Salvatore Colascione’s online best seller, “The One Low Carb Diet That Always Works“, isn’t really a “new” diet at all. In fact, this publication might be more accurately entitled “A Day in The Life of a Low Carb Dieter”.

Salvatore’s publication doesn’t really shed any new light on low carb dieting (he’s basically following the Atkin’s diet), but instead documents one person’s day-to-day experience with a low carb diet, and provides handy tips for living the low carb lifestyle (in this way, Salvatore’s publication adds a nice dose of practicality missing in typical low carb diet publications).

In fact, “The One Low Carb Diet That Always Works”, isn’t really the ideal publication for those of you who aren’t yet familiar with the basics of low-carb dieting.

In fact, so little information is provided about the actual mechanics of low-carb dieting, and why it is a viable weight loss strategy that the novice low-carb dieter may have difficulty understanding exactly what it is he/she should or should not do. Of course, you will pick up the basics over the course of the publication, but it would be nice to see the “low carb fundamentals” outlined concisely in a single chapter early on.

That notwithstanding, “The One Low Carb Diet That Always Works” does offer one main benefit over a longer, more complex and in-depth publications like the Atkins diet …

It’s brief, simple, and unpretentious, and you can get through the bulk of the publication in an hour!

There’s plenty of good info here too, some of it not found in the Atkins diet, like…

• How to count carbs (includes a nice discussion on glycerine) on non-digestible alcohol sugars (like malitol, xylitol, sorbitol, and so on)
• The best online resources for low carb diet items — like low carb pancakes, pizzas, muffins, breads, and all the goodies that make living the low carb lifestyle that much easier
• A thorough discussion on the health benefits of nuts and monounsaturated fats
• A holiday survival guide for the low carb dieter
• A nice discussion on the benefits of CLA (conjugated linoleic acid)
• A list of the top 10 low carb “do’s”
• A 2-week induction plan and plenty of low carb recipes

Aesthetically, “The One Low Carb Diet That Always Works” is an attractively-formatted 83 page PDF ebook that’s a breeze to get through quickly. It also comes with several bonus files, and there’s a low carb forum, too.

Although you’d get much more from reading the Atkins diet from cover to cover (all 300+ pages) those of you who are time-pressed or already familiar with the mechanics of low-carb dieting may well appreciate this stripped down and personal approach to low carb dieting.

You can check out The One Low Carb Diet That Always Works here!

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

The traditional Grapefruit Diet gained widespread popularity in the 1980s. The weight loss plan involved a dramatic reduction in calorie intake—dieters were encouraged to consume no more than 800 calories per day.

The main thrust of the diet involved eating large amounts of “fat-burning” grapefruit in order to rev up one’s metabolism. Dieters could eat protein each day—mostly boiled eggs—an occasional piece of dry toast, and as much black coffee as one’s heart desired.

Some nutrition experts, however, scoffed at the diet, saying that the fat-burning qualities of grapefruit were more myth than reality. They maintained that any weight loss on the Grapefruit Diet was the result of restricted calorie intake, rather than the supposed medicinal qualities of grapefruit.

Makes sense to me. With caloric intake limited to 800 calories, you could lose weight eating Mars bars.

However, a recent study indicates that adding grapefruit and grapefruit juice to your diet can enhance weight loss.

The research, conducted by the Nutrition and Medical Research Centre at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, California, demonstrates that you can lose weight with the aid of grapefruit—without changing the rest of your diet. Apparently, even the leader of the study was surprised at the results.

In the study, 100 people suffering from obesity were sectioned off into three groups.

Group one ate half a grapefruit before each meal, while group two drank grapefruit juice prior to meals. The third group, the control group, consumed neither grapefruit nor grapefruit juice. Twelve weeks later, individuals who ate grapefruit with each meal lost an average of 3.6 pounds, while those who drank grapefruit juice shed 3.3 pounds. The control group lost an average of only a half pound.

As an added bonus, those who consumed grapefruit or grapefruit juice demonstrated lower levels of insulin, a hormone responsible for the regulation of blood sugar levels. As a result, they were at lower risk for diabetes and stroke.

The theory behind a grapefruit-oriented diet is that the fruit contains plant compounds that cut insulin levels, enabling weight loss to occur. This makes sense, since high insulin levels can make you feel hungry, causing you to increase the portions you eat. However, I have yet to see any documented clinical evidence that proves this theory. At this point, it is merely speculation.

In light of this , some nutritional experts recommend exercising caution in interpreting the results of the study. They say that they believe that grapefruit is not characterized by an special qualities that would promote weight loss (actually, grapefruit contains naringin, a flavanoid which has been shown to exhibit cholesterol lowering effects).

They add that the participants in the study might have been concentrating on their food intake and their exercise routine, making them more likely to lose weight than the average person.

Any way you want to “slice it” consuming more grapefruit will not harm your health and can help improve the overall quality of your diet. Since many nutrition guidelines recommend eating five portions of fruit and vegetables each day, it is perfectly reasonable to make grapefruit part of your daily diet.

