Hi Guys :P I HAD to start a new thread for us!! Seeing "Michelle-welcome back!" And "Michelle-Woodman's" over and over again is great for my ego, but I think it your turn!! Take Care!! ~Michelle

Hey Ronica! Thanks for the Old Navy pants tip. I haven't really tried shopping there yet since I've become slimmer...actually, i think I've only really shopped there for the kids ever. They have great kids clothes sometimes. One of these days I'll have to check it out for me! Re: the LBM thing, Ronica...we aren't supposed to shoot for LBM which I understand to be the total weight of all bones, muscles, organs, etc. but no fat whatsoever. You're right in questioning this. This is not a healthy weight at all. Our organs, etc. need fat for insulation and protection. Some fat is very important for proper body function, etc. The "healthy weight" guide that many if not most Health Care Professionals are going by lately is the Body Mass Index (BMI). You can find a BMI calculator through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute website: www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm It gives a range for "normal weight" because we're all built differently and feel good at different weights. The higher end of the range is typically for men and more muscular people and those who have a larger skeletal structure, etc....However, you just have to judge for yourself what feels right. This is a guide. As long as you're somewhere in the normal range and your size/weight feels good to you, you've got it! Re: your sister. Without knowing her or knowing much about the situation, on first glance, it sounds like she doesn't have very high self esteem and feels the need to constantly call attention to herself to try to get reassurance or something...I could guess that she's gotten a lot of attention this way (negative attention) through people responding to her like? "You are not fat, would you please just stop it!...you're sooo skinny!", etc...just a guess. If she keeps getting responses like this (from friends and family, etc.), she'll continue to use this ploy for attention and reassurance. It must be difficult to ignore but would it be possible for all of you to decide to not respond and immediately change the subject each and every time she trys this??? It appears that she needs to find a way to be proud of herself without external re-assurance. Is she working on any projects or taking classes or happy in her current occupation??? Again, this really is just a shot in the dark....please just ignore if I'm way off target. It sounds like you get some good exercise in with walking. How long does it typically take you to walk 2 miles? The goal (as far as decreasing risk of heart disease) is to exercise aerobically (which does include brisk walking) 30-40 minutes 3-5 days per week. We're now also hearing recommendations (through studies, etc., I'm not sure which) to up that to 60 minutes every day of the week....for those of us not exercising much yet, taking a stepwise approach such as starting with 20 minutes a day and gradually increasing the time over a period of weeks is a safe and less overwhelming way to get to the goal. I'll have to check out the limited sometime again. I haven't been there probably since highschool. (I'm now almost 34). I loved that store way back in highschool. It would be fun to check it out again sometime. Meeting on a Saturday afternoon near the square sounds good to me too... I could meet as soon as this Saturday (9/27) or the 11th or the 25th ( I have a wedding to go to on the 4th and I work on the 18th)...this Saturday would probably be best for me but I realize this is late notice. I haven't been to "Steep and Brew" on state street for years....though I'm happy to meet anywhere...any other ideas? Not to be too paranoid but, I think we should probably make our final plans through e-mail or over the phone off the forum for security reasons. I'll try to check the forum & my e-mail again later tonight (Fri ). We'll talk soon! :-) Donna.

Hey Ronica! Thanks for the Old Navy pants tip. I haven't really tried shopping there yet since I've become slimmer...actually, i think I've only really shopped there for the kids ever. They have great kids clothes sometimes. One of these days I'll have to check it out for me! Re: the LBM thing, Ronica...we aren't supposed to shoot for LBM which I understand to be the total weight of all bones, muscles, organs, etc. but no fat whatsoever. You're right in questioning this. This is not a healthy weight at all. Our organs, etc. need fat for insulation and protection. Some fat is very important for proper body function, etc. The "healthy weight" guide that many if not most Health Care Professionals are going by lately is the Body Mass Index (BMI). You can find a BMI calculator through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute website: www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm It gives a range for "normal weight" because we're all built differently and feel good at different weights. The higher end of the range is typically for men and more muscular people and those who have a larger skeletal structure, etc....However, you just have to judge for yourself what feels right. This is a guide. As long as you're somewhere in the normal range and your size/weight feels good to you, you've got it! Re: your sister. Without knowing her or knowing much about the situation, on first glance, it sounds like she doesn't have very high self esteem and feels the need to constantly call attention to herself to try to get reassurance or something...I could guess that she's gotten a lot of attention this way (negative attention) through people responding to her like? "You are not fat, would you please just stop it!...you're sooo skinny!", etc...just a guess. If she keeps getting responses like this (from friends and family, etc.), she'll continue to use this ploy for attention and reassurance. It must be difficult to ignore but would it be possible for all of you to decide to not respond and immediately change the subject each and every time she trys this??? It appears that she needs to find a way to be proud of herself without external re-assurance. Is she working on any projects or taking classes or happy in her current occupation??? Again, this really is just a shot in the dark....please just ignore if I'm way off target. It sounds like you get some good exercise in with walking. How long does it typically take you to walk 2 miles? The goal (as far as decreasing risk of heart disease) is to exercise aerobically (which does include brisk walking) 30-40 minutes 3-5 days per week. We're now also hearing recommendations (through studies, etc., I'm not sure which) to up that to 60 minutes every day of the week....for those of us not exercising much yet, taking a stepwise approach such as starting with 20 minutes a day and gradually increasing the time over a period of weeks is a safe and less overwhelming way to get to the goal. I'll have to check out the limited sometime again. I haven't been there probably since highschool. (I'm now almost 34). I loved that store way back in highschool. It would be fun to check it out again sometime. Meeting on a Saturday afternoon near the square sounds good to me too... I could meet as soon as this Saturday (9/27) or the 11th or the 25th ( I have a wedding to go to on the 4th and I work on the 18th)...this Saturday would probably be best for me but I realize this is late notice. I haven't been to "Steep and Brew" on state street for years....though I'm happy to meet anywhere...any other ideas? Not to be too paranoid but, I think we should probably make our final plans through e-mail or over the phone off the forum for security reasons. I'll try to check the forum & my e-mail again later tonight (Fri ). We'll talk soon! :-) Donna.

Hi Michelle! I just spend nearly an hour responding to your great post....when I went to submit it, it got lost and somehow posted my post to Ronica again instead! :x ?Maybe I did something wrong...??? but I don't think so... I'm just sick about it! I don't know what happened. I do really need to get some things done now, though, while the baby is still sleeping this morning. I'll have to try again later. How frustrating! I might just respond to you through e-mail this next time. See my post to Ronica for now and I'll get back to you. Ugh! :-) Donna.

