Anyone agree with the Zone or Fat Wars Diet Theory?

[Elorabird]

Hi All,

Question 1: Does anyone beleive what the Zone Diet is pumping? As far as I understand its philosophy, it basically recommends that your carb, protein and fat ratios pretty much line up each meal, in such a way that it controll insulin and thus resulting hormone fluctuations responsible for fat storage etc. The crux is when you calculate your calorie allotment and always come up recommended to eat under 1500 cals. I tried it an it recommended I eat 1100 cals per day (my BMR is over 1300/day). The protein reco was low too.

Question 2: (This is the one I really wan't to know your thoughts on) Fat Wars (author: Brad J. King) recommends and even pays kudos to the Zone Diet, and his macros rec's are close to the same but overall cals come out a bit higher (still lower than calculations found withing this website and many others). Still protein rec's come out to be between 20% - 30% of overall macro's - not the 40% you usually see with many body building diets. His standard Macro rec is: 30%protein, 30%fats and 40% carbs with last meal of the day carbs coming only from fibrous veg.

Your 2 cents please?

[Emma-Leigh]

Hi All,

Question 1: Does anyone beleive what the Zone Diet is pumping? As far as I understand its philosophy, it basically recommends that your carb, protein and fat ratios pretty much line up each meal, in such a way that it controll insulin and thus resulting hormone fluctuations responsible for fat storage etc. The crux is when you calculate your calorie allotment and always come up recommended to eat under 1500 cals. I tried it an it recommended I eat 1100 cals per day (my BMR is over 1300/day). The protein reco was low too.

Question 2: (This is the one I really wan't to know your thoughts on) Fat Wars (author: Brad J. King) recommends and even pays kudos to the Zone Diet, and his macros rec's are close to the same but overall cals come out a bit higher (still lower than calculations found withing this website and many others). Still protein rec's come out to be between 20% - 30% of overall macro's - not the 40% you usually see with many body building diets. His standard Macro rec is: 30%protein, 30%fats and 40% carbs with last meal of the day carbs coming only from fibrous veg.

Your 2 cents please?

I am not going to get into the 'pseudoscience' behind the diets over and above a general comment that it is all a bit of a bull <- the diets work because they:
1. control calories
2. control hunger
3. increase protein
(4. often increase vegetable intake)
^
Do that and you generally get good results with 95% of the population.
If you add in a:
5. decreased carb content

And you also get better results than higher carb diets when dealing with insulin resistant individuals (which covers about 95% of today's overweight individuals too).

Insulin is NOT a 'carb only' substrate - it is also released to variable degrees with proteins (eg: BCAA/ whey/ dairy => highly insulinogenic, more so than some things like fruit or starches). Additionally, you don't NEED insulin to store fat. FAT being a typical example ->> it doesn't require insulin for storage and passes freely over membranes in and out of fat cells. Thus you can fill all your baby fat cells very effectively if you were to simply eat in excess of your requirements.



With regards to 'diet ratio's' and whether or not it matters that you get '30%' or '40%' from protein ->> basically, it means didly squat. Additionally, most of the time 'bb diets' are far too high in protein anyway (you don't NEED 2 x total weight in lb in protein).... not only that, but why eat 'to a ratio'?? The % of calories consumed in protein doesn't determine what your body needs... Your protein requirement should be/ needs to be based on your lean mass, your physiological state (assisted/ juiced, growing, pregnant etc), your goals (to cut/ gain/ endurance), as well as your training style/ intensity and your overall calorie intake (lower cals/ higher protein).

^
eg:
if you were CUTTING at 1300 cals... 40% = 130g protein... which, if you were lean and active, is probably far too low.... So in that instance you would probably be better off with more than the 'recommended %'.
if you were GAINING at 2300 cals... 40% = 230g protein... which, if your carb content was adequate, is going to be far in excess of your requirements. So less than the '40%' would be required.
^
Generic formula are just that - generic.... And they often become useless when you add 'variables' to the equation.

Lastly - doesn't mean a thing taking carbs out of your last meal - >> it is, once again, a way to control calories.... In fact, I have always recommended carbs in the last meal of the day (usually fruit) when cutting.... This is especially for those who are training early the next morning... Reason being is that it helps to keep the liver/ body happy overnight and aids in energy/ training the next morning.

