Thanks for your thoughts and ideas paleowoman. I wonder about the salt too.. i've heard/read that when salt is added to a food (like chips for instance) it causes you to eat more food than if you didn't add the salt. hmmmm....

Thanks so much for the Pennington link. It's great to get the background.

I completed my first full day on the diet...lost another pound.

I can't believe I can eat potatoes and bananas and lose more weight than I was before. I haven't had a banana yet though...frankly, I'm afraid they have too many carbs and will make me hungry. We'll see. (Keeping fingers crossed....)

I'm ashamed to admit it but after 6 or 7 days I became so hungry that I would have eaten anything and everything and have. I am now at 205 and eating almost anything. So, I need to de-tox again and decide what I will be doing in future.

Nooooo...say it isn't so. (I need a little smiley with his fingers in his ears, going "la la la, I can't hear you".) Well, I'm feeling great so far and will keep at it as long as it keeps working.

Hope you get back on track soon.

I've been to busy to keep up with what's going on here. You know, if Pennington's original idea was simply to give a list of "sample" foods that come to about 60g a day, then Anchell's fixation on them as being "special" is not only weird but...well, crazy. Anchell insists, based on his experience with himself and his patients, that these foods work well and others less well. It's quite possible that he's deluded about this. The thing that seems so strange to me is how some people--myself included--seem to do so well with his diet *even when we had already been on a lowcarb plan*. Then again, maybe it's just the fact of *change* that helps--just doing things a bit differently.

At any rate, I'm fresh out of ideas. It's all voodoo!

I thought I remembered this pyruvic acid stuff. There used to be supplements based on it in the wieghtlifting world. It's supposed to build muscle and shed fat like all the rest of the supplements. Did search and found this:

http://www23.netrition.com/now_pyruvate_page.html


Maybe there's something to it.

It's perfect! Thank you!

If the cause of obesity is, as Pennington suspected, an inability to use pyruvic acid properly, then I'd think supplementing with the stuff is the last thing you'd want to do.

I sem to recall reading that pyruvic acid supplementation turned out to be a disappointment anyway.

Who knows? This is complicated stuff. I just remembered the supplements. Like most of those things, I suspect it's junk, and also like most of those things, I suspect there's some research out there, slapdash or not, to help market it.

Why oh why are there no easy answers?!?!?!?!?!?!!

So many familiar "faces" here ....

The Pennington paper found on the link above also refers to another article in which he first reported the diet -- the cite is Delaware State Medical Journal 23:96, 1951 "The Use of Fat in a Weight Reducing Diet" by Pennington, A.W.

Perhaps that article would shed more light on the selections of foods. But in defense of Anchell, the Pennington paper does state specifically that anything else not listed is NOT allowed -- notice how he didn't say except for foods with equivalent carb counts.

This "voodoo" is making me crazy with curiousity!

Anchell puts himself on the couch and blames his weight gain on female family members using food to tranquilize him.

He touts his diet as superior to other carb restricted diets for psychological reasons. Those diets lead the dieter into temptation by allowing "too great a variety of carbohydrates" and "are not specific enough." "Dieters need to be told exactly what and what not to eat. Providing pages upon pages from which to select carbohydrate foods causes confusion and opportunities for misinterpretation, raionalization, subsitution, and extra portions." He points out that the dieters will need to carry little booklets around and "the grams allowed may range from five to 150 and a scale measuring in grams or some other measuring device is needed." He states that the "key to success with the meat diet is its very simplicity."

It's not clear to me from the book that he has personally verified the unique properties of his ten carbohydrates with thousands of his own patients. He may just be referring to Pennington. He does state that "any food not listed on the meat diet is in some degree detrimental to health."

Just one spot of gravy, a sugar-coated pill, a stick of gum and the diet fails. A tablespoon of paprika is okay, however. How does that work? Well it works to make many people fail on the diet. And as he points out, most of them will be women.

If I had discovered that there are only 10 plant substances that are safe for humans to eat to avoid adding fat over their normal healthful weight and that they must eat like this for their entire lives, I would be very curious to know why. Think about it. Ten items. The whole planet. White potatoes, not red potatoes. Watermelon, not cantelope. Raspberries, not boysenberries. What about Yukon gold potatoes? For the rest of your life. It it had just been a minor part of my medical practice, I would make it my life's focus. Instead, Dr Anchell found other priorities.

Dr Anchell likes meat and pototoes and an occasional drink and massive amounts of salt and half a grapefruit for breakfast. He also likes cheese and eggs, since they are the only items he allows on the modified meat diet. No female is going to control this man with food. Not only will she be unnessary for the prep and clean up, she won't even want to eat what your eating.

The other day I was watching Tabu: A Story of the South Seas (1931) and marveling at the beauty and body-fat percentages of the Polynesians seen in the film. Maybe we are supposed to eat tubers after all. That may be part of the reason of ubizmo's limited success with this diet.

Why do you keep referreing to the 10 foods as "Anchell's"?? He repeatedly states that the diet is Pennington's -- the Pennington paper uses those exact foods. Why do you say Anchell likes massive amounts of salt? He specifically states that it tends to hold water in the body but if one uses missing salt as an excuse to quit the diet, he or she should immediately add salt back. And why do you say "he likes" cheese and eggs -- the book clearly states that those foods are unnecessary and used only for maintenance for people who refuse to stick to the basic program. He says adding these maintenance foods will add 5 pounds of fat (approx.) to one's body.

I found Anchell's book to be most informative -- especially the section on the the history of the American Heart Association Prudent Diet. I also found his writing style extremely engaging and witty and found the description of him struggling to deliver a baby from an obese woman very funny. I don't necessarily agree with what's been posted on his views about sexuality -- but I think he's done the world a service by resurrecting PENNINGTON's diet -- it obviously helps some people. I myself cannot see a life restricted to only those particular carb items -- but those who are meat and potato types will likely love the fact they can eat potatos. When I tried Anchell for a week, I didn't lose anything and found eating potatos and fruit with every meal was simply too many carbs for me.

As for Anchell blaming the females in his family ie mother, grandmother for stuffing him and his siblings with sweets -- HE'S RIGHT. Most people eat the way they were taught at home. My mother was obese, died needlessly very prematurely because of her obesity, and she passed on her horrid eating habits to me and my brother. We grew up with NO idea about nutrition or portion control. And I cringe when I see my obese brother "reward" his little kids with sugary treats. Bring on the obesity wagon and type 2 diabetes etc etc. If I sound bitter, I am. I loved my mother dearly and she died far too young. PS: She ate the way her mother taught her and her obese twin who incidentally also died far too young.