I did list everything. I am on higher protein and lower fat as of two weeks ago, than I was for the previous three months. My macros, and protein consumed, are still well within acceptable range. And for me, it proving easier to get my calories in the 1200 range, with no associated hunger. Whereas the 3 months before, I was eating about 500 more calories per day, and I had a LOT more hunger.

Also as you know, macros by percentage do not equate proportionally to food as consumed by volume. Fat in the cuts of protein, and that used in cooking, easily brings fat 35% - 50%, even on the sparse list of foods I am eating from right now. While not high fat, there is also nowhere that 30%-50% of calories from fat would be considered low fat, either.

This isn't really true at all. It's too simplistic to take everything at face value like that, when the body processes - by their very nature - are amongst some of the most complicated (and intricate) interdependent processes in the universe.

Metabolic processes are different in men and in women, for all of the reasons that I listed in my second post on this page, plus many more. Gender differences in biochemistry, and gender differences in hormones do cause a more insulin sensitive environment in women compared to in men. I definitely won't bore you to death with more, because obviously everyone is capable of pulling up their own studies and stats to look at, as you said. You could even consider that I'm just pointing out the obvious, if you wish.

But with all that being said ... my next comment would be to say that I have a feeling that the researchers who came up with the "men lose more than women because they have more to lose" conclusion, really took the most simplistic approach possible, and likely just wanted something, anything, published.