Hi Michelle...this may be a bit shorter because I'm short on time...we'll see. Your pictures look great! You actually look a lot like I pictures...but you look like a totally different person in the 2nd picture! You should be very proud! You must be feeling fantastic! I was sorry when you first told me that you had been on Phen-Fen. I've heard that it was very helpful in terms of weight loss for many but also detrimental to the health of many in terms of mitral valve problems and pulmonary hypertension. I sincerely hope you have not had any adverse side effects from it... I wish I had heard of the Zone much sooner as well...Well, at least we have it now and from now on...that's the important thing at this point. As far as your goal weight, most Health Care Professionals are now recommending the Body Mass Index or (BMI). A link to a BMI calculator for it is available in my post to Ronica. Since you posted your height, I used the calculator for you which states that a normal weight for you would be between 101 and 136...this is quite a range because people's body types differ greatly. You have to decide for yourself within this range what looks and more importantly feels right to you. Re: your cravings a week before your period, I wonder if you ???maybe?? need to increase your blocks slightly during that time??? I think it's smart of you to take a break at intervals...this will probably help to better prepare you for your maintenance phase. Re: your annual exam...I can relate to this so well! It sounds like a light switch went off for you the beginning of the year re: not wanting to get any larger in pant size...I think that's what has to happen to be successful...with a flip of that light switch, so to speak and the zone in our back pockets, we've got it made! I had just gotten so big that I was so incredibly physically uncomfortable that I was determined all through my pregnancy to get the weight off afterward one way or another...I weighed at 5'6" 275 pre-pregnancy. I, then, ate less and more healthily in general all throughout my pregnancy. After my pregnancy, I weighed about 263. I then had my post-birth appointment with my OB/GYN about 9 weeks after the birth of my son. At that time, I had been on the 40-30-30 diet a few weeks or so...I weighed 250lbs. I, so proudly, told my very thin OB/GYN (woman) that I had lost 25 lbs! Well, she looked at my 250lb body and said, very dead pan..."Hmmm.", while I'm sure thinking to herself "You have a long way to go lady!"...and I did have a long way to go at the time...Now, I'm more than 120 pounds under my pre-pregnancy weight...and guess what??? My appointment with her is today,...actually in a little more than 1/2 hour! Wish me luck! Re: the presentation applause the other night. I really wasn't too offended...I really know this PA well. I'm sure he just meant to give me a big pat on the back...he knows how proud I am of my success....and it helps for other HCPs to see that people can do it so that they can be more motivating with the patients their working with. It was pretty embarrassing, though...he did apologize during the presentation for putting me on the spot but I haven't seen him since because I was in a class all day the last time I worked. Re: your friend with the ID...it is cruel what society does to those who are overweight. I personally don't remember too many people being directly cruel to me, or I was maybe just oblivious to it...but I now hear the comments people often make about others who are overweight. I'm sure many were talking behind my back. Re: your husband having trouble with hunger when he briefly tried the zone...maybe he needs to increase blocks a little??? I, personally, started with that Formula book that I've mentioned several times. It is 40-30-30 and essentially the zone diet but counted in grams instead of blocks...Also, it allows for calories based on your current weight and activity level rather than your goal weight and activity level as is suggested by the zone. Personally, I don't think that at 270 lbs, I would have been able to stick to only 11 blocks. I've tried doing 11 blocks recently even and I was crabby and hungry. I usually (currently) eat more like 12-13 or even 14 blocks per day and I'm still losing...I'm sure I was getting even more blocks per day when I was heavier. I'd have to look at the book again and figure it according to blocks. Just a thought. The comments like "the wind is going to take you away" are fun, aren't they? They're uplifting and motivating too! Now, most of the comments I get are: "You're done losing, now, aren't you, Donna?"...which is a little ridiculous. I need to lose about 3-5 more pounds to be in the normal weight for BMI. I'm still technically considered "moderately overweight". I'd like to be 140 or 145 and see how that feels...if I feel like I would like to lose a little more, I might go to about 130, I think. But, I think I'd look too thin anywhere below that. A dietician I work with said she thinks that with the obesity epidemic, people are getting so used to seeing people overweight that those who are actually at their ideal body weight appear too thin now. I think she's right! Also, have you ever gone onto the Land's End website where you can put in your personal "virtual model". You can use it to try on outfits, etc. You can also modify the model to different weights to get a good perspective on what you would look like at different weights. It's pretty cool! As I told Ronica, I could meet this Saturday the 27th or the 11th or 25th. This Saturday might be best for me (sorry such late notice) but the others are currently still o.k. too. (the 11th is my sister's birthday...I'm not sure what our plans will be...but I would imagine I could take some time out...I probably will just be with her part of the day...no plans yet)...I have a wedding to go to on the 4th and I work on the 18th. I'll check my e-mail and the forum later today. We'll talk soon! O.K...here goes...I'm going to try to post this again! :-) Donna.

Hello ladies! Sorry I didn't check this weekend--I was busy as usual and (insert excuse here.) Blah blah blah but I'm back! I'd love to set up coffee some Saturday-- I do work 9-1PM, but could do early AM or even a 1:15 lunch for me type thing. I usually eat 1/2 zp bar at noon to get me through, so am ready for lunch soon after work. Thanks for the clarification on the LBM. That's what I thought, but the site wasn't very clear. I am now in the "healthy" range for BMI, so that's good, but would still like to lose some more weight. I really wouldn't mind being somewhere in the 120's, which I think would be fine for me, as I have a medium build and am 5'6" tall. I'm sitting around 146-7 right now, but trying to kick start it! Thanks for the thoughts on my sis, too. I know she is very low in self-esteem, and has been for a long time. Unfortunately , the ignoring her, changing the subject, and telling her to stop really don't work. With her it's like an obsession, and she doesn't even really listen to what others think. She (I think) likes the sound of her own voice, and feels somehow justified if she keeps complaining, like she's proving herself better by not being satisfied with herself. Either that, or she honestly has nothing else to talk about because that is almost everything she thinks about. She's unsatisfied with many aspects of her life--long story here, but somehow believes that if she finds a man her life will be perfect (OK, HUGE load of crap there), thinks she doesn't make enough money, yet spends like there's no tomorrow and she is entitled to 34 pairs of leather boots :!: , and keeps herself busy 24-7 by doing outside freelance work, taking classes, shopping, "decorating", and obsessing about everything and everyone and how they are all out to get her but she'll be fine when she finds a husband, gets a house and has a baby. Regardless of the fact that she hasn't had a date in over a year. I've tried to help her get in counseling (she wouldn't return after one session because she didn't "know" the counselor--duh!), got her into her doctor for a physical (she was on meds for a while but wouldn't spend the money on them so quit), and tried to get her to see how depressed she is. Of course, she thinks she's fine. :shock: As if I could get her to consider the zone--she eats crap (only shops at Byerly's [of course she's entitled to this] and eats cookies, muffins, candy, diet soda, and pre-packaged items in very small amounts. She loves preservatives and sugar and salt--I can't even eat a taste of what most of her diet is--it gives me indigestion!) and would never commit to anything that actually required effort, unless it was to marbelize a martini set or staple velvet to her wall. (I'm not even going to get into the decorating.) Anyway, that was one he** of a vent. Sorry. She called this weekend. She was depressed because she had just bought herself a complete new bedroom set and the delivery guys had damaged it, so she had to wait *two whole weeks* for the new items to be replaced, though she got to keep everything until the two replacement items came in. Horror of horrors, I tell you. How will she live? :cry: :roll: She was very proud of the fact that my dad didn't pay one cent for this, because he's been subsidizing her boot obsession and all the other stuff she buys and can't pay for. She lives in the twin cities, and rather than get a better car, which she desperately needs, she buys herself a full cherry bedroom set. Yeah. Priorities. AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! This makes my purchase of a tiny pair of red sandals this weekend at the new DSW Shoe Warehouse pale in comparison. :) They were only 12$. Have you been to the new Greenway Crossing shopping area in Middleton yet? I am excited that they have an Ann Taylor Loft, a DSW, a Michael's Craft store and a Linens-n-things. It's a nice place! I very much enjoyed the shoes. :lol: Ann Taylor has gorgeous clothes, and the prices are not nearly as shocking as they are at the regular Ann Taylor store. :) They also had a Chico's and a Dress Barn. Oh, re: the Limited. I went in to check the sales today and all that was left was crap. :cry: However, they do have some cute new winter stuff. I like the Limited, because it's a little more tailored and work-oriented, so you don't feel like you are shopping in the slutty teenager/supermodel section. Their work pants/jackets have stretch, too, which always improves the fit. :D I checked out Express, which much the same results. Express tends to be too trendy for me, but I look anyway. Doesn't hurt! :wink: Re: the walking, it usually takes me about 45 minutes to do 2 miles, but that's also poop-scooping and trying to keep Lucy from stopping to sniff _every_ tree and meet _every_ dog on the way. If I push it I can go faster, but I guess I don't really pay too close attention to the time--I just want to make sure she's done her job! If not, we don't sleep through the night... Well, speaking of which, I need to get my lunch made so I can go to bed. Great to hear from you! Keep 'em coming! Ronica

