On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, nervegas wrote: > And every combination of thereof. > > I've been following Todd's emails re: weight loss. I seem to be in the same > situation. Seems nothing I do works. Todd's results on the Anchell diet > seemed promising though (any updates?) You certainly have tried everything I could recommend. At the moment, on the Anchell diet I have plateaued at 29 pounds lost. I also have introduced some "variations," such as the occasional egg or other non-Anchell food, but in the same restricted amounts. I am not convinced that this is the reason for the stall, however. I have reached a point where I don't need to lose much more, and I expect it to be very slow going now. > I wonder if paleo's for all. I seem to do rather well on very low-fat (with > limited carbs, such as Scarsdale). I never got tested for cholesterol and > such, however. This is a very heretical suggestion, and I only mention it because you have tried so many paleo variations... I wonder if something like the starch-based McDougall diet would work for you. Yes, this is completely antithetical to the ideas of this list, but given that you have already given the paleo diet more than a fair shot, I thought I'd mention it. I have a colleague who has done phenomenally well on that diet, so I know that it works well for some people. I haven't tried it myself, and I have no immediate plan to do so, since my current diet is working, but your situation is different. Todd Moody [log in to unmask]