Still, the Grapefruit Diet of the ‘80s appears to have lost popularity over the years. The calorie requirements are too restrictive, and the diet lacks the balance necessary to make it a viable long term eating plan.

Also, the diet regimen itself can be tiring. The best way to lose weight is to consume a variety of foods—not to limit yourself to large portions of one individual food.

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

Although the South Beach Diet has been causing quite a stir recently, it’s really not anything new… unless you happen to be Rip Van Winkle, and have been sleeping for the last 20 years-straight though the whole “low carb” craze! :-)

The South Beach diet is simply a slightly modified, somewhat more “friendy” version of the popular Atkins diet. And although author Dr. Arthur Agatston’s first words is that the South Beach diet “is not low carb”, there is little doubt that it is.

If you’re not familiar with how and why low carb diets work (i.e., by re-establishing the body’s sensitivity to insulin by the elimination of high glycemic carbohydrates), please read this article. You’ll find it helpful for getting the most out of any of our low carb diet reviews.

The main difference between the Atkins diet and the South Beach diet is that the South Beach diet restricts the saturated fats that the Atkins diet recommends. On the Atkins diet, for instance, you’ll cook your morning eggs in butter. On the South Beach diet, you’ll use a cooking spray, or a little olive oil. The South Beach restricts saturated fats, and instead, focuses on heart healthy fats, like monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats as well as fish fats.

While this makes the South Beach Diet easier for the general public and medical professionals to swallow, it’s also a very valid point; there is much merit in supplementing with fish fat and monounsaturated fats (like peanut and olive oils), and fresh, unrefined omega 3-6-9 fatty acids. The health benefits of these oils are as extensive as they are documented.

The South Beach diet also places greater emphasis (in the earliest stages at least), on the consumption of fibrous fruit and vegetables.

The other major difference between these two diets is the relatively low caloric intake of the South Beach diet. While the Atkins diet does not even suggest moderation (thank heavens!), the South Beach diet’s daily meal plans clock in around the 1200-1500 calorie mark. Sure, Dr. Agatston says you should never be hungry on the South Beach diet. Yeah, right! If you follow the meal plans to the letter, I can guarantee you will definitely be hungry.

Like most low carb diets, the South Beach diet consists of several Phases…

1) Phase I: All moderate-to-high glycemic carbohydrates are completely eliminated from the diet. That means breads, buns, sweets, refined grains, most fruits, and so on. This period is intended to last 2 weeks.

2) Phase II: Moderate to high glycemic foods are very slowly introduced back into the diet. You may wish to add one slice of bread and one piece of fruit per day to start. Phase II of the diet may last for a year or more, depending on the amount of weight you need to lose.

3) Phase III: The most liberal part of the diet, where even more carbs are allowed. Although Dr. Agatston says “anything goes” in Phase III, the meal plans reveal that certainly isn’t the case. While more carbs are allowed into the diet, this is not intended to be a return to the eating habits that got you in this mess in the first place.

If you’re familiar with low carb dieting, you’ll recognize this is all pretty standard. Nothing out of the ordinary here, despite the fact the marketing gurus are spinning this as the diet you can stay on for life. If that weren’t enough, there are some pretty ridiculous things said in the South Beach diet… 

“Lose belly fat first”: There’s no clinical validation of this statement, and not surprisingly; spot reduction is not possible-you cannot control the areas from which fat is burned on your body by eating a certain way, or exercising in a certain manner. This is a common and completely unfounded myth.  

“Lose 8-13 pounds in the first two weeks”: Yeah, you can lose that much, but it will be largely comprised of lost water weight, caused by the diuretic effect of carbohydrates. You will not be dramatically “less fat” than you were two weeks earlier.

“You won’t be hungry”:  If you are hungry and need a snack, just count out 15 cashews, says Dr. Arthur Agatston. 

Hello?

If you follow the meal plans outlined in the South Beach, you won’t be hungry – you’ll be ravenous. They average out at about 1200 – 1500 calories per day. That’s pretty low, low enough to threaten the lean muscle mass that is critical to an elevated metabolism. If you’re going to experiment with this diet, forget the scale, and start tracking your bodyfat percentage and lean muscle mass.

Despite this bit of silliness, the South Beach diet is a pretty decent read. Dr. Agatston talks respectfully of Dr. Atkins, as well as Dr. Ornish and Nathan Pritikin (both low fat, high carb advocators), and outlines the various flaws in each gurus respective diet. He outlines the work of Dr. Ansel Keys, and the work that led to the establishing of the flawed carbohydrate-heavy food pyramid. There’s a great quote here as well…

“I was taught in medical school that the only bad effects of sugars was tooth decay”.

Bottom line?

Other than the extremely low calorie, “one-size-fits-all” meal plans, and little less protein consumption than I’d like to see, the underlying theory of the South Beach is sound. For the most part, it’s a common sense, smart eating plan. While I would suggest a couple of modifications to this diet to protect against the loss of critical lean tissue, the South Beach diet is a good step down the road towards the establishing of smart and sensible eating habits.