Wow, you sure do get around, Ronica! Whole Foods, Old Navy, Woodmans, the Essen Haus, The Limited,...the list goes on and on! It's hard to keep up! You have such wonderful tips (re: 365 Peanut butter and Protein powder, etc.)! I really appreciate them. I have gone to Whole Foods on occasion. Their produce is just gorgeous! Re: getting together, Michelle and I were able to get together this past Saturday (we organized through e-mail & phone conversations). We hadn't heard anything from you via post or e-mail in response to my last post so assumed you were busy or something...sounds like you were!!!......Mrs. Stein club member!!!.....sounds like a lot of fun! We talked for a while over decaf at a bookstore on the East Side, then looked at some Zone related books there afterward. It was fun (at least I had a good time, anyway)...We were both saying we hope we can meet with you sometime soon too! My husband is a stein club member too. We actually had our wedding rehearsal dinner at the Essen Haus over 6 years ago...now with kids, we haven't been there much since...maybe once or twice...Someday, we'll have to go back. I bet you two had a great time! Enjoy your time while you're free (without kids around I mean)...I love having my kids but I never realized how much time I must have had before they came along. I should have been getting so much more done! :P It does sound like you get a lot done. I love hearing about your food and clothing finds. We (the family) actually went to Old Navy tonight. I wasn't in the market for dress pants this time but we wanted to find some nice sweatshirts (with the cold weather creeping in)...we were amazed that with all of the sweatshirts in the building, all of them had hoods! It must be the in thing...just not what we were lookin' for this time around. I also tried on a bunch of clothes. They fit great but ? I can't quite describe it...I felt like if I wore them, I was trying too hard to look younger or something...not sure...I'm still sort of working on the new style thing... Anyway, my husband got a sweater and a light coat and I got a few warmer outfits for my 1 year old...so cute! They do really have some great stuff! Let Michelle or I know via e-mail or phone ( I think you have my phone # if you received the e-mail I sent with pictures a few days back) when/if you might want to try to get together. Hope to talk soon! :-) Donna.

Hi Donna! Yeah, you're right, I get around a little too much! Like my sister, I am a bit obsessive about shopping, but I am much more of a bargain hunter than she. Of course, losing weight has made me excited about new clothes again, too, so it's a lot of fun! The styles at Old Navy can be kind of young--the summer stuff especially, but the dressy work clothes usually work pretty well for me. I'm not into all the gathery pants and the pockets everywhere/cargo everything (unless you are pretty slim, cargoes tend to draw attention to everyplace!) . I guess hoodies must be the thing this fall, but I'm sure as it gets cooler they will bring in some regular sweatshirts, too. They also have nice button-down cotton shirts with a little stretch in them. I have 2 that I wear quite often. I also enjoy their jeans, and they have many with stretch which I find much more comfortable. They have lots of styles and sizes, so it's worth trying on several to find the type you like. I don't wear jeans much (mainly weekends) so by the time they are worn out, they tend to be out of style, so I don't like to spend much on them. :) If I saved them until they were really worn out, I'd still be in acid wash with the little zippers on the ankles! :oops: Sorry I missed the coffee meeting--sounds like fun. We'll have to do it sometime! My email is clarinetpower@hotmail.com, if you ever want to correspond anonymously. I didn't get an email from you that I know of, unless I accidentally deleted something in my junk mail file, not knowing it was from you. If you put "donna" or "starz" in the subject line, I'll make sure to save it to my inbox. Have rehearsal tonight, but then must get all bills paid (paycheck to deposit--yipee!) so that will be a relief. I had such an interesting supper tonight--was sick of everything in the fridge so I made a raspberry pear yogurt protein powder smoothie and ate some cashews. Could that be weirder? Tasted good though! Got to get to the store tomorrow and get some new interesting food! You're right that Whole Foods has beautiful produce--also very pricey! I got some green beans there, and they were OK, but the local ones I've had from Woodman's have been generally better. Don't look as pretty, but cook up more tender and flavorful. Go figure! Well, better put my work clothes back on--got into my jeans to walk the dog, but now it's time for the dressy stuff again. :) Have a good night! Ronica

Hey Ladies! What do you think about the Farmers' Market on Saturday, bright and early? I need to get some jam for my sister-in-law in Florida before the season is over... ~Michelle

[quote:563a4004e5="starz"] Re: your husband having trouble with hunger when he briefly tried the zone...maybe he needs to increase blocks a little??? I, personally, started with that Formula book that I've mentioned several times. It is 40-30-30 and essentially the zone diet but counted in grams instead of blocks...Also, it allows for calories based on your current weight and activity level rather than your goal weight and activity level as is suggested by the zone. .[/quote:563a4004e5] Hi Donna, I've been reading your posts, and noticed this item I quoted here. I'd like to clarify something you mentioned. The Zone isn't based on caloric need, but on the amount of protein necessary to sustain one's current LBM at one's current activity level. The Zone does not suggest one should eat based on a goal weight and activity level. If one is very obese a higher than actual activity level is assumed and additional blocks above those necessary to support current activity level are consumed daily. These additional blocks are necessary because carrying around a large amount of body fat is comparable to strength training on a daily basis. As body fat % lowers, one can eliminate these extra blocks and base their daily need for food on their current LBM and actual activity level. One's block requirement will change if one's LBM or current activity level changes significantly regardless of whether or not they are at an ideal body fat % (or goal weight , as you refer to it ). In summary, I repeat the Zone diet is based on current weight and activity level. Congrats on your progress with the Zone and keep up the good work! :D Sue

I wish I had checked this late Thurs. or early today! Now it's nearly 11PM on Friday night, and I doubt I'll be able to catch you before tomorrow. Argh! Well, doesn't look like Donna's responded either. Sorry, Michelle! Wish we could have hooked up. I am half asleep right now and must get to bed so I can face high school kids with weapons, I mean instruments, early in the morning! :lol: Hope you enjoy the market! Ronica

