Zone Diet Zone Philosophy

Zone diet books

mike — Thu, 16 May 2013 07:59:32 GMT

which of the Zone diet books is the best to read to fully understand the Zone Diet?

blocks versus grams of macronutrients in meals

Jon — Sun, 24 May 2009 06:40:43 GMT

HI, im relatively new to the zone. I understand the breakdown of 7g protein, 9g carbs, 1.5g fat per block - and that you simply multiply these denominations depending on how many blocks you have been prescribed. However, it seems to me that this system does not take into account the amount of macronutrients in the other food sources. For example, nuts are a rich source of protein, however, they are used as fat sources and the protein is unaccounted for. Therefore, if the total amount of protein in the meal - not just in the protein source - is added up, the ratio of protein : carb : fat is thrown off. Isnt the whole point of the zone to control these ratios??

Also, i notice on a block chart that a corn tortilla is 1 block, which from my understanding means it contains 9g of carbs. However, according to the food label one corn tortilla contains 27g of carbs (much more realistic) and would therefore be 3 blocks.

Can someone please help me out??

Starch free kids

John — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:00:58 GMT

More and more folks are getting the message that unfavorable Carbs are not healthy. One woman, Gwyneth Paltrow, is being criticized for keeping her children away from them!
.
Gwyneth Paltrow has provoked the wrath of the dietetic establishment by saying that she avoids feeding her children bread, rice and pasta, because she believes that these carbohydrate foods aren't good for them. Paltrow was writing in her new low-carb, gluten-free cookbook, (book name removed to conform with forum rules), which is out in April, and whose recipes are said by her publisher to "form the basis of the diet Gwyneth goes back to when she's been overindulging, when she needs to rebuild, or lose weight."
.
Dieticians who subscribe uncritically to government nutritional guidelines have been wheeled out to testify to how 'vital' carbohydrate is in the diet, and warn in the bleakest terms of the dangers of restricting it. Paltrow is putting her children, aged eight and six, "at risk of nutrient deficiencies", warns one. Her children "won't be able to think straight as their brain won't be functioning", says another. In the same Daily Mail piece, it is even observed that Paltrow's children are thin – shock horror! – as if this was automatically cause for concern. So accustomed are we to the sight of overweight children, thin ones are beginning to look unusual.
.
Casting Paltrow in the role of the neurotic celeb, selfishly inflicting her own faddy and dangerous eating habits on her poor starved offspring, has undeniable appeal, especially for those of us who aren't rich or pretty and who struggle daily with our own excess weight. The New York Post says: "The book reads like the manifesto to some sort of creepy healthy-girl sorority." But Paltrow has a point: no one, not even a child, actually "needs" to eat carbs.
.
Now, this may sound counterintuitive. That familiar notion of "[basing] your meals on starchy foods" is currently a central plank of public health advice. But this orthodoxy is under attack from influential researchers and nutritionists. The fact of the matter is that there are no nutrients (vitamins, minerals, micronutrients) in starchy carbohydrate foods that we can't get elsewhere, and often in a superior form.
.
Of course, the processed food industry works ceaselessly to convince us that we must eat highly refined starchy foods, such as breakfast cereals and white bread, trumpeting that they give us energy. But all food gives us energy. Contrary to what we have been led to believe, there is no dietary "need" to eat starchy carbohydrates at all.
.
Now if Paltrow was to starve her children of protein, then social workers could quite legitimately come knocking at her door. We are made of protein. Our bodies require it to build and repair muscles and tissue. But we have no absolute requirement for carbohydrate.
.
It is only in recent times that starchy foods have been presented as health foods. For much longer, they have been seen as fattening foods. Why do farmers feed their livestock on grains? To plump them up for market.
.
For half a century we have been told to avoid saturated fat, even though there is no good evidence that fat is inherently fattening. By diligently avoiding it, we have ended up replacing whole, unprocessed foods, such as red meat and butter, with starchy carbs of the highly refined and processed sort, often containing added sugar. Net result? We're getting fatter.
.
The problem with sugar, and starchy refined carbs, is that the surge of energy they give you is shortlived. Like newspaper ignited with a match, refined carbs burn up quickly, producing a sharp spike in blood sugar level that encourages our bodies to produce insulin, the fat storage hormone, so encouraging weight gain. Unlike protein and fat, which give a longer, slower, steadier release of energy, when our blood sugar level crashes after eating carbs, our appetite is unsatisfied and we crave more food.
.
This is probably what Paltrow means when she writes in her book: "Sometimes when my family is not eating pasta, bread or processed grains … we're left with that specific hunger that comes with avoiding carbs".
.
Fruit and vegetables are, of course, carbohydrates, and do contain natural sugar. However, they also contain micronutrients, notably fibre, that slow down the rate at which sugar is released in the blood. The same applies to whole, unrefined carbohydrates, such as brown rice. What's more, the general effort required to chew fruit, vegetables and whole grains puts a natural brake on how much we can eat. But it's easy to overeat refined carbs, the kind Paltrow avoids.
.
If the daily diet in the Paltrow household includes protein (fish/meat/eggs/pulses), unprocessed fats (butter/olive oil), plenty of vegetables and some fruit, then it is healthy, nutrient-rich and lacking in nothing. If that's what the Paltrow kids eat, she's doing them a favour.
.
Yes, children do have slightly different nutritional requirements from adults: they need more fat and protein. But filling their plates with empty calories in the form of white pasta, bread and rice is no nutritional kindness.
.

