So, since this is kind of a what did Mark say thread....here ya go. After he explains why ketosis is nothing to be afraid of he states:
"That said, the Primal Blueprint is not designed to be a ketogenic (extremely low-carb) diet, because this strategy would restrict your intake of the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet—vegetables and fruits. I don’t even characterize the Primal Blueprint as a “low-carb” diet, as much as it is an “eliminate bad carbs” diet. I don’t advocate portion control or even diligently counting your macronutrient intake beyond a few days of journaling now and then to establish benchmarks and reference points"
Sisson, Mark (2009-06-01). The Primal Blueprint: Reprogram your genes for effortless weight loss, vibrant health, and boundless energy (p. 88). Primal Nutrition, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
I did the Zone diet severals years back. I lost a lot of weight that I kept off and felt great. I also learned a ton about glycemic inde x, as related to the types of fruit I ate, which permanently shifted me to eating mostly berries. I learned things about food and reading labels that still help me today. It was a good plan to be on. Now, I did eat more fat than recommended and still lost weight and felt better for it. Where the Zone falls down is in the types of food you consume. Frankenfoods were ok if they met the 40/30/30 ratio, and that's where I started to have problems. But if you apply paleo thinking to the ratios, it's still not a bad way to eat.
I used to be on Zone forums and had people there telling me I was being too strict, because I decided that my carbs should be just fruits and veggies. People thought whole grains and bread should be a part of the carb ratio. Maybe that's why I lost so much weight on it, because I was basically eating primal. If I add in what I know now about good fats versus vegetable oil garbage, it's still a valid way of eating for health. I have to thank the Zone for teaching me that a serving size of pasta is 1/4 cup and not a plateful, and that my body will still process the pasta like white sugar. It was the background of the Zone that helped me jump right on board with paleo because i learned so much about how the body processes carbs while on it.
I also did the Zone a few years ago. It worked well for me for quite a long time. Where it fell apart for me was when I re-introduced grains. I only realize that now. I was getting pretty bored with the food and got more recipe books that included them. The Zone taught me a lot about restricting starch and high GI carbs and adding good fats. French don't diet taught me slow flavourful enjoyable eating. Put them together and I seem to have been primed pretty well for Primal. :) without counting, weighing or measuring.
Yup, no one is God, but the disappointment I suppose is if one of the key aspects of "paleo" lifestyle is hormonal control, then not addressing macronutrient ratios (per meal, not overall during a day) seems to be missing a key part of it. And if he's going to look at other ideas, at least get them right--it's hard to know if he just didn't dig deep enough, or just over-simplifying for a mass audience. (And, I think some people (e.g., me) are much more sensitive to macronutrient ratios than others (e.g., I can tell the difference by feel of P to C ratio of .6 vs. .7).
I like your idea of modifying and finding what works for you. The whole idea that a certain guru has a particular diet seems like the wrong way to look at it. Certain people just seems to emphasize certain things over other. The stuff I see on this website is actually almost completely in-line with Dr. Sears' ideas, except for the macronutrient ratio issue (well, and not going into Essential Fatty Acids, like GLA) and it's true that other people who consider healthy lifestyle issues don't concern themselves with grains versus fruits and vegetables so much (other than encouraging the latter for their generally more favorable Glycemic Index.)
[QUOTE][I]are much more sensitive to macronutrient ratios than others (e.g., I can tell the difference by feel of P to C ratio of .6 vs. .7).[/I][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]seriously? :confused: am pretty fine-tuned with what i eat but perceiving a 10th of a percent difference in a macro seems super-human.
if the zone is working for you, why do you care what mark thinks? further, it isn't his plan, nor is it his responsibility to advocate for it.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]oh, and the glycemic index is like a 10-years ago thing. science marches on, ya know?[/SIZE][/FONT]
Actually, the Zone diet should get credit with kicking off the low-carb craze and making people more aware of the dangers of grains. Mark simply capitalized on a growing awareness that started ten years earlier. The Zone diet clearly states that we are not genetically programmed to eat grains, and was the FIRST mainstream book to say this.
[QUOTE=fiercehunter;1189718]Actually, the Zone diet should get credit with kicking off the low-carb craze and making people more aware of the dangers of grains. Mark simply capitalized on a growing awareness that started ten years earlier. The Zone diet clearly states that we are not genetically programmed to eat grains, and was the FIRST mainstream book to say this.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should do some reading.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet]Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Non athletes only need 10-20% carbs to not be in a ketogenic state. So 30% is much higher. Also the types of foods allowed as carbs are not good for you.
Excuse me for my bad typos,
Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app