Page 1 2

Most people are fascinated by magic. Let's face it: we all like to think that there's something simple we could introduce into our lives that would miraculously solve our problems without too much work or sacrifice on our part. That may be one reason why so many athletes are attracted to Barry Sears' new book, 'The Zone'. After all, Sears promises that the eating plan he proposes can help us 'reach that near-euphoric state of maximum physical, mental, and psychological performance that athletes call 'the Zone'.' Who doesn't want that?

And the come-ons on the jacket of the book pledge that, if we follow Sears' recommendations, we'll lose weight permanently, prevent disease, enhance mental productivity, avoid the dangers of bad carbohydrates, balance our hormone and insulin levels, and even reset our genetic codes (!)

Those are huge claims, especially since what Sears proposes appears to be a total switch from what most health professionals are advocating. Right off the bat, Sears says, 'Low fat, low protein, high carbohydrate: that's the current wisdom in today's dietary marketplace. Well, let's say it plainly: much of the current wisdom is dead wrong. In fact, if you follow the more extreme of today's fashionable low-fat, low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets, you may actually be putting yourself in danger'


Carbs are dangerous?
That's unwelcome news to many endurance athletes, who have been carbo-loading with zest over the past few years as scientific research has repeatedly linked high-carbohydrate diets with superior performances. Nonetheless, Sears' message is catching on. More and more athletes are claiming that they're 'bonking' when their diet is high in carbohydrates, and that they feel - and perform - much better when they follow a Sears-type regime, which is lower in carbs and higher in fat


Are carbs making us fatter?
Do high-carb diets really cause disease and take us out of the so called 'zone' of high physical and mental performances, as Sears contends? He presents his case against carbohydrates in the following way: for the past 15 years or so, Americans have been fixated on the idea of ridding their bodies of excess fat. The basic strategy they've been using has been to eat less fat and more carbohydrate. The result has been a much-worsened epidemic of obesity

As Sears points out, the number of overweight adults in the United States jumped from 25 per cent of the population, the figure which prevailed for 20 years between 1960 and 1980, to 33 per cent of the population in the 11-year span between 1980 and 1991, a 32-per cent rise in obesity. Today, American adults weigh an average of eight pounds more than they did at the beginning of the 1980s. Since this expansion of flab has accompanied the trend to eat more carbohydrate and less fat, eating more carbohydrate and less fat must be part of the problem - not the solution, according to Sears. Or, as he puts it more baldly, 'There is but one alarming conclusion to reach: a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet may be dangerous to your health (p. 11)'

Why does Sears believe that carbohydrates are making people fat?
As he rightly points out, the storage capacity for carbohydrate in the human body is quite limited. An average human's muscles can sock away about 300 to 400 grams of the stuff. The liver can put up to 90 grams in its biscuit tin. Carbohydrate storage depots in the rest of the body are negligible, so the grand total checks in at less than 2000 stored calories. That's the best we can do!
As Sears puts it, once those limited storage areas are filled to capacity, there's just one area that incoming carbohydrate can go: it must be pushed into your belly, buttocks, or thighs as plain-old fat. Thus, eating a lot of carbohydrate must be what's making Americans fat (of course, this ignores the fact that eating surplus protein can also make you fat and eating extra dietary fat can make you even fatter, but never mind)

The rest of Sears' analysis goes as follows: high-carbohydrate meals also boost production of the body's most potent anabolic hormone - insulin. Insulin 'tells' adipose cells to store the incoming tide of carbohydrate as fat and also increases the production of 'bad' eicosanoids (hormonelike compounds which regulate a variety of critical body functions). These eicosanoids can do horrible things such as make the blood clot too easily, constrict arteries (causing high blood pressure), accelerate tumour growth, depress the immune system, enhance inflammation, and magnify pain

