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