While looking up meal plans, I got linked to a site that would send weekly menus using recipes from The Zone.

I went to their site to check it out. Read lots about it, but wanted to know what ever first hand comments could be made.

I got lost reading about "blocks" and "mini-blocks" The recipes they showed on line looked pretty nummy.

By Jbarrj2112 on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 02:44 am:

Hi there,

I have heard from many, many of my friends that "The Zone" diet is fabulous! They love the selections you are offered, and they say that after you get used to it, it isn't difficult to stick with. However, these friends that I speak of are all either physicians or physicians-in-training, and will be the first to say that it isn't nutritionally sound on a long-term basis. Their opinion is that it is a great starting point if your eating habits are pretty much out-of-whack, but that you would need to expand your repertoire once you had your eating habits and choices in order. I would have to agree, but this doesn't matter to everyone - including me, LOL. I am not always real good about eating on schedule or whatnot, although I am trying to be better....until a month ago, I was a med. student, so I pretty much ate on the run for the past several years, which is bad news. I don't really follow a particular diet, but I DO stay away from most processed food and sweets of any kind. I avoid most white flours, refined anything, and the like. However, I am married to a junk food-aholic, and that can make it hard sometimes, LOL. Anyway, I digress....doing what I do in my own way helps me to manage my weight, in addition to working out. It is different for everyone, though, and I have heard rave reviews about "The Zone" diet overall. Also, if you are financially able, I believe that you can even get prepared meals shipped to you, although not sure where all that option is available, or what it costs. Let me know what you find out or if you decide to give it a try....I have always been curious to see how each person does with it, because I haven't met anyone yet that didn't like it! Good luck to you!

Take Care,
Heather

By Feona on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 06:44 am:

I am curious why you think the zone isn't good nutritional?

Looked like a pretty good diet. Add a vitamin supplement and 2 calcium pills and you are ready to go. (I don't see tons of calcium)

Do you eliminate white flour and processed food on the zone or just limit it?

By Jbarrj2112 on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 02:45 am:

Hi Feona, (Sorry this is so long)

I wouldn't say that "The Zone" isn't "good", per se, but it isn't something that could or should necessarily be maintained long-term, according to many, myself included. What I meant above, basically, is that "The Zone" is a fantastic diet to get someone started on the road to weight loss - but not something that I feel is possible to maintain indefinitely. There are several reasons I feel this way: Like most low-carbohydrate diets, a great deal of the weight loss is dehydration. Ordinarily, three grams of water are stored with every gram of carbohydrates in the form of glycogen in the liver and skeletal muscles. When this is sharply limited, dieters think they are losing up to a pound of fat a day. It's also low in calories, causing the unhealthy depletion of lean body mass along with the minimal fat loss.
"The Zone" diet recommends that you get 30 percent of calories from fat, 30 percent from protein, and 40 percent from carbohydrates. Not only has Dr. Barry Sears, founder of "The Zone", now recanted and stated that he "wished he had never set exact ratios", but here, it should be obvious that these are approximately the proportions already consumed in most Western countries, including the United States, where heart disease and cancer are rampant. Furthermore, this level of protein consumption may promote calcium loss and osteoporosis when adhered to for too long of a time. At the most, the general conclusion is that it is total caloric intake (or reduction), not carbohydrate to protein ratios that support weight loss on this diet. Several analyses of "The Zone" diet found that it came up short in B vitamins and the minerals magnesium and zinc. And because of its restrictions to only low-glycemic-index foods, some super-nutritious foods that happen to be high glycemic are left out of the plan. Moreover, the diet advises against dairy foods and wheat and therefore could come up low in calcium, vitamin D and fiber. You mentioned supplements and calcium pills - which are fine - but not for everyone, and not forever for everyone. Also, exercise is not encouraged as it should be - exercise is vital to the healthy function of the metabolic systems and overall health and well-being. Obviously, there are flaws with any diet plan. My main point is, though, that a calorie is a calorie....is a calorie. And "The Zone", (along with many other diets), tries to convince you that, "in the proper combinations, certain foods won't affect you in the same way". To my mind, this is simply silly, no matter how much supposed scientific evidence is backing it up. In med. school, I was taught that a calorie is a calorie. No matter how it's eaten, or when. So, IMO, "The Zone" is fine for a limited time, and certainly superior to most fad diets out there, if I had to choose. People just love the selection and ease when compared to other diets. I think that if people can keep those things in mind when choosing to start "The Zone", and use it more as a springboard to proper eating, instead of a way of life, that they can be quite successful and healthy in the long-term. I believe that, on "The Zone" diet, to answer your last question, you severely limit the white flours and processed foods - they tell you to look at grains and starches and pastas as "condiments". I MAY be wrong, but that was my general impression, as they list for you the "good" carbs and "bad" carbs. I applaud anyone that chooses to diet, and tries to choose sensibly. "The Zone" is a good START - just not, IMHO, a way to eat permanently. I am sure that there are many that would disagree with me, and that's okay! But that is my take on things. Sorry so long, I just wanted to be thorough with the questions that you asked of me! :-)

Take Care,
Heather

By Dana on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:18 am:

Thanks for the long explaination. It was very informing for me.

By John on Monday, January 5, 2004 - 04:12 pm:

I just wanted to address some of your points:

"Like most low-carbohydrate diets, a great deal of the weight loss is dehydration."

I believe that is the case for the first couple weeks or so for MOST diets but what about weeks and months later? When someone has lost 43 pounds on a low carb diet do you believe that the majority of that is water?

"Furthermore, this level of protein consumption may promote calcium loss and osteoporosis when adhered to for too long of a time. "

Several studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition contradict this assertion:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/6/924

"...causing the unhealthy depletion of lean body mass along with the minimal fat loss."

Other published studies have actually shown that a low carb diet is Superior to a high carb diet in the preservation of lean muscle mass and increased fat loss, in addition to the added benefit of reduced triglceride levels and improved HDL:

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/2/411