Unfortunately, Sears ignores the fact that very few people ever actually fill their carbohydrate storage areas completely, causing the 'spillover to fat' he deplores (if maximal carbo-filling were routine, why would endurance athletes have to 'carbo-load' before competitions?). Nor does he remind you that if some of your incoming carbohydrate is stored as fat, it can be plucked from the liver or fat cells later in the day to be burned for energy. After all, a molecule of fat stored in the body is not immortal!
But never mind: it turns out that Sears doesn't think that all carbs are bad. What he's most afraid of are the carbohydrates with a high glycaemic index, the ones which can push glucose into the blood quickly. Those are the ones which spur insulin production the most; therefore, they're little more than body-fat synthesisers and bad-eicosanoid maximisers, as Sears tells it. And that means that grains, breads, and pasta, the carbs preferred by many weight-conscious people and the carbs which have a high glycaemic index, are the ones which are most dangerous. Throw out those pasta machines! Other popular carbos, including corn, potatoes, papayas, mangos, bananas (!), carrots, and fruit juices are also very 'bad' because of their high glycemic index

A balancing act
Sears says that his 'zone-favourable' diet, the one which will decrease body fat, lower the risk of heart disease, and heighten athletic performance, is the one which keeps insulin under control and augments the production of 'good' eicasanoids. The key to doing that is to balance one's intake of carbohydrate, protein, and fat properly, he contends. But here's where things get a bit sticky. Early in the book, he contrasts his zone-favourable diet with other popular eating regimes. As Sears tells it, a typical vegetarian diet checks in with 80 per cent of calories from carbs, 10 per cent from protein, and 10 per cent from fat. A recommended 'healthy' diet is 70-per cent carbs, 15-per cent protein, and 15-per cent fat. The plan recommended by the American Diabetes Association is 60-20-20. And the zone-favourable diet? That would be 40-per cent carbs, 30-per cent protein, and 30-per cent fat (p. 72)

If you're an athlete, you have to be a bit taken aback by that recommendation. After all, scientific research has linked such modest carbohydrate intakes (40 per cent of total calories) with lower muscle-glycogen stores and poorer performances in endurance competitions. And if you're an average citizen, you've got to be a bit concerned by the seemingly inflated fat-intake figure (30 per cent of calories). Haven't such rich fat intakes been part of the reason why Americans have transformed themselves into masses of blubber?
To make things even more confusing, Sears follows up his comparisons by saying 'it's meaningless to worry about the percentages of calories you're getting from each macronutrient'. What he seems to think is most important is figuring out one's daily protein requirement. The protein requirement then determines how much carbohydrate and fat to eat. Basically, he suggests balancing fat and protein on a one-to-one ratio for calories. Total caloric intake of carbohydrate is then set at about 33-per cent more than this

Sears provides a personal illustration of how this works. He's six-feet five, weighs 210 pounds, and claims that his daily protein requirement (reckoned by taking into account body composition and activity level) is 100 grams. That adds up to 400 calories, so with his dietary system he also needs 400 calories (about 44 grams) of fat. Carbohydrate checks in at about 33-per cent more calories, or 532 calories (133 grams), giving us a grand total of 1332 calories for one day, quite minimal for a rugged 210-pound individual! Such a diet would be guaranteed to promote fat loss, merely because it's very low in total calories, but it's doubtful that many 210-pound individuals would be able to follow it strictly for long. Despite its absence of calories, Sears proclaims, 'On a zone-favourable diet, you restrict excess calories from carbohydrates, not total calories (!) and certainly not nutrition (p. 76)'

Oops!
But then things get more confusing still. Later in 'The Zone', Sears calls his plan a 'low-fat' programme, 'very similar to the diet recommended by your grandmother,' in spite of this earlier foray into 30-per cent-fat eating. He calls for maintaining a ratio of carbohydrate, protein, and fat 'blocks' at 1:1:1 in every meal or snack. What this boils down to, he says, is eating 9 grams of carbohydrate (one carbo block) and 1.5 grams of fat (one fat block) for each 7 grams of protein (a protein block)

But hold on a minute! That means you'd be eating a ratio of 36 calories of carbs, 28 calories of protein, and 13.5 calories of fat in each meal or snack. Suddenly, you're deviating from the plan proposed earlier in the book. In fact, this intake pattern would represent a 46-36-18 program, e.g., 46 per cent of calories from carbs, 36 from protein, and just 18 per cent from fat

But hold on yet another minute! Sears says that athletes should consume two fat blocks for every protein block. That would bring things back to the 40-30-30 caloric division extolled early in the book. Since most of PP's readers are engaged in athletic activity, we'll use this 40-30-30 ratio to examine more closely the merits of what Sears is saying

Continued »