TO: Paul Hoffman

Putting Atkins and Zone in the same category means you don't know much about one of them. It looks like you don't understand the Zone. It is not a high protein diet. It's not a high anything diet. The Zone teaches you how to eat balanced meals, and to try to avoid the bad versions, of fats, carbs, and proteins. -Todd

ChakaTodd is right. The Zone is not a high-protein diet like the Atkins diet.

When I went on the Zone diet, I started losing about a pound a week--nothing dramatic but steady--and eventually lost a total of fifty pounds. And as a bonus, I felt more energetic and didn't get sleepy after lunch anymore.

I kept the weight off for several years but lately I've gotten careless with the carbs and have gained about 25 pounds of it back.

Get back on it Dave! If you can limit yourself to one non-Zone meal a day you'll be way ahead of the game.

The French smoke like crazy. They won't give up their cigarettes because they're afraid of getting fat.

I moved to tokyo back in November. since then i've lost over 20 pounds. i used to live in chicago - ate polish food, italian food, lots of burritos from the mexican places down the street. bologna. hot dogs. cheese.

but now i eat traditional japanese diet -- rice, vegetables, tofu, miso soup, fish. and i eat as much as i want. and i just get skinnier and skinnier. no more soda, but green tea, and cold barley tea. and lots of walking in japan. but really its the diet. change your diet and you will be healthy i think.

cypher - if smoking like a fiend was all it took, i'd be "tobacco chic".

wait a minute chaps, where are my usual 'conspiracy round every corner' boingy folk?
have you any comprehension of how much money the international sugar trade turns over?
have you any idea how vicious it turns when anyone suggests that refined sugar is not the 'natural food' it would like you all to think?
refined sugar will be the new tobacco in a few year's time (and your tall skinny frappolattochocachino will be just another delivery mechanism)

As for those Omega fat thingies. Last night I split a peppered, smoked mackeral (about $4.00) with a friend as an appetizer. I took the skin and grilled it; the stankiest, greasiest stuff imaginable, like frying bacon in duck fat. I got a vitamin G injection that will keep my knees from creaking for a week and it was GOOD for me to boot.

The Japanese diet is just a lot better, lots of meals, small quantities, less refined foods, lots of oily seafood. Even the heaviest French food is no match pound for pound for American fast food for it's ill effects, and they walk a LOT more than us.

I don't know that a fast food class-action lawsuit is that outrageous. Everyone knew smoking was bad for them too...

Edited by author 07-08-2002 04:09 PM
I hope somebody is still reading this. Actually this has helped me clarify some things for myself.
The only thing about the article that disappoints me is, he did not follow up on the archaeological stuff. Here's a few links if you're interested.

http://www.sofdesign.com/neanderthin/index.html
http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/
http://www.notmilk.com/

Another thing I think he did not explore was how easily people confuse 'makes sense' or 'sounds good' with 'good science'.

"eat fat, get fat" is good sloganeering, but the research to back up such a claim is weak at best. From some of the comments below I also think there is a bunch of 'taking it personally' going on.

I'm just amazed at the comments that some people have made in this forum, it's almost like they never read the article.

1. Atkins type diets are not sustainable
  The other diet is harder to sustain. Ask any Pritikin, McDougall, FitForLife or Ornish graduate.

2. high protein, low fat is just as good.
  This may be one area where we can learn from the Inuit, who have a culture of high protein/high fat going back before recorded history. They say that when the only meat you can get is lean you're in trouble. Also Dr. Mauro DiPasquale, who was pushing an atkins-derived diet (maybe still is) said the same thing. I forget his references, but one of his main points was, always keep your fat intake up, even at the expense of protein.

3. For those of you who are saying 'Zone is different from Atkins'. For the purposes of that article, Zone and Atkins are IDENTICAL. Both diets tell you 'do not be afraid of dietary fat, it will not hurt you'. Again, (with feeling,) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ARTICLE Zone and Atkins are IDENTICAL.

