Re: Zone Dieter Considering CR Lifestyle

[Guest guest]

IMO  the "zone diet" is one of the better diets as far as diets go, the whole issue of macro nutrient ratios is unproven and questionable to me.While there are slight differences between metabolism of C, F, or P as sole sources of energy, we all probably burn a mix of the three.  There is probably a larger effect from macro-nutrient ratio of excess energy consumption. In this marginal intake the conversion efficiencies make a larger difference (while some may argue that conversion efficiency effects the total intake). I only offer this a food for though, I don't personally focus on ratios.I consider dietary management to be dominated by other criteria.#1 get adequate, full nutrition. #2 manage energy balance to avoid obvious excess, and hit personal targets, after satisfying rule #1. These energy balance targets are less clearly defined or understood as nutrition targets are, and we are still learning about nutrition.#3 enjoy life.HNYJR   On Dec 31, 2007, at 8:11 AM, jon44 wrote:Hi:I've been following a 40-30-30 diet for a long time (>12 years) and it's worked well for me in terms of controlling insulin levels, giving me more energy, less soft tissue issues, etc. (I've always been skinny and never really had a weight problem.)As I get older, I'm considering the advantages of a more calorie restricted diet. I eat pretty "lightly" now, but justify eating an entire bag of chips or equivalent a few times a week by thinking that binging is somehow "natural" (in an "ancestral diet" sort of way).So, I'm just wondering if there is any advice for switching from zone type diet to Calorie Restriction. I can imagine it being a matter of reducing portions even a bit more and maybe having to give up intense exercise to avoid need for large amounts of carbs (with the thinking that with moderate exercise, you use can use predominately fat as fuel).Any thoughts appreciated,Jon

[Guest guest]

If you are considering CR, the binging on chips has got to go. Don’t keep the stuff around the house. Or at least buy the baked no-trans-fat type of chip (everything comes in a healthy version these days). Optimal Nutrition is an important aspect of CR. CR alone won’t cut it.

AFA calorie reduction, it depends on how old you are. At older ages CR should be very mild (older animals on extreme CR died YOUNGER than average). And if you’re already thin, perhaps you shouldn’t reduce at all, but just concentrate on ON. Too thin and you also die younger (see our files).

All this is in Walford’s book which I hope you’ve read. If you haven’t it’s a must read for this group and is available in most public libraries.

From: jon44 <jpensak@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:11:24 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Zone Dieter Considering CR Lifestyle

Hi:

I've been following a 40-30-30 diet for a long time (>12 years) and

it's worked well for me in terms of controlling insulin levels, giving

me more energy, less soft tissue issues, etc. (I've always been skinny

and never really had a weight problem.)

As I get older, I'm considering the advantages of a more calorie

restricted diet. I eat pretty " lightly " now, but justify eating an

entire bag of chips or equivalent a few times a week by thinking that

binging is somehow " natural " (in an " ancestral diet " sort of way).

So, I'm just wondering if there is any advice for switching from zone

type diet to Calorie Restriction. I can imagine it being a matter of

reducing portions even a bit more and maybe having to give up intense

exercise to avoid need for large amounts of carbs (with the thinking

that with moderate exercise, you use can use predominately fat as fuel).

Any thoughts appreciated,

Jon

[Guest guest]

GreetingsThe main issues in CR-ON are not only restricting calories but also optimizing nutrition, not macronutrient ratios. Macronutrient ratios are a poor guide to maximizing overall nutrients. One could be on a nutrient dense high carb diet and one good be on a nutrient poor high carb diet, which have the same macronutrient ratios. Same with a high fat vs low fat. It would be beneficial to input your daily food intakes into a nutrition software to see how well you are meeting overall nutrient goals. Fitday (www.fitday.com) and the CronOMeter are 2 simple, easy and free programs that will do this for you. As you reduce your calories, see how well you meet your nutrient goals. Adjust accordingly and dont CR-ON but your guide and not the Zone or any other "zone". IMHO, I have found it much easier, and simpler to maximize nutrient intake, while lowering calories, while ensuring enough food to satisfy hunger, and lower intake of other known risk factors, on a lower fat, higher unrefined unprocessed intact higher fiber, higher carb intake. Regardjeff On Dec 31, 2007, at 9:11 AM, jon44 wrote:Hi:I've been following a 40-30-30 diet for a long time (>12 years) and it's worked well for me in terms of controlling insulin levels, giving me more energy, less soft tissue issues, etc. (I've always been skinny and never really had a weight problem.)As I get older, I'm considering the advantages of a more calorie restricted diet. I eat pretty "lightly" now, but justify eating an entire bag of chips or equivalent a few times a week by thinking that binging is somehow "natural" (in an "ancestral diet" sort of way).So, I'm just wondering if there is any advice for switching from zone type diet to Calorie Restriction. I can imagine it being a matter of reducing portions even a bit more and maybe having to give up intense exercise to avoid need for large amounts of carbs (with the thinking that with moderate exercise, you use can use predominately fat as fuel).Any thoughts appreciated,Jon

[Guest guest]

Ooops.

