What’s Wrong With The Zone Diet?
Dear Mark,
I just watched your video about the 2 minute salad; simple, fast, and no measuring. I agree with the primal way of eating and I’m torn between the freelance style of PB and structure of The Zone. What is your opinion of The Zone?
First, let me thank Rob for his question. I’ve had a lot of conversations about The Zone and other heavily publicized diet plans. It’s fair, I think, to look at the good and the bad of the diet. Unless you’re talking about the grapefruit diet or similarly comical fad, diets generally have to have at least some positive point(s) to gain a decent following, as The Zone has. Nonetheless, what can initially look like a rational foundation begins to show cracks when you look at how the philosophy actually plays out.
The Zone’s Positives?
It suggests vegetables and fruit as the primary sources of carbohydrates and fiber. It suggests more protein than most popular diets. It appreciates the value of omega-3s. And finally, it pays homage to the diet-hormone connection (although I take issue with how the theory gets applied in the actual diet prescription).
The Zone, I’ll say, isn’t by far the worst diet out there. It gets a few key things right or somewhat close. That said, however, I think there’s big room for improvement.
Since you asked, here are my “beefs” with The Zone.
The “Moderate” Hobby Horse
In Dr. Sears’ words, “Any diet that uses the word high or low to describe it is hormonally unsustainable. The only diet that can maintain hormonal balance for a lifetime must use the word moderate to describe it.” Just from a rhetorical standpoint, this statement gets under my skin. O.K. – moderate according to what culture, what historical (or pre-historical) age? Based on his theory, we’re genetically designed for a 40-30-30 plan kind of “moderation”.
The Fear of Fat
What’s with the dinky serving of almonds or avocado in each meal? Yes, monosaturated fats are great. So, why the miniscule serving? And then there’s the commandment about only the leanest meats. Sure, I get the fat-toxin connection, and it’s why I tend to often (but not always) choose relatively leaner meats, but this has nothing to do with The Zone recommendation. Dr. Sears, pardon my saying, just seems like another fat-o-phobe. But, with the higher carb allotment, I guess fat gets you into more trouble. (What about that little bit of biochemistry? Didn’t see that mentioned. Hmmm.)
Too High in Carbs
I already said that I applauded the focus on veggies and the secondary role of fruits. It’s true that The Zone downplays the role of grains, and I like that as well. (Little surprise, yes.) But here we find ourselves back in the land of unfounded, forced “moderation.” Sure, Dr. Sears talks insulin regulation, but the rubber doesn’t exactly meet the road in The Zone diet. For an eating plan to truly facilitate hormonal balance, you have to put the brakes on the insulin response. This means low carb. But that’s a bad word in The Zone.
Hunger
Without the fat, most people are going to be hungry on this diet. I know I would be. I’m not one for diets. Hunger sets in (on a regular basis, no less), and too many well-meaning people are set up for failure. In contrast, the Primal Blueprint is a sustainable lifestyle that offers a model for eating that a person can realistically stick with over time.
Too Structured
Along with the hunger issue, imposing too much structure is too hard (or tedious) over time. I guess it might be easier if you took a Sharpie to all your dinner plates for the assigned pie graph. The plan even goes so far as to set out specific time intervals for eating. For example, eat within an hour after getting up. Eat dinner within 2 ½ hours of the prescribed afternoon snack. You should eat five times a day total. The more structure, the more confusion and temptation there is when a dieter gets off track. Again, I’m all about what’s sustainable. Experience has taught me that the fewer and more simple the guidelines, the better. Maybe that’s just me. On a true low-carb program, the more you learn to burn fat, the less hunger becomes an issue and the less often you need to eat in a structured fashion to sustain energy.
Protein Suggestions
While the 30% is more than most dietary organizations or popular diet plans recommend, the absolute hard and fast rule again doesn’t sit right. You don’t need to be an Olympic athlete to benefit from more than 30% protein intake. And, no, it won’t necessarily turn to fat – unless you drive it there with the higher carbs. Finally, Dr. Sears touts soy as one of the best sources, saying that using soy as a primary protein source could be the healthiest choice overall. Most of you know my take on soy, and I stand by my opinion. The research in that vein keeps coming. Too bad The Zone hasn’t caught up with the times on that one.
So, you’ve heard my take now. I’d love to hear your comments. Anyone here tried it before and want to offer up some personal anecdotes? Thanks for reading. As always, thanks for the great questions.
