In the Problems Registering Forum J Webster wrote: [quote:7f83f801dd]On the opening screen under "Zone Mondays" there is a message by Dr. Sears. In his message he describes a 30 year study by the CDC. This is difficult reading because I think he has superimposed his own opinion/conclusion without making it clear to the reader. In the first sentence: ......."the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finally indicates that Americans are getting fatter because they are eating more food." The fourth sentence seems to tell a different story: "Since Americans are eating about the same amount of protein and fat as they did 30 years ago, the calorie increases have come from carbohydrates." The first sentence states "FOOD" which covers a broad spectrum but the fourth sentence states "CARBOHYDRATES". Why did the CDC first indicate FOOD in general if it really meant to say carbohydrate? Or is the fourth sentence a differing opinion/conclusion interjected by Dr. Sears?[/quote:7f83f801dd] but only moderators can reply to posts in this forum, so i am posting my reply here: This is my interpretation: Articles are often written with a general idea in the opening sentence and then they expand on the idea. So in the first sentence the general idea is: [quote:7f83f801dd]that Americans are getting fatter because they are eating more food[/quote:7f83f801dd].: In the forth sentence this idea is then expanded to: … [quote:7f83f801dd]the calorie increases have come from carbohydrates[/quote:7f83f801dd] which gives a more specific description of where the increase in food intake has come from. Cheers Top

I agree with Top on this. The extra calories are coming from excess carbohydrates. There are many foods that are pure or almost pure carb, so there is no contradiction in the cited article. Cheers, Kate