zone diet?

prawn

Yellow Belt
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
I apologise in advance if there is/was an existing discussion about the zone diet in another thread - but after having run a search, I can't find it.

I basically just want to know what the general consensus is on this diet, and how applicable it is to martial arts practice geared towards that sweet spot between being strong and having muscular endurance.

Having had a look at the portion breakdowns and having made a few meals with the prescribed blocks, I'm finding that the carb volume is much higher, and protein volume much lower, than I'm used to.

Thoughts?

(btw my goals are to improve performance, more-or-less maintain current bf%, and get stronger. adding mass is really more secondary as a goal)
 
Many people do well with zone ratios. Others do well with lower carb. Other people do well with even more carbs. If I were you, I would adjust your macronutrients (you should keep protein about constant though...around 1 gram per pound of lbm at least) and see which diet you feel best with.
 
I've had pretty good success with the Zone diet. I used Zone-Paleo extensively last year. After running it for a while I found it was more effective to eat a zone ratio meal and than follow it with a 20g whey protein shake. For athletic training, the fair ammount of carbs is great, and if you make the right carb choices, you can stay very lean.

Initially, I would reccomend running zone exactly as prescribed for two to three weeks to see how you respond and than adjust macros from there.
 
Good to hear some people have been having success with it. I stumbled onto the Australian Institute of Sport webpage somehow and they wrote the diet off as being unsustainable.

Adding the protein shake seems like a good idea, because the figures from the cookie-cutter zone plans seems to have protein per lbm falling short for me by a good 30grams.
Or maybe I'm looking at the incorrect plan for my needs.

Regardless, I'll stick with it for a little while and see what happens.
 
At the very least, it give you a good place to start. Having all the macros in balance is pretty easy on the body. From there it's possible to add or reduce macros as needed for your performance goals. Like I said, I did ok on it, but once I started adding in the extra protein it became much more effective. My workout performance didn't improve so much as my recovery did.
 
Stewy, have you had experience using the ratio with the goal of gaining mass?
 
I was on a zone-paleo diet for quite sometime. At the same time I was doing cross-fit workouts through our local gym and naturally, the zone diet gave me the energy and focus for the 30 minutes of intense training I endured. I started out on a 2 block meal plan every 2.5-3 hours to jump start my metabolism. I tweeked it a bit and adjusted some modifications and up the block portions of protein when I wanted to build muscle.

While I was on it, I've noticed I was more focused, my testosterone levels were higher and overall, I was staying lean and healthy. There are different versions of it, some are stricter than the other, but it is a diet I would recommend to anyone if they want to keep it clean and balanced.

MMA fighters adopt this diet for their high intense training. Most MMA fighters in the area all participate in the cross-fit facility here and follow it religiously.
 
Wow I'm amazed you're only on 2 block meals? These last few days I've been on a 19 block daily total (I'm only 5'7, 148lbs) and I'm finding that I'm constantly hungry. Or perhaps its a different block program you're talking about.

What I *have* noticed foremost though (apart from hunger) is that my bodily senses seem alot more active, and yes - I feel more mentally focused.

So far so good.
 
You need to read the following:

1) Journal of the American College of Nutrition called “The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the Science behind the Claims”.

The Zone Diet Phenomenon: A Closer Look at the Science behind the Claims -- Cheuvront 22 (1): 9 -- Journal of the American College of Nutrition

This article concludes:

When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-scientific rhetoric. This review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the science behind the claims made for the Zone Diet reveals nothing more than a modern twist on an antique food fad.

2) The Australian Institute of Sport reviews the Zone Diet:

Australian Institute of Sport :: The Zone Diet

One the zone diet and athletic performance:

An athlete who calculated their Zone intake, based strictly on the instructions provided in the books, would be in a state of energy deprivation. This strategy would certainly cause them to "access stored body fat". (i.e. lose body fat) There is nothing magic about this! Of course, this assumes that the athlete wants to lose body fat. And many athletes do. However, eating a very low energy intake is an unnecessarily extreme way to become leaner - not to mention, counterproductive to training. Without sufficient carbohydrate to replace muscle glycogen stores, it is impossible to undertake high-intensity exercise at optimum effort. An athlete might be able to get away with low-moderate intensity training on such a diet. However, quality sessions or interval sessions would suffer.

The sections on athletes and performance in the Zone diet are particularly confusing and contradictory. The back of the book promises: "athletes do better on a high fat diet". However, the Zone diet if followed to the letter of the book, is not a high fat diet. Rather it is a low energy, low fat diet - providing most people with 30-70 g of fat each day. If an athlete believed that adaptation to a high-fat diet is an advantage for performance - and that is the topic for another fact sheet - then the Zone diet will not look after these needs.

