Fruits and Vegetables, chicken, seafood, etc.................... did you really just ask that??

Yep, I did ask. Thought I'd mis-asked when ICDogg gave one possible answer... but yeah, I really didn't know just what you meant.

There are many different plans that promote low fat while advising against white flours and other starches, and in some cases grains all-together. My original point was that there are people who have great success on those plans and low carb plans. If you come to this forum, you'll read how the low-fatters are wrong, if you go to their forum, you'll read how the low carbers are wrong.

And if whatever they're doing works for them, terrific... I don't care what they do, and I would never go to their forum to argue with them. And I think most of them similarly don't go out of their way to get into battles with us.

I think that there are probably no "diet" plans that would recommend that people consume more sucrose and high fructose corn syrup. So there is some common ground as it seems to be universally accepted that less of those ingredients are better for everyone.

And probably for the majority of people who only need to lose 10 pounds or so, just cutting those ingredients out or even just reducing them might be enough for them to lose weight.

(note: I'm not saying that they are the majority, I mean the majority of those people).

That fact that humans need essential fatty acids is just a fact. Sure you can cut fat and still live.....for a while.

No one said to cut all fats whatsoever in any diet. You know that. But there are diets that do not recommend to eat the fattiest cuts of meat and dip pork skins in sour cream. People are not dropping dead from doing Weight Watchers.

That's true. But it's also true that when we look at studies that compare those diets, we find out that low carb is less wrong than any other diet. That's because a low fat diet is inherently a high carb diet. So when we cut calories to lose weight, we can't cut many calories from fat, so the bulk of calories we cut come from carbs. And it's because the primary regulator of fat tissue is insulin, and the primary regulator of insulin is dietary carbohydrates. In effect, we could say a semi-starvation diet that starts low fat is actually just a lower carb diet.

Here's one study that compared different diets, and shows how Atkins is better in all things measured including weight loss:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=402590
direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

Nor are they doing so from following one of the many varieties of lowcarb ways of eating as far as I know.

No, they are losing their gall bladders. My mom's gall bladder disease was directly blamed on her low fat weight watchers diet plan by her doctor.

I wasn't on WW, but when I developed gallstones I was told by the doctor is was directly attributable to the low-fat, low-cal diet I'd been on for the previous four months! And this from a skinny doctor who had actually recommended the diet to me! Told me I'd probably be dead in a few years if I didn't do it and gallstones were a small price to pay for being alive. That was 20 years ago and I'm still here, and the doctor (who was skinny, and younger than I was) is dead.

Nor did anyone claim they do.

I think without realizing it, some of you just proved the exact point I was making.

I guess I need to restate my original point. There are several types of diets and there are those who are successful at different ones. Some people do better on weight watcher type diets and some do better on low carb. Just stating that seems to set fires under some behinds here.

That's because the bold part doesn't sound true. Take the A-TO-Z study for example. Those who did best on Atkins, did better than those who did best on the other diets. This suggests that the other groups would have done better if they'd all switched to Atkins. Accordingly, it makes it difficult to believe it when you say that some people do better on weight watcher. Considering that people do better on Atkins as a group, it's hard to imagine that an equal number of people can do better than Atkins on other diets. I would agree with you if you said instead, some do better on weight watcher, but most do better on low carb. It would sound more true in my opinion.

We aren't different species. Some people are able to deal with more damage than others is all. Doesn't make the damaging elements a good idea by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because George Burns made it to around 100 smoking cigars every day doesn't mean cigar smoking is healthy.

Just substitute "carbohydrates" for "essential fatty acids" and "carbs" for "fat" you will see the argument against Low Carb we all roll our eyes at.

I mean, that is an argument against our WOE from Dr. Oz on down. He is the king of willful ignorance IMO. Weight Watchers doesn't prohibit EFA's any more than Atkins prohibits carbs. Don't be Dr. Oz.

Also, WW caused a weight GAIN for me but my BFF lost quite a bit on it and kept it off, so...? She's not unhealthy. Why can't people just accept that some body types do fine on Weight Watchers?