No problem.

I dunno about this. I have cut snacking at work, mostly. I eat a lot of
nuts instead of chips. I think they are more calorically dense. And
heavier. And I have even been seen eating breakfast maybe 3 or four
days a week, which is something I never did. Undoubtedly, I may have
cranked my metabolism a little so that my bodies needs have increased.
I use the stairs a lot more, but I count that as walking. So, perhaps
yes, perhaps not as much. I have rarely eaten 2lbs or less in a day.
Maybe a couple of the 10 weeks. But certainly not the rule.

Actually, Dr. Z suggested that, given the 23 lb drop at the time of the
blood draw, he expected 12, because the rule as he learned it was 2lbs
to every 1 point of total. He said that since mine was so high, we
might see a little more, like 20, maybe 25 at the outside. So, perhaps
his expectation is different than yours, but since he's seeing me in
person and has all my lab results, etc, I'll go with him. Of course, he
doesn't have a lot of faith in the LC approach for improving
cholesterol. I told him I would try to make a convert out of him.

Yeah, but it's headed in the right direction. I'm told that these
things take time. I'm "goaling" this, just like a weight and BF% goal.
Working towards 220 total for the first goal, and somewhere around
160-180 for the longer term goal.

Same deal. As above. See below in the ratio section.

Doc said it was pretty much the same. I am told that since my HDL was
in the good range to start, I might see some increase and I might see
some decrease. We shall see where it goes in the long term.

I guess if we divide it by 4, we get about 6 points. So yeah, it's
small, but I was in good shape here. I think the big thing is that I
lost 63 points of Total and most of it came from things we generally
consider bad (LDL - 54 or 86% of the change, and another 8% from TriG).
So, it's a work in progress, but it's a lot of progress for 9 weeks.

So, yeah, LC suppressed my appetite. I am also on a low dose of Adderal
that is supposed to reduce appetite. None the less, I eat pretty much
as I ate before. I had a week (first week of MLB playoffs) when I ate
about 25 chicken wings a night for dinner. I think they weighed about
2LBs per serving. I was also eating lunch and sometimes breakfast
around this time. I'm a big guy (6'2") so maybe it's the 3LB
Omer-and-a-half diet for someone my size. I dunno.  But I've been
eating plenty.

So, we take the protein and make more glycogen to replace that which
we've used. I have not started to exercise to muscle failure yet
(that's coming, but not here yet), so depeletion seems a little
overstated. More than a little. As I said, I've been walking more.
Maybe a mile a day more than I was. It's a big building. If you go to a
farther bathroom, it's about 1/8th of a mile.

Funny thing about Dr. Sears. On the VERY COVER of my Protein Power Life
Plan, Paperback edition, with the white cover, there he is. Dr. Barry
Sears, author & creator of the Zone Diet (so credited on the cover)
calls their book nothing less than "The Nutritional Primer of the
Nineties." This being the very same PP Life Plan that I am actually
following. And he's a rival diet author.

So, this is a quandary. The Eades advocate a ketogenic diet and urge no
worry from ketones. Dr. Sears calls their book the nutritional primer
for the 90's. Since the copyright on PPLP is 2000, I suspect that he
was actually talking about Protein Power. Protein Power is, if
anything, tighter with the carbs than PPLP. But, on that link to the
"opinion of others" we have Dr. Sears saying nasty things about
ketogenic diets. As I read it, he's for protein in balance with carbs
and for the eating of nearly unlimited fruits and veggies. Your
approach is very clearly different from Dr. Sears' belief. He says:

"The other two-thirds of the plate you fill it full of fruits of
vegetables until it's overflowing."

He also goes on to throw some tar on Dean Ornish (I am told that you
eat a 2PD-OMER/Ornish based diet), for screwing up people's
cholesterol, of all things. I think he complains about the high number
of fatal heart attacks that were observed in a two year trial of the
Ornish approach. Perhaps it was overeating, but Dr. Sears seems very
much in the camp of insulin-glucagon metabolism being the key to weight
loss and optimum health. His full testimony was pretty interesting.

I do not see where this is a requirement for a diet to be a diet. If
this is in any dictionary definition or a working definition, please
point me to an expert outside of your sphere of influence, who says so.
I haven't seen it, but I suppose I'm willing to. It's the search for
knowledge versus certainty.

What I'm doing is actually quite a bit broader than a diet. Sure, the
food portion is the 20% that gets you 80%. But the movement, the
relaxation, the sun, the learning, etc, make it bigger than a diet. The
elements outside of the food choices are certainly compatible with Dr.
Ornish's theories. But, I'm not particularly interested in raising my
shot at a fatal heart attack. Seems like killing yourself to spite "the
man."

I think that's nice. I don't think it has any part to do with what is
and isn't a diet. Again, I ask for someone, not you, Mu, or anyone you
work with, to have said anything to this effect. A reputable person.
Like a dictionary author. Or WebMD. Or a research paper. Whatever. Just
someone not in your sphere who is reputable and credible.

I believe you have failed to prove it false. Do not make me look this
stuff up (I can and will but don't feel that you need the
embarassment), but I know you have extolled the weight loss virtues of
the 2PD-OMER "approach" and the health benefits as well. In fact, on
your website, that's how it's pitched, if I recall correctly.

I know that I appear slow and unable to keep up. But if He's made you
able, you haven't shown it yet.

Unclear on the message of the link. Not disappointed because the answer
was pretty close to what I expected.

-Hollywood