[determined4000]

I am not going to get into the 'pseudoscience' behind the diets over and above a general comment that it is all a bit of a bull <- the diets work because they:
1. control calories
2. control hunger
3. increase protein
(4. often increase vegetable intake)
^
Do that and you generally get good results with 95% of the population.
If you add in a:
5. decreased carb content

And you also get better results than higher carb diets when dealing with insulin resistant individuals (which covers about 95% of today's overweight individuals too).

Insulin is NOT a 'carb only' substrate - it is also released to variable degrees with proteins (eg: BCAA/ whey/ dairy => highly insulinogenic, more so than some things like fruit or starches). Additionally, you don't NEED insulin to store fat. FAT being a typical example ->> it doesn't require insulin for storage and passes freely over membranes in and out of fat cells. Thus you can fill all your baby fat cells very effectively if you were to simply eat in excess of your requirements.



With regards to 'diet ratio's' and whether or not it matters that you get '30%' or '40%' from protein ->> basically, it means didly squat. Additionally, most of the time 'bb diets' are far too high in protein anyway (you don't NEED 2 x total weight in lb in protein).... not only that, but why eat 'to a ratio'?? The % of calories consumed in protein doesn't determine what your body needs... Your protein requirement should be/ needs to be based on your lean mass, your physiological state (assisted/ juiced, growing, pregnant etc), your goals (to cut/ gain/ endurance), as well as your training style/ intensity and your overall calorie intake (lower cals/ higher protein).

^
eg:
if you were CUTTING at 1300 cals... 40% = 130g protein... which, if you were lean and active, is probably far too low.... So in that instance you would probably be better off with more than the 'recommended %'.
if you were GAINING at 2300 cals... 40% = 230g protein... which, if your carb content was adequate, is going to be far in excess of your requirements. So less than the '40%' would be required.
^
Generic formula are just that - generic.... And they often become useless when you add 'variables' to the equation.

Lastly - doesn't mean a thing taking carbs out of your last meal - >> it is, once again, a way to control calories.... In fact, I have always recommended carbs in the last meal of the day (usually fruit) when cutting.... This is especially for those who are training early the next morning... Reason being is that it helps to keep the liver/ body happy overnight and aids in energy/ training the next morning.

you said the diets work partly because of decreased carb intake and increased protein but said when bulking,you would end up with an excess in protein. Are you saying protein should be shifted away from at this point? And carbs increased even though 95% of the population does better with more protein and less carbs? what would the benefits/detriments be to keeping protein highor shifting away?

[determined4000]

Or
ex.150lb individual w/ an intake of 3k
What differences does he see eating 1g/lb(common minimum and 20%), 2g/lb (common 40% ratio) or even 3/lb (over both standards) of BW?

[Emma-Leigh]

you said the diets work partly because of decreased carb intake and increased protein

When dieting ->> Decreased carbs works better in insulin resistant individuals, yes. This is because, among other things, they don't partition carbs particularly well and lowering insulin tends to help increase activation of HSL....

When dieting ->> Increased protein works better in all people, yes. This is because, among other things, it helps with satiety (and therefore helps people stick to their diets) as well as helping with lean mass retention.

but said when bulking,you would end up with an excess in protein. Are you saying protein should be shifted away from at this point?

I said that there is no need to base protein requirement on a RATIO. I didn't mention that protein should be 'shifted away from'. Merely that you should always base your requirements on your BODY rather than your calorie content.

Thus - instead of trying to 'hit a target ratio' you would hit a target gram amount per lean mass and then add in calories from fats or carbs as appropriate to hit your calorie target.

.....And carbs increased even though 95% of the population does better with more protein and less carbs? what would the benefits/detriments be to keeping protein highor shifting away?

The '95% do better with more protein' thing I mentioned above, if you re-read it, relates more to DIETING when insulin resistant.

When trying to maintain or gain mass, then as long as requirements for protein are hit, you are better off distributing calories to fat/ carbs. Once you go over a certain intake of protein you are wasting your time/ money/ food and, as I have mentioned to you before, you also decrease your anabolic potential.

However, in those who remain insulin resistant when lean/ normal weight, then even when on higher calorie intakes less carbs tends to work better.... But at that point I would recommend higher fats.

Or
ex.150lb individual w/ an intake of 3k
What differences does he see eating 1g/lb(common minimum and 20%), 2g/lb (common 40% ratio) or even 3/lb (over both standards) of BW?

