Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:38:35 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Usual disclaimer: I'm not an MD and have won no bodybuilding titles.
>The Zone Diet does not really have anything to do with these ratios.
Before I decided to be a cave man, I did quite a bit of reading. I just
rechecked my copy of Mastering the Zone and I think it does hinge on these
ratios. Again, a food block is:
9 gm carb 36 calories
7 gm protein 28 calories
3 gm fat 27 calories
This is a 40-30-30 ratio, or at least damn close. Of course, when you
consume a block as directed, you should only eat 1.5 grams of fat, due to
the hidden fats that Sears contends is in our food.
>The idea behind the Zone Diet is to keep the body's hormone system balanced,
>even and well functioning. When this is happening, then all of the other
>systems work better.
----- Snip -----
Fair enough.
>PS The easiest way is rebut the claim that the Zone diet leads to muscle
loss
>is to note that Arnold Schwarznegger is a Zone diet adherent! :-)
Well, eating a nice balance of fat, pro and carb is undoubtedly good for
you. But I doubt that the Arnolds of the world truely follow the Zone,
other than to eat balanced meals. I now quote page 29 of Mastering the Zone:
"In fact, the Zone Diet is a low-calorie diet ranging from 1,000 to 1,600
calories a day for most individuals."
I still contend that any such low-calorie diet is *far too low in
calories*. You can indeed adjust your metabolism to consume bodyfat. But
such consumption will only occur when the body is not being starved.
Again, my disclaimer - I ain't an MD so my opinions are simply that -
opinions.
James at Penn State
|
|
|