Hello Sue! Thank you for your post re: the zone block requirements. I should play around with zone block calculations a little more to get a better handle on this, I think. When I met with Michelle in person last week, she pointed out my misunderstanding on this topic. However, I'm still a little confused, I think. I was under the assumption that the zone had you eat blocks based on your ideal weight rather than your current weight for some of these reasons.... My thinking stemmed from a zone calculator I once used when i was still quite overweight. The calculator calculated my blocks to be much lower than the Formula book (if compared to blocks) would have had me eat. When I was over 180 lbs, the Formula book had me eat the equivalent of about 16 blocks per day. I don't remember exactly the amount of blocks that calculator computed for me but I do remember it was significantly less....something like 12 blocks, I think? (I was still well over 200 pounds at the time...and as you may have read, I started 40-30-30 at about 263 lbs). Also, I've read in zone literature that the "average woman" should have about 11 blocks. I'm now 5'6 and just under 150 lbs. (just within normal BMI range) So, without doing the formal calculations, I figured I was currently about "average" and would be loosely calculated at 11 blocks. Also, I did try using the zoneperfect calculator again recently. It somehow still calculated me to need 11 blocks. I actually am much more comfortable and am still losing about 1.5 lbs/week on more like 12-13-sometimes 14 blocks, however. Being over 140 lbs (and under 180), and at my activity level, the formula book would have me eating 14 blocks. At under 140 lbs, the formula book would recommend I eat about 12 blocks....still more than the "average woman" as generally recommended in the zone books. One of these days, I should try using the calculations in the back of one of the zone books I have to determine my zone block allotment more precisely. It also seems I had read somewhere, though I'm not sure now, when using that zoneperfect calculator, an explanation of why it calculated blocks based on ideal body weight. ??? If I ever come across that subject again, if it even exists, I'll have to read it more closely and ? post it. The Formula and The Zone are both 40-30-30 based but I still believe they may differ somewhat in what is recommended per day when compared overall calorie wise...I apologize if I mis-quoted the ideal body weight thing so to speak...I don't mean to be causing any confusion for anyone out there. I fully admit, I'm still learning more and more each day about the Zone version. Regardless, the 40-30-30/Zone way of life has become my life in many ways. I wholeheartedly thank Barry Sears for his discovery/creation of the zone and 40-30-30 way of eating through his advancements in scientific research. I would appreciate any further explanation on this topic from you Sue. Otherwise, I'm sure I'll be reading that section of my zone books more closely when I get a chance as well. I do really appreciate your knowledgeable posts, Sue. Thank you! :-) Donna.

[quote:2126627963="starz"]Hello Sue! Thank you for your post re: the zone block requirements. I should play around with zone block calculations a little more to get a better handle on this, I think. When I met with Michelle in person last week, she pointed out my misunderstanding on this topic. However, I'm still a little confused, I think. I was under the assumption that the zone had you eat blocks based on your ideal weight rather than your current weight for some of these reasons.... My thinking stemmed from a zone calculator I once used when i was still quite overweight. The calculator calculated my blocks to be much lower than the Formula book (if compared to blocks) would have had me eat. When I was over 180 lbs, the Formula book had me eat the equivalent of about 16 blocks per day. I don't remember exactly the amount of blocks that calculator computed for me but I do remember it was significantly less....something like 12 blocks, I think? (I was still well over 200 pounds at the time...and as you may have read, I started 40-30-30 at about 263 lbs). Also, I've read in zone literature that the "average woman" should have about 11 blocks. I'm now 5'6 and just under 150 lbs. (just within normal BMI range) So, without doing the formal calculations, I figured I was currently about "average" and would be loosely calculated at 11 blocks. Also, I did try using the zoneperfect calculator again recently. It somehow still calculated me to need 11 blocks. I actually am much more comfortable and am still losing about 1.5 lbs/week on more like 12-13-sometimes 14 blocks, however. Being over 140 lbs (and under 180), and at my activity level, the formula book would have me eating 14 blocks. At under 140 lbs, the formula book would recommend I eat about 12 blocks....still more than the "average woman" as generally recommended in the zone books. One of these days, I should try using the calculations in the back of one of the zone books I have to determine my zone block allotment more precisely. It also seems I had read somewhere, though I'm not sure now, when using that zoneperfect calculator, an explanation of why it calculated blocks based on ideal body weight. ??? If I ever come across that subject again, if it even exists, I'll have to read it more closely and ? post it. The Formula and The Zone are both 40-30-30 based but I still believe they may differ somewhat in what is recommended per day when compared overall calorie wise...I apologize if I mis-quoted the ideal body weight thing so to speak...I don't mean to be causing any confusion for anyone out there. I fully admit, I'm still learning more and more each day about the Zone version. Regardless, the 40-30-30/Zone way of life has become my life in many ways. I wholeheartedly thank Barry Sears for his discovery/creation of the zone and 40-30-30 way of eating through his advancements in scientific research. I would appreciate any further explanation on this topic from you Sue. Otherwise, I'm sure I'll be reading that section of my zone books more closely when I get a chance as well. I do really appreciate your knowledgeable posts, Sue. Thank you! :-) Donna.[/quote:2126627963] Hi Donna, I'll try to help with your confusion. In the Zone one eats an appropriate amount of low fat protein, determined by one's current LBM and activity level, and balances it with an amount of carb in keeping with the Zone guidelines (P/C ratio from about .5 or .6 to 1) to yield a fairly low glycemic load. Then a small amount of monounsaturated fat is added. the Zone is based on acheiving hormonal balance, primarily glucagon /insulin balance, and not on controlling calorie intake. One pays no attention to calories in the Zone, but rather concentrates on the hormonal consequences of one's food choices, although when following the Zone guidelines of low fat protein and low GL meals, with only a small amount of additional fat, the diet automatically becomes low in calories. I am not familiar with the "Formula" literature you referred to, but I think you may be trying to compare apples to oranges. If so that is probably adding to your confusion. Another thing I think you may be confused about is the relationship of the 40/30/30 concept to the Zone. For instance at the [b:2126627963]center[/b:2126627963] of the Zone, which is a .75 P/C ratio, the 40/30/30 concept applies, but only at the [b:2126627963]center[/b:2126627963]. The Zone represents a range of ratios, as I mentioned above. In the traditionally balanced 3 block Zone meal, one consumes 27g carb (carbs have 4 calories in every g), 21g protein (protein has 4 calories in every g), and 9 g fat (fat has 9 calories in every g). So a 3 block meal has a total of 273 calories. 108 of these calories (which is 40% of 273) are from carb; 84 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from protein; and 81 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from fat. That's where the expression 40/30/30 originates. The ratio of 84 protein calories to 108 carb calories is also referred to as a .75 P/C ratio (84 divided by 108 equals about .75). One can be above or below the .75 P/C ratio and still be in the Zone. When one adds or subtracts a block of carb to adjust for hunger, this will either lower or raise the P/C ratio. A traditional adjustment to the Zone, as you have probably read in the Forums and/or the FAQs on this site, is to eliminate some carb and to add fat to meals in order to stay in the Zone. In this case a 3 block meal is usually 3P, 2C, 6F. If you calculate the percantage of calories form P, C, and F in this block configuration you no longer have 40/30/30, but now 26/30/44. This meal is still in the Zone and has about 277 total calories (basicallly the same as the 273 calories in the 3P/3C/3F meal). But, as you can see, 26/30/44 is definitley not 40/30/30! The P/C ratio for 26/30/44 is about 1. You mentioned trying the LBM calculations in the Zone books. This will give you block recommendations, and also results for LBM and body fat %, which are almost identical to those from the Body Fat Calculator on this site. The only difference will be from rounding to the nearest 5 lb when using the Body Fat Calculator. As far as your confusion about the 11 or 12 blocks, and whether or not you represent the average woman, it will all depend upon your LBM. You've given your weight, and your Body Mass Index, but not your actual LBM or activity level. Without those two pieces of info I would not be able to speculate on the appropriate number of daily blocks for you. One's current LBM and activity level are the basis of daily block calculations. It is recommended that one track one's LBM and body fat % during weight loss to ascertain that they are not losing LBM. In the Zone, the weight one loses should be only from excess stored body fat. LBM should either remain constant or increase. I hope this info has been helpful, and congrats on your weight loss! :D Sue

