what struck me about that particular Jane Brody sentence :

"Also, a diet without carbohydrates causes the body to make substances called ketones that may create a mild nausea, suppressing hunger."

was that she seems to be saying that it is the alleged nausea that causes the hunger suppression. How incredibly wrong is that? I mean, is this just sloppy writing or did she really mean that?

In fact, in just that one sentence I can spot the following errors:

1) Most people do not experience nausea on an LC diet. Constipation, dizziness, yes, but not nausea.

2) The almost non-existant nausea does not suppress hunger - it's that complicated insulin response that I don't understand myself (but I am not a NY Times reporter, so I don't have to!). Plus the fact that the high fat content leaves you sated.

3) Ketones don't cause the reduced hunger response either (if that is what she meant??). They are simply a byproduct of ketosis.

4) It's not a diet "without carbohydrates", but a low carbohydrate diet. Big difference, especially when you move into the later phases.

So in just 21 words, she manages to make 4 humongous errors. Nevermind her low fat bias, this Jane Brody person is just plain incompetent!!!