Further Reading:
The Definitive Guide to the Primal Eating Plan
Processed Soy and Meat Alternatives
Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds
Posted By: Mark Sisson
(
Hi Mark,
For me it is the “Too Structured” point which has the most resonance. The more rules there are to follow the more trapped a person feels and the less likely it is to be something they stick with. I have seen this happen time and again with people I know who have been attempting to follow one regime or another.
The fact remains, as you and others have pointed out time and again, that we have evolved to eat in an unstructured way, therefore it makes sense fundamentally that our system should be optimised to deal with the unstructured receipt of nutrition.
So the idea of structured eating, as well as making a programme difficult to stick to, feels fundamentally at odds with how we evolved to function.
Methuselah
Pay Now Live Later
I used to follow the BFFM (Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle) program for exercise and eating. The eating was very similar to The Zone as far as the Protein-Fat-Carb breakdown.
At the time, the structure was what I needed; having to keep track of p-f-c ratios at every meal in a food log made me very aware of what I was putting in my mouth.
But once I got a grasp on the content of various foods, keeping the log was counter-productive. Measuring everything out was a pain in the a$$, and it actually made me HUNGRIER by forcing me to think about food all the time in order to prepare it in the proper ratios.
It’s so much easier to just glance at something and think “Oh, that’s not real food.” and pass it by than to try and analyze its nutritional info.
This actually got me thinking about something a little different. When I was in my teens and 20’s, I could eat practically what I wanted (within reason) and moderate my weight. I experienced low blood sugar problems (I guess reactive hypoglycemia) and had a few episodes of weight gain, but nothing I couldn’t reverse with a little (or a lot) of exercise. As I got older (even late 20’s) it became harder and harder. That’s when I found low-carb and finally, 15 years or so after starting my nutritional journey, Primal/EF/Paleo.
A lot of the “experts” that tout eating plans are either 1) out of shape themselves or 2) young! Of COURSE the zone works for Mr. “I’m 25 and I workout 5 times a week and follow the Zone,” right? Now I know there are exceptions to the rule, but there aren’t too many truly fit and healthy (**this is key) indidviduals that are over, say, 35 or 40 using these plans.
I guess generalizing is never a good thing. I’m sure there are anecdotes up the ying-yang of old guys using the Zone (look at Clarence Bass, for example, he pushes whole grains and apparently eats a lot of grains himself). Anyway, just something I wanted to throw out there.
I would agree that a lot of diets do set us up to fail. I think the sensation of feeling hungry will be their for a while depending on how much you are used to eating. But in a few weeks up to a month, the hunger will go away if you stick to the diet.
Mark
You make good points about the Zone, but let me tell you my experience with it. I started the Zone about 2 years ago and have been over 90% strict with it since (although I have modified it some…more on that to come). It was a great starting place for my diet.
I disagree with your statement “The more structure, the more confusion and temptation there is when a dieter gets off track”. I think that the more structure, the less room for error, the less you have to think about it, and the easier it is to follow without screwing up. Especially for people just getting started. I realize this is just a personality thing and everyone is different. But, for example (and this is totally unrelated), the military is very structured, but recruits learn and form routines quickly. Now, with your diet, you don’t have the “luxury” of having someone looking over your shoulder and yelling at you constantly for 6 weeks while you form your eating habits. But, in my experience, the less choices and more structure you give people, the less they screw up. But again, it depends on the personality type – I don’t think you can make a blanket statement that the structure makes it harder to follow. Some people need that.
Now, about the carbs and fat. I see the Zone as a starting point for a healthy diet. The strict 40-30-30 will not be where everyone feels best. I eat a “Zone” diet, but I eat more along the lines of 19-24-57 (C-P-F). I have experimented over the years with subtracting carb blocks and adding fat blocks to get to where I feel best. I currently eat 16 “blocks”. However, I have subtracted 6 blocks of carbs and replaced them with fat (each carb “block” = 1.5 fat “blocks”, which make them equal in calories). I also eat double fat (I eat 4-5 times fat in the winter…for whatever reason, it’s easier for me to keep weight on in the summer). Most athletes on the Zone eat at least double fat. Although I have clients who are trying to lose weight who follow a strict single-fat Zone and they are not hungry because of the amount of veggies they eat – it’s a large quantity of food. So, for your not-enough-fat and too-many-carb arguments, I agree, if you follow the 40-30-30 split strictly. Although, for those looking to lose weight, this seems to work well (in my experience). For me, hunger is never an issue, and I do intermittent fasting regularly (which could suck if I ate 16 blocks of carbs, but I can get through a 20+ hour fast without even thinking about it).