Plant based protein

John — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 03:40:42 GMT

To Dr. Sears or Tech:
Regarding Protein not being absorbable/bio-available to our bodies,
I have thus far, taken Dr. Sears at his word.
However, recently, I have come across some material that is contrary to this position by Dr. Sears.
Apparently there has been studies done.
One in particular, studied young 22 yr old college students on two controlled meals.
One group had chicken and rice and the other group had rice only.
Interestingly, the chicken and rice group had 20% less protein -Nitrogen absorption than the rice only group!
And, apparently, according to Dr. Nick Delgado, Nick PhD, CHT - plant based protein such as in Sweet Potato and Asparagus,
is more absorbable because of the protein pattern (?). And Asparagus is 35% protein, all more absorbable than that found in meats.
Now, I am not about to go vegan for any reason; but, I would like Dr. Sears explanation, please?

Lame stream media

John — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:39:45 GMT

The lame stream media is starting to get it right.
Our local news (an ABC affiliate) reported this evening on a new study.
It appears that the Mediterranian diet, of which the Zone is a subset of, but with specifics and more details,
is now found to be much healthier than the long held SAD (the Standard American Diet) low-fat diet.
In fact one researcher was so surprised that he commented,
"If this was a drug it would be a BLOCKBUSTER!"
.

Omega-6

John — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:08:31 GMT

While Dr. Sears was the first about a decade before others, ... Some like Dr. Mercola recognized Omega-6/3 ratio problem before it started to grow in acceptance. Now, it appears, the scientific community is starting to see it ...
.
From Dr. Mercola: Previously Missing Trial Data Confirms Harms of Too Much Omega-6

The myth that vegetable oils (rich in omega 6 fats) are healthier for you than saturated animal fats has been a tough one to dismantle. But the truth cannot be quenched forever. According to a BMJ press release:1

“Dietary advice about fats and the risk of heart disease is called into question on bmj.com today as a clinical trial shows that replacing saturated animal fats with omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable fats is linked to an increased risk of death among patients with heart disease.”

The latest in-depth analysis of the health effects of omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) on coronary heart disease was not possible until now because data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study was missing.

This was a randomized controlled trial conducted from 1966 to 1973. Researchers from the US and Australia recovered the original data, and using modern statistical methods, they were now able to compare the death rates from cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, as well as all-cause mortality.2

“Their analysis involved 458 men aged 30-59 years who had recently had a coronary event, such as a heart attack or an episode of angina. Participants were randomly divided into two groups,” BMJ writes.

