I read a lot of books about nutrition, diets and obesity. I’m always intrigued to hear of a new diet, but usually, it’s just so I can complain about how stupid it is.
I’m a big fan of Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and the section on “Unconventional Diets” is chock full of great stuff. These are generally *not* failed diets – they are simply diets that have been forgotten. They were tested in labs or more often, clinic settings and found to be effective.
One diet in particular has always intrigued me, and that is the diet designed by Alfred Pennington and used successfully on employees of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company in the late 40s. The diet was first used by Blake Donaldson, MD.
Over the course of four decades, as Donaldson told it, he treated seventeen thousand patients for their weight problems. Most of them lost two to three pounds a week on his diet, without experiencing hunger. Donaldson claimed that the only patients who didn’t lose weight on the diet were those who cheated, a common assumption that physicians also make about calorie-restricted diets. These patients had a “bread addiction,” Donaldson wrote in that they could no more tolerate living without their starches, flour, and sugar than could a smoker without cigarettes. As a result, he spent considerable effort trying to persuade his patients to break their habit. “Remember that grapefruit and all other raw fruit is a starch. You can’t have any,” he would tell them. “No breadstuff means any kind of bread…They must go out of your life, now and forever.” (His advice to diabetics was equally frank: “You are out of your mind when you take insulin in order to eat Danish pastry.”)1
Donaldson’s diet did allow a “hotel portion” of raw fruit or a potato, so it was not 100% sugar- and starch-free. Donaldson never did publish, but other physicians heard about his diet through in-house conferences at New York Hospital. One of these physicians was Alfred Pennington. Back in the day, large companies had their own medical divisions to look after the employees. Presumably, this is a privacy issue now, but it did allow for a study of the diet as the company had access to the patients far more of the day than a physician ever would (short of a hospital setting).
By 1948, DuPont had noticed a lot of heart disease and obesity among its executives. At this time, there was no deep-seated paranoia about saturated fats, and the DuPont house physician (Pennington was the head of industrial medicine at DuPont), Dr. George Gehrmann, had already failed to reduce the girth of his fat employees nor the number of heart attacks they were having. He had been using a low-calorie diet and encouraging exercise. This is still very much a problem today. While the drumbeat sounds “Eat Less Exercise More,” some 85% of people who try the ELEM strategy either fail to lose more than a few pounds or gain it all back when they stop. But I digress.
Pennington had great success with the DuPont executives.
He had prescribed Donaldson’s regimen to twenty executives, and they lost between nine and fifty-four pounds, averaging nearly two pounds per week. “Notable was a lack of hunger between meals,” Pennington wrote, “increased physical energy and sense of well being.” All of this seemed paradoxical: the DuPont executives lost weight on a diet that did not restrict calories. The subjects ate a minimum of twenty-four hundred calories every day, according to Pennington: eighteen ounces of lean meat and six ounces of fat divided over three meals. They averaged over three thousand calories. Carbohydrates were restricted in their diet — no more than eighty calories at each meal. “In a few cases,” Pennington reported, “even this much carbohydrate prevented weight loss, though an ad-libitum [unrestricted] intake of protein and fat, more exclusively, was successful.”2
This diet was actually printed in the June 1950 issue of Holiday Magazine under the title I’ve used for this entry. When I first saw that printed in Taubes’ book, I hunted around on the web for the text or a scan, but I didn’t find one. When I found it mentioned in Dr. Melvin Anchell’s The Steak Lover’s Diet, I looked again, and this time I found a copy for sale on eBay for $4. I bought it.
1,2 Taubes, Gary. Good Calories, Bad Calories. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2007.


1+lbs of meat a day? I like meat and all, but… oof. Still, having done a near-zero carb thing before, I know it works. I just find it to be unpleasant.
Have you found the carnivore sites? Those folks consume nothing but (fatty) meat and water, generally beef and water. They are not about weight loss at all – they are about health and fitness.
I have no problem with eating a lot of meat as I like it, and it agrees with me, but I don’t think I could make it on water and home-made pemmican.
This diet as originally devised and tested *was* all meat, but they had compliance issues with dieters so moderate carb portions were added totaling around 160 calories a day.
(I couldn’t post a comment at http://astrogirl.com/blog/Backpacking/archives/000200.html FYI)
Super nice blog. I’ve just begun checking out the AT and this is informative, entertaining, and encouraging.
Thanks.
Yeah, I can’t put your comment in the right place either. There’s some Wordpress misconfiguration.
I just re-hiked Maryland in late June. I started in Gettysburg and hiked in to Harper’s Ferry on what turned out to be the hottest day of the summer.
Hi Nicole,
you mentioned in your comment above that the original diet was all meat. That is new to me. Can you tell me where you found out about this? I’d like to know more, because, based on Taubes’ book, it really seems that the meat+water carnivores are right health-wise. Since this goes so much against everything I’ve learned, I’m now looking for all the references I can find.
I don’t know why I didn’t see your comment to approve it, but I’m not sure what you’re asking.
A study (discussed in GCBC) was done on Vilhjalmur Stefansson and another man. They went on an all meat diet for a year, and they were monitored (through urine samples) to make sure they didn’t cheat. They suffered no health problems, and I think their weight was stable or showed a slight loss. I don’t have the book handy.
I’m sure that Pennington and Anchell add those veggies and fruits because they increase compliance with the diet and do no harm, nutritionally.
I’ve come around to thinking that, while an all-meat diet is healthy, it’s absolutely not necessary. The humans we evolved from ate what they could find, so I can’t see anything wrong with eating meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts.
So can you scan the magazine and let us all have a look?