Study participants rated low fat meals as looking appealing but not so after they had to actually eat that tasteless skim milk, rubbery fat-stripped cheese, etc. So we learn fat makes foods taste better. Which isn't news. Also since these people were in all likelihood typical sugar burners and not fat-adapted, I wonder if anyone doing the research observed (likely not?) whether people consumed the right amount of carbs on each day to fuel their bodies with an appropriate amount of glucose to do the job regardless of fat content/overall calories, since fat likely wouldn't be of much use to a sugar-burner as energy when not adapted to utilize it. In other words, I wonder if these sugar-burning people may have consumed the "right" amount of carbohydrate on both days for their glucose needs irregardless of (not useful) fat content? Perhaps carbohydrate grams per day may have been approximately equal even though people would have to "overeat" carbohydrate-rich fattier foods on the, ahem, "low carbohydrate" day in order to obtain the amount of carbohydrate their bodies typically required utilizing dietary glucose for fuel than on the day foods contained a higher percentage of available carbohydrate/glucose? So that far less overall calorie consumption on those days was needed in order to meet their bodies' sugar-burning glucose needs? I have no idea and doubt the researchers even considered this, but I think it's an interesting question.