Sometimes I think the media portrays the alternative to fats in the diet as boxes full of sugar cereal, twinkies and coke. I do not think anyone in any diet camp thinks these things are nutritious alternatives to fat. Unfortunately nourishing brown rice, potatoes, whole wheat and corn are condemned because when metablolised provide glucose which is necessary for cells' energy. (Remember when people were running out and buying Snackwells because there was no fat in them? And Ornish reported that some people who were following his diet were eating all kinds of junk because there was no fat in it.)
We have genes coded for amylase production which is necessary to digest starch. Chimps have only two of these genes and humans have an average of 6 with the range falling between 2 and 15. (Maybe this is why some do well on a low starch diet and some do well on a lot more starch.)
I read of an experiment which the researchers said proved that sugar did not make kids hyperactive. On day one they fed a bunch of pre schoolers lots of sugary treats. On day two they fed them fruits and vegetables. The parents reported that on the sugar day the children were more calm and better behaved than they were on the fruit and vegetable day. The researchers concluded that sugar did not make kids hyperactive. This experiment must have been funded by a sugar conglomerate. Let us change the experiment a bit and give people heroin on day one and withdraw the heroin on day two. On which day would you say the people were calmer?
Dolores