This has probably been asked before, but I couldn't find it. I am curious why Dr Sears went from a low calories, 800 to 1200 (page 201 The Zone), to 1100 as the lowest he recommends?

Many thanks
Linda

my guess: to keep the diet in the range of healthful diets, not one which has you digesting your own muscle to get protein!

Somehow I don't think that is the answer! lol

If you mean Enter the Zone I don't see the reference on page 201. But Dr. sears rarely talks calories and he did change from a wider range of blocks to a minbimum of 11 blocks for women. Is this perhaps what you are refering to? If so, janet is right, it is to support and maintain your lean body mass while yu lose fat.

In his first book (hardback) 'The Zone Dietary Road Map' page 201 "For the average person, that will be 800 to 1200 calories a day. This may seem like a starvation diet, but I guarantee you that you'll have a hard time eating all the food necessary to get to those calorie levels if you follow the rules of the Zone -favorable diet." I did the calculation for the diet according to his original writings and I come up with 884 calories a day, balanced with 30f,40c, and 30p of course. I eat that way, feel wonderful and am doing very well. I was just wondering why he upped it and why the number 1100?

The lower calorie range was based on the fact that he originally stated that smaller people could go with as low as 8 blocks per day, rather than 11 blocks per day. But, as I understand it, an 8-block day was falling short of providing the necessary amounts of vitamins and minerals in food.

Thank you Cranberrycat. Do you know where I could find that information at? Is it in one of his newer books or on this site somewhere? I can compensate for the vitamin and minerals as long as my body is getting the macronutrients it needs. I was doing the higher 1100 and didn't feel as well as I do at the lower number. I can't eat enough on the higher amount without really getting into dense carbs and I enjoy eating the way he has outlined in his original books. I think perhaps some of the zoners who have problems losing on the zone may be because of the higher 1100 requirements. That's just a guess, and I could very well be totally wrong. Thanks again for everyone's input and answers to my question.

Well, he also says that no adult should go lower with calories, either. I can't tell you specifically where it is written, but I believe it was in "Mastering the Zone".

if you went with 800, would you use fewer carbs, or just fewer blocks ? Fewer blocks would lower your macronutrients, while fewer carbs would take you out of the zone....

Remember please that I am going by Dr Sears original book The Zone. It's based on my protein requirements as the zone principles indicate. My lean body mass is about 112 (rounded) and at a moderate level of exercise (x 0.6) that makes it 67 protein grams daily. I get 2.6 blocks 3 times a day and two snacks at .9 blocks a day (9.6 blocks a day). My calorie requirement is about 884 a day. I am very much 'In The Zone'. I feel great and have energy to spare. When I am working hard (very active - LBM x 0.9) my levels would go up to 101 protein, 45 fat, 131 carbs and 1334 calories a day. All according to the original book. So I am still curious why he upped it to a set level as he has instead of going by the individual's actual needs.

According to the Zone calculator online at Very active my protein requirements would be 101 (rounded), and 14 blocks (rounded). So I really figure I am not way off base...

interesting, Linda, it seems you are very much aware of your needs....so, yeah, I'm a bit curious now too. Don't know the answer, and am not an expert, either, just another questioner.

Hi Linda, I'm from Mexico and I have the same problem as you. Based on the books, my requirements of protein would be 88 and 8 blocks per day, but according to the calculator online my requirements would be 11 blocks per day.

Apparently an adult can not eat less than 11 blocks a day, so at some point this became a standard.

Anyway, I have an appointment next week with a specialist in zone diet, to remove any doubt about that.

I keep in touch!

PS:Sorry for my english!

It will be very interesting to hear what he has to say Paula. Not of course, that it will change how I am eating because I feel very comfortable with what I am doing, but it will be good to know. Because of the controversy on this subject, I would hesitate to encourage anyone else from going to the lower levels. Once I understand why he changed it, I will feel better about it. What I am thinking is that he upped to to take in all those who would go lower without proper knowledge and actually damage their health. At 1100 it not only keeps the protein at a level that is considers adequate, it also keeps calories in the range that 'experts' say is required for health. And it may be to prevent liability on Dr Sears' part. Not that I think he would disclose that.