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

The “G.I.” of the G.I. Diet stands for glycemic index, which is a measure of how fast the body breaks down carbohydrates to form glucose, the body’s energy source. The glycemic index was developed by Dr. David Jenkins, a professor of nutrition at the University of Toronto.

So what’s the deal with the glycemic index? Ah, good question…

Foods with high GI ratings break down and release their stored energy quickly. This causes a surge of insulin (insulin is the hormone in charge of shuttling gluose to the muscle cells). If you’re not involved in a vigorous activity, it’s likely that released energy will be stored as fat (if you’ve lived a lifetime of consuming high glycemic foods, you may be on the cusp of Adult Type II diabetes, and experiencing symptoms like mood swings, intense cravings for sweets, and wildly vacillating energy levels).

In contrast, foods with low G.I. scores break down and release their energy more slowly, leaving you feeling full for a longer period of time. These foods do not result in the dramatic releases of insulin and wildly vacillating energy levels discussed earlier. Low GI foods form the core of the diet.

Examples of high G.I. foods include those made from white flour, where essential nutrients have been eliminated. Low G.I. foods include fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, whole grains, lean meat and fish and low-fat dairy products -foods that are filled with nutrients and good for your health.

Backers of the G.I. regimen say 95 percent of diets fail because the dieters feel hungry or deprived. These diets can also be too complicated, requiring people to count calories, grams, blocks, or points in order to lose weight. The diets can also leave people listless and unhealthy, prompting them to eat more.

The G.I. diet operates according to a traffic light system. Red light foods are those you want to avoid in order to lose weight; yellow light foods are those you can eat occasionally; and green light foods are the foods that are preferred for your diet.

The advantages of the G.I. diet are many. First of all, it will not leave you feeling hungry or deprived. You can eat your fill of foods – provided they’re in the right category. High-nutrient foods are plentiful on the diet, meaning that the diet can be good for your heart as well as for your waistline. The diet’s promoters say it can reduce your risk for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, colon and prostate cancer.

The diet is also simple – if you can follow a traffic light, the saying goes, you can follow the G.I. diet. Its supporters say it’s also the type of diet you can easily maintain for a lifetime.

Some people might think the G.I. diet is similar to the Atkins diet-but the differences are significant. The Atkins diet emphases high protein and animal fat and low carbohydrates. The theory behind the Atkins diet is that if the body is deprived of carbohydrates it will be forced to break down fat as an energy source instead.

In contrast, the G.I. diet encourages carbohydrates such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, and low fat dairy, while eliminating saturated fat.

However, the G.I. diet does have its limitations. People who have lived their lives eating foods labeled as “red light” by the G.I. system may have difficulty adjusting.

All in all, the G.I. diet is a pretty sound program, and worthwhile experimenting with.

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

The Protein Power Diet, by Michael and Mary Dan Eades, is similar in many ways to the Atkins’ diet program. The fundamentals of Protein Power are primarily the same: reduce your carbohydrate intake until your body switches over to using fat for fuel (a process called ketogenisis). Then, slowly reintroduce low glycemic carbs back into the diet, until you’re eating slightly more carbs than you are protein.

The Protein Power diet differs only slightly from the Atkins diet, and is really more like a cross between a ketogenic diet (like the Atkins diet), and Barry Sears’ Enter The Zone. 

The key to this diet is the drastic carbohydrate reduction required for the initial phases of the diet. Phase 1 is to be implemented by those individuals who are 20% and over their ideal body weight. These folks need to reduce their carbohydrate intake to a maximum of 30 grams per day.

Phase 2 is for those individuals who are less than 20% over their ideal body weight. They need to reduce their carbohydrate intake slightly less drastically - to 55 grams per day!

I like the 2 phase approach. Low carb dieting is difficult to do for extended periods, and many folks don’t need to severely reduce carb intake. A substantial reduction (like that recommended on Phase 2 of the diet), and a later switch-over to good carbs will be plenty effective.

However, the biggest difference between the Protein Power and Atkins diets is the way caloric values are determined.

On the Atkins diet, as long as you don’t exceed your daily carbohydrate intake, you can eat whatever and whenever you want. This is good!

On the Protein Power diet plan, your daily caloric intake is directly tied to your protein requirement. Protein requirements are typically determined by analyzing the activity level of the individual in question. Active individuals may require as much as 1 gram of protein per pound lean body mass, while 0.5 gram protein per pound lean body mass will suffice for inactive people.

The problem with diets that tie total daily caloric intakes directly to protein intake is that those individuals who are on the sedentary end of the scale end up having an extremely low caloric intake. In many cases it’s lower than the 1,200 calorie minimum standards for men, and 1,000 calorie minimum standards for women. This a serious detriment. Reduce calories too much, and your metabolism slows to a crawl. Lean tissue is also threatened.

And of course, there’s always the “battle with hunger.” Of course, you’re not actually supposed to ever be hungry on the Protein Power diet, but if you follow it to the letter, you will be.