“The intervention group was instructed to reduce saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines and shortenings) to less than 10 percent of energy intake and to increase linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine) to 15 percent of energy intake. Safflower oil is a concentrated source of omega-6 linoleic acid and provides no omega-3 PUFAs.”

The control group received no particular dietary advice and was allowed to eat whatever they wanted. Both groups kept food diaries for an average of 39 months. The results showed that:

The omega-6 linoleic acid group had a 17 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease during the study period, compared with 11 percent among the control group (those who did not receive any particular dietary advice)
The omega-6 group also had a higher risk of all-cause mortality
I’ve repeatedly stated it’s very important to maintain the proper ratio balance between omega-3 and omega-6, and medical researchers are also starting to realize and stress this importance. Jane Collis, an independent researcher not affiliated with the research commented on the study:3

“Commercial food processing destroys a significant amount of EFAs, along with their oxygenating ability... Polyunsaturated oils are unstable and very quickly become rancid. Oxidized fatty acids are dangerous to our health.

Lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress are important factors in this damage. Further damage is also caused by heating polyunsaturated fats in cooking (particularly frying foods).

Many omega 3 research trials did not consider the omega 3/6 essential fatty acid ratio which is vital to the eicossanoid balance. The correct omega 3/6 ratio is fundamental to holistic health for all. I believe that with simple dietary intervention diabetes complications such as retinopathy and nephropathy, could be ameliorated or prevented. ...

Healthy fertility and reproduction fundamentally rely on good nutrition, including EFAs [essential fatty acids] in plentiful supply. Poor maternal health is a cause for concern and may predict poor health in the next generations.”

why low fat

Joanna — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:26:09 GMT

Hi
I am considering starting following the Zone way of eating but have a question/concern. Why does it recommend low fat foods such as cheese, milk and even ice cream etc. From reading around the subject it seems that full fat options for these things are better (because they're more like carbohydrates without the fat and also because taking out the fat removes a lot of the good nutrients).
Thanks

adjust for gall bladder?

Elaine — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:29:13 GMT

I just had my gall bladder removed and I've been told that my body no longer digests fats. Since you have to "eat [good] fat to lose fat" on The Zone, I'm very worried that this diet will stop working for me!? Can anyone give me some reassurance on this or some science on this, please? Exactly what effect will having my gall bladder removed and the fact that my body has stopped digesting fats mean for following this diet now? Will it still work? Will the weight loss be a lot slower now? Do I need to adjust anything? Please advise! Thanks!

New and confused about blocks

lisa — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:50:38 GMT

Hi, Im new to the zone diet, and confused about my protien block number. Here's what I have:

Body fat: 33%
Fat mass: 44 lbs
Lean body mass: 90 lbs
activity factor: 0.5
Protein prescription: 45 grams / 7 grams = 6.4 protien blocks per day.

Is this correct? Also, how do I break this up through my day?

Break?
Lunch?
Snack?
Dinner?
Snack?

Being a full time college student, and late night eating, I have put on about 17 lbs in three years. :(

zone blocks and calorie tolals

Deb — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:16:13 GMT

I must be calculating something wrong. I am an average female so according to the Zone I should be eating around 11 blocks of protein per day. That works out to 3 blocks for breakfast, 3 for lunch, 1 for mid snack, 3 for dinner and 1 for late snack. my confusion comes when I add up the calories. 1 zone block of protein = 7gms of protein. so 3 blocks = 21gms. the full days total = 77gms of protein which = 308 calories (77 x 4) if you continue the calculation for the fat and carbs. (99gms of carbs = 396 cal. 33gms of fat = 297 cal) I would only be getting 1001 calories for the whole day. This is WAY to low a calorie intake according to everything I have ever learned. If I reverse the math and start from a caloric need of around 1800 calories per day it gives me aprox 19 blocks of protein per day. Why is there such a discrepancy between the recommended blocks and how many calories they provide and how many calories a person supposedly needs. I understand reducing your calorie intake is a good thing but generally speaking isn't going under 1200 cal per day not such a good thing? I would really appreciate an answer soon as I am trying to incorporate the zone diet for my daughter who has been diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. Her Dietitian wants a specific number of cals per day because she is still growing but again when I compare her 10 year old caloric needs to what the Zone recommends for a child the calorie counts are VERY different. Help.

