Well, I don't yet know if it's updated in any way. It's certainly interesting that the 1966 book allowed cantaloupe but not rice. I'm pretty sure Pennington's original diet allowed rice. Of course, Anchell's "ordinary portion" of rice--about 3/4 cup, cooked--isn't thrilling. Personally, I'd prefer the cantaloupe.

The new book arrived.

I don't have time to review it carefully tonight, but it appears to be identical to the _Steak lover's diet_ and in fact it says it was "previously published" under that title.

There is a new one-page introductory essay that mentions things, such as the South Beach diet, that are more recent than the SLD book. He also repeats the claim that I've heard elsewhere that Dr. Atkins was "grossly overweight" when he died. I doubt that this is true but if nothing else it shows that Dr. Anchell is still feisty at age 87.

He claims that the difference between his diet and the popular lowcarb diets is that they depend on a caloric deficit to work, whereas his doesn't.
The diet itself is *exactly* the same as in the SLD book, verbatim. Rice; no cantaloupe.

One thing I'd forgotten: you can have a half lemon (squeezed) in a glass of water if you want.

I'm calling this the "Anchell" diet, but Anchell himself insists that Pennington should get all credit.

[Note: this is an edit. I stated earlier that the pyruvic acid theory wasn't still in the book, but it is.]

I do wish the Atkins people, Veronica Atkins, for that matter, had allowed a public statement on Robert Atkins' autopsy studies. It would have done so much to clear the air. Transparency, you know. Some antagonist of his in Nebraska supposedly managed to get his "official" weight at death and publicized it. But the Nebraskan is not exactly an unbiassed source.
Nice of Anchell to give the credit to Pennington. Anchell must be a one of those rare people who value the truth over self promotion. And science over notoriety.
By the way, for my husband, this is somewhat of a caloric deficit, as he is used to cream in his coffee,diet sodas, potato chips, frito chips, corn chips, soy/flax chips, at will.

His intake today:
Breakfast: braised salmon with butter on top; raspberries
Lunch: steak; banana
Dinner: leg of lamb; potato and butter
black coffee, tea, water
He is still very pleased with the excellence of the food.

Hey, here's a link to one of Pennington's original publications--the very one that inspired Anchell, I believe. I didn't think it was available online. Published just as I was busy being born!

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/1/5/343

Ah, I'm guessing that link won't work for everyone. I was able to get it because of an institutional subscription. Sorry about that.

Here’s just a sample of the “feisty” doctor’s work. He is considered an expert in his field and is lovingly quoted along with Paul Cameron and John Dobson by his admirers which include various Catholic and Islamic sites (such as Islam for the Doctor) as well.

- - - -
"A Psychological Look at Homosexuality and AIDS" by Melvin Anchell, MD. A.S.P.P., a self described "expert witness in psychiatry and human sexuality." He states that "the homosexual is the sickest of all perverts...." "...innumerable children are stolen from parents each year to meet the sexual needs of homosexuals....." and that homosexuals are incapable of loving relationships and are the product of childhood sexual molestation.

- - - - -

And as recently as 1991, Melvin Anchell, M.D., who is associated with the anti-choice organization, the American Life League, continued to publish alarmist misinformation about masturbation, claiming that it can lead to mental and sexual health dysfunctions such as "nymphomania" (Anchell, 1991).

I've noted that he is more known for his views on sex education, but I never bothered to look them up. Now I have even less reason to.

I read the AW Pennington paper you supplied the link to. Very interesting. I found it particularly interesting that he reports the metabolic slowdown found on low calorie diets doesn't happen on the higher calorie low carbohydrate diet.

Val

I am thrilled to have found this thread! I feel wonderful on Atkins, BUT - I can't sleep through the night, and have to tread a very fine line regarding carbs. Too many and I don't lose, too few and I get jittery and have palpitations. I also find myself ingesting too much dairy, which causes me to suffer from allergic rhinitis and post-nasal drip. (TMI?)

I dearly love, and dearly miss potatoes and bananas! Weird, I know, but those are the two things I have missed most on this diet.

I will begin following Anchell (or Pennington) as soon as I get to the supermarket to stock up on the necessary food items. I will post my progress.

Thanks again!