4. Zed Lopez, I appreciated your carbs discussion, although personally when I want to lose I avoid all sweets (including fruits and diet sodas). Part of the article's point was that carbs are more alike than most people think. That's what the glycemic index discussion was about. Glycemic index was one of my own eye-openers. For years the diet books said 'eat complex carbs, they're absorbed more slowly than simple sugars. Then one day I found out potahto (not potayto) starch is absorbed faster than sucrose. The worm really turned for me that day.

5. French and Japanese - much less sugar. Also most French sweets are fatty, which slows down sugar absorption (fatty ice cream has a glycemic index of ~25, sorbets hover at 60

6. item 5. is quite funny, complex carbs do not slow down sugar absorption, but THE ULTIMATE EVIL, FAT, does. Oh, the irony.

7. Johnny P, have you ever heard of free radicals? Are you aware that saturated fats are practically immune to free radical damage[1], and to becoming chain-reactors in free radical reactions? Unsaturates are very prone to this kind of thing (that's why your health food store keeps the flax seed oil in a fridge). Unsaturated fats are not all they're cracked up to be.
 
8. Denise@centers, Please do an internet search for 'ketogenic diet' and epilipsy.
These are people who stay on a 90% fat diet for up to 5 years, some more than this. They drink less water than they should in an attempt to RAISE KETONES (ketones get flushed out in urine, but for epileptics the ketones are the medicine, so they try to keep ketones as high as possible). Because their doctors are 'uneasy' keeping them on this diet, they always stop. At the end of the diet they have no heart trouble, little obesity, no osteoporosis, and most of them turn out at the end quite lean. NONE, and I mean NONE, zilch, zippo of the scare-mongering heart disease, osteoporosis, brain damage, stroke myths show up in these people. Why? Because KETOSIS IS NOT BAD FOR YOU. It's your natural state.

But aside from the epileptics, re-read the article where a world authority on ketones says the brain and heart work 25% more efficiently on ketones than on sugar. Atkins has always maintained (and the science backs him up 110%,) that ketosis IS NOT acidosis.

9. Tobias Bucknell, keeping carbs as low as possible is not an over-reaction, it is NECESSARY to get into ketosis. Insulin is one POWERFUL hormone, the smallest amounts have far-reaching consequences for _EVERY_ tissue in your body. Ask any med student, biochemist or diabetic.

10 Binary ape, regarding bone loss, PLEASE do that search for 'epilipsy ketogenic diet'. KIDS go on that diet, stay on it for 5 years, and at the end of the 5 years they've put on a ton of bone. According to you that's impossible. According to the doctors, kids and parents it's happening all the time.
Also PLEASE explain how a baby Inuit can grow to adulthood while always on balance losing more calcium than he consumes his whole life? THAT's IMPOSSIBLE.

PS There's no proof at all that carbs are necessary. In fact, the Inuit are proof that one could live one's whole life without ever eating any carbs, but it is known medical fact that one cannot live on zero fats (several vitamins and EFAs can only come into your body thru fat, dontcherknow).

PPS Wanna know what REALLY causes osteoporosis?
http://www.4.waisays.com/

11 Stefan Jones, did you not read where the article talks about 'ketosis may be the natural state for man?' The archaeologists back up that viewpoint, follow the paleodiet links and see....

 A little thought to leave you on, one time I was discussing this very topic with a friend, and the argument ended when I said this - glucose does tons of damage to your body, all the stuff that happens to most diabetics is because their glucose sometimes goes too high. In fact, glucose is such a poison that whenever you eat it, your body mobilizes one of the most powerful hormones at its disposal, Insulin, to get that stuff out of your blood as soon as possible. But what happens when you eat fat? Evolution has built your body's control processes to think[2] that fat is such a horrendous poison that, what, what does it do?

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. (in the absence of sugar) It does nothing special to get fat out of your blood, until the fat has really piled up.

[2]The actions of your body may be described as saying 'your body thinks', but yes, I know that's not accurate.