If you’re going to try the Protein Power diet, I suggest you ignore the protein requirements chart and the daily caloric intake limits. Eat when you want, and don’t ever go hungry. The important aspect of this diet is the severe reduction, and elimination of simple carbohydrates. If you can manage this, you’ll be able to eat all the meat, eggs, and cheese in the world and still be successful on this diet.

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

With Body Rx, Dr. Scott Connelly enters the weight loss arena with what is probably the best diet program I have seen in some time. Of course, Dr. Connelly arrives with near-instant credibility. Not only is he a M.D., but he’s also the main man behind Met-Rx, a highly successful sport and weight loss supplement company recognized for their quality formulations.

With that said, let me get to fundamentals of the Body Rx diet plan…

1) No calorie counting. Sounds odd, doesn’t it? After all, calorie counting is something you expect to do on any diet. But calorie counting is one of the real drawbacks on any diet-it’s tedious, boring, and downright impractical.

According to Connelly, caloric intake actually has very little to do with weight loss or weight gain. The type of foods you eat, and the metabolic responses they stimulate within the body are the contributing factors (he calls this “nutrient partitioning”).

Connelly’s absolutely right, of course—eating well, eating plenty, and eating often is a surefire way to prime the metabolic furnace. Conversely, restricting calories only serves to slow the metabolic rate as well as threaten lean body mass.

Calorie counting becomes important when your diet is lacking in quality. When a large percentage of your daily calories come from “less than optimal” sources, extra calories WILL be deposited as fat. On Connelly’s Body Rx diet however, it almost impossible to over-consume calories (the bulk of your food intake will come from lean protein, and low G.I., high fiber carbs).

But if you stop in to Burger King to order a “double whopper with cheese” you may be interested to know you are about to consume 1100 + calories!

2) Implement a weight training program: In Body Rx Connelly advises: stay off the treadmill. Again, research bears him out-aerobic activity is a very inefficient method of burning extra calories. Additionally, aerobic activity often sacrifices as much lean tissue as fat, so your metabolic rate drops as you lose a combination of both fat and muscle. Weight training, of course, builds lean muscle, which increases both caloric requirements and the metabolism.

3) Increase protein consumption: In my article on this site, “Much Ado About Protein” I discuss how recent research correlates increased protein intake with weight loss and fat burning. Increased protein intake is a huge part of Body Rx. In fact, lean protein (chicken, turkey, lean beef, whey protein, etc.,etc.,) should comprise a major part of each meal.

And don’t worry; new evidence indicates that increasing protein consumption has no adverse effects on kidney function (International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 23(11):1170-7., 1999)

4)  Eat well, eat often: Small, balanced meals every 2-3 hours keep blood sugar levels balanced, cravings eliminated, and energy levels on an even keel. 6-7 small meals is a very important part of any successful weight loss plan, and the foundation of Body Rx.

5) Avoid fructose (specifically the high fructose corn syrup used in so many processed foods): According to Connelly, fructose is a metabolic poison, and a “negative partitioning agent”. Again, Connelly is correct—recent research indicates that fructose consumption is indeed a bad idea.

In fact, Arizona State University research headed by Dr. Mike Pagliassotti indicates it is fructose that is the main ingredient behind the problem of insulin resistance. Over-consumption of fructose often leads to obesity and Syndrome X. Symptoms of such include hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease. Fructose use is widespread in the food processing industry—you’ll find 8-10 teaspoons in a can of pop, and plenty even in processed white bread.

Only one problem… why doesn’t a guy who is so dead set against fructose find a suitable sweetening alternative for his own supplement line? Must of this supplements do contain plenty of fructose.

6) Increase fiber content: A dieting no-brainer, fiber increases satiety, lowers blood sugar levels, and may even contribute to colon health and lower cholesterol levels. I’ve written more about fiber here!

Bottom line on Body Rx?

What I like best about Body Rx is its downright simplicity. In my opinion most diets are inherently impractical and complicated, and a far bigger contributor to dieting failure then usually acknowledged. In Body Rx, foods are divided into 3 categories…

1) Red: Foods to be avoided (sweets, and fatty foods in general)

2) Yellow: Foods to be eaten ONLY in moderation (moderate to high rated GI (glycemic index) carbs for the most part).

3) Green: Foods you can eat to your heart’s content (low GI carbs and veggies, lean protein and so on).

So eating is simple on this diet; avoid “red” category foods, eat small, infrequent servings of the “yellow” foods, and “pig out” on the green foods.

Forget all about calories. Wonderful!

This diet is very easy to follow, and it will work. All in all, well worth trying. You can find Body Rx at Amazon.com!

Visitor Rating: Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

The “Eat Right 4 Your Type!” diet (a program that argues your blood type is the determining factor for selecting what you eat) by naturopath Dr. D’Adamo, is to dieting as astrology is to astronomy. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. The non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest called it “as scientific as a horoscope.”

Despite the general consensus from qualified professionals, I am still seized by a very powerful urge to tear my hair out every time I pick up “Eat Right 4 Your Type!” This diet is a perfect example of how the ridiculous, when presented in print, somehow becomes acceptable and plausible.

