>>Rats fed high-fat but low calorie diets do about as well as rats fed
low-fat
>>low-calorie diets. So the conclusion is that the *primary* health
>>disadvantage of fat is that it makes you eat more.
>
>I don't see how you come to this conclusion based on facts you give. I used
>to have a diet relatively high in fat and I found that fat satisfied my
>hunger rather than stimulated it.
That's fine, people vary; but most people are more satisfied by 100 calories
of carbohydrate than 100 calories of fat. Of course there are many other
variables affecting the feeling of satiety.
>Wouldn't it be simpler to say that these
>studies show that there is a health advantage gained by having a low
>*quantity* of fat in your diet: you can achieve this either by having a low
>proportion of fat in a high calorie diet, or a large (or low) amount of fat
>in a low-calorie diet.
No; the studies show there is an advantage to having a low quantity of
*calories* in your diet (above starvation, of course). High-fat, low-fat, no
big deal, as long as the calories are low.
>I also thought that studies showed that the life-extension properties of a
>low calorie diet went we beyond just having a low quantity of fat in your
>diet; say the difference b/w living to 90 on a low-fat diet and 130 on a
>low-calorie diet (i.e. low-fat helps you reach your max. life span,
>low-calorie actually slows the aging process and thus extend your life span
>significantly).
Yes. That's the benefit I was referring to. But medium-calorie is better
than high-calorie, too; it's just that exercise can reduce or eliminate the
health risks of high-calorie (but not, apparently, those of medium-calorie).