I consider diet soda worth avoiding in the general case. I'd still advise eating whole fruit as part of a complete meal... lots of good stuff in fruit. It's not shocking that potato starch alone is absorbed faster than table sugar; that's why I emphasized eating it with the skin (at which point it's still comparable to sugar.)

Admittedly, you're likely to keep your meals' overall GI lower by avoiding fruits and potatoes altogether, so to lose most weight fastest it would be effective. But as part of complete meals including protein and fat, i.e. lower GI foods, I'd still consider them generally fine.

Yes, carbs are the one macronutrient we can survive without. Does that make going without them altogether optimal? Maybe for Inuits (and maybe not), but I'd doubt it for most of the rest of us -- there's a hell of a lot we still don't know.

I'll have to read up on ketosis. I have the usual knee-jerk reaction against it, and perhaps that's unwarranted.

=v= /m31 Inuits have short lifespans. Some of this is no doubt due to the harsh ecosystem they live in, and no doubt their diet makes sense for that ecosystem, but I see no basis for the idea that it could be generalized to other ecosystems. Especially since those ecosystems are where most humans have lived for most of human existence, and have evolved and thrived on a diet predominantly comprising plant foods.

I checked out the "paleodiet" links, and while they lead to a mixed bag of links, it seems to me that it hinges on a notion of hunter/gatherer societies that is now discredited: these should more accurately called gatherer/hunter societies to reflect the predominance of plant foods in their diets.

Carbs are not more alike than people think; the article that started this discussion blurs the distinction, but your "paleodiet" links actually get that one right to some extent.

=v= /m26 Not all thin French people smoke. There are other variables at play there, and I suspect that purer oils and fats, small portions, and long meals are involved.

    <_Jym_>

>>Inuits have short lifespans.
The health of the Inuit
is getting worse. When Amundsen did his research he wrote he never saw evidence of diabetes or widespread heart conditions.
A few years ago i saw a poster in the Toronto subway exhorting Indians to get checked up because Anish Nabe (including the Inuit) have a much higher-than-normal per-capita instance of diabetes and heart trouble.
The paleo thing is a bit strange, with some colorful types in the community.

Some research now over 20 years old suggested that hunter/gatherers spent 60% of their time gathering and 40% hunting. It was just assumed gathering = vegetables, hunting=animals.

Current thought is that gathering = (40% vegetables 60% high protein foods)
(fishing was classified as gathering(!!!!) in the old research, as was 'found (scavenged, not hunted) meat' and all (calories collected)/ (time spent) on these was classified as yielding plant foods!!!) - as well as the rodents, insects, small birds, all classified as plants.

The current paleo diets are built along these lines.[1]

  I don't quite understand about the carbs. We (Zed and I) seem to agree that starches (potato, pasta, bread type stuff) are as bad as table sugar, and much more similar (this was my point) to each other than the 'complex carb' people let on.

leafy-Vegetable-based carbs are much preferred, fruit is a little worse for glycemic index than vegetables, but nowhere near as bad as starches/sugars. Do we have a disagreement here?

PS paleo actually differentiates between fruits - pineapple and tomatoes entered the human diet only within the last 500?years (? corrections requested ? the south American Indians have been eating tomato thousands of years, but most of humanity was exposed to it very recently), so tomatoes and pineapple are verbotten, while apples and mangoes are OK (unless you want to lose weight, then avoid all fruit until the weight's off).

[1] There have also been raging debates over how fat wild animals are, with some researchers suggesting a high protein, low fat diet because rabbit/deer/zebra/gazelles etc... have 10% bodyfat. The current paleodieters generally agree (with many dissenting ) that high fat is better. There were lots of animals in paleo times with high bodyfat that are extinct today, and paleo people eat the entire animal[2] (brains, yum, lots of cholesterol and monounsaturates)

[2] Don't forget to eat everything RAW, that's PALEO!!!. Although bags made of various materials have been found in circumstances that would lead you to believe paleo eaters were cooking meat up to 100 deg C, 100 000 years ago.

