Adam Sroka wrote:

> Many diets operate on the belief that excess protein will be converted
> into sugar, and then into fat. According to the literature this does not
> appear to happen in reality.


Interesting! Can you point me toward something I could read on this?  It
does seem to be the case that BG levels rise after an all-meat meal, but
perhaps this is not due to gluconeogenesis but caused by the glucagon
response to the protein, which in turn triggers release of stored glycogen?


> This actually brings me right to the point that I was trying to make.
> You see, the literature that shows that converting protein into fat
> doesn't really take place in the body is newer than a lot of the
> research that is used by the diet folks. Most of them just assumed that
> since there was a theoretical mechanism available (i.e. protein does
> undergo gluconeogenesis, and glycogen does undergo lypolysis, therefore
> protein could become fat via a multistep process) it actually happened.
> It doesn't. There's those assumptions I was talking about. Now which of
> the published diet gurus is going to print a retraction?


It's funny you mention this.  At various times on this list we have
discussed the "steak lover's diet" book, by Melvin Anchell, MD.  You can
find it in the archives.  It's a rather strange diet, neither strictly
paleo nor extremely lowcarb.  I bought the book a few years back after
thumbing through it in the bookstore, and found it interesting, to say
the least.  Then I tried it, and experienced the most amazing weight
loss I've ever had.  I've repeated the experiment and the result has
always been the same: dramatic weight loss, especially in the first few
weeks, even more than other lowcarb/paleo plans.  Others on this list
tried it, with less dramatic results.  Anyway, Anchell's diet allows
unlimited portions of meats, with their accompanying fats, and at each
meal there is one limited ("ordinary") portion of one of ten non-meat
foods that he lists.  He makes no pretense of explaining why these ten
non-meat foods and not others; he just says that these work and others
don't.  The thing that stands out in my memory is his claim that when
meat is eaten in this way, there is no conversion to fat.  He didn't
provide any documentation, just the assertion.  I don't remember the
exact wording but the gist of his claim was that whatever is not needed
is broken down and excreted without being converted to sugar or fat, as
long as the diet contains no carbs other than the limited amounts from
the magic list.  I remember underlining the passage in my book and
writing question marks in the margins.  There are so many *ipse dixits*
in diet books, I figured this was just one more, and perhaps it was.
Then again, maybe he was right...

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]