Hello Sue! :D :D :D Actually, "The Formula" and the Zone are extremely similar. We're comparing Braeburn apples to Macintosh Apples, so to speak, rather than apples to oranges. You may want to take a look at the Formula book sometime. It has some fantastic recipes! I am actually quite familiar with the topics of your last post through following the Formula for over a year and now the zone as well through at least 1/2 that time. I've read most of the Zone books as well. I'm hooked! I realize that the Zone isn't counted in calories...either is the Formula. I just used the concept of calories in order to compare the two "diets" because they each use a different way of counting essentially the same macronutrient ratio (based on 40-30-30). I realize some people use the raise a fat, drop a carb, etc. in order to calibrate things for themselves to get them into their zone. That's fine....The Formula book does differ in that is sticks pretty close to the 40-30-30 ratio but it also has a great section called "Close is Good Enough" which takes some of the pressure off of counting exactly and precisely each and every time a meal is made. (similar to the concepts of the plate method or eyeball/hand method of the zone). I am still down to that final topic again, though...I just did the calculator on this site. With a height of 66 inches, a weight of 149, and light activity level...31.36% body fat, and a LBM of 102.27, my protein requirement is 77g and my zone block requirement still calculates to be 11 blocks. The formula book would still have me at 14 "blocks" because I am a woman at a weight between 141-180 lbs, and currently exercise 0-4 hours per week. When I am under 140 lbs, the formula book would still have me at 12 blocks. This is the lowest amount recommended in the formula book for an adult. This is where I see a difference in the two eating plans (formula & zone). These are both excellent diets...really just a different way of counting essentially the same macronutrient ratio. The diets are really largely interchangeable except for the difference in overall calorie allotment a person would eat in a day on either plan. Really, do take a look at that book sometime if you get a chance, Sue. ("The Formula: A Personalized 40-30-30 Weight Loss Program by Gene and Joyce Daoust). The authors are two nutritionists who worked with Dr. Sears in developing and testing the original 40-30-30 zone nutrition program. I, now, use is mostly as a cookbook of great balanced recipes! Thank you for your thorough replies. Also, it's really inspiring to see that you lost the amount of weight you did many years ago and are still going strong with the zone. I plan to do the same...it's really just the way I eat now... Lovin' the zone :-) Donna.

[quote:5e6389355e="starz"]Hello Sue! :D :D :D Actually, "The Formula" and the Zone are extremely similar. We're comparing Braeburn apples to Macintosh Apples, so to speak, rather than apples to oranges. You may want to take a look at the Formula book sometime. It has some fantastic recipes! I am actually quite familiar with the topics of your last post through following the Formula for over a year and now the zone as well through at least 1/2 that time. I've read most of the Zone books as well. I'm hooked! I realize that the Zone isn't counted in calories...either is the Formula. I just used the concept of calories in order to compare the two "diets" because they each use a different way of counting essentially the same macronutrient ratio (based on 40-30-30). I realize some people use the raise a fat, drop a carb, etc. in order to calibrate things for themselves to get them into their zone. That's fine....The Formula book does differ in that is sticks pretty close to the 40-30-30 ratio but it also has a great section called "Close is Good Enough" which takes some of the pressure off of counting exactly and precisely each and every time a meal is made. (similar to the concepts of the plate method or eyeball/hand method of the zone). I am still down to that final topic again, though...I just did the calculator on this site. With a height of 66 inches, a weight of 149, and light activity level...31.36% body fat, and a LBM of 102.27, my protein requirement is 77g and my zone block requirement still calculates to be 11 blocks. The formula book would still have me at 14 "blocks" because I am a woman at a weight between 141-180 lbs, and currently exercise 0-4 hours per week. When I am under 140 lbs, the formula book would still have me at 12 blocks. This is the lowest amount recommended in the formula book for an adult. This is where I see a difference in the two eating plans (formula & zone). These are both excellent diets...really just a different way of counting essentially the same macronutrient ratio. The diets are really largely interchangeable except for the difference in overall calorie allotment a person would eat in a day on either plan. Really, do take a look at that book sometime if you get a chance, Sue. ("The Formula: A Personalized 40-30-30 Weight Loss Program by Gene and Joyce Daoust). The authors are two nutritionists who worked with Dr. Sears in developing and testing the original 40-30-30 zone nutrition program. I, now, use is mostly as a cookbook of great balanced recipes! Thank you for your thorough replies. Also, it's really inspiring to see that you lost the amount of weight you did many years ago and are still going strong with the zone. I plan to do the same...it's really just the way I eat now... Lovin' the zone :-) Donna.[/quote:5e6389355e] Hi Donna, It seems I'm just not clearly stating my point. The point I am trying to make is that you are referring to the Zone as a 40/30/30 diet, and, plain and simple, it is [b:5e6389355e]not[/b:5e6389355e]! :shock: Sorry to be so blunt! Please refer to the following quote from Barry Sears taken from this site: <<Do you have a question for Dr. Sears? Dr. Sears will choose one question per day and post an answer here. This is a chance for Zone Members to get feedback directly from the developer of the Zone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's question "Peter D'Adamo's comments" Dear Dr. Sears, Dear Dr. Sears, How would you respond to the following Q&A on Dr. D'Adamo's website: As you know, the 40-30-30 diets "blame" many of the health ills on elevated insulin. Do you give any credence to this? Should we take the Glycemic index of foods on Tom Kobzina -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tom Kobzina, Dear Tom: The Zone Diet is not a 40-30-30 diet. It is based upon balance of protein to carbohydrate until insulin levels are eventually bought into a zone between 5uU/ml and 10 uU/ml. Furthermore, the Zone Diet is based on overall hormonal orchestrat..... ...Dr. Barry Sears>> Sue :D

[quote:1a5fe0cd4b]Another thing I think you may be confused about is the relationship of the 40/30/30 concept to the Zone. For instance at the center of the Zone, which is a .75 P/C ratio, the 40/30/30 concept applies, but only at the center. The Zone represents a range of ratios, as I mentioned above. In the traditionally balanced 3 block Zone meal, one consumes 27g carb (carbs have 4 calories in every g), 21g protein (protein has 4 calories in every g), and 9 g fat (fat has 9 calories in every g). So a 3 block meal has a total of 273 calories. 108 of these calories (which is 40% of 273) are from carb; 84 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from protein; and 81 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from fat. That's where the expression 40/30/30 originates. The ratio of 84 protein calories to 108 carb calories is also referred to as a .75 P/C ratio (84 divided by 108 equals about .75)[/quote:1a5fe0cd4b] I do understand that the 40-30-30 ratio is only at the center of the zone as you stated above...and I don't mean to say these "diets" are the same. I said they are similar. The reason I compare the two and use the two interchangeably in my own personal meal preparation is that regardless of how or what you count to get there, when making a 40-30-30 or.75 P/C ratio or zone block based meal aiming for the center of the zone, you get the same macronutrient ratio following either "diet"... (also--i realize that some people need to but-- so far, I haven't personally needed to increase fat and decrease carbs to stay in the zone) Any of the meals in the formula book or any other 40-30-30 cookbook can get you to "the center" of the zone as long as they include zone favorable ingredients and that each meal is approximately 40-30-30 balanced which would give you an approximate P/C ratio of .75. You can count things many different ways. The bottom line is you still end up sitting down to the same balance of macronutrients at each meal, regardless. I don't mean to sound offensive here, Sue. I really think we are just working through some terminology. I did state something incorrectly. I should have said "the 40-30-30 concept applies at the center of the zone" [i:1a5fe0cd4b]not[/i:1a5fe0cd4b] that the zone is [i:1a5fe0cd4b]based on[/i:1a5fe0cd4b] the 40-30-30 concept. I apologize. Thank you for clarifying this. :-) Donna.

