that's why I moderated my comment with "even though in that case you at least save some calories and a load of fructose."

A little point on the Cola...A 44 oz 7-11 Slurpee has 150g of Sugar [only a few grams more than a regular 44 oz. Cola] and 600 Calories. Between 1997 and 2002, I had on average one a night. The other day I calculated out how much effect not having that ONE 44 oz. Beverage a day would've had on my weight.

Based on my calculations, if I had not had that Slurpee [or had a Diet Slurpee - which they didn't offer until last mid-2003 anyways,] I would've been 180-190 pounds in December of 2002. But, compounded over half a decade that ONE Cola every night added up to an extra 130-150 pounds. Not exactly irrelevant if you ask me.

Every time this topic comes up I have to bring up my old standby....

A calorie does not exist in a vacuum. Water will boil at different temperatures under different atmospheric pressures, after all. Therefore it stands to reason that there are many different factors which will affect the use of calories, including metabolism, genetics, activity level, and a whole host of other things.

That's what people who have not read in depth about what lc'ing is about fail to understand. Yes there is a metabolic advantage. Is it huge? probably not--I think it's about 200-300 calories per diem on average, I'm sure it varies from person to person, but it IS significant enough to keep a big eater much more happy than on any other weight loss program.

And yes, the other advantage is a reduced urge to binge when you fill up on good protein and fat. I think that is by far one of the advantages that is always neglected when a 100 calorie soda is compared to a 100 calorie piece of cheese (which of course will have very different effects on the body).