To: craig crawford who wrote (150784 ) 12/13/2002 2:27:27 AM From: Skeeter Bug Respond to of 164684 **i never claimed they were.** good. so, if you aren't willing to say sats are better than unsats, what's the beef? for clarification, the zone ASSUMES one gets 50% of their fats from saturated fats and another 50% is added as monounsaturated fats. the zone isn't against all sat fats, it merely suggests that about 50% come from unsat fats. this is required for context purposes. i happen to think that unsats are better - and they sure as heck taste better to me. frankly, i don't like sucking down animal fat. i much prefer peanuts, almonds, mac nuts or a good salad dressing. diet is complex. atkins may well be better than than the sanctioned diets by the *experts*. that doesn't mean that sats are better than unsats. now, go scrape the topping off your beef oil and suck it down so you can have more energy to spew more racist comments of your hate group du jour. ps - if the atkins is... 1. many, many, many times more popular than the zone (and it is - i'd be surprised if it was less than 10 times as popular). 2. so darn great. what athlete has competed at peak performance using the atkins diet? given 1 and 2 above, there should be close to 10 times as many atkins gold medal winners as zone gold medal winners. there isn't. in fact, no human in history has ever won a gold medal on atkins, right? how many have won gold medals on the zone, craig? hint, infinitely more than on atkins b/c YA CAN'T DIVIDE BY ZERO. i base decisions in my life on data and common sense. the data show, w/o a shadow of a doubt, that the zone provides access to a level of peak performance that atkins can't touch. through in the christian concept of "moderation inall things" and it is a big winner compared to meat and fat GLUTTONY. jmho.