[quote:e19cbf88a1="starz"][quote:e19cbf88a1]Another thing I think you may be confused about is the relationship of the 40/30/30 concept to the Zone. For instance at the center of the Zone, which is a .75 P/C ratio, the 40/30/30 concept applies, but only at the center. The Zone represents a range of ratios, as I mentioned above. In the traditionally balanced 3 block Zone meal, one consumes 27g carb (carbs have 4 calories in every g), 21g protein (protein has 4 calories in every g), and 9 g fat (fat has 9 calories in every g). So a 3 block meal has a total of 273 calories. 108 of these calories (which is 40% of 273) are from carb; 84 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from protein; and 81 calories (which is 30% of 273) are from fat. That's where the expression 40/30/30 originates. The ratio of 84 protein calories to 108 carb calories is also referred to as a .75 P/C ratio (84 divided by 108 equals about .75)[/quote:e19cbf88a1] I do understand that the 40-30-30 ratio is only at the center of the zone as you stated above...and I don't mean to say these "diets" are the same. I said they are similar. The reason I compare the two and use the two interchangeably in my own personal meal preparation is that regardless of how or what you count to get there, when making a 40-30-30 or.75 P/C ratio or zone block based meal aiming for the center of the zone, you get the same macronutrient ratio following either "diet"... (also--i realize that some people need to but-- so far, I haven't personally needed to increase fat and decrease carbs to stay in the zone) Any of the meals in the formula book or any other 40-30-30 cookbook can get you to "the center" of the zone as long as they include zone favorable ingredients and that each meal is approximately 40-30-30 balanced which would give you an approximate P/C ratio of .75. You can count things many different ways. The bottom line is you still end up sitting down to the same balance of macronutrients at each meal, regardless. I don't mean to sound offensive here, Sue. I really think we are just working through some terminology. I did state something incorrectly. I should have said "the 40-30-30 concept applies at the center of the zone" [i:e19cbf88a1]not[/i:e19cbf88a1] that the zone is [i:e19cbf88a1]based on[/i:e19cbf88a1] the 40-30-30 concept. I apologize. Thank you for clarifying this. :-) Donna.[/quote:e19cbf88a1] Hi Donna, :D No offense taken! Sorry, but I have to disagree that "we are just working through some terminology". While I do agree you may get the same macronutrient ratio, it does not follow that you will get the same hormonal impact. Your initial question was about why the eating plans (Zone and Formula), which you described to both be 40/30/'30, are not each recommending the same amount of food for a woman your size. My reply was that the Zone is not a 40/30/30 diet. You just stated in this last post that you don't mean to say these diets are the same, but are similar. That's the answer right there to your question about why one eating plan recommends that a person of your size eat more food than the other plan recommends. They are not the same. Bear in mind the hormonal implications of the Zone. That's what the Zone is all about, eating to keep your insulin between the levels of 5 and 10 on the fasting insulin blood test. Those levels are the definition of the Zone. While I have not read "The Formula", as I have already posted, from your brief description of it, I would doubt that it is based on acheiving precise and measureable insulin levels as theZone is. This is why I said you are probably trying to compare apples to oranges. Again, no offense taken and none intended. 8) Sue

[quote:f75adbd485]Hi Donna, No offense taken! Sorry, but I have to disagree that "we are just working through some terminology". While I do agree you may get the same macronutrient ratio, it does not follow that you will get the same hormonal impact. Your initial question was about why the eating plans (Zone and Formula), which you described to both be 40/30/'30, are not each recommending the same amount of food for a woman your size. My reply was that the Zone is not a 40/30/30 diet. You just stated in this last post that you don't mean to say these diets are the same, but are similar. That's the answer right there to your question about why one eating plan recommends that a person of your size eat more food than the other plan recommends. They are not the same. Bear in mind the hormonal implications of the Zone. That's what the Zone is all about, eating to keep your insulin between the levels of 5 and 10 on the fasting insulin blood test. Those levels are the definition of the Zone. While I have not read "The Formula", as I have already posted, from your brief description of it, I would doubt that it is based on acheiving precise and measureable insulin levels as theZone is. This is why I said you are probably trying to compare apples to oranges. Again, no offense taken and none intended. Sue [/quote:f75adbd485] Hello Sue! Here is a question regarding this very topic posted on this forum which may enlighten us... Do you have a question for Dr. Sears? Dr. Sears will choose one question per day and post an answer here. This is a chance for Zone Members to get feedback directly from the developer of the Zone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Today's question "40-30-30 and the Zone" Dear Dr. Sears, Dr. Sears, I have been following the Formula 40-30-30 diet plan for six months now with great success. I have just received a series of your books as a gift. I have just started reading them. I see similarities in the diet plan I have been on and yours. Is it the same plan? If so, I am delighted as I can now expand on the knowledge you have to offer. I have lost 52 lbs in eight months and feel great. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Elaine Elaine ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Elaine, Dear Elaine, Every diet plan based on a ?40-30-30? balance of macronutrients is derived from my original work first published in 1995. However, the Zone is not static, as it is continually expanding, especially with the introduction of pharmaceutical-grade fish oil. As we can see, the 40-30-30 balance of macronutrients was derived from Dr Sears' original work published at the time of his writing of Enter the Zone. The two diets are related and IMO are quite similar in many (but not all as we've already covered) ways...and thank goodness for the continued advancements Dr. Sears is making! I do agree with you that these diets are not exactly the same. I now reference my original recommendation to Michelle (in a previous post) for her husband to consider trying to increase the blocks as they are increased in the Formula book to see if this helps in curbing his hunger. I think this is where our wonderful discussion began...was that about 3 years ago or so? :lol: I did at that time state that the zone blocks were based on "ideal weight and activity level". I do now retract that statement and thank you for your clarification. You did clarify for me that the zone does figure in more blocks for one who is quite overweight because of increased muscle mass due to carrying around extra weight, etc....and that the zone blocks are based on current LBM and activity level. The calculator I used at the time that I was largely overweight did not seem to take this into account. This is where my supposed erroneous thought regarding that statement originated. I apologize. Please do read the formula book I've spoken of when you get a chance, Sue. It is not the same diet :wink: but it does cover many (but not all) of the same basic concepts as the zone does re: hormonal control, etc. and has many absolutely fantastic "zoned--so to speak" recipes. :wink: Donna. :D

Hi Donna, I came up with the exact post you quoted when searching yesterday for the quote I posted. I chose not to use it because it didn't demonstrate the point I was addressing. IMHO you have nothing to apologize to me for! :D Thanks for the book reference. I'll let you know my opinion when find the book. There's another item you posted to me that I want to clarify, in addition to the 40/30/30 topic. You wrote: <<You did clarify for me that the zone does figure in more blocks for one who is quite overweight because of increased muscle mass due to carrying around extra weight, etc....and that the zone blocks are based on current LBM and activity level.>> It appears you are misinterpreting what I posted regarding this topic. I posted the following: <<If one is very obese a higher than actual activity level is assumed and additional blocks above those necessary to support current activity level are consumed daily. These additional blocks are necessary because carrying around a large amount of body fat is comparable to strength training on a daily basis. As body fat % lowers, one can eliminate these extra blocks and base their daily need for food on their current LBM and actual activity level. >> I am [b:9bf82b7c72]not[/b:9bf82b7c72] saying that obese individuals have increased muscle mass due to carrying around excess weight in the form of excess body fat. This may or may not be true depending upon the individual. But it is not related to what I was explaining about assuming higher activity levels for the obese when calculating daily protein and block requirements. Regardless of amount of LBM, a higher than actual activity level is assumed for extremely obese individuals when calculation protein/block requirements. Hope this explanation makes it a bit clearer. Sue :D

