Both the article and the study are extremely suspicious. In addition to the mentioned points: > When you're constantly giving the body calories, you're consta

Both the article and the study are extremely suspicious. In addition to the mentioned points: > When you're constantly giving the body calories, you're constantly making your cells work This is a nonsensical statement. > We saw a 3% reduction in their weight and a 4% reduction in abdominal visceral fat Taken out of context, this is poor journalism. There's fat all over the body; abdominal fat is only a part of it. I've checked the research: > We observed significant reductions (p < 0.05) in body weight (mean ± SD, 3.3 ± 3.20 kg [3%]) [...] percent body fat (1.0% ± 0.91% [3%]) If I understand this correctly, they lost, in average, 3.3 kgs of body weight (on an 85 kgs person, that's 3.9%), and 1% of body fat. This is a catastrophe. It means that a lot of non-fatty tissues (muscles) have been lost, which is the effect of poor diets.