This diet is also a good one to use when illustrating the confusion between cause and effect; for some people of certain blood types, the “Eat Right for Your 4 Type!” diet will work. But it’s not because of some unique tie-in between your blood type and your diet. It’s simply because the diet in question is a sensible one; moderate in calories and low in refined grains and starchy carbohydrates.

The crux of  this diet quite simple: D’Adamo postulates that your blood type evolved a certain way, and it is the determining factor in what you should be eating. Each of the 4 diet plans specific to each blood type (O,A,B, and AB), are carefully formulated to avoid foods containing the “protein lectins” incompatible with it. According to D’Adamo…

“… when you eat a food containing protein lectins that are incompatible with your blood type antigen, the lectins target an organ or bodily system (kidneys, liver, brain, stomach, etc.,), and begin to agglutinate blood cells in that area”.

Michael Klaper, M.D., had this to say about that statement…

“For me what really pushes the “blood type” theory beyond the limits of believability is D’Adamo’s postulation that lectin proteins on some foods cause blood agglutination in people of certain blood types who are “not genetically/evolutionarily suited” to eat those foods. Agglutination is a very serious, and potentially life-threatening, phenomenon, whereby the red cells in the bloodstream stick together, forming irreversible clumps.”

Unfortunately, D’Adamo offers no proof or documentation of any sort to quantify his statements. There is no peer reviewed data to validate any of his theories, no credible references of any sort.

The best he can do is state his theory is valid because he himself has done tons of research to prove it so. In other words, we are not to question this theory, but to accept it at face value (the almost total lack of footnotes in the book, especially to validate the many general statements, is particularly alarming).

At one point in his book, Dr. D’Adamo claims to be in the eigth year of a ten year trial testing the blood type diet on reproductive cancers and showing impressive improvements in life expectancy. Well, “Eat Right” was published in 1996, and to date, there has been no published study showing anything of the sort. Also, the cost of such a properly conducted trial would be significant for even the major drug companies: if such a trial existed, where did D’Adamo get his funding, and why haven’t the results been shared with the world?

Several experts have gone on record in published journals refuting D’Adamo’s theory of blood type mutation; other clinical data simply contradicts his theory (see Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 14, 399-411, Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter). Not surprisingly, this further damages the credibility of his argument.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that the symptoms attributed by D’Adamo to “lectin agglutination” mirror the symptoms of many other diet-related disorders—yeast overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, bowel toxicity, allergies, heavy metal toxicity, hyperinsulinemia, prostaglandin imbalance and so on.

In other words, this is at best, only a theory… and one on very shakey ground, at that.

Believe it or not, D’Adamo even goes as far as to predict personality traits and establish exercise programs on the basis of blood type. For instance, he indicates blood type A’s exceed psychologically at planning and networking, and are decent, and law abiding people.

Unbelievable.

The problems don’t end here; there are some serious issues with D’Adamo’s theory linking blood type with diet. For instance…

D’Adamo postulates that blood type A evolved sometime between 25,000-15,000 B.C. in response to the domestication of livestock and farming. Blood type A, for example, apparently allowed people to “better tolerate grains and other agricultural products”.

What’s the problem with this? There are two…

First, most experts agree that mankind made the jump from hunter-gatherer to farmer about 6-10,000 years ago. On the outside, this switch-over began no earlier than 15,000 years ago, at which time the last ice age was drawing to a close.

The significance of this?

Well, geneticists theorize that it takes many thousands of generations to bring about any sort of significant genetic evolutionary response. In other words, our switch from hunter gatherer to farmer happened much too recently in our history for it to have resulted in the evolution of a new blood type. Since blood type A obviously evolved as a result of some other stimuli, D’Adamo’s theory is a bust.

As a reader, one can feel D’Adamo grasping at straws as he develops his theory for blood type B, which evolved in the Himalayans “perhaps” as a result of climactic change.

Here’s another BIG problem… if blood type mutation and evolution is not consistent with dietary changes (here, D’Adamo suggests B is a result of climatic change, not diet), why would it make sense to use blood type to best determine what we eat?

When it comes to actual diet advice itself, D’Adamo doesn’t fare much better.

In fact, he consistently provides recommendations that are totally incorrect;. For instance…

Type B’s are encouraged to eat rice cakes (pure carbohydrate with a glycemic rating of pure glucose), which are perhaps the dieter’s worst enemy. Peanuts, on the other hand, are said to cause hypoglycemia for type Bs. But we know peanuts have a very low G.I. (glycemic index) rating, and don’t generate fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Statements like this totally contradict what we know to be true, and must be validated with some sort of proof or reference. Again, D’Adamo provides none.

Believe it or not, the entire book is jam-packed with similar misinformation, generalities, and information that is just plain wrong.

Despite this, around 50% of those trying “Eat Right 4 Your Type!” will experience positive results, but certainly not because D’Adamo’s theory is correct. Here’s why…

In North America, the predominant blood type is type O. Just under 50% of the Black/People Of African descent population is type O, while the Caucasian population comprises just slightly less (about 45%).

