Todd, have you been able to maitain your weight loss from the Anchell
experiment? Have you now gone back to a straight Paleo low carb?

The Anchell diety undid me. The alottment of rice and potatoes kicked up my
carb addiction, and as a result I have gained another 8 lbs. (arghh!)  I am
struggling just to stay Paleo now. Cravings have been monstrious.

Any reflections on your experience?

Louise

At 09:24 AM 11/13/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Don Wiss wrote:
>
>> >I think it would be safer to give a figure such as 1 gram per kg of
>> >bodyweight, in order to allow for a range of sizes, otherwise people
>> >who are eating more, are forced to get a disproportionate amount of their
>> >energy from fat.
>>
>> But he doesn't. After thousands of patients, if this made a difference I
>> think he would have written so. For one, those over weight should be
>> getting less carbs proportionally in order to lose weight. For another this
>> isn't a precise number. His method of counting using bread units makes for
>> a very crude counting. And he recommends unlimited fats.
>
>The Allan/Lutz approach differs both from paleo and from other
>lowcarb approaches in a number of respects.  First, it's not
>really paleo at all, although they give a sort of paleo argument
>for carb reduction.  Nevertheless, they don't really care where
>the 72g of carbs come from.  Second, unlike many lowcarb
>programs, they recommend a gradual reduction of carbs.  Dr.
>Lutz's clinical experience suggests that abrupt reduction can
>cause complications in some people.
>
>One of the things I like about the book Life Without Bread is
>that the authors admit the limitations of their approach.  They
>admit, for example, that carb reduction is not always the cure,
>or the complete cure, for obesity.  Many people lose some weight
>this way, then plateau more or less permanently well above their
>goal weight.  We have seen on this list that a similar caveat
>applies to Neanderthin.  While lots of people lose substantial
>amounts of weight on Neanderthin, a significant number of them do
>not reach their goal.  I imagine that a realistic goal for men is
>15% body fat; and perhaps 20% for women.  I don't think anyone
>really knows why this is the case.
>
>Anyway, another thing that they point out, based again on Dr.
>Lutz's clinical experience, is that women are more likely than
>men to be resistant to weight loss using a lowcarb program.  This
>may just be a function of the greater metabolic rate of men,
>owing to greater muscle mass, or it may be something else.
>
>Don's point above -- that if the 72g ceiling is adhered to, a
>heavier person will be eating relatively more calories from fat
>-- is correct, and it is intentionally so.  It is the authors'
>opinion that the more overweight a person is, the more energy
>they should be getting from fat.  They also claim that, based
>again on Dr. Lutz's clinical experience, they have not seen much
>additional benefit from reducing carbs below 72g.  This, I'm
>sure, can vary from person to person, however.
>
>I'll say this much: The difference between ketogenic carb levels
>(30-40g/day or less) and 72g/day may not sound like much, but in
>my experience it can be dramatic in terms of compliance.  That
>is, I think many people find that after a few weeks of ketogenic
>diet they start to experience very strong carb cravings and may
>well "fall off the wagon" completely at that point.  But a carb
>intake of 72g is, in my experience, pretty easy to tolerate
>without much craving.  Following the Steak Lovers' (Anchell)
>diet, I calculate my carb intake to range between 25 and 75
>g/day, depending on which carbs I choose.  This seems to work
>well, allowing me to choose the denser carbs when I seem to need
>them.  Obviously, it hasn't worked for everyone.
>
>Todd Moody
>[log in to unmask]
>