There is no direct explanation for the athlete who doesn't want to lose any more body fat. Clearly, lean athletes need to be in energy balance by eating far more calories than the Zone book allows for. There are some suggestions in the Zone book that these athletes should make up extra fuel needs by eating more mono-unsaturated fat. However, an athlete who does this will no longer be eating a 40:30:30 dietary mix, and the book is light on practical advice on how to organise such an eating plan.

The review concludes:

There are no published studies that support any benefits of the Zone diet on athletic performance. We are left with the present conclusion that the 40:30:30 diet is a well-marketed nutrition craze. Whether it will stand the test of scientific scrutiny, or the test of time, is a topic for the future. At the moment it is simply untested.

From what I have read, the only support for the zone diet's claims are testimonial evidence. It works in practice, however, because it puts people in a caloric deficit, but that alone is not sufficient reason to assume it is the best diet for athletic performance (because you can put someone on a caloric deficit with fries and ice-cream).
 
I got on the Zone diet 6 years ago. Stayed on it for a while, too. Returned to it a couple of times. Read 2 books of it.

I didn't know much about sports nutrition back then. I have educated myself a lot more since.

As long as you exercise, this diet will get you very good results in terms of lowering your body fat %. Compared to ketogenic diets the results will not be as fast, but as long as you keep up with it the results will be there and IMO this is nowhere near as extreme as a ketogenic diet, and thus more sustainable. Which doesn't mean it is sustainable long-term for athletes of all kinds of sports.

IMO this is a great and very balanced diet to be on, for sedentary individuals (if you are a person who does not exercise). I also believe that, as long as you adequately increase the fat intakes as briefly mentioned somewhere in the Zone books, then this can probably be a sustainable diet for endurance sports athletes (according to the recent research on increasing the utilization of fat as energy source for long aerobic endurance event sports).

When it comes to power sports (non-pure-endurance sports), then the quotes for the articles enright3060 references is spot on. You just don't get enough carbs to replete your glycogen stores imo. If you follow this diet, then as soon as you reach your desired BF% you should drop it for a diet that will better enhance your performance. If you don't want to drop it and start completely from scratch, then I guess you could gradually adjust it (in that case I would recommend you to start by looking at concepts like nutrient timing which are very fundamental in sports nutrition but are completely absent from the Zone diet).

In a nutshell: good diet if you are not exercising, bad diet for sports!!
 
While I was on it, [Β]I've noticed I was more focused, my testosterone levels were higher and overall, I was staying lean and healthy[/Β]. There are different versions of it, some are stricter than the other, but it is a diet I would recommend to anyone if they want to keep it clean and balanced.

Man, now you need to explain to me... how exactly did you notice your testosterone levels where higher??
 
Adding the protein shake seems like a good idea, because the figures from the cookie-cutter zone plans seems to have protein per lbm falling short for me by a good 30grams.
Or maybe I'm looking at the incorrect plan for my needs.

Many people do well with zone ratios. Others do well with lower carb. Other people do well with even more carbs. If I were you, I would adjust your macronutrients (you should keep protein about constant though...around 1 gram per pound of lbm at least) and see which diet you feel best with.


I don't agree with the comments made about Zone diet not providing enough protein. As far as I can remember (and correct me if I am wrong) the Zone books recommend a daily dose of 1.2-2.2 grams per kg of lean body mass, depending on your activity level, which is very reasonable according to all the current research on the topic. Then goes on to build your daily dosages of carbs and fat accodring to the 40-30-30 ratio. And at some point gives some very vague directions to increase fat if you spend more calories (monounsaturated fat).

This would place this diet on the low carbs/relatively-high protein/normal fat (or higher fat according to the vague directons).
 
Enright: thanks for the links. I've already read the AIS article, which is why I started the thread in the first place. I'll be sure to check the other one out, though.

I don't agree with the comments made about Zone diet not providing enough protein. As far as I can remember (and correct me if I am wrong) the Zone books recommend a daily dose of 1.2-2.2 grams per kg of lean body mass,

Miaou: You're correct regarding the recommended daily protein intake. It's just that when I tallied the total daily protein on the plan I was on, the amount = less than my daily requirements. So what I did was get my daily requirement and worked the 40-30-30 off that amount.

Very interesting stuff regarding lowering bf% and the questionable sustainability of the diet because primarily my aim isn't to lower bodyfat (maybe 1-2% at most), and a *sustainable* dietary plan that contributes to performance/recovery is what I was after.
 
Back
Top