D’Adamo’s blood type O diet focuses on restricting breads and grains, while increasing lean meat, poultry, and fish. This will effectively place the dieter on the “cusp” of ketosis, similar to a modified Atkins diet. It will also eliminate vacillating blood sugar levels, encourage lean muscle growth, and stimulate weight loss. In short…

The plan for type O will work, simply because it sticks to proven diet fundamentals, NOT because there’s a link between blood type and food consumption. Don’t make the mistake of confusing cause and effect here.

If your blood type is anything other than type O, you’ll be lucky to achieve anything on this diet.

Despite the lack of clinical evidence validating Eat Right 4 Your Type, my review has generated more than its fair share of angry visitor feedback over the years.

“Who are you”, some ask, “to question D’Adamo’s theory? Are YOU a doctor?”

My answer is always the same…

No, I am NOT a medical doctor, and neither, as a matter of fact, is D’Adamo. Secondly, using the prefix “Dr.” in front of your name does not allow you to make broad, sweeping generalizations, present statements that contradict established theories and practices and promote your own theories without providing one iota of supporting evidence. The onus is on D’Adamo to prove his theory is valid. I have simply pointed out the obvious: none of his theories have any supporting evidence, and there are plenty of credible qualified professionals who contest his conclusions.”

You don’t need to be a doctor to do that.

To investigate a REAL diet, check out Tom Venuto’s Burn The Fat, reviewed here!

Visitor Rating: Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

Mention the Atkins Diet, and there’s no doubt you’ll generate some controversy. To some, the Atkins Diet is the best thing that ever happened to them, and to dieting in general. Others see the Atkins diet as dangerous and impractical. The mere mention of the implementation of this diet throws them into convulsions.

All in all, it all makes for an interesting discussion.

The Atkins Diet has returned to the spotlight with the resurgence in the popularity of such low carbohydrate diets as “Protein Power”, “The Carbohydrate Addict’s Diet”, and Barry Sears’ “Enter the Zone”. But clearly this man is no stranger to the dieting industry. A former cardiologist, his first book “Dr Atkins’ Diet Revolution”, was released way back in 1972. And it differs little from his most recent offering.

So what’s the crux of this diet, and why all the controversy?

Ah… good questions.

The problem with the Atkins diet, according to some experts, is its period of extreme carbohydrate restriction (under 30 grams daily). In the initial stages, the bulk of daily caloric intake comes either from fat (saturated or unsaturated is fine) or protein.

Although the science behind low carb dieting is starting to catch up with and vindicate many of claims made by Atkins and others, that hasn’t prevent nutritionist from claiming…

1) That increased protein intake is dangerous, and seriously hampers and impedes normal kidney function. This is absolute and total rubbish. None of the experts making such claims have been able to dredge up a single example of renal failure as a result of this diet. And I could not find any evidence that an increased protein intake posed any dangers to “normal” individuals not suffering from renal disease. In fact, I found the contrary (see Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005 Sep 20;2:25)…

“…we find no significant evidence for a detrimental effect of high protein intakes on kidney function in healthy persons after centuries of a high protein Western diet.”

One review (Contrib Nephrol. 2007;155:102-12) proposed…

“… that the concept that protein restricted diets decrease the risk of developing kidney disease in the general population is not supported by the scientific literature.

This one, which investigates a higher level of protein intake for athletes (see Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Dec;31(6):647-54) indicated…

“…that higher protein diets have quite consistently been shown to result in greater weight loss, greater fat loss, and preservation of lean mass as compared with “lower” protein diets.” 

Of course, there are issues when increased protein is NOT a good thing — anyone with less than optimal kidney function needs to be concerned about increasing their protein intake without first consulting with a medical professional. And as Elissa points out in this blog post, diets rich in cereals/grains, animal proteins, and salt (like the typical North American diet) can get a condition known as chronic metabolic acidosis (CMA). That aside, the available evidence indicates an elevated protein consumption is not dangerous.

2) Severe long term carbohydrate restriction leads to nutritional deficiencies. Yes, this is true. But anyone who reads the Dr. Atkins diet knows that his period of extreme carbohydrate restriction is very short lived—only a couple of weeks. Then you gradually start reintroducing low glycemic carbs (like fruits and veggies) back into your diet. Plus, Dr. Atkins suggests you do supplement your diet with vitamins and minerals during this brief period of extreme restriction.

Additionally, those who make this claim are neglecting to mention that the folks adopting this diet are doing so because their previous eating habits were terrible. It is not liklely, for instance, that the vast majority of individuals embarking on the Atkins diet were consuming perfectly balanced diet complete with highly nutritious meals beforehand. In other words, it’s a valid point, but in the real world, it’s moot.

3) Increased fat intake leads to higher cholesterol levels, and increases chances of heart attack. Any diet that place an emphasis on the consumption of fatty foods can’t be good for you, goes the argument proposed by mainstream nutritionists. Unfortunately, there is no evidence this is so. In fact, a recent 20-year study found no association between low carb diets and the risk of coronary heart disease. In other words, this “danger” is not a danger at all.

