Hmmm. Some other poster quoted an expanded version of the article different from the one I saw on Netscape.

It appears that Time-Warner/AOL/Netscape's editorial people have deliberatly skewed the article by leaving some things out!

In my previous post I complained about what relevance the weight ranges cited were, asking for a trend and not the range points of weight loss. The quoted article said 7-19 on LF and 11-19 on LC.

But in the larger quote, it shows that the average for LF was only 8 and the average for LC was 11 which paints quite a different picture. You get to see that the low side was more typical in LF's lower low-side than in the low-side of LC, meaning it was less effective at the least.

cjl (don't quote ME out of context!)