Interesting take on Protein

John — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:49:37 GMT

I believe in Dr. Sears ZONE - though I'd like to see his response to the following?
Tech?
.
Quoting article:
Protein Intake Also Crucial for Cancers

Many do not understand the major importance that excessive protein intake can have on cancer growth.
.
Eating excessive protein can be an additional synergistically powerful mechanism. When you consume protein in levels higher than one gram of protein per kilogram of LEAN body mass you tend to activate the mTOR pathway, which will radically increase your risk of cancers. It is very easy to consume excess protein and my guess is that most people reading this are. I know I was, and as a result of this new insight I have reduced my protein intake by about half.
.
To determine your lean body mass find out your percent body fat and subtract from 100. So if you are 20% body fat you would have 80% lean body mass. Just multiply that times your current weight to get lean body mass. For most people this means restricting protein intake from 35 to 75 grams. Pregnant women and those working out extensively need about 25% more protein though.
END Quoting article .....
.
Lets see for me 100 - 19% Fat = 81% Lean Body Mass
.81 x 163 lbs = 132 lbs
132 lbs = 59kg or 874.2g
.
When you consume protein in levels higher than one gram of protein per kilogram of LEAN body mass you tend to activate the mTOR pathway, which will radically increase your risk of cancers.
So, according to this I should have 59 grams Protein?
I don't think so.
.
ZONE: 12 blocks x 7 g per block = 84 g Protein.
.
What does Dr. Seras have to say about this - though this is a relatively new idea .....

Leptin

John — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:04:43 GMT

We're covered with a ZONE eating lifestyle ...
.
What Exactly is Leptin?

Leptin is a very powerful and influential hormone produced by your fat cells. Your fat, by way of leptin, tells your brain whether you should be hungry, eat and make more fat, whether you should reproduce, or (partly by controlling insulin) whether to engage in maintenance and repair. In short, leptin is the way that your fat stores speak to your brain to let your brain know how much energy is available and, very importantly, what to do with it.

Therefore, leptin may be on top of the food chain in metabolic importance and relevance to disease.

If your leptin signaling is working properly, when your fat stores are "full," this extra fat will cause a surge in your leptin level, which signals your brain to stop feeling hungry, to stop eating, to stop storing fat and to start burning some extra fat off.

Controlling hunger is a major (though not the only) way that leptin controls energy storage. Hunger is a very powerful, ancient, and deep-seated drive that, if stimulated long enough, will make you eat and store more energy. The only way to eat less in the long-term is to not be hungry, and the only way to do this is to control the hormones that regulate hunger, the primary one being leptin.

How Do You Become Leptin Resistant?

You become leptin-resistant by the same general mechanism that you become insulin-resistant – by continuous overexposure to high levels of the hormone. If you eat a diet that is high in sugar (particularly fructose), grains, and processed foods – the same type of diet that will also increase inflammation in your body – as the sugar gets metabolized in your fat cells, the fat releases surges in leptin.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant, just as your body can become resistant to insulin.

The only known way to reestablish proper leptin (and insulin) signaling is to prevent those surges, and the only known way to do that is via diet. As such, diet can have a more profound effect on your health than any other known modality of medical treatment.

A strategic whole food diet (like the ZONE)!

Lowering Triglycerides

Robert — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:07:29 GMT

If omega-3 from Krill Oil is bound by phospholipids and omega-3 from fish oil is bound by triglycerides, should I worry about taking fish oil to lower my triglycerides?