Lastly, the protein issue. I think the Zone does a decent job of prescribing protein requirements, as most people do not eat enough. I don’t think we can argue percentages because depending on carb and fat intake, the percentage doesn’t really mean anything. I mean, I “only” eat 24% protein, but I eat over 112 grams a day (of just animal protein, not including nuts, of which I eat a bunch). I look at that as minimum amount of protein I shoot for every day. If I get more, I realize this isn’t a bad thing. I also think people need something to shoot for. So, if you just say “eat all the meat you want” or something along those lines, they will…but it may not be enough. It’s like saying “do some push-ups”….someone will do 10 and stop. But if you say “do 20 push-ups”, they’ll do 20. If you give someone a measurable goal, they’re more likely to reach it.
Ok, so this is turning into a novel, but to sum it up: I like the modified Zone diet I am on. The structure and measuring let’s me find exactly what works for me. I don’t have to guess. I know exactly what I need to eat each day to perform and feel my best. I don’t, however, think that anyone should view the Zone as the “be-all-end-all” of diets. You need to experiment and see what works best for you. After 2 years of trying new carb-protein-fat ratios, I think I’ve found the best thing for me. But, that could change in a few months.
And, dude, sorry for the long comment. Jeez.
“The more structure, the more confusion and temptation there is when a dieter gets off track.”
Nothing could be more true for the constant dieter. The points system, the miniscule calorie counting, and the “just eat a bunch of this one food” diets are doomed in the long run simply because they suck the joy out of eating. Has anyone met a person who has stuck with SlimFast, the cabbage diet, or any other “get thin now!” plan for 20 years?
That’s the great thing about Mark’s Primal “diet.” It’s more about gaining a sense of healthy vs. non-healthy foods and dietary habits, leaving the dieter with much more room for creativity in meals. For instance, Mark’s sensible vices suggest ways to get positive health benefits when straying into sugartown. Mark embraces dark chocolate while typical structured diets simply give it a high point value that fuels guilt.
Mary,
You bring up a good point that structure can eliminate confusion, but it also limits variety. The structure works for the type of people who become comfortable in a fixed routine: same meal every work day, one of three different dinners every evening. You could argue that almost any diet works if you adhere to it.
The reason most fad diets fail isn’t because they aren’t healthy, it is because people simply get sick of the routine, or because the restrictions the diet creates leave the dieter in a constant state of hunger or a lack of energy.
Admittedly though, as far as structured routines go, the Zone certainly beats out many of its peers.
What a coincidence! I just finished reading a post by Rob Wolf, a Zone proponent, where he states that depending on circumstances, there may be too many carbs.
http://robbwolf.com/?p=110
Mark, what do you think Loren Cordain’s book called Paleo Diet? He also suggest to eat lean meats and to be moderate at saturated fat. He thinks hunter-gatherers ate about the exact amount of saturated fat like the dietetion’s advice.
The zone is a great place to start to understand “how” we eat: portions, timing, macronutrient ratios. Other than “three square meals a day” and “be sure to eat breakfast” what cultural cues do we have? Certainly the zone is not optimized for everyone, but think of Sears’ “moderate” approach as a good “average” diet — once you’ve mastered its basics, you’re free to optimize it to meet your specific needs.
Paleo/PB is awesome for learning “what” to eat. More fats, real food, etc. Using the Zone structure, I worked on increasing the quality of my foods, slowly upped the fat, cut out grains as my carb source, experimented with dairy (kefir good, plain milk bad), etc.
We’ve evolved to eat in an unstructured way, but we’re now living in a world that gives our unstructured body far too many counter-intuitive signals. For me, at least, it’s nice to have disciplined rationales for both how and what I eat.
Josh – I completely agree. I have merged Paleo with Zone and incorporate much of what I learn on Mark’s site as well.
Jarod – I partially agree. You can still have plenty of variety on the Zone. Heck, technically you can eat anything you want, as long as you keep your portions under control. I’ve never found much joy in eating; it’s just another thing I do every day. So I could care less than I eat more salmon and broccoli in one week than most people eat in their lifetime. But, understandably, most people have a larger emotional connection with food than I do and may need more freedom with how they eat.
For those who don’t adhere to any set amount of foods they eat every day (just eat PB or Paleo), how do you know you’re eating enough? (this isn’t an challenge, I’m really curious). With the Zone I know how much I need to eat to stay the same weight. I would be worried that if I didn’t keep track of how much I ate, I wouldn’t eat enough. I find that if I try to eyeball everything for a week (like if I’m on vacation or something) and don’t keep track of it, I almost always lose weight.
