I'm about halfway through this book. What Barry Sears says sounds
intriguing. I'm wondering if his diet is as powerful as he claims. I'm
not soo sure about jumping head first into a diet without knowing its
long term effects. I've googled for it a little but couldn't find much.
One unfavorable article saying it really did nothing for your heart and
that carbs weren't as "evil" as Dr Sears was claiming. Another saying
that it was an ok diet but that it was too complicated for most people
and that for that reason most people would get sick of it eventually.

I just thought I'd ask about this in health newsgroups. Are any of you
familiar enough with this diet, or have first hand experience with it,
to know if its something that would be good to follow long term?
thanks

In article >, > wrote:

> I'm about halfway through this book. What Barry Sears says sounds
> intriguing. I'm wondering if his diet is as powerful as he claims.

Try Googling for "zone diet calorie restriction". That's why the Zone
diet works, if you can stick with it. It has nothing to do with his
carb mumbo-jumbo.

http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu.../the-zone-diet.
html

http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...-zone-diet.htm

http://www.navs-online.org/voice/zone.html

c wrote:
> I'm about halfway through this book.

You read too far.

> What Barry Sears says sounds intriguing.

No, it doesn't. It's rubbish which focuses on one macronutrient
(carbohydrates) but then fails to distinguish between complex and simple
carbs.

> I'm wondering if his diet is as powerful as he claims.

Nothing is as powerful as profit motive. Get it?

> I'm
> not soo sure about jumping head first into a diet without knowing its
> long term effects.

Why worry about long-term effects when most people embrace these fad
diets for only a few weeks at a time? What makes you think you're any
different, more gullible, able to refrain from eating food your body
needs, etc.?

> I've googled for it a little but couldn't find much.

I'm shocked. There's a ton of information about Zone online.

> One unfavorable article saying it really did nothing for your heart

Why should it? The heart is muscle. Muscle responds to exercise. Food
only serves as fuel. Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight will
be futile. Without exercise, the heart ages and weakens and the veins
and arteries harden and clog.

> and that carbs weren't as "evil" as Dr Sears was claiming.

They aren't evil. They're the primary source of fuel for your body. What
*is* evil is intentionally entering into a catabolic state like ketosis
for the purpose of weight loss, as extremists recommending fad
carbohydrate-restrictive diets suggest is "normal."

> Another saying
> that it was an ok diet but that it was too complicated for most people
> and that for that reason most people would get sick of it eventually.

It's a fad diet. People try it, tire of it, and move on to the next
bandwagon: Atkins, Zone, South Beach. Why don't they just eat sensibly
and get exercise?

> I just thought I'd ask about this in health newsgroups. Are any of you
> familiar enough with this diet, or have first hand experience with it,
> to know if its something that would be good to follow long term?
> thanks

Here's a healthier program for you.

Eat right. That means not restricting certain nutrients to ridiculous
levels or putting yourself into a catabolic state. It means getting
plenty of variety in your diet. Eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Eat whole grains instead of refined ones. Eat lean meats and reduced fat
dairy. Limit your intake of sugar and fats, especially saturated and
transfats.

Then finish the caloric balance: use up your calories and increase your
metabolic rate through aerobic exercise. You need at least 30 minutes of
aerobic (get your heart rate up to 60-80% of your max for that period of
time) exercise every other day. Resistance training will also improve
your metabolic rate by increasing the ratio of lean to fat tissue.
Exercise will allow you more room for error with respect to diet. The
same can't be said in reverse (diet won't allow you to slack off from
getting the appropriate exercise, which is why fad diets are useless for
weight management).

c wrote:
> I'm about halfway through this book.

You read too far.

> What Barry Sears says sounds intriguing.

No, it doesn't. It's rubbish which focuses on one macronutrient
(carbohydrates) but then fails to distinguish between complex and simple
carbs.

> I'm wondering if his diet is as powerful as he claims.

Nothing is as powerful as profit motive. Get it?

