On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Ken Stuart wrote:

> >These comments and diagrams are all in the chapter entitled
> >"Boundaries of the Zone."  Note also the "Rules of the Road to
> >Reach the Zone," on p. 96 of the chapter "Your Dietary Road Map
> >to the Zone."  Rule 2 is: "Every time you eat, make sure you
> >maintain a 1:1 ratio of protein to carbohydrate blocks."
>
> I'm not sure how this disproves my statement, rather than proving it.

You claim that Sears never promulgated those ratios.  I claim he
did.  Those ratios are promulgated in the quoted comments and in
the diagrams.  I don't claim that he insists on exact adherence
to them, but he makes it clear that closer is better and that in
any case one shouldn't deviate by much.

> P. 65 - "But there's a range of beneficial protein-to-carbohydrate
> ratios that are still Zone-favorable--between about 0.6 and 1.0." certainly
> proves it.

Not at all.  You should have included in your quotation that next
clause, "not lower, not higher," which does *not* leave room for
adjustment outside those boundaries.

> And note that precedes all the following figures on pages 71 and 72.   And,
> those figures merely use 40%-30%-30% as an average Zone ratio, in order to
> compare it with the SAD diet composition in the figure on page 70.  Only in
> those comparisons with other diets does he use the 40%-30%-30% numbers.  Nowhere
> in the actual text does he use it.   Undoubtedly these figures is where
> GIttleman got her idea for her oversimplification.

Well, of course.  She got the idea from Sears.

> As far as page 96's "rule", it is closely followed by page 87's Helpful Hints,
> which start with " A slightly higher or lower protein-to-carbohydrate ratio will
> still get you closer to the Zone."

Followed by, "You just won't find yourself directly in the
center."  The whole hint says that the center of the Zone is at
the .75 ratio, but a slight deviation from that is still closer
to the Zone than other kinds of diets.  In short, page 97's hint
merely underscores page 96's rule.

Now see if you can find a passage in ETZ that says that a person
might benefit from a P:C ratio of more than 1.0 or less than 0.6.
It's not there.

> In reality, Sears says - and the Table of Contents bears this out - that the
> first book was intended for Medical Professionals, in order to get them to just
> consider the concept, rather than as a Guide Book or Diet Book.

I don't see how the Table of Contents bears this out at all, and
I don't in fact believe it.  Books for medical professionals are
not usually written by ghost writers to make the prose more
zesty.  For example, no book for medical professionals would
begin a chapter with this statement (p. 24) "Say the word hormone
and most people immediately think of sex."  A book intended for
medical professionals would not say in the Preface, "This book is
not intended to replace medical advice or be a substitute for a
physician."  And if it was not intended as a guide book, it's odd
that he should say "Think of this book as having two distinct
parts.  The first part gives you the rules and dietary tools to
reach the Zone."

> It is in "Mastering the Zone"
> in the section "Further Helpful Hints", where it is clearly stated on page 54:
>
> " If you're hungry after a meal, then it means you have to readjust the
> protein-to-carbohydrate ratio of that same meal until it generates the desired
> responses. "

I don't know whether he actually widens the ratio "window" in
that book; I'd have to do some checking.  My point is simply
that, contrary to what you claim, Sears *did* promulgate the
40-30-30 ratio with rather little wiggle room in ETZ.
Furthermore, when I engaged in personal correspondence with his
Eicotech staff and, on one occasion, with Sears himself, trying
to determine whether it might ever be beneficial to use a P:C
ratio greater than 1.0 (i.e., a lower-carb diet), I was told in
every instance "no".

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]