I just spoke with an expert on the help desk. She said the first book was confusing and there was supposed to have been a disclaimer that the minimum number of blocks was 11. She said that is why they came up with the calculator on-line so that people would never go below 11. She said the body can go into starvation mode on anything less than 11 blocks per day and the body will not be able to get all the nutrients it needs.

Note: She said the minimum number of blocks for women is 11 and the minimum number of blocks for men is 14 ... even if calculations come out lower.

Thanks for letting us know that Karen... I am not sure I believe that was the reason because there was no such disclaimer in The Soy Zone either, at least not that I remember. But it is the safest route and most people should pay attention and do as Dr Sears says. I feel much better at the level I am at now than I did at the higher 1100 calorie level so I will stick with it until I start working harder.

Thanks again...

You're welcome, Linda!

Posted By Karen on 01/28/2009 12:17 PM

Quote: "I just spoke with an expert on the help desk. She said the first book was confusing and there was supposed to have been a disclaimer that the minimum number of blocks was 11. She said that is why they came up with the calculator on-line so that people would never go below 11. She said the body can go into starvation mode on anything less than 11 blocks per day and the body will not be able to get all the nutrients it needs." end of quote

I just had a thought. If that is true why doesn't he have a disclaimer on his website about the first books. He must know there are a lot who use his books more than the website. Perhaps he has one and I am just not aware of it?

Actually, Linda there is science behind the answer they have given you. If you get below 1200 calories a day (I would have to check this amount to be absolutely sure) the body goes into starvation mode. It is not just that you are not getting enough nutrients but the body becomes "calorie conservative". When you are getting plenty of food the body becomes kind of wasteful, it does not digest every little bit. When it goes into starvation, your body takes every bit of nutrient it can and then slows down the metabolism to burn as little as possible for maintenance. If you go back to eating more than that minimum you will gain wait quickly. So it sets you up to have more difficulty over time.

Here's Barry Sears' explanation of why he changed to the 11 block minimum (this info is from drsears.com).

<<Protein requirements - Relevance: 3030
Q: I noticed that you have changed the minimum daily protein requirements. My husband and I have been on the Zone diet for approx. 2 1/2 years and when we figured our blocks according to your first book, I was at 8 protein blocks a day and my husband at 11. When I got the message that this site was opening up I read that you advocate a minimum of 11 protein blocks a day now. Could you please clarify this information because I don't want to start putting on weight as I am still trying to lose. Respectfully, Priscilla R A: Dear Priscilla, I suggest 11 blocks a day as the minimum for an adult just starting out on the Zone Diet. This corresponds to about 1,200 calories per day, which corresponds to the caloric level recommended by the American Diabetes Association. However, if you have no hunger and maintain your physical performance at this block level, you may wish to decrease the number of blocks by one per day and see how you feel for the next two weeks. I would never go below 8 blocks per day. A great number of women do very well at a level below 11 blocks. However, because of the lower carbohydrate intake at 8 blocks per day versus 11 blocks, you might want to think about taking an inexpensive vitamin and mineral capsule as a cheap insurance policy to make sure that your micronutrient load is being maintained at this lower block level. The Zone diet is based on years of research. And more important, continuing research for many more years to come. During our clinical study in San Antonio with Type II diabetics, one factor that came into greater focus is that many of the Type II diabetic women showed more compliance and therefore enhanced clinical results when we increased their minimum daily block amounts from 8 or 9 blocks to 11 blocks per day. That is why I increased the minimum number of blocks per day for adults to 11.
http://www.drsears.com/SearchIndexe...fault.aspx - 8/24/2007 11:32:38 AM >>

Thank you very much Sue!

BTW, I did not mean to imply that my comment was Dr. Sear's opinion. Just information.

Hi Anna!

No explanations necessary, IMHO. BTW, my post was not meant as reply to your info. (Now I'm explaining, ha!)

Have a great day! :-)

You're welcome Paula!

I did not take it that way, Sue! Just wanted to be clear with Paula re: my info.

quote "Here's Barry Sears' explanation of why he changed to the 11 block minimum (this info is from drsears.com)." end of quote

Thank you so much for that clarification Sue! So if I understand right, the 884 calories that I normally eat is ok as long as I am not hungry and have enough energy and take a multi-vitamin/mineral supplement?

