate while it is being digested
wrecks havoc on the finely-tuned regulatory system of hormones that makes
us feel hungry or lay down a layer of fat. We evolved in an epoch of having
blood sugar levels determined by digestive intake of animal fat, not
starch.

So now we have a practical epidemic of diabetes, especially amongst people
who only got away from stone-age diets a few generations ago. (I.e. Inuit,
Cree, etc.)

I recently lost about 15 kg over the past 6 months. All I had to do was
stop eating anything white. (Pasta / Potatoes / Bread). For the first few
weeks, I was ravenously hungry. But after that, when my body system had
"rebooted", the daily fluctuation in hunger level became less pronounced. I
feel hungry and eat, but do not feel driven to overeat. I eat as much as I
want, and I continue to lose weight.

Sometimes, I fall off the wagon and have a donut or fries, but there is a
price to pay by being extra hungry the next day or so. Also (very
important), try not to mix starch and fat (i.e. cheesefries), because the
high blood sugar level maintained by digesting the starch makes it easier
for the body to put the fat into body fat cells instead of burning it for
normal metabolism.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:19:58 -0400, Travis McGee >
wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/op...id-of-fat.html
>
>Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

Because they are extremely conservative and you have to wait for the
next generation of government-sanctioned 'experts' to replace the
older scientific establishment. Don't ever assume 'science' is always
based on the rational.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:05:03 -0400, Mike Duffy
> wrote:

<snip>

>Before agriculture (and territorial boundaries, land ownership, etc.), our
>ancestors ate food without a lot of carbohydrates. Simply stated, our
>regulatory systems (hunger / fat accumulation etc.) were balanced to
>optimize the dangers of accumulating fat versus the danger of starving to
>death. We evolved for thousands of years getting most of our winter
>calories from animal fat, although we would readily eat fruit when it was
>in season, and we constantly sought ways to preserve all types of food for
>the winter.
>
>Complex carbohydrates were/are a blessing and a curse. They provided a
>manner to have an energy source (grains) that could last years without
>going rancid. But the complex carbohydrate while it is being digested
>wrecks havoc on the finely-tuned regulatory system of hormones that makes
>us feel hungry or lay down a layer of fat. We evolved in an epoch of having
>blood sugar levels determined by digestive intake of animal fat, not
>starch.
>
>So now we have a practical epidemic of diabetes, especially amongst people
>who only got away from stone-age diets a few generations ago. (I.e. Inuit,
>Cree, etc.)
>
>I recently lost about 15 kg over the past 6 months. All I had to do was
>stop eating anything white. (Pasta / Potatoes / Bread). For the first few
>weeks, I was ravenously hungry. But after that, when my body system had
>"rebooted", the daily fluctuation in hunger level became less pronounced. I
>feel hungry and eat, but do not feel driven to overeat. I eat as much as I
>want, and I continue to lose weight.

You have it exactly correct. We were never designed for the quantities
of carbs we now consume. They were once a scarce resource, and so our
bodies evolved to make the most efficient use of them (and still does
of course). So when you combine that attribute with easy carb
availability...

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:29:24 +1000, Jeßus wrote:

>
> You have it exactly correct. We were never designed for the quantities
> of carbs we now consume. They were once a scarce resource, and so our
> bodies evolved to make the most efficient use of them (and still does
> of course).

I don't think it is really that we evolved to make more efficient use of a
scarce resource. I think that it is more the case of the existing chemical
pathways for extracting energy from fat were already very efficient with
sugars just due to the chemical similarity of blood sugar (glucose) and the
segments of sugar that make up polysacharides (starches).

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

On 11/07/2015 12:05 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:22:13 -0400, Gary wrote:
>
>> The all fat Atkins diet was just a fad diet. So was the low/no carb
>> diet. Bottom line is just eat a balanced diet and eat less calories
>> than you burn.
>
> True. Your bottom line is actually a re-telling of simple physical laws.
>

What is interesting here is that your Canadian namesake is a veritable
tub of lard!

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:21:50 -0600, graham wrote:

> What is interesting here is that your Canadian namesake is a veritable
> tub of lard!

The ex-senator currently on trial for fraud is of no relation to me.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

On 7/11/2015 3:36 PM, wrote:
> Don't ever assume 'science' is always
> based on the rational.


Enjoy your el Nino, asshole.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:44:59 -0400, Mike Duffy
> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:29:24 +1000, Jeßus wrote:
>
>>
>> You have it exactly correct. We were never designed for the quantities
>> of carbs we now consume. They were once a scarce resource, and so our
>> bodies evolved to make the most efficient use of them (and still does
>> of course).
>
>I don't think it is really that we evolved to make more efficient use of a
>scarce resource. I think that it is more the case of the existing chemical
>pathways for extracting energy from fat were already very efficient with
>sugars just due to the chemical similarity of blood sugar (glucose) and the
>segments of sugar that make up polysacharides (starches).

To me, that amounts to much the same thing?