>> Adjust accordingly and dont CR-ON but your guide and not the Zone

or any other " zone " .

This should have said..

Adjust accordingly and let CRON be your guide and not the Zone or any

other " zone " .

Jeff

[Guest guest]

On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Novick wrote:

> Greetings

>

> <snip>

> As you reduce your calories, see how well you meet your nutrient

> goals. Adjust accordingly and dont CR-ON but your guide and not

> the Zone or any other " zone " .

Is this last sentence meant to read " ...let CR-ON be your guide and

not the Zone... " ?

If so, I'd like to hear - or be directed to - more about objections

to the Zone business, esp. re: macronutrient ratios, since I've been

following a regime close to this.

Thanks,

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Put another way:

We all know there are certain types of fats which absolutely need to

be avoided. Others are much less bad. Some have clear benefits.

All of them contain lots of calories. The actual requirement for

fat in the diet is quite small (somewhere between 5% and 10% of

calories?).

It also seems that benefits may accrue from restricting the intake

of certain amino acids to RDA levels. A good way to do that is to

moderate overall protein intake, and especially, probably,

methionine. I find my total protein intake is substantially above

my nutritional need for it.

And there are certain types of carbohydrates which, it is widely

acknowledged, need to be avoided - especially those that can be

classified as " empty calories " .

IMO, talking broad strokes, one can be way ahead of the average

north american simply by avoiding foods that provide little or no

benefit, and those known to be actively harmful ......... and of

course by maintaining total caloric intake at an appropriate level

at the same time.

Perhaps one should decide on the appropriate caloric intake on the

basis of what provides good lab test results rather than on some,

essentially arbitrary, BMI or whatever?

Rodney.

>

> > Hi:

> >

> > I've been following a 40-30-30 diet for a long time (>12 years)

and

> > it's worked well for me in terms of controlling insulin levels,

giving

> > me more energy, less soft tissue issues, etc. (I've always been

skinny

> > and never really had a weight problem.)

> >

> > As I get older, I'm considering the advantages of a more calorie

> > restricted diet. I eat pretty " lightly " now, but justify eating

an

> > entire bag of chips or equivalent a few times a week by thinking

that

> > binging is somehow " natural " (in an " ancestral diet " sort of

way).

> >

> > So, I'm just wondering if there is any advice for switching from

zone

> > type diet to Calorie Restriction. I can imagine it being a

matter of

> > reducing portions even a bit more and maybe having to give up

intense

> > exercise to avoid need for large amounts of carbs (with the

thinking

> > that with moderate exercise, you use can use predominately fat

as

> > fuel).

> >

> > Any thoughts appreciated,

> >

> > Jon

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I can't speak for Jeff, but I read his post to suggest that you could hit macro-nutrient ratio targets with wildly divergent nutrient content, so it was an incomplete approach. The zone is better IMO than many of the fad diets, for general advice , but when you start shaving calories, you need to manage actual nutrition.  If managing macro-nutrient ratios is important to you by all means do so, just don't put it above dietary aspects that are proved important (like nutrition and energy balance).JROn Dec 31, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Cook wrote:.Is this last sentence meant to read "...let CR-ON be your guide and not the Zone..."?If so, I'd like to hear - or be directed to - more about objections to the Zone business, esp. re: macronutrient ratios, since I've been following a regime close to this.Thanks, 

[Guest guest]

> I can't speak for Jeff,

>

You did a great job of it!

> but I read his post to suggest that you could hit macro-nutrient

> ratio targets with wildly divergent nutrient content, so it was an

> incomplete approach.

>

Correct. In addition, I would also agree with Rodneys' comments on

the issue. We need " X " amount of essential amino acids, and an " x "

amount of essential fatty acids . Too much in excess above that, may

not be good

> The zone is better IMO than many of the fad diets, for general

> advice , but when you start shaving calories, you need to manage

> actual nutrition.

Right. CR-ON is much more than macronutrient ratios.

> If managing macro-nutrient ratios is important to you by all means

> do so, just don't put it above dietary aspects that are proved

> important (like nutrition and energy balance).

Agreed again. If the macro nutrient ratios are important, so be it,

(though I know of no evidence specifically supporting certain macro

nutrient ratios), but more important, is optimizing total nutrient

and micro nutrient intake, while also limiting certain things known to

be harmful in excess (saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, etc)

Jeff