You're welcome Linda!

That's my understanding of the article, as long as you're eating the minimum amount of protein needed for you LBM at your activity level and doing well (aren't hungry, have energy, are not losing LBM, etc.).

Linda,

I must say, I will have to disagree with Sears on that!

I am not a proponent for vitamin supplementation to replace the vitamins that you are supposed to be getting from food. Vitamin supplements are fine as "insurance", but I don't think that they are fine to continuously replace missing vitamins. You should be getting vitamins from food, not from pills.

I think you should really take a look at the vitamin content of the foods that you are eating. You can calculate to see if you are meeting the daily requirements (or are even coming close). If you are, then that is great. But, if you are not, then I really worry about your entire metabolism.

I think I am doing fine CC... I am going to make the effort to check out my nutritional status as far as how many vitamins and minerals I am getting. My carbs are pretty varied so I really don't think there is a problem.

Thanks for all the feedback! Perhaps it will help others make the decision to go with higher calories or go by the nutrients required based on protein needs... *I* think it all boils down to - How do you feel???

Linda,

I had not had a chance to do some calculations until now. But, looking back at your previous post, I think you are underestimating your protein requirement.

You stated that your activity level is moderate, but at a moderate level, you would require 11 blocks of protein for your LBM of 112.. Even if you dropped to light activity, your protein requirement is 9 1/2 blocks. I didn't calculate those blocks over to calories, but I am really concerned that you are not getting enough, especially if your protein requirement is more like 11 blocks.

If so, then we are back to what Janet said way in the beginning, that you will begin to use LBM for energy, rather than burn fat. And, would add in that you are having to supplement with vitamins to get your RDA, rather than obtaining it from food sources.

Quote"My lean body mass is about 112 (rounded) and at a moderate level of exercise (x 0.6) that makes it 67 protein grams daily. I get 2.6 blocks 3 times a day and two snacks at .9 blocks a day (9.6 blocks a day). My calorie requirement is about 884 a day.' end quote

I figured it correctly, I should have used the term 'light fitness'. I use light fitness because I am overweight and Dr Sears says that carrying around the extra weight is like doing light fitness every day. If you add up the calories - 4 calories for protein grams and carbs grams and 9 calories for fat grams it totals up to 884 (rounded). 268 calories for protein and fat and 348.4 for carbs = 884.4 and I rounded to 884.

I thought I might add I don't use the 'block' method. It just is to stinking hard as far as I am concerned. I go by the fat, carbs, and protein balanced. I know that is not what most do, but it works the best for me. I use a software program that I enter the items I want for a meal and it totals them for me until I get the balance correct. I've done the 'block' method and the 1,2,3, methods and I always come back to doing it this way. I do use the eyeball method when I go out to eat or if I cannot figure my portions any other way.

I did this diet before and lost almost 60 pounds following The Zone. Somewhere along the line I quite eating in a balanced manner and managed to gain almost all of it back, but it took several years to do so. Now I am back losing weight again and feel well.

I guess the confusion was with your definition of "moderate" activity and the Zone's definition. If you use the Zone's definition, then your activity factor would be 0.7.

In any case, blocks or calories, it doesn't really matter how we count to get where we are going, as long as we get there, right?

Here is another thing to stew about regarding the protein prescription... that statement about overweight people carrying around the extra weight/like light fitness every day, basically applies to those whose bodyfat is over 50%. If you were sedentary, then you could push your actvity factor up a notch to "light activity". But, if you are already doing "light activity", then you can push your activity factor up to "moderate". And so on...

I hope you can get the nutrients that you need on the lower calories, and that you don't break down your LBM.

I wonder about all this stuff about protein and worrying about breaking down LBM. I know that 800 calories is not a starvation diet. Even the governments requirements as stated only require for protein:

* Infants require about 10 grams a day.
* Teenage boys need up to 52 grams a day.
* Teenage girls need 46 grams a day.
* Adult men need about 56 grams a day.
* Adult women need about 46 grams a day.