> I'm
> not soo sure about jumping head first into a diet without knowing its
> long term effects.

Why worry about long-term effects when most people embrace these fad
diets for only a few weeks at a time? What makes you think you're any
different, more gullible, able to refrain from eating food your body
needs, etc.?

> I've googled for it a little but couldn't find much.

I'm shocked. There's a ton of information about Zone online.

> One unfavorable article saying it really did nothing for your heart

Why should it? The heart is muscle. Muscle responds to exercise. Food
only serves as fuel. Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight will
be futile. Without exercise, the heart ages and weakens and the veins
and arteries harden and clog.

> and that carbs weren't as "evil" as Dr Sears was claiming.

They aren't evil. They're the primary source of fuel for your body. What
*is* evil is intentionally entering into a catabolic state like ketosis
for the purpose of weight loss, as extremists recommending fad
carbohydrate-restrictive diets suggest is "normal."

> Another saying
> that it was an ok diet but that it was too complicated for most people
> and that for that reason most people would get sick of it eventually.

It's a fad diet. People try it, tire of it, and move on to the next
bandwagon: Atkins, Zone, South Beach. Why don't they just eat sensibly
and get exercise?

> I just thought I'd ask about this in health newsgroups. Are any of you
> familiar enough with this diet, or have first hand experience with it,
> to know if its something that would be good to follow long term?
> thanks

Here's a healthier program for you.

Eat right. That means not restricting certain nutrients to ridiculous
levels or putting yourself into a catabolic state. It means getting
plenty of variety in your diet. Eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Eat whole grains instead of refined ones. Eat lean meats and reduced fat
dairy. Limit your intake of sugar and fats, especially saturated and
transfats.

Then finish the caloric balance: use up your calories and increase your
metabolic rate through aerobic exercise. You need at least 30 minutes of
aerobic (get your heart rate up to 60-80% of your max for that period of
time) exercise every other day. Resistance training will also improve
your metabolic rate by increasing the ratio of lean to fat tissue.
Exercise will allow you more room for error with respect to diet. The
same can't be said in reverse (diet won't allow you to slack off from
getting the appropriate exercise, which is why fad diets are useless for
weight management).

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight will be futile.
http://www.ecologos.org/ex.htm

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight will be futile.
http://www.ecologos.org/ex.htm

Laurie

Larry wrote:
>> Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight will be futile.
>
> http://www.ecologos.org/ex.htm

Your website is filled with strawmen. So, too, is your editing of my
post down to that one line. I suggested exercise is beneficial for
weight MANAGEMENT. In context, I wrote:
The heart is muscle. Muscle responds to exercise. Food only
serves as fuel. Without exercise, any attempt to lose weight
will be futile. Without exercise, the heart ages and weakens and
the veins and arteries harden and clog.

That was in relation to a question about diet and heart. Do you disagree
with the full, broader gist of what I wrote? If so, why did you write on
your web page "it [exercise] can build strength and endurance"?

What exactly does that building of strength and endurance do? I ask
because you also address exercise and fat on that crappy page as a
zero-sum issue. It isn't. Exercise increases the metabolic rate, causing
people to burn calories more efficiently and longer than they would
without exercise. That accounts for why most people lose weight when
taking up exercise programs DESPITE adding more calories to their
average daily intake.
http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001941.htm

The cumulative effects of various activities -- from exercise to work
which exerts the body -- lead to siginificant weight loss in normal,
healthy people. Your example of running 8.1 hours at 5.3 mph is a
dramatic exaggeration (then again, you're a drama queen so it's to be
expected). That speed and that time aren't needed to lose that weight in
one day; indeed, the loss of hydration from the body during one 40+ mile
run would account for much more than a one-pound loss (I can offer
anecdotal evidence to that). That time and distance are manageable over
period of time, such as one week, and would sustain the increased
metabolic rate as well as burn off fat stores to cause greater than a
one-pound weight loss.

You couldn't have been much of an engineer, Larry, with your tenuous
grasp of the scientific method.