[quote:a32f0934b2]Hi Donna, I came up with the exact post you quoted when searching yesterday for the quote I posted. I chose not to use it because it didn't demonstrate the point I was addressing. IMHO you have nothing to apologize to me for! Thanks for the book reference. I'll let you know my opinion when find the book. There's another item you posted to me that I want to clarify, in addition to the 40/30/30 topic. You wrote: <<You did clarify for me that the zone does figure in more blocks for one who is quite overweight because of increased muscle mass due to carrying around extra weight, etc....and that the zone blocks are based on current LBM and activity level.>> It appears you are misinterpreting what I posted regarding this topic. I posted the following: <<If one is very obese a higher than actual activity level is assumed and additional blocks above those necessary to support current activity level are consumed daily. These additional blocks are necessary because carrying around a large amount of body fat is comparable to strength training on a daily basis. As body fat % lowers, one can eliminate these extra blocks and base their daily need for food on their current LBM and actual activity level. >> I am not saying that obese individuals have increased muscle mass due to carrying around excess weight in the form of excess body fat. This may or may not be true depending upon the individual. But it is not related to what I was explaining about assuming higher activity levels for the obese when calculating daily protein and block requirements. Regardless of amount of LBM, a higher than actual activity level is assumed for extremely obese individuals when calculation protein/block requirements. Hope this explanation makes it a bit clearer. Sue _________________ age 51 Lost 100 lb 1995-1996 Off BP meds with the Zone and FO[/quote:a32f0934b2] Hi Sue! You are right. I did remember your post incorrectly. I think I have heard of the somewhat increased muscle mass concept from another source. I really should have looked back at your post to re-read before posting my comment on it....just in a hurry that day. Sorry Have a great day! Donna. :D

[quote="starz"][quote:8f06b7e1a5] Please do read the formula book I've spoken of when you get a chance, Sue. It is not the same diet :wink: but it does cover many (but not all) of the same basic concepts as the zone does re: hormonal control, etc. and has many absolutely fantastic "zoned--so to speak" recipes. :wink: Donna. :D[/quote:8f06b7e1a5] Hi Donna, I have now read "The Formula" by the Daousts. 8) You are correct to say it is not the same diet nor does it cover the same basic concepts as the Zone does. The recommendations as to amounts of daily food really surprised me. :shock: IMHO, even though it makes a slight differentiation between activity, it falls woefully short. For instance, I'm about 5'8" and my cousin is 4'10" and we weigh almost the same weight. It has us both eating the exact same amounts of food every day. :shock: Here's another take on this subject. I have gained about 13 lb in LBM in the past 4 yrs, yet in the Formula plan, it would have me eating the exact same amounts of food daily at both my past and current weights because I still fall between 140 and 180 lbs and have the same activity level. :? Now that I think of it, I doubt that I would have been able to acheive the significant muscle gains on the Formula eating plan. And, don't get me wrong. I didn't set out to gain LBM, it simply occurred. Another area where I see a big difference is in the glycemic load (GL) of the meals. The "21 Day Fat Flush" portion of the Formula has lower GL meals than the regular Formula plan, but in looking at the meal composition, most of the "21 Day Fat Flush " meals aren't even meals that I would be able to function on. They are the types of meals that would induce hunger in me. Many of the regular Formula meals are nowhere near the Zone IMO. They have a preponderance of unfavorable carb . I see repeatedly in the recipes that half or more of the carb in the meal comes from items such as bread, bagels, rice, tortillas, orange juice, banana, and pineapple. I noticed many recipies listed where all the carb came from bread and fruit. :( Zone meals are not about making macronutrient proportions work out to 40 /30/30 with disregard for GL. I don't agree with the evening meal being proportionately larger than the other meals. One dinner had me eating 6 1/2 oz of chicken breast. That's enough for two meals! :? Another area in which I disagreed with the authors is in their fat recommendations. If I'm not mistaken, they propose that 10% of one's total daily calories come from saturated fat, 10% from "unsaturated fat" (which I assume to mean polyunsaturated fat), and 10% from monounsaturated fat. I would have liked to look this up for clarifiction before addressing it here, but I can't since I no longer have the book in my possession. If I'm in error please forgive me. IMO this is not in line with current recommendations for promoting optimal cardiovascular health. Long before I'd ever heard of the Zone I had significantly improved my lipid profile (chol., trig., etc.) by consuming primarily heart-healthy monounsaturated fats as opposed to consuming a signicant amount of my daily fat calories from from saturated and polyunsaturated sources. The mission of the Zone is not weight loss and "40/30/30 eating". If more people understood the actual principles of and benefits of the Zone, there would probably be much less confusion about what sets the Zone apart from (and miles apart from, IMO) other diet plans and lifestyles. I see "The Formula" as talking many giant steps backward from the Zone. Sue

[quote:b7676d356d]Another area where I see a big difference is in the glycemic load (GL) of the meals. The "21 Day Fat Flush" portion of the Formula has lower GL meals than the regular Formula plan, but in looking at the meal composition, most of the "21 Day Fat Flush " meals aren't even meals that I would be able to function on. They are the types of meals that would induce hunger in me.[/quote:b7676d356d] Hello Sue! Thank you for taking the time to review the formula book. I hear you regarding the differences you found between the formula and the zone. I've noted them myself. Yes, as we have established, they are different diets. However, in relation to the oodles of other "diets" available out there currently, and as we both know, there are many... IMO these two are more similar than not. In "talking" with you..., I'm getting the impression that we may have slightly different takes on how "strict" so to speak we are in following our diets. For instance, I do completely agree that the "Regular Meals" section has many higher glycemic ingredients. I actually choose the "Fat Flush" meals much more often for this reason. However, I will occasionally have a "regular meal" recipe because IMO it gives me a way to still enjoy a pizza, for instance, (it would be made with tortilla bread) occasionally without feeling like I'm going way off my diet, so to speak. Perhaps I'm not as carb sensitive as some??? For me, although I don't currently miss these foods much, if I felt I could never ever have a banana again or never ever have pineapple again, for instance, I would be feeling quite restricted....Also, it is my understanding that it is o.k. to use higher glycemic foods in zoned meals on occasion as long as it is in small quantity and preferably not the only source of carbs for the meal....and of course, as always, the better choice is the lower glycemic ingredients. Given all that, I do agree with you that the regular meals do contain many more "unfavorable" ingredients than the zone would recommend. I am curious why you stated the following (copy above): "most of the "21 Day Fat Flush " meals aren't even meals that I would be able to function on. They are the types of meals that would induce hunger in me." What is it about these fat flush meals that brings you to say this, Sue? I am guessing ? the grapes as ingredients occasionally and the shakes recipes? I have heard that some people have more trouble with "liquid" meals in terms of glycemic response and I've also heard that grapes are considered unfavorable. Have you had trouble with these ingredients or others? I, personally, have not had any problem with them cravings wise anyway. ( I do not test my insulin levels on a daily basis, of course...or blood sugar for that matter... I am not diabetic. Cravings and fatigue and a sort of "buzzed" feeling are my symptoms when my meal has been too far out of balance for me...I can definitely feel it.) For me, the formula meals and zone meals both work well...and I know I have been eating more healthily overall this past year than ever before in my life. Through the formula and the zone, I have learned soooooo much about nutrition and quantities of macronutrients in foods ...and cooking! I never used to cook much more than something comparable to the difficulty of a grilled cheese sandwich or microwavable meal! I feel better than I have felt in many years, even better than when I was previously thin (if I could strain to remember that far back :wink: )...I look at this as an overall major behavioral change in the way I choose, prepare and consume food. It is a permanent and lifetime thing for me. In order for me to maintain this for a lifetime, I need to have some flexibility in my choices and to be able to think of it somewhat flexibly. The occasional regular formula meals I choose are one way I am able to get some of that flexibility in my diet and eating. They are also a good way for me to offer my family (husband and two young children) more variety of "healthier" choices along with me. And I truly thank my lucky stars that I was introduced to the formula book a little over a year ago... It is the reason I lost (I prefer to think of it as "released" :D) over 125 lbs!...and the reason I came to discover the existence of the Zone and Barry Sears. The Zone and Dr. Sears' current and future discoveries will continue to play a major part in my and my family's health over the long term (not to mention the 100s of those I've recommended the zone and formula books to). Great talking with you, Sue. :-) Donna.