It’s also been demonstrated that it’s the low carb diet that is more effective at improving metabolic syndrome!

Now I realize that some of you may have a difficult time accepting this. To you I really have only two things to say…

First, I don’t have a personal stake in promoting this diet. I’m only interested in presenting you with facts. Please review the clinical references I include here if you continue to be skeptical.

Secondly, for most of our entire evolutionary development we have been hunter-gatherers. That means no harvesting of crops, no tending of flocks: just scratching a living from what we scavenged or killed each day. Scientists studying the fossilized feces of early man (now there’s a job for you!), have speculated that as much as 80-85% of their diet came from meat.

Considering our early ancestors lived in Northern Europe around 30,000 years ago, and survived an ice age, it’s not surprising they ate meat. When it’s that cold, there just aren’t bushels of fruit and vegetables available at every street corner!

The bottom line here is very simple… our ancestors often experienced times of severe carbohydrate restrictions for extended periods of time (in fact, the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic did so up until very recently), without any ill effects. So this diet does not present any real threat to safety, especially considering the short period of time you’re actually restricting carbs.

So what is the purpose of this carbohydrate restriction anyway?

It’s to get the body’s insulin secretion system back on an even keel. Simple carbs, like those in preponderance in the North American diet, cause the body to become insulin resistant. In short, this leads to wildly vacillating blood sugar levels. This may lead to weight gain, fatigue, moodiness, lack of concentration, and UN-productivity. Carbohydrate restriction “reprimes” the body, and gets it back to working properly again.

With all that said, this isn’t an easy diet to stay on. Sure, eating all the steak, burgers, bacon, nuts, and cheese you want may sound appealing, but it quickly loses it’s allure when it’s the only thing you eat. Steak isn’t much fun without potatoes, burgers are lacking without fries, and cheese without crackers?

Boring.

Additionally, lean muscle mass seems to be threatened on this diet. Considering muscle burns calories even at rest, the loss of even some of this critical tissue is very undesirable. As an avid weight lifter, the rapid muscle loss I experienced while on this diet was particularly unnerving. I also found that without carbohydrates as a fuel source, strength at the gym dropped dramatically—even after the body had made the adjustment from a carb burning to a fat burning machine.

Despite all that, this diet does seem to be an effective way of losing fat weight. If you’re going to attempt this diet, however, I have two comments for you. First…

The first week is the hardest. On about the third day of the diet, it’s likely you’ll start to feel “muggy-headed” as the body starts to make its switch to a fat burning machine. Hang in there, you’ll soon feel better. Secondly, you will weigh at least 10 lbs. lighter at the end of the first week. Don’t get too excited though, severe carb restriction has a diuretic effect. Most of what you’ve lost is water.

The Dr Atkins diet isn’t perfect, but it does work. That’s the bottom line.

If you’re hypoglycemic, or severely insulin resistant and suffering from metabolic syndrome, the Dr Atkins diet may be just what you need. From what I’ve seen with personal contacts, it is the Atkins diet that leads to the most dramatic improvements in important blood markers (cholesterol blood triglycerides, etc) and weight loss.

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

Dr. Phil McGraw, best known for his no-nonsense advice about relationships and family, has entered the weight loss arena with a plan called “The Ultimate Weight Solution: The 7 Keys to Weight Loss Freedom.”

One of the strengths of Dr. Phil’s program is the emphasis he places on lifestyle changes. He asks dieters to accept the reality of obesity and take the steps necessary to change their lives for the better.

Dr. Phil’s approach is different from others in that he focuses on long-term and sustainable weight loss, rather than opting for a quick fix of pills or other products. Dr. Phil does not promise easy or fast weight loss and he does not offer any miracle cures. As he succinctly states, you may be looking for “something that melts fat off like sun melts ice,” but he notes that “losing weight is not ‘quick and easy’ and you know it.”

He describes why conventional dieting does not work, the role that family and media play in weight loss or weight gain, along with the differences between how men and women approach weight issues.

With Dr. Phil’s prescription, you first have to face your personal truth—what you think about yourself and your weight. You then have to replace “toxic” messages with positive thoughts. Dr. Phil then goes through, step by step, how you can combat emotional eating, change your environment, control impulse eating, choose foods, adopt an exercise routine, and assemble a support circle.

The advantage to this approach is that each step is explained and personalized with research studies, charts, and self-tests. His menu calls for foods high in nutrition but low in calories. The food also cannot be eaten quickly because it is high in fiber—as a result, you’re far less likely to overeat.

Dr. Phil’s general aim is to change “what you eat, why you eat, where you eat, when you eat, and how you eat.” Dr. Phil’s approach is also individualized, offering that “personal touch” that can help to inspire an otherwise reluctant dieter. As Dr. Phil himself states, “If you are overweight, you are out of control. That’s not a natural place to be.”