I am getting 21 grams more than is stated as being required by the government. Do you really think that this lower amount is harmful to them? Probably, but there are many who actually follow this and look healthy and fit, some even build muscles and work hard. They would probably look and feel even better if everything was in balance. They eat an awful lot of carbs and of course calories. And granted, I believe we need more as DR Sears states. But I don't think I am harming my body by eating a lower amount of calories as long as I am getting my protein requirements and I balance the rest with the protein being the base for the rest of my diet. As Dr Sears states over and over again, the calories take care of themselves. If we balance our food with regards to protein, fat, and carbs we don't need to worry about calories. Also by using the more nutritious vegetables and fruits we get vitamins, mineral, and fiber...

In the beginning of this thread, I was curious why he upped the protein requirements, but I didn't exactly say that, I said 'calories'. Which is also correct, either way it is said. Because when every thing is balanced based on protein, calories are involved. It is just that we normally don't dwell on calories, we dwell on protein.

The government also states that the appropriate ratio for calorie breakdown is like 60% carb, 10-15% protein, and about 30% fat. I think most people would define an 800 calorie meal plan as a "starvation diet". And, many people who go on these low calorie diets are definitely losing LBM, as well as fat.

I don't know really anything more about you than what you stated as your LBM and that you admitted you were obese. I don't know if you have more than 50% bodyfat, or less.

I am not really concerned so much about the calories, as much as I am about you getting adequate nutrients-vitamins, minerals, etc. from the foods that you eat. You also need an adequate amount of carbohydrate, or else you can go into ketosis if this is restricted. The brain needs a certain amount, as well as the rest of the body, in order to maintain its vital functions. And, of course, adequate fat is important, too.

Anyway, I am not trying to change your mind about decreasing your calorie intake, but I just hope that you are able to do it safely. Not sure that there is much more that I can say.

Hi Everyone!

To allay any concerns about carb that anyone reading this thread may have, keep in mind that going as low as even 8 blocks of carb a day is within Zone parameters for the average woman. It is the amount of carb recommended for a person on 11 blocks a day who has to adjust for unfocused hunger by dropping 1C block from every meal.

Thanks Sue! My basis is strictly by going with what Dr Sears has said. I am not a Dr nor do I claim to know more than Dr Sears... it's important, in my opinion to sift through all the garbage out there and find what is right for us as an individual. I think Dr Sears has made leaps and bounds in that direction. I do question the motives of some of his high priced supplements he has manufactured and recommends. However - I also believe that HE knows what he is doing and I am going to pay attention.

So, what happens when a carb sensitive person has to drop carb, and they are following a diet with only 8 blocks of protein?

Let me see... I think that there would be a carb shortage!

I follow an 8 block carb/day plan, as I have to cut back on carbs due to carb sensitivity (I still eat 11 blocks of protein). But, say for instance, if I cut my protein blocks to 8 per day, then what happens to the carb sensitivity? I don't think it goes away, right? So, I would have to cut back further on my carbs, to maybe 6 blocks?

BTW, Linda, my interest here has nothing to do with going against what Sears has said. Your previous post seemed to indicate to me that you were only focusing on protein, and that you were not really concerned at all about carbs and fat. If I misunderstood, I am sorry. As I said, if you think this decision is right for you, I have no problem with that. Just as long as you are getting your vitamins/minerals from food and not having to take supplements in order to accomplish that. Best of luck to you!

quote Cranberrycat "Your previous post seemed to indicate to me that you were only focusing on protein, and that you were not really concerned at all about carbs and fat." end quote

CC, in my third post in this thread I stated I keep my food balanced with 30%f, 40%c, and 30% p. It's all important. But protein is the base of The Zone and everything else is figured around protein. The first thing Dr Sears says to figure your requirements is to find your lean body mass and figure your protein.

As far as I am concerned I am satisfied that my question was answered adequately. I thank you all.

Sorry, when threads get so long, it is not one of my habits to be scrolling through to find out who said what. So, I am sorry that I misinterpreted what you said.

Anyway, Your welcome! I am glad that you got your questions answered! Have a great day in the Zone!

Hi Linda!


Glad my info helped!

I agree that he knows what he's doing. You're making sound decisions. Good luck!

Sue, maybe YOU can explain how one would adjust for carb sensitivity when only consuming 8 blocks of protein?

I am really curious!