Barry Sears jilted again...

allen — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 04:30:42 GMT

Here's a link to a CNN.com article about a miraculous recovery from a traumatic brain injury that left a guy in an otherwise irreversible coma.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/health/fish-oil-brain-injuries/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12

The miracle treatment: High-dose fish oil. The article mentions Dr. Julian Bailes and his successful treatment of Randal McCloy in the Sago Mine disaster w/ fish oil, saying that he consulted w/ "a fish oil expert" to help administer the fish oil... no mention of Sears by name. They cite the National Institutes of Health and the Neuroscience Center of Excellence at LSU, but no bone tossed to good ol' Barry Sears. That really chaps my hide. His research and predictions and treatments from the last 20 years have changed the landscape and perception of health, disease, diet and medicine, whether you're talking hormonal stability through macro-nutrient balance to glycemic index to fish-oil to frickin' lettuce wraps in restaurants (and now he's ahead of the curve in polyphenols). I'll take his brilliant, nerdy, lab rat proclivities and not try to dwell on how his staggering accomplishments are overlooked, but come on... this Dawg deserves his due (so to speak).

NYC Ban on large sugary soft drinks?

cranberrycat — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:00 GMT

This is not really a question, but rather a topic up for discussion.

What do you think of the NYC ban on the sale of large sugary soft drinks?

As a health care professional, I can understand the harm that drinking large amounts of soda does to the human body, whether it be in one sitting or over a course of time. I totally agree that the consumption of soda is out of hand and should be reigned in. But, does this ban go too far?

why, oh why?

cranberrycat — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:13:34 GMT

...did I eat that donut? LOL!

We had a new coffee house and donut shop open up near us (well 15 miles down the road).
My hubby and I were on our way to a funeral on Saturday and we stopped for coffee and a donut. I simply wanted a glazed donut, but they were "all out", and so I easily bowed out. Next day, we were on our way back from church, and the kids wanted to try the donuts, and so we stopped in, but they were "all out" again. So, I was laughingly telling everyone at work that the donut shop basically saved me from myself! LOL

However, once again having to travel through that town again today, I did stop in and was "lucky" enough (or not) to get a glazed donut. Fortunately, not too big, but I paid $1.95 for that ONE donut, which I was expecting to be the absolute BEST donut that I have ever had (better be, at that price). Well, it wasn't. Plus, besides being a very expensive donut, it also has kicked my butt OOZ!

Well, at least I got that out of my system, now I can get back to the Zone!

Outlook

John — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:35:09 GMT

I ran across this quote, today - which I think is equally appropriate with the Zone lifestyle as it is in general for which it was intended:
.
Dr. Yoni Freedhoff:
“Your real goal? Live the healthiest life you can enjoy, not the healthiest life you can tolerate. Yes, if you have weight to lose, you’ll have to make changes. But if you change so far from who you are and what you enjoy, odds are that it’s not a sustainable plan. Don't aim for your so-called "ideal" weight; instead aim for what I refer to as your "best" weight, which is the weight you reach while living the healthiest life you can actually enjoy.”
.
So, don't sweat the small stuff, nor try to be exact while achieving success with a Zoned lifestyle!

