Looking for scientific critics I found this article:

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/9.pdf

While scientifically critic, there are fundamental points of agreement. There are differences but also similarities between “diets” or better “nutritional lifestyles”. Sears himself points to this when he expresses his belief that in the word of nutrition nobody is really wrong!

I report parts of the article sometimes with a (comment). I underline what I feel should be answered by experts and I am curious to know:

“… With regard to body weight control, any weight loss experienced by adherents to the Zone Diet prescription (40/30/30) is easily explained by the severe energy restriction of the diet (Table 1) rather than enhanced fat metabolism resulting from manipulations in the dietary P:C….”

“To conclude, there is no evidence that a 0.75 P:C (40/30/30), whether eaten as a small test meal or in the form of a complete mixed diet, reduces the insulin response when compared to traditional dietary guideline food intakes and may even potentially produce a larger area under the insulin curve…”

(a real critic which should be answered by experts)

“…The Zone Diet recommendation to supplement with omega-3 fatty acids (specifically EPA or fish oil) and progenitor series-1 eicosanoid homologues of AA (GLA/DGLA) is not novel..”

(I find this unfair as Sears actually does not seem to favor a GLA/DGLA supplementation but rather EPA)

“… The Zone classification of eicosanoids as “bad” or “good” based on receptor binding or on gross physiological functions is oversimplified, but the recommendation to supplement the diet with omega-3 fatty acids or progenitors of series-1 eicosanoids has some documented health merit…”

(it looks to me a critic not in content but just on the way to present concepts in his divulgation books; there is a fundamental agreement here!)

“.. Therefore, a smaller insulin and larger glucagon release accompanying a low carbohydrate, high protein diet would result in greater omega-6 desaturation to GLA (more active _6 enzyme) and less DGLA desaturation to AA (less active _5 enzyme), thus producing more series-1 and less series-2/4 eicosanoids (Fig. 3). However, this explanation ignores scientific findings to the contrary…”

(a real critic which should be answered by experts)

“ Pharmaceutical interventions targeted at occupying omega-6 eicosanoid receptor sites or decreasing the rate of omega-6, series-2/4 eicosanoid synthesis (e.g., aspirin), coupled with dietary changes that increase omega-3 fatty acid intakes and/or reduce omega-6 fatty acid intakes represent the only scientifically sound approach to ameliorating many of the chronic health disorders linked to excessive omega-6, series- 2/4 eicosanoid signaling [45,65,86]...”

(isn’t this what Sears fundamentally says in The Anti Inflammation Zone? E.g. for the aspirin-triggered lipoxins eicosanoids?)

“..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…”