Firstly, why not pick realistic numbers? Extremes are not useful in discussing any situation....
what about 1g/ pound, 1.5g / pound and 2g per pound..... 3g / pound is ridiculous and is potentially going to impact very negatively on health/ well-being (see other threads were we have both discussed this topic on ad nauseam re negative consequences of extreme protein intake).

For the 1g/ pound through to 2g/ pound a few things you think about:
1. what he is trying to achieve in terms of composition
2. his lean mass currently (BF %)
3. how he is training and what his goals are for competition (eg: strength, athletics)
4. his genetics/ insulin sensitivity
5. if he is juiced
6. age
^
nothing can be 'discussed' in terms of 'one size fits all'....

I would also suggest you read the paper Layne Norton put out recently on optimal protein intake which you can see here (CLICK ME

[determined4000]

When dieting ->> Decreased carbs works better in insulin resistant individuals, yes. This is because, among other things, they don't partition carbs particularly well and lowering insulin tends to help increase activation of HSL....

When dieting ->> Increased protein works better in all people, yes. This is because, among other things, it helps with satiety (and therefore helps people stick to their diets) as well as helping with lean mass retention.


I said that there is no need to base protein requirement on a RATIO. I didn't mention that protein should be 'shifted away from'. Merely that you should always base your requirements on your BODY rather than your calorie content.

Thus - instead of trying to 'hit a target ratio' you would hit a target gram amount per lean mass and then add in calories from fats or carbs as appropriate to hit your calorie target.


The '95% do better with more protein' thing I mentioned above, if you re-read it, relates more to DIETING when insulin resistant.

When trying to maintain or gain mass, then as long as requirements for protein are hit, you are better off distributing calories to fat/ carbs. Once you go over a certain intake of protein you are wasting your time/ money/ food and, as I have mentioned to you before, you also decrease your anabolic potential.

However, in those who remain insulin resistant when lean/ normal weight, then even when on higher calorie intakes less carbs tends to work better.... But at that point I would recommend higher fats.


Firstly, why not pick realistic numbers? Extremes are not useful in discussing any situation....
what about 1g/ pound, 1.5g / pound and 2g per pound..... 3g / pound is ridiculous and is potentially going to impact very negatively on health/ well-being (see other threads were we have both discussed this topic on ad nauseam re negative consequences of extreme protein intake).

For the 1g/ pound through to 2g/ pound a few things you think about:
1. what he is trying to achieve in terms of composition
2. his lean mass currently (BF %)
3. how he is training and what his goals are for competition (eg: strength, athletics)
4. his genetics/ insulin sensitivity
5. if he is juiced
6. age
^
nothing can be 'discussed' in terms of 'one size fits all'....

I would also suggest you read the paper Layne Norton put out recently on optimal protein intake which you can see here (CLICK ME

awesome
thanks for the explanation
will read Norton paper

[martinibluex]

I remember seeing a study in which the zone diet had the worst results as compared with other diets.

[nano.ix]

I remember seeing a study in which the zone diet had the worst results as compared with other diets.

were they publish studies? if you can find it I think it would benifit this section.
It could be that the study was poorly controlled since eat diet should yield similar results given that the calorie restriction is correct.

[Emma-Leigh]

I remember seeing a study in which the zone diet had the worst results as compared with other diets.

were they publish studies? if you can find it I think it would benifit this section.
It could be that the study was poorly controlled since eat diet should yield similar results given that the calorie restriction is correct.

Realistically, they all work - as long as you stick to them: READ ME

But, yes, there are some studies out that suggest zone diets did 'worse' than other diets: STUDY HERE and analysis here: READ ME....

[nano.ix]

Realistically, they all work - as long as you stick to them: READ ME

But, yes, there are some studies out that suggest zone diets did 'worse' than other diets: STUDY HERE and analysis here: READ ME....

thanks, subbed for later read

[HealthyGains]

Zone is now owned by Kraft. Kraft is in the business to make money. Don't trust Kraft. Ever. Even the people that work for zone do not follow the diet and/or eat their products. Also, their food is extra heavy on the GMO soy protein isolates.

[determined4000]

Zone is now owned by Kraft. Kraft is in the business to make money. Don't trust Kraft. Ever. Even the people that work for zone do not follow the diet and/or eat their products. Also, their food is extra heavy on the GMO soy protein isolates.

i wouldn't trust any commercialized diet
Zone, Atkins, nutrisystem... they are all in it to sell their products (obviously).