I think we are talking at cross-purposes. My point was that there appear to
be two factors at work: amount of fat and amount of calories appear to be
independent risk factors. That is:
A low-fat, low-calorie diet is better than,
A low-fat, high-calorie diet is better than
A high-fat, high-calorie diet.
I don't really see how you can have a diet high in fat (in terms of actual
**amounts** of fat eaten) if you are on a low-calorie diet.
Large amounts of fat does all sorts of damage to the cardiovasular system
as well as increasing the risk of cancer. Lowering the amount of fat
reduces the amount of damage you can do. On the other hand lower calories
appears to be related to the slowing the aging process itself. I am not
sure whether this slowing only occurs when one passes a certain threshold
of calorie intake or whether at all stages a lower calorie intake implies
slower aging.
You seem to be arguing that there is no point going on a low-fat diet
unless you go on a low-calorie diet which I think is not only false, but
dangerous advice to many people since most aren't going to go on a calorie
restricted diet, but certainly could improve their health by better diet.
Please post the references to the studies you are citing.
best, patrick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Wilken http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~patrickw/
Editor: PSYCHE: An International Journal of Research on Consciousness
Secretary: The Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/ http://www.phil.vt.edu/ASSC/