The major disadvantage of Dr. Phil’s approach is that it delivers very little practical advice: no calorie-counting or tracking carbohydrates or fat, no menus or meal planning are provided. Since most of us aren’t diet experts, we expect an “A-B-C-D” solution to weight loss, where everything is laid out clearly and precisely, with no guesswork invoved.

His plan has also garnered some high-level criticism too…

According to the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest, Dr Phil’s diet is a “tough-love manual that relies more on Dr. Phil’s opinion than on science.” 

The CSPI also charges that Dr. Phil’s line of expensive “Shape Up!” dietary supplements (shakes, pills, and nutrition bars) that accompany the diet rate high on “quackery” and won’t help anyone lose weight. The supplements didn’t go over too well with the public either, and even spawned a class action lawsuit. To make matters worse, Dr. Phil later admitted he had “no expertise” in making the diet pills he had previously been so eager to endorse.  

Dr. Phil maintains that the rewards of his plan are well worth the effort. As the lifestyle coach himself says, “Permanent weight loss is about changing many things in your life, and The Ultimate Weight Solution will help you do just that—change yourself, change the way you think about dieting, change the way you think about food, change the way you think about your health.”

The Ultimate Weight Loss Solution is a probably a decent choice if your overweight is a result of emotional overeating rather than poor diet habits and faulty nutritional knowledge. Dr. Phil is a pyschologist after all, not a diet guru, and his knowledge and expertise will likely hold him in good stead here.

However, Dr. Phil has seriously damaged his credibility with this foray into the weight loss field (which appears like a pretty transparent attempt to “cash in” on the situation), and unless your issue with food is a pyschological one, I’d be more inclinded to turn to a diet guru – like Tom Venuto, author of Burn The Fat, for instance - for help losing weight!

Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!

The Zone Diet, the popular diet by Barry Sears, is also commonly referred to as the 40/30/30 diet. “40/30/30″ refers to the proportion of each food group in the diet. In this case, 40% of daily caloric intake comes from carbohydrates, 30% comes from protein, and 30% from friendly fats.

The Zone Diet is all about getting into that mysterious place Sears calls “the zone.” According to Sears, this is the place where athletes perform better, where mental focus is enhanced, and life is generally a better place. Getting there is a simple matter of changing your eating patterns to reflect the 40/30/30 ratio, which, Sears argues, is the best way to stabilize blood sugar, promote general well-being, and encourage weight loss.

Why 40/30/30? What’s the rational behind this ratio of macronutrients?

The whole point of this 40/30/30 ratio is to balance two main metabolic hormones – insulin, which promotes the storing of excess calories as fat, and glucagon, which promotes the burning of fat. Sears also claims The Zone diet also promotes a positive balance of the body’s microhormones (called eicosanoids), although he does not present any clinical evidence to validate this statement. 

As a weight loss book, “Enter the Zone”, isn’t too bad a read. Unfortunately Sears ventures off track enough during his discussion of eiconsanoids to give even the most dedicated of dieters a severe case of boredom.

If you’re going to give this diet a shot, it’s essential you read and understand chapter 7 – “Boundaries of The Zone.” In this chapter Sears maps out the entrance points to “The Zone.” It’s crucial that you know this “40/30/30 ratio” is only the mid-point of this entrance-way. You will- and this is important-have to adjust your carbohydrate intake according to your personal sensitivity to them in order to find your personal entrance to the “zone”.

The main problem for the average dieter will be finding this sweet spot (i.e. your unique entrance point to “the zone”). This is crucial to the entire plan — if you don’t find it, you won’t lose weight. And if you’re hypoglycemic or hyperinsulinemic, it’s likely that 40% of total daily calories from carbs is too much! If this is the case, I recommend you start with a smaller percentage of daily caloric intake from carbs, and increase them only if you can.

Let’s outline some pros and cons of this diet…

The Zone Diet “Pros”:

1. Since you are not significantly restricting any one food source in Sears’ diet, you are never totally deprived of the foods you love.

2. If you successfully find your entrance to “The Zone” you will experience slow, gradual, and permanent weight loss.

3. “The main purpose of this diet plan, that of balancing insulin and glucagon, is fundamentally correct!

The Zone Diet “Cons”:

1. The 40/30/30 macronutrient ratio represents the “mid point” to the entranceway of the mysterious place of which Sears speaks. You have to play around (by adjusting carbohydrate intake), find your own entranceway. This can be tricky.

2. The daily caloric intake for this diet is determined by your protein requirements – which can lead to incredibly low daily caloric intake – much too low!

3. Claiming the 40/30/30 zone ratio creates a positive eicosanoid balance isn’t a bad theory, but it’s a largely unproven one.

All in all, I’d have to say Barry Sears’ diet is probably worthwhile buying – if, and only if, you can read it from cover to cover. If not, I’d recommend checking out my ebook, The Ultimate Fat Burning Diet Primer. It will give you a good handle on the dieting fundamentals, but won’t bore you to death, nor require massive amounts of willpower to get through.  

You can learn more about The Ultimate Fat Burning Diet Primer here!

Visitor Rating: Would You Like To Rate And/Or Comment On This Diet? Click Here!