Hi Joe,

I suppose we are always most influenced by the first writers we read on a subject. For me, although I enormously admire Atkins, when there are occasions of doubt or challenge, I go back to the first two authors I read (Mackarness and Donaldson, in that order). After that, I look for supporting evidence from anywhere reliable, which are likely to settle points of dispute. One team I am particularly impressed with was Kekwick and Pawan, two medical scientists who ran a series of experiments at Middlesex Hospital in England in the 1950s, into claims by Donaldson and others into the viability/wisdom/safety of the Eskimo-style meat-only diet, and the physiology behind the Harvey-Banting diet. It was Kekwick and Pawan who isolated and named Fat Mobilising Substance, and it was Kekwick and Pawan who identified that eating 60g or less per day of carbohydrate would trigger its production. It was Kekwick and Pawan who proved scientifically that LC diets work. They also proved that fat in the diet was far more active in breaking down adipose tissue than protein, and them again who concluded that the ideal ratio between fat and protein is 1:3 repectively. The title of Mackarness's book was "eat Fat and Grow Slim", and he was is certainly the most enthusiastic supporter of a high fat diet. I do not see any harm in eating a high-fat diet. The body will not let you eat too much fat, whereas you can have insufficient. It is important for the cetral nervous system and brain. In the absence of carbohydrates, fat is not fattening. Study after study has shown that it is carbohydrate, and not fat, that increases cholesterol, blood pressure, risk of heart disease, etc. What nutritional value is there in food that is low in everything? It rather sounds to me as if modern authors are getting away from the original evidence, and veering into the ephemeral world of trends and fashion. No doubt you will make your own mind up, and I can understand your concerns. But if in doubt, check the evidence behind the assertion. Best wishes.