Les, Cordain has some good ideas (obviously), but I disagree on the sat fat restriction. If you eat low carb and clean fats/proteins, there’s little reason to eschew saturated fats. And there’s no evidence that sat fats lead to heart disease. I think he’s just trying to appeal to all.
Mary, if you start eating PB all the time, you get to a point where your hunger is the guide. I, and many people I work with, certainly don’t feel the need to measure, weigh or eyeball anything anymore. You eat too much at one meal, you naturally eat less at the next. You fast a while, you make up for it – or not – when you decide to eat again. It’s the randomness that makes it work in some regards. But you have to have the confidence that you are not kowtowing to prior habits or phantom hungers. It takes a little while, but when you dial it in, it’s a real feeling of security to say: I could eat a lot or I could eat nothing. Doesn’t really matter in the overall scheme as long as I control insulin. The one caveat is that if you have a lot of fat to lose first, you would probably be well advised to monitor food intake for a while to be sure you are getting enough macronutrients to sustain health and energy, but noy so many (for now) that you burn dietary fats when you could be burning more stored fat. As you reach your goals, it matters less (see my posts on the context of calories).
I have in the past been a big pusher of the zone, but I found myself really obsessed with eating due to the math involved in eating anything.
I had a thought this balance thing though. Barry Sears calls certain hormones “good” and others “bad”, and I know he is just using those words so his book is easier to read. But I can’t help but notice that our bodies can and do survive in imbalanced hormonal states, and that it seems reasonable that we evolved to frequently handle wild shifts in food sources from season to season, from one foraging area to another, etc.
What if constant balance isn’t actually the best way to be healthy? But rather a rhythm which mimics, or follows the wide variations in food choices most of our ancestors would have regularly dealt with as omnivore hunter-gatherers.
Am I making sense?
Structure is a matter of personality. Some folks do well with structure. Others abhor it. I personally can do without structure when it comes to eating (at work I’m different). I just eat lots of protein, fat and veggies with a good mix of fruit thrown in, and I’m good. Glucose Tolerance test went from 198 to 100, BP down 25 points…I don’t measure or worry about it If getting too much of a % of a certain item. That would drive me nuts and make me hate my me eating style. In my mind, when I have to start measuring, it becomes a “diet” and not “just a way of eating” that becomes permanent.
I actually began my journey down the path to good health with the zone. The diet allowed me to master the basics as far as what was good to eat and what was bad (all the tasty stuff). I just dove right in. Then I started reading, beginning with “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taub. This is when I switched from the Zone to a Paleo Atkin’s diet. BAM! 20 lbs in 2 months, decreased B/P, increased strength and endurance, etc… The Zone is an okay maintenance diet and actually closely resembles the 4th stage of Atkins. It’s not much good as a weight loss diet though without intense exercise, and therefore can be seen as a little high on the carb scale. I don’t think our Paleo ancestors were much for eating their body weight in veggies every meal though and therefor neither are we. So, the Zone is a good first step which allows us to better understand the diet’s role in good health, but is not the optimal diet to that end. That’s all I have to say about that.
When I found the Zone diet in 1996 it was the most amazing diet I ever did. The portion control and balance worked really well for me. It was great to at last find a programme that got rid of PMS, low evergy levels, and excess body fat.
Over the years I have followed it guesswork – without stressing over it. It was great to be able to eat anything and know if I kept to the portion and balance I wouldn’t put weight back on.
However I suffer auto immune joint inflammation and my PMS would come and go. It wasn’t until I read The paleo diet (as a result of starting crossfit) and trying out a no grain and legume diet, and getting all my carbs from fruit and veggies that I finally found the key to my joint pain and PMS. It was cutting out the grains (even the small amount I was eating) that was the answer. (Loren Cordain has done a useful paper on the relationship of grains legumes and nightshades and auto immune disease)
I still do the zone ratio although it is a range and each person finds their own sweet point. Mine is 30% protein 30% carbs and 40% fat roughly. I need the portion control, I easily put on weight eating pure paleo and eating too much. I’m not hungry though, for me it’s a meal structure that works and keeps me on track. Now its very automatic, so no weighing or measuring required.
So for me the paleo / zone balance and portion control is key to health.
Personally I don’t like or feel good if I eat a lot of saturated fat, or too much fat. I stick to a smaller amount of nuts and oil, although not as rigid at the small zone amounts.