LDL Pattern A vs B

John — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:19:52 GMT

Dr. Sears has suggested that the size of LDL-C particles matters (Pattern A vs B).
Here is a link (Part V of a 10-part series) where-in the author dissects the entire Cholesterol concepts,
from beginning to end. In Part V - he discusses particle size.
(You can also use the link to work through the series starting with Part I.)
.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-v
.
Here are some points he covered i Parts I through IV:
- Currently, most people in the United States (and the world for that matter) undergo a “standard” lipid panel, which only directly measures TC, TG, and HDL-C. LDL-C is measured or most often estimated.
- More advanced cholesterol measuring tests do exist to directly measure LDL-C (though none are standardized), along with the cholesterol content of other lipoproteins (e.g., VLDL, IDL) or lipoprotein subparticles.
- The most frequently used and guideline-recommended test that can count the number of LDL particles is either apolipoprotein B or LDL-P NMR, which is part of the NMR LipoProfile. NMR can also measure the size of LDL and other lipoprotein particles, which is valuable for predicting insulin resistance in drug naïve patients, before changes are noted in glucose or insulin levels.
- The progression from a completely normal artery to a “clogged” or atherosclerotic one follows a very clear path: an apoB containing particle gets past the endothelial layer into the subendothelial space, the particle and its cholesterol content is retained, immune cells arrive, an inflammatory response ensues “fixing” the apoB containing particles in place AND making more space for more of them.
- While inflammation plays a key role in this process, it’s the penetration of the endothelium and retention within the endothelium that drive the process.
- The most common apoB containing lipoprotein in this process is certainly the LDL particle. However, Lp(a) and apoB containing lipoproteins play a role also, especially in the insulin resistant person.
- If you want to stop atherosclerosis, you must lower the LDL particle number.
.
.
Basically in Part V he comes to the following conclusion:
(I have not gotten to Part VI and beyond, yet.)
.
At first glance it would seem that patients with smaller LDL particles are at greater risk for atherosclerosis than patients with large LDL particles, all things equal. Hence, this idea that Pattern A is “good” and Pattern “B” is bad has become quite popular.
.
To address this question, however, one must look at changes in cardiovascular events or direct markers of atherosclerosis (e.g., IMT) while holding LDL-P constant and then again holding the LDL size constant. Only when you do this can you see that the relationship between size and event vanishes. The only thing that matters is the number of LDL particles – large, small, or mixed.
“A particle is a particle is a particle.” If you don’t know the number, you don’t know the risk.

Precision Macro-Nutrient Accounting

Joseph — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:03:05 GMT

So I really enjoy the structure that the Zone gives my eating habits. Over the course of the past month I have been using myfitnesspal to create my meals so that each one has nearly the exact number of grams of protein/carbs/fat that I should be consuming at each meal. I did not count the contribution of protein from vegetables, but I did count the protein contribution from black beans and the carb/fat contribution of cottage cheese.

One thing I noticed right away was that this significantly lowered the calorie count, so much so that I wondered if perhaps I needed to increase my blocks when using this strict accounting system.

For example, I did a 4 block lunch consisting of chicken, black beans, and olives using the simple block method . This yielded 49g protein, 45g carbs, and 13g fat with a total calorie count of 430. Using the strict accounting method for the same 4 block meal gives 28g protein, 36g carbs, and 12g fat with a total calorie count of 294.

I guess I'm wonder if I need to increase my block intake if I use this method, it would seem that I should.

Affirmation ... sort of

John — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:49:23 GMT

Here's (sort of) an affirmation of Low-Glycemic (Zone).
.
From Men's health:
.
You’ve lost weight, but will you keep it off? A low-glycemic-index diet may work better than others at burning calories and helping people ward off those pesky Lbs, reports a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
.
In the study, researchers had 21 people who’d lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight try three different diets, each for 4 weeks. The diets consisted of a low-fat, a low-carbohydrate, and a low-glycemic-index—which endorses carbohydrates that keep blood sugar levels low—eating program.
.
The result: Even though the participants ate the same amount of calories on each of the plans, they burned an average of 300 fewer calories per day on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carb option.
.
But the low-carb diet wasn’t a win-win alternative, either. Although it was better at encouraging calorie burn, it also caused the greatest increases in cortisol and C-reactive protein levels—both of which may elevate heart disease risk—among the study participants.
.
The low-glycemic-index diet, however, seemed to strike the right balance in terms of heart health and resting metabolism, says study authoer Cara Ebbeling, Ph.D., associate director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. And any help you can get torching extra calories is beneficial after a big weight loss. That’s because the more weight you lose, the more your metabolism slows, making it increasingly difficult to burn calories, explains Ebbeling.