Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:16:33 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Feb 06, 2006, at 11:12 pm, Wally Day wrote:
> I tend to agree with Erik on this. It was called the isocaloric
> diet by Dan
> Duchaine, and he considered it a less stressful version of the zone
> diet.
> Later, Lyle McDonald advocated it as a pretty easy way to get
> enough of
> each macronutrient. The basic idea is to stay close to the zone diet
> parameters, but give yourself a 10% cushion one way or the other
> (or the
> other :).
The reason why I brought up the idea of 3 lots of a third was not
because that is or isn't a sensible ratio of macronutrients. My
issue was with people who assume that because there are 3 variables
in the equation, they must all have the same value. If we consider
vitamins too, should we make up our diet of 1/4 protein, 1/4 fat, 1/4
carb, and 1/4 vitamins? This is the logic that is being applied - it
just happens that 3 x 1/3 is a maintainable ratio for many people.
The other issue I have is the ignorance of what TYPE of fat, carbs
etc should make up that 1/3. According to www.mcdonalds.co.uk, a
"Deluxe Bacon Quarter Pounder With Cheese" is approx 1/3 protein, fat
and carbs. Does this make it a good food because it has some
mystical golden ratio of nutrients?
The other objection I have to a diet of thirds is that it involves
counting. I believe that deciding what to eat should be simple -
there's no way I'd ever put anything in my mouth if I had to
calculate what percentage of my carb allowance it was. My body is
quite happy to tell me if I eat too much protein or carbs (as yet
I've not found a way of eating too much fat).
Ashley
|
|
|