Catalyst Athletics Forums - Report on the Zone

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)

- General Nutrition (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Report on the Zone (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4915)

Report on the Zone

Found this detailed interesting evaluation of the "Zone" diet.
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/9.pdf

If you just want to know what the author thinks overall....here's his summary:

Quote:

When properly evaluated, the
theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books
like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed
studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This review illustrates
the complexity of nutrition misinformation perpetrated
by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the science
behind the claims made for the Zone Diet reveals nothing more
than a modern twist on an antique food fad.

Code:

When properly evaluated, the

theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books

like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed

studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric.

That is a good thing, right? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke McCall (Post 66969)

Code:

When properly evaluated, the

theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books

like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed

studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric.

That is a good thing, right? ;)

Not if you are a GPP system trying to tout scientific reasons for following a starvation approach to eating.

I did the Zone for 6 months...I prefer to eat food.

I hope Couch reads that before he does something stupid. :rolleyes:

Zoned Paleo got me the leanest I've ever been in my life...and the performance crash when I ran out of storage bodyfat was amazingly impressive.

More from the study:

Quote:

The purported health benefits of low-carbohydrate diets have been advocated intermittently over the last century and have enjoyed increasing popularity over the last decade. Although the extremity of dietary carbohydrate restriction varies among popular low carbohydrate diets, the belief that carbohydrates are in one way or another to blame for most chronic diseases remains a consistent and emphatic theme.
***
Carbophobia is a form of nutrition misinformation infused into the American psyche through multiple advertising avenues that include magazine ads, television infomercials and especially best selling diet books. Due to the freedom of press guaranteed under the First Amendment, the lucrative publication of dubious nutrition information is difficult to combat. The success of the Zone Diet book by Barry Sears [1] in 1995 led to publication of at least ten Zone-related books or Zone “knock-offs”. The American Dietetic Association promotes dissemination of sound, science-based nutrition information to correct and counter pervasive nutrition misinformation [2].

It's intereting that this guy is going after the Zone as an exemplar of a low-carb diet--i.e. "carbophobia." Is 40% carbs regarded as low-carb by mainstream diet people?

I also like how he blames the First Amendment for making it difficult to "combat" low-carb diets. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Herring (Post 67196)

The Zone Diet is a low calorie (hypocaloric) diet which means it's a low carb diet regardless of the percentage carbs it allows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw (Post 67246)

The Zone Diet is a low calorie (hypocaloric) diet which means it's a low carb diet regardless of the percentage carbs it allows.

I don't think all low-calorie diets are low carb. Know anyone on a Weight Watchers diet? And I doubt the American Dietetic Association is systematically oppose to calorie-restrictive diets generally (although I don't know anything about them).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Herring (Post 67280)

You're right. I worded that badly so I'll try again....

The Zone is a low carbohydrate diet because it's a low calorie diet of which only 40% of it's calories come from carbohydrates.

Here's an example of why it's generally a good idea to ignore macronutrient ratios and focus on total calories, grams per day etc -

Quote:

Introducing the revolutionary new weight loss program The Milk Zone™.

The Milk Zone™ has the clinically proven perfect macronutrient ratio* required for optimal health, longevity and world peace of 40% carbohydrates, 35% fat and 25% protein.

The Milk Zone™ is the worlds simplest diet and guarentees weight loss of over 2 lbs per week or your money back!**

All you need to do in order to benefit from The Milk Zone™ is buy my Molecularized 2% Milk ™ and drink one glass for breakfast, one for lunch and one for dinner. That's right, simply replace all your normal meals with three glasses of Molecularized 2% Milk ™ every day and watch the weight drop off!!!***

*Based on secret research which nobody is allowed to see. Ever!!!

** That isn't true I'm keeping every last penny you moron.

*** Warning: Due to it's extremely low calorie content this diet will result in malnutrition and death. You've been warned so don't try suing me suckers!!!

The author does not seem to be taking aim at the zone specifically as at low carbohydrate diets generally. I cannot disagree more; I think Michael Eades has done nothing short of an outstanding job on his blog and in his other writings of showing why the science does indeed back low-carb diets.

There is a big nutritional divide in the scientific community between fat-bad and carb-bad science. After looking into both quite a bit, I have to say I think the lower-carb dieters are onto something.

In short, though, to say that low carb diets have no science behind them is flat-out wrong.