What you are usually warned against are diets that are high in fat while being also high in carbohydrates. Which makes a big difference.

Restricting the carbohydrate intake makes their end product glucoseless readily available as fuel therefore making the body switch to usinganother fuel for energy. Which one? Next best as far as it concerns body'spreferences is fat. No matter where it comes from - food or from under yourown skin, abdomen or thighs.

Normally, substances other than carbscan be converted into glucose. For instance, proteins. The process of conversionnamed gluconeogenesis ("the making of new glucose") when proteins are brokendown in order to produce new glucose takes place in liver and kidneys.

This fact too often leads to the halve-fouls conclusion that high-carb dietsspare protein thus preserving muscles. Basing on this (halve-true) assumption, advocates of high carbohydrate diets argue against low carb ones. They don't pay attention to the other part of the truth: carbohydrates spare not only protein, but also fat, your own fat including.

The whole truth isthat high availability of glucose results in fat sparing! Glucose is absolutelypreferable fuel and as long as it is there for energy needs, the body doesn'tbother looking for anything else, fat including, be it food fat or body fat.

This explains well why high fat diets are so infamous for their detrimental health effects. An excess fat intake combined with even not necessarily high, but just sufficient carb intake makes the body fat stay where is has always been - in fat depots, plus some new from food.

As it actually happensin vast majority of epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies dealwith large massifs of data when there's no control upon the data. For example,the famous Nurse Study where hundreds of thousands of nurses were surveyedthrough decades.

The researchers make all kind of slices across thedata, e.g., comparing reports on fat intake with heart disease risks andcoming to the absolutely correct conclusion that these two positively correspond.What is missing is the carbohydrate intake factor. Maybe there are dataon carb intake in those surveys, but the researchers don't expect them tobe relevant and therefore don't look at them. That simple.