On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Adrienne Smith wrote:

> If ketosis corrects the fat mobilization problem allegedly created by
> pyruvate, then why wouldn't couldn't one consume any carbs such as brocolli
> or kale so long as one stays in ketosis???

That's exactly the question I have, and there's no hint of an
answer in the Pennington article.  It's possible that there is no
answer because Anchell is just wrong.  Anchell isn't much help,
since his approach is almost entirely empirical and not
theoretical: "I've been working with this diet for 40+ years and
these foods work while others don't."

> I have been trying the Anchell method for only a few days so far to try and
> break a plateau and will report any weight loss.  I am waiting a few more
> days to weigh myself. However, I do notice that potatoes and yams make me
> feel bloated and sluggish (too many carbs???), so I have dropped them and
> am sticking to the anchell-allowed fruits.

Maybe too many carbs.  I have only been using the smaller
potatoes, which average about 20g of carbs, after you subtract
the fiber, and I haven't had a problem.  But I don't eat them
every day, nor do I ever have more than one a day (Although for
all Anchell says to the contrary, I *could* have them at every
meal).

> Also, I have noticed that I
> simply have no control whatsoever over butter consumption.  I had been
> avoiding butter b/c it is non-paleo, but bought some to put on the potatoes
> & yams.  But once I had it again, I just couldn't seem to have only a
> little.  Rather, I consumed tons of it!  Any thoughts on what's going on
> here??

Might you be starved for vitamins A and D?

> Other than that, I have also noticed that my bowel
> movements have slowed considerably on the anchell diet.  Presumably this is
> because I am ingesting so little fiber.

I've noticed the same, but I have no sense of being constipated.
I think it's probably just what Anchell and Ray say: There is
relatively little left after the food is utilized.

> I am wondering if this is harmful
> on a long-term basis or if I am just brainwashed by the pro high fiber
> propaganda in the media.

Maybe the latter.  Recent studies have (a) cast doubt on the
importance of fiber for preventing colorectal cancer, and (b)
suggested that it is the non-fiber carbohydrate that is the risk
factor.  My guess is that the previous apparent protective effect
of fiber was a consequence of the fact that by eating lots of
fiber, which is very filling, people were probably eating less
active carb. But it's just a guess.

> He does harp on the notion that meat is efficiently utilized
> by the body, so if he is correct, perhaps there simply isn't much to
> excrete the way there is with what he terms "indigestible" vegetables.

I suspect it's true.

> Interestingly, Anchell also doesn't mention ketosis.

No, he doesn't.  And he doesn't say a word about why eggs are
excluded except, "They don't work."  He doesn't allow meats such
as sausages with tiny amounts of glucose in them to be used, but
has no problem with the use of fruits, such as watermelon,
thathave substantial amounts of glucose.  He permits distilled
spirits, but not wine, because of its sugar content (which is low
but not zero, if the wine is dry).  But he permits grapes, which
clearly have a higher sugar content than wine.

It's all crazy, but for some reason it's working.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]