flatland

As far as I understand, the reason you feel hungry sooner with more carbs and less protein is that most proteins are digested more slowly, so your metabolism is still working on them long after that bagel would have been broken down. Thus, you're hungry earlier when you have carbs, because your body is ready to get more food in it.

However, as has been noted, a no-carb diet is not reasonable for any extended period. It may work well for crash dieting, but after that you still have to switch your diet to a healthier, carb-restricted diet.(Note: I mean a carb-restricted diet in terms of the average American diet, which has excessive portion size as well as excessive carb intake.) Carbs are necessary for decent brain activity as well as avoiding fatigue, for just the reason that they are more quickly metabolised. The best idea is to simply avoid simple carbs except directly after exercise, and try to eat more complex, lower GI carbs. The lower the GI, the lower the insulin spike, which means less fat is stored.

And for the record, dont shoot for more than a pound or two a week, if you want to stay healthy.

Godot

I only lumped them together because they are both garbage. Barry Sears is an idiot. The Zone diet is bullshit for a different set of reasons.

In practical terms, yes it is about moderation. The zone diet is essentially your basic diet with energy restrictions applied. Any trained monkey could lose wight following it. However the quackery masquarading as science that Sears uses to substantiate his claims is unfounded.

Bullshit. Over-consumption base on what? What Sears tells you? That's an argument I'd expect to hear in a different forum than this one. Sears advocates a 40:30:30 split between CHO:PRO:FAT. This ratio is not appreciably different from average consumption. A balanced diet for the average person should look more like >55:15:<30.

Blood sugar cannot be stored as fat. In order for anything to be stored as fat, it must first be transported to the liver for conversion to a fatty acid or acetyl group. This newly-formed molecule can then be transported to an adipocyte for storage.
Type I diabetes (juvenile onset) is caused by the absence of insulin receptors on cell membranes. Type II (non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus {NIDDM}, or adult onset) diabetes results from a decreased sensitivity of the insulin receptors. What the cause of this is not known for certain (although there is some debate on the matter). The observed insulin spike results from a quick hit of glucose entering the bloodstream post-digestion. The insulin is released to increase uptake of glucose into the cells. Trying to extrapolate this phenomena into a direct link with diabetes is just plain silly.


I followed the link. The "study" is bereft of any value to the scientific community. The methodology is shoddy! ?I'd expect better design parameters from high school seniors. Can we say control group? How about a pre-trial "washout" period to eliminate potential confounds? No details regarding the duration of the trial: did it follow these individuals for one day, months, years (I know it to be 12 weeks, but it should be stated here)? What statistical test were the data subjected to? Where those the appropriate tests to administer? Did the data meet the criteria to apply those tests? These things must be made explicit in the methods if the study is to be reproduced independently.
What journal was this study published in? I guess it wasn't peer-reviewed then. Poor reporting of a half-assed study on your own website doesn't count for shit. Not published = garbage not worth the time it takes to refute.

In my opinion, there's no such thing as too many fruits or vegetables in the diet. At least the zone diet doesn't go as far with this one as the macrobiotic diet...

Apart from the thiamin, niacin, riboflavin, folate, protein, energy...
Did you notice the earlier comment about how you should ideally have >55% dietary energy from CHO sources? That's based on recommendations from dieticians, not some quack with a gimmick. CHO is the most readily available source of energy you can provide your body. Depriving your body of the greatest sources of it makes no practical sense, nor is it founded to be appropriate in the literature.

Sorry. It's true (not that I'm trying to get in a pissing contest here).

When the body finds itself in a negative energy balance (usually imposed through an energy restricted diet), it tries to make up this deficit with whatever means it has at its disposal. It accomplishes this through two main paths: 1) your metabolism slows down. Maybe not appreciably so, but by burning less energy, the deficit created by energy restriction is reduced. 2) catabolism of tissues. The body does not break down tissues preferentially, it does so indiscriminately. I believe that the proportion of tissues being broken down can be tweaked somewhat, but it's been awhile since I've delved into that area of the literature.
Essentially, loss of LBM is inevitable while on an energy restricted diet. It will happen. Period. Protein intakes in the average diet are sufficiently high to meet the needs of all except maybe elite long distance runners.
Without having a food record or training diary in front of me, I can't substantiate or deny your claim, Asha'man. I'm inclined to believe you: congratulations. However, you cannot claim to have experienced an increase in LBM (except as it relates in proportion to fat mass and fat-free mass) without having a baseline measure taken prior to your intervention. Chances are, you did eventually increase your LBM, but that is more due to whatever training you have undergone.

The zone diet primarily works for people because it is energy restrictive. It has nothing to do with the shoddy science Sears uses as the basis of his plan. Follow it if you want, just make sure that the practices you choose to follow agree with what we know about human biochemistry and physiology, and are supported by the nutrition literature.


Doesn't mean I'll go any easier on you though!

If you follow the Atkins diet, you have to supplement in order to achieve the RDA's. High protein diets cannot alter blood pH. First, all food is acidic in nature. If this contention you put forth were true, we'd have all died out from acidosis long ago. Second, there exists a bicarbonate buffer in the blood to keep pH within a homeostatic range.
Calcium exist in the bone as a calcium-phosphate matrix. Bones are used as the reservoir to keep circulating calsium levels constant. Osteoblasts break down this matrix when insufficient dietary calcium intake occurs, or when there is an excessively high phosphate intake. Again, I don't believe there's any association of any kind with protein, but I haven't delved into this area of the literature in even longer.