Hi Donna, I think you pointed out something I was not sensitive to. :oops: You and I, while both having been successsful with the Zone, have individual needs that differ slightly (my carb sensitivity) and therefore we are coming from slightly differrent places in our Zoning. I enjoy "talking" to you too, but I fear my point of view resulting from my particular needs may have led you to think I was criticizing you. I assure you I that was not my intention. I apologize if I might have offended you. :( I'm in a hurry right now, and don't recall all the specific reasons the meals wouldn't work for me. One reason was definitely the smoothie/liquid thing, as you mentioned. I'm seeing the friend who's "Formula " book I borrowed to read, either today or tomorrow, so I'll check out the recipes for the fat flush again and let you know. I'll also write you more about my past experiences, which will give you better idea of my Zoning, when I have more time. I think it's great the we can have "conversations" such as this in a forum for all to see. IMO, it's very helpful and informative for others to read about different individual Zoning experiences. Have a good weekend! Sue :D

[quote:71d5a7f282]I think it's great the we can have "conversations" such as this in a forum for all to see. IMO, it's very helpful and informative for others to read about different individual Zoning experiences. [/quote:71d5a7f282] I agree, Sue... Have a great day! Donna :D

Hi Donna, I haven't forgotten you! :D I've been away most of the past few days and didn't have a chance to write this. I was able to get the book back to take another look at the meals. 8) Much of the fat flush recipies and almost all of the regular recipies for would not be things I could stay in the Zone with. :( You had asked if it might be the smoothies or the grapes that are the reason the meals won't work for me. Actually, grapes are ok for me. Yes, the smoothies are one reason. I don t' stay in the Zone well at all with all fruits and spoonfuls of fructose for carbs in a meal (see the smoothies on pp. 70 and 71). All the page numbers are from the book you had referred to. The cheese omelet would not work because it has 3 1/2 P and only 1 grapefruit for carb. The veggie fritata and oranges wouldn't work because, again, it's almonst all fruit for carb, and oranges at that. Oranges dont keep me zoned. The amount of carb in the fritata that comes from veggies is minimal, way under a block. Oh, BTW, I fit the profile of a "C" meal plan, so I'm using the amounts for the "C" plan. The "all fruit for carb" seems to be in a lot of the Formula meals. Now, moving on to the lunch recipies, again the smoothies wouldn't work, especially the Cocoa Peanut Butter Shake with all the carbs from 3/4 cup milk, 2T fructose and the little bit if carb in the cocoa that isn't offset by the fiber! The cottage cheese and fruit would not be a choice fro me due to all carb from fruit. the only way I can get away with all carb from fruit is with berries, butI can't do it for most all meals and snacks as in this plan. I can eat fruit maybe 2, or at most 3 times a day, and only 1/2 to 1 block at a time. The tuna lunches, again, have all carb from fruit(and 6 oz..6 blocks :!: ... of tuna a mea)l. The tuna stuffed tomato on p. 80 also has most all fruit for carb. Even the salad on p. 81 has mostly fruit for carb. I did find one that I could do well with, the Farmer's Market salad on p. 80 with the veggies and garbanzos. It's the garbanzos that would help me out there. Salads and meals of all low density veggies won't keep me zoned , either. You'd think so, in theory, but they don't. I need to have a mix of low and medium density carbs. Now, as for the formula snacks, the deli meats and fruit would be good with me, and even the soy beans and grapes, but the tuna/apple on pg. 90 is practically a 3 block meal! The snacks of yougrt and fruit, fruit and milk, fructose and fruit.....forget it! On to dinners...shakes again! On Pg. 100, the Orange Chicken Sritfry with oj, no way! It has too much carb from oranges, juice, and cornstarch. No to the Sweet and Sour Shrimp Stirfry on pg. 102 for the same reason (cornstarch fructose and pineapple). I'm not sayit fructose messes me up, but to the extent is it used ion some places herr( teh shake with 2T!) it is taking away too much other food from my daily plan. 2T fructose is between 2 and 3 blocks and I would have no carb in the meal besides that!Teh salmon dinner on pg 109 would be good, but it's a lot more salmon adn peaches than I could eat at one meal. Looking at teh veggie lasagne on pg. 116, I'd say it would work for me, but I didn't check proportions to see how balanced it is. In regards to it, I looked at the ingredients. The size of these dinners is really big, another reason I would hesitate with them. Also the ones including barley have very large amounts of barley in the meal, which would throw off the balance I require and take me right out of th Zone. Last, but not least we have the desserts. Suffice it to say that concoctions of cream cheese and fructose don't keep me in the Zone. You might wonder what I do eat. I assure you It's all very delicious! Last night, for instance, we had steamed cauliflower topped with turkey meatballs, spaghetti sauce and parmesan cheese, with blueberries and almonds for dessert. A favorite snack of mine is cottage cheese topped with chopped tomato and guacamole, and eaten with a few whole grain baked corn chips (Guiltless Gourmet brand, made with canola oil). I refuse to eat something I don't like just because it's supposed to be good for me! Another thing I like is 1/2 cup of plain yogurt with a little alcohol free almond extract (actually adds sweetness) and 1t. crunchy peanut butter stirred it. I use Horizon organic fat free yogurt. It's delicious! If you haven't ever tried it, you'd be surprised how much better a lot of the organic foods taste compared to conventionally produced foods. I'm wondering what types of meals keep you in the Zone the longest. I'd love to hear if you'd be willing to share that info. Take care, Sue :D

Hello Sue! I really don't have much problem staying "in the zone" so to speak with any of the meals in the fat flush section of the formula book, even the smoothies!...and the cheesecakes which are to die for... For me, these recipes are great! I don't have any problem with the low-medium glycemic fruits, either, as long as they're balanced with appropriate amounts of protein and healthy fat. I do occasionally have a zoneperfect or balance bar. These work o.k. and taste great, IMO, but don't seem to last me as long as other recipe choices. I haven't yet tried the OmegaZone bars...the price has been holding me back...have you tried them? Are they tasty in your opinion??? Also, some of the regular meals in the formula book don't last me quite as long...almost but not quite anyway... (more higher glycemic carbs and less fiber in them)...but I do still enjoy them occasionally. Probably my best (in terms of keeping me in the zone and lasting, etc.) and quickest to prepare meal recently is an approx 3 block meal I put together for lunch occasionally. It is comprised of 3 pieces of "Farmland" deli ham with one slice of reduced fat provolone cheese (Sargento), also 4-5 black olives and a small apple. I take the provolone cheese and break it into 3 pieces. I then make little ham and cheese rollups and eat the black olives and the small apple on the side. Very quick and simple and works very well for me. It may or may not be perfectly zoned but it's at least close and works for me! Have a great day, Sue! :-) Donna.

I am new to his diet.. MAN I hope it works for me.. so basically your eating 5-6 times a day with snacks Right?

Thanks
Dianna

Welcome Dianna!

Yes, you'll eat a minimum of 5 times a day. For more info, go to Quick Start Guide in the EATING TAB (link at right).