On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Adrienne Smith wrote:

> My results with Anchell's method have not been so impressive -- I've
> basically stayed the same.  Could it be that because I am close to a normal
> weight that weight loss will necessarily be slower???  (I am 5'2&1/2" and 126
> pounds w/more than an average amount of muscle for a female from weight
> training--although my weight seems heavy, I wear a size 6.  I would like to
> lose around 15 pounds of fat (lots of cellulite --ugh!), if possible.)

Yes, this is a possibility.  In the book, Anchell mentions a
similar case of a woman close to her ideal weight whose weight
loss had slowed.  Although he says she could reduce portions to
speed it up, he also claims that the weight loss, though slow,
will continue without any reduction.

It is also a fact that certain fat deposits are slower to
mobilize than others, due to peculiarities of the adipose tissue
in those areas.  In women these tend to be, precisely, the thighs
and butt; in men it is of course the love handles.  I have seen
men who are very lean overall, but who still carry stubborn
handles.  It's still too soon to tell whether I will be one of
them.

And don't forget the other possibility, that the Anchell diet
isn't all it's cracked up to be.

> I am the only person in my family that does not have
> diabetes (both parents and my brother have it), so maybe I have a genetic
> problem with handling sugars.

Hmm... fruit sugars (fructose, anyway) should be *easier* for
diabetics to deal with, since they don't elevate blood glucose
but are converted directly to triglyceride.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]