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]