Jim Dyer, if you checked out the links why did you not put up a reaction to the pus content (400 000 000 cells per liter, YUM YUM YUM) of Monsanto-nized milk? or is that Monsanotized, or Agent-Oranged milk?

Processed grains make you fat. Rices, breads, pastas, alcohol. Substitute vegetables and you'll lose weight.

I have always done a fair amount of exersize, but found it hard to lose that last bit of fat. Cutting down on bread and increasing protein is working for me.

I have reduced my body fat from 19% to 15% using the Zone diet. When I am disciplined enough to stick to the diet I lose about 1-2lb a week. Although thats flattening out as my body fat reduces.

The Zone diet is not 'no carb'. It stressed eating 10g of (low glycemic) carbs for every 7g of protein.

Following the zone diet is a bit of a struggle if you are vegetarian, as I am. I have to have a lot of tofu, quorn and milk.

However I am skeptical about some of the Zone diet claims about preventing disease.

If you really want to lose weight fast, then go high altitude trekking in Nepal. I lost >7lbs in 2 weeks and the six pack was starting to appear!

Ps/ What do you feed cattle if you want to fatten them up - grain, not fat.

Edited by author 07-09-2002 10:08 AM
I've lost weight a few times, sometimes with and sometimes without intentionally modifying my diet. I try to think of my goal more as a change in body composition (muscle::fat ratio) than as a change in overall weight (which can be accomplished either by losing fat or muscle.)

The most effective thing I've found is weightlifting, combined with something more cardio-intense like basketball or running (I hate running, though.)

When I first started weightlifting in college, I dropped about 30 lbs in 6 months or so, without changing my diet, going from about 212 to 180. Since then, I generally cycle between about 200 and 190, depending on the season.

My initial weight loss was done without changing off the diet that caused me to gain 60 lbs in college (I was skinny when I arrived.) Now that I'm working though, I find I have to modify my diet slightly to lose weight, generally by breaking things into smaller meals and cutting back on carbs (I've tried cutting fat, it didn't help.)

The BIGGEST single thing people seem to not realize is that ANY diet where you try to lose more than 1-2 lbs a week is going to be unsustainable, be it Atkins, low-fat, Zone, etc. Constantly you hear these "I lose 15 lbs in 4 weeks but then I gained it back." The goal should be to permanently modify your diet to reduce calories to a breakeven point, then drop 10-15% below that number when you want to lose weight.

This is a lifetime/lifestyle choice, not a "diet" that you do to get change then bounce back to your old habits. You want it to be something you can sustain and be happy with forever. IMHO Atkins and low-fat both suck because nobody wants to spend the rest of your life eating that way, unless you have some ulterior reason to be crazed about your weight (like a body-builder.)

The high-protein, low-carb strategy is well known, and you'll find it in any mainstream fitness magazine (men's fitness/health, shape.) I first heard about it years ago from friends who were natural bodybuilders -- they didn't do Atkins, but they purposely cycled their carb intake on a 4-day schedule so that about twice a week they knew they were burning body fat off to make up for carb deficits. Ketosis is HARD to achieve and unless you want 2% body fat, it's simply not necessary.

BTW, the really nice benefit of reducing high-GI carbs, even if you're not trying to lose weight, is that you feel a lot more energetic. No more of the dreaded post-lunch "food coma" as you crash off the sugar high. I used to have terrible problems with falling asleep in class or meetings during the mid-afternoon, and I find that going to 3 meals, 2 snacks and reducing high-GI carbs from lunch prevents this phenomenon.

It's mostly like your mom told you. Eat your veggies, and don't pig out on desser. Vegetables (especially dark green ones and ones that aren't sweet or doughy like eggplant) help fill you up and add very little to your calorie intake, replacing the bread/pasta/rice we normally fill up on. Eat a reasonable amount of meat. If you're hungry, have a small handful of nuts -- the fat makes you feel sated quickly. Don't let yourself go hungry -- it only makes you likely to fall out of good eating habits. Just moderate your meal: when I make my occasional trip to BK or Popeyes, I cut the fries and get the regular size meal. No big deal.