If you're saying this to mean that supplements are essential for practitioners of the Atkins diet, you're right. If you're trying to tell me that there is some intrinsic benefit accrued through vitamin supplementation, I say bullshit. If you said that next to me, I would slap you silly.
You are conditioned by the pharmaceutical companies to believe that vitamin supplementation works as a good insurance policy. Bullshit again. Vitamin supplements are only of use to those in clinical need of them or if your diet is faulty and you don't care enough to straighten the damn thing out.
Besides, hyperdoses of most vitamins are detrimental to your health. the adage of "more is better" does not apply in the nutritional realm.

At least you put a qualifier on the first statement. Of course, what do you consider "usual practice"? Fibre is best obtained from fruit and veg sources, although most commercially available breads nowadays are fibre enriched. So whatever floats your boat. I'm biased and I agree that white bread is inherently useless. But given the options of white bread and non-consumption of grain products, what the hell do you think I'll choose?

As I understand my physiology (which I bloody well should), satiety is largely a function of gastric distention. There is also some kinesthetic sense associated with protein intake that modifies sensation of satiety in the hypothlamus. I have yet to figure out the mechanism behind this last one yet though. CHO are a dense source of energy without providing much in the way of satiety. Therefore, it is easy to overeat them.

I wouldn't recommend it to people I didn't like. The entire thing is crap.

RoddyM

Whether you are diabetic or not eating with a view to controlling excess bodyweight is about blood sugar and insulin.

A healthy but overweight type 2 diabetic with a glucometer can lose weight easily because he can tell when he has eaten more carbohydrate than he should have to keep his blood sugar levels normal. If a diabetic sees his blood sugar rise significantly over normal after eating say 100 g of carbs I figure that means that non diabetics could do well eating less than 100 g of carbs at a sitting even if their blood sugars remain normal.

King Rat

Except that it works of course.

christ-on-a-stick

The Zone "way of eating" (I don't consider it a diet as it is not a temporary fix), which anyone who has read the book(s) knows, stresses quality of nutrition in the food eaten - maximization of vitamins and minerals, fiber, minimization of saturated fats and highly processed (refined) carbs. It is in no way comparable to the Atkins diet which arguably *works* but entails legitimate concerns for total nutrition.

The Zone is also not "low-carb" in the same sense as Atkins - although it is low-ER carb than the traditional (US) food pyramid, it still comprises 40% avg. of calories from carbohydrates with an emphasis on QUALITY carbs (vegetables, fruits and whole grains) as opposed to refined carbs and other high-glycemic foods.

So to sum up: More lean proteins, more vegetables and fruits and whole grains, minimal refined sugar/carbs and fatty foods... this is "bullshit"? What am I missing????

hedonist ogre

I should have worded it differently. Actual blood pH probaly doesn't change much, but more buffering is necessary. From the previously mentioned article:

And yes, I mean vitamin supplements are a good idea while on a low-carb diet, especially calcium.

I have no particular allegience to Atkins, I've never read his books, and it's been probably 2 years since I've done a low-carb diet. But, simply put, from my experience and other anecdotal evidence, as well as some studies which are now being done, a low-carb diet is one of the best ways to loose 5-15 lbs while retaining the maximum amount of LBM. I'm less sure about it's efficacy in larger weight loss goals. I understand the conventional dietary wisdom says that only calories matter in relation to weight-loss, but I think that's not the case.

Godot

It works for reasons other than those espoused by Atkins. If you're going to try and sell me on a product, try to tell me the real reason behind why it works. Lying weakens his credibility.
Most diets "work" but usually for ancilliary reasons than those stated. Long term weight loss can only occur if the individual maintains the behaviour change initiated on the diet.

JGL53

Some of the things said so far re the Atkins diet ring true, as they comport with my experience, to wit:

About seven years ago, after reading 'low carb' books by Atkins and several others with similar theories, I began following what I prefer to call a carbohydrate-controlled diet. I had only about 30 pounds, mainly around my waist, that I really didn't want and it all went away when I concentrated on protein and fat as my main energy sources. I do take supplemental fiber, vitamins, and eat lean meats mostly, with supplemental olive and flax oil.

Interesting, after going "low carb", the migraine headaches with auras that I had been having regularly since I was seventeen years old ceased. I'm not sure what the connection is, but this is what happened. Additionally, my craving for sugar and starch ceased, as did my frequent binge eating episodes.

So, for me, all this is not just a theoretical argument. I really couldn't care less what the 'scientific' evidence is or isn't. Anyone who tells me I shouldn't eat this way can fucking kiss my ass.

((Off the subject, my chronic tendonitis/bursitis, which had severely restricted for over a decade my ability to exercise, was cured over a period of weeks by taking glucosamine sulfate and MSM daily - though I suspect the diet change had something to do with it also.))

Godot

The Brønsted-Lowry Concept of Acids and Bases:

Calcium is a positive ion. It will not accept a proton as that would shift it into a higher energy state. Since it cannot accept a proton, it is not a base. Ergo, my skepticism.

JGL53

A load of utterly meaningless crap. But you seem to be having fun. I suppose that's the important thing.