I hope it works for you Happy. It's a little weird for me being the "spokesman" for the Anchell diet here, since I'm not currently following it and find it pretty weird (to say nothing of Anchell's other views). BUT it has worked better for me, in terms of steady weight loss, than anything else I've ever tried.

From the googling I've done, it seems that the whole pyruvic acid theory lasted until the late 60s. Someday I'll read through all that and try to understand what happened.

Well, I had my first Anchell dinner last night - a crispy roast chicken thigh and half a baked potato with butter. It was lovely. I slept beautifully last night and registered half a pound lost this morning. Of course, the weight loss was probably a coincidence, but hey, it's better than having a weight gain following my first bite of potato!

(I know it's a rather restrictive diet, and I don't know how long I'll last on it, but I really wanted a break and didn't think I could go higher carb - especially with potatoes! - and still lose weight. I'll be very happy if I lose on this diet.)

It's certainly restrictive compared to many other diets, but then when you compare it to meat-only it seems liberal.

Anchell claims that this diet will bring you to "normal" weight, which is 10-12% body fat "for all individuals." While that seems about right for men, it seems rather low for women, but he doesn't give another number for women--just another one of the puzzling aspects of this book.

I wonder if the non-meat foods were chosen by having people eat them and then measuring their blood pyruvic acid levels. And I really wonder what happened to that whole theory. The last mention I found of it was from 1969. Was it eclipsed by the insulin theory? The fat-is-fattening theory? Was it actually refuted?

Questions, questions....

Speaking of questions...

Is bacon allowed? (I ordered the book last night, so I hope to stop bothering you soon, lol.) I'm wondering if no-sugar-added bacon would be more "on plan" than regular.

This morning's breakfast was some sliced roast beef - which was a little odd for breakfast, but good - with a dollop of mayo on top, and a dish of blueberries. A big surprise was the coffee. I always take mine with heavy cream and Splenda. This morning I tried it black for the first time and really enjoyed it. It's the first morning I went back for a second cup.

Bacon is allowed if you can find it "unsweetened." I don't know if the trace amounts of sugar from the curing process would matter anyway but he does caution against it in the book.

Great! Thank you. I love bacon for breakfast!

Thanks Ubizmo for posting the link to Pennington's original paper. The paper states on bottom of page 346:
"In most of the patients ona calorically unrestricted diet, 60GM of carbohydrate per day have been allowed, although in a few cases, a more drastic reduction has seemed necessary. Since most patients, though they are familiar with calories, are not familiar with the quantity of carbohydrate, in grams, in various foods, it has seemed helpful to provide a list of a few foods containing an average of about 20 Gm. of carbohydrate in an ordinary serving."

So it seems clear to me, that there is nothing magical about the selected foods in terms of forming less pyruvate as Anchell claims, rather, they were selected merely so that dieters unfamiliar with carb counting could have a set, specific list of allowed foods which if an ordinary portion was eaten at each meal would not go over approx. 60 grams of carbs. Also, note that an ordinary serving of the allowed foods at each meal could easily put one right at 60 grams of carbohydrate which quoted paragraph states may be too much for some people. Hence, this would provide some explanation as to why some people lose easily on Anchell and others do not. Anchell himself in the FAQ section mentions that those who wish to lose faster could eat 2 rather than 3 meals per day. This provides less calories of course but also provides less carbohydrate as well.

On the other hand, some who are losing on it claim that they are now eating more carbs than before. One other explanation comes to mind is the fact that all meat diets have been shown to slow conversion of thyroid hormones -- specifically the conersion of T4 to the more active T3. The sugar in the allowed Anchell foods may serve to trigger T3 production in those who have sluggish thyroid and this spurs weight loss. Just a thought.

One other big difference between the Pennington paper and Anchell's version of it is that Pennington states one must scrupulously avoid salt. Anchell relaxes this and states that you can have it if not having becomes as excuse for abandoning the meat diet. Pennington references a study which he claims indicates that salt can impede fat burning on a calorically unrestricted diet. This seems to echo Bear's prohibition against salt. Interesting -- but if one is exercising more vigorously than the mere 30 minute pre-breakfast walk prescribed by Pennington & Anchell -- one will sweat buckets and LOSE salt -- this must be replenished, right?