Atkins-Weary Baker Pitches 'Da Vinci Diet'

[doreen T]

Atkins-Weary Baker Pitches 'Da Vinci Diet'


Mon Jun 14, 1:39 PM ET

By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Maine - A baker who lost nearly half his customers to the low-carb craze has tapped Dan Brown's best-selling novel for an Atkins alternative called the "Da Vinci Diet" that he hopes will bring people back to bread.

A little math theory kneaded with biblical lore from "The Da Vinci Code" has transformed Stephen Lanzalotta into a dietary sage, answering the "carbohydrate question" with a series of lectures promoting a diet he has followed for decades to maintain a muscular 160 pounds into middle age.

Admittedly, he is neither a nutritionist nor a scholar — his background is in biology and biochemistry. But Lanzalotta argues that people have been eating bread for too long for it suddenly to be the reason everyone is fat.

"Human civilization and grain have ties that go way back. No municipal society evolved without grain, no matter what it was," said Lanzalotta, who kneads his dough by hand like ancient breadmakers. "Not that I believe bread is one of the most sacred foods, but it is one of the most important things we can eat."

Lanzalotta argues that bread forms the building blocks of the body and, in moderation, can lead to more stable moods, clearer thought and a rock-hard body, right down to the washboard stomach of a Renaissance statue.

The Da Vinci Diet is not published and is revealed primarily through the baker's lectures. It consists mostly of Mediterranean foods — the foods ancient thinkers and artists ate. Fish, cheese, vegetables, meat, nuts and wine, in addition to bread — none are taboo at Da Vinci's table.

In his diet, Lanzalotta uses a complicated formula he created that relies on the value of phi, a number discovered by ancient mathematics, used to build the pyramids, and featured prominently in Brown's book.

The value, 1.618, is known as the "golden ratio." It has long fascinated artists, philosophers and mathematicians.

Taking into account factors including body type, the diet typically breaks down to 52 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent protein and 28 percent fat. That's fewer carbohydrates and more protein than current federal guidelines.

The formula also can help people choose the right foods without turning a finicky eye toward the bread humans have consumed for the ages, Lanzalotta said.

A little suspect? Maybe.

In his book "The Golden Ratio," Mario Livio, an astrophysicist and senior scientist on the Hubble Telescope, discusses the history of the number. But Livio questions whether a diet based on it is better for the body.

"I'm not surprised in the sense that the golden ratio has been incorporated into many things," Livio said. "But to claim that we are tuned precisely to the number, I don't think there is particularly strong evidence."

Lanzalotta is not alone in looking for a carbohydrate-considerate way to eat, said Dave Grotto, a spokesman for the American Dietetic Association.

Grotto agrees with Lanzalotta's claim that most new "Atkins friendly" processed snacks on grocery shelves are mostly nonnutritive filler — low-carbohydrate cookies and treats that critics describe as tasting like cardboard.

"The bakery industry has been in essence turned on its head," Grotto said. "But the truth of the matter, we eat because we enjoy the taste of food. And some of that gets lost in translation in low-carb foods. Some of it is Godawful."

When low-carbohydrate diets took off amid an ever-fatter population, Lanzalotta was spending hours researching food, exploring radical dietary regimens, and finding ways to incorporate bread to make it healthy.

He actually understands why low-carb diets work and appreciates the discipline involved. The diet has its strong points, he said.

"I'm not suggesting that we eat more bread," Lanzalotta said. "I'm just trying to look at the problems with eating only meat."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=534&e=3&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_he_me/fit_da_vinci_diet






:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Angeline]

"Human civilization and grain have ties that go way back. No municipal society evolved without grain, no matter what it was," said Lanzalotta, who kneads his dough by hand like ancient breadmakers. "Not that I believe bread is one of the most sacred foods, but it is one of the most important things we can eat."

Let's put this to the test shall we. Lets have someone live exclusively on bread for 6 months. What do you expect will happen ? A rather unhealthy person suffering from nutritional deficiencies.

Now let's have someone living exclusively on meat for 6 months. Who is going to be in better shape ?

[Lisa N]

"I'm not suggesting that we eat more bread," Lanzalotta said. "I'm just trying to look at the problems with eating only meat."

*looks down at bowl of shrimp alfredo primavera over spaghetti squash*...funny...this looks like mostly vegetables to me with an adequate amount of protein and some healthy fats. It's also yummy. :yum:
What a silly statement coming from someone who has supposedly researched what low carbing involves.

"Human civilization and grain have ties that go way back. No municipal society evolved without grain, no matter what it was," said Lanzalotta,

No argument there. But what Mr. Lanzalotta fails to mention is that obesity also goes back as far as man's reliance on grains and that archaeology shows that with increasing dependence on grains came increasingly poor health and shorter stature for the culture as a whole. ;)

I have to agree with the author about the proliferation of low carb junk foods hitting the market these days. Empty fillers about says it all (along with the godawful taste) and most of those products do nothing to improve your health and in some cases (products that have transfats and high fructose corn syrup), they may damage it. :p

[BAM0782]

It's is frustrating to me that people are trying to find ways to prove that LCing is unhealthy. I know that for basically as long as man has existed they've been eating bread & grains. BUT in biblical times they bread they ate wasn't made with refined white flour and refined white sugar. Not to mention the fact that most people get a lot less exercise (in whatever form) now than they did then. In the past people worked harder jobs, in Biblical times everybody walked EVERYWHERE. Not to mention the fact that the grain they used was hand harvested by THEM. Anyways that's enough about that. As far as eating unhealthy now, I just had a broiled chicken breast w/rosemary, basil mushrooms and monterey jack cheese and a little broccolli. Tasted like a gourmet meal. & I think it was pretty healthy too :-)
BAM

PS I think it's healthier to LC than it is to be 100lbs overweight. don't you? :agree:

[DebPenny]

I know that for basically as long as man has existed they've been eating bread & grains.
Acutally, homo sapiens have only been eating grains for a very short time in their evolution -- about 10,000 years. For hundreds of thousands of years before that, man ate meat, fruits and vegetables.

And I've seen in a few studies or reports (I don't remember where exactly) that it's estimated that over 75% of the population is allergic to grains (wheat in particular) to some degree. I know I'm allergic to corn and wheat.

IMO, we don't need grains and added sugars at all. I'm very healthy and happy eating just meat and vegetables and some fruits -- and I'm getting plenty of nutrients in my diet. I don't intend to go back to eating grains on any kind of regular basis.

[LilaCotton]

PS I think it's healthier to LC than it is to be 100lbs overweight. don't you?

Indeed!

who kneads his dough by hand like ancient breadmakers.

Yes, but does he grind his own flour like ancient breadmakers?

[PlaneCrazy]

As DabPenny pointed out, humans have only eated grain in any significant amounts for the last 10-12,000 years, a blip in our total evolutionary scale. Every civilization did rely upon grain because only grain would produce the calories needed for the concentrations of people that make up a "civilization." Before the concentrations of people made possible by grains, people lived in more dispersed, nomadic groups who moved around to avoid over-hunting an area. Once the animal population became too low to make hunting feasible, they'd move on to better stocked areas. The only real exception to this were groups that lived near major rivers and coastlines where fishing was plentiful and realitively easy. Those along rivers could also trade easily with others along the river and so these were the first settled communities. As people were attracted to these growing communities, someone eventually discovered how to cultivate grain to feed a growing desity of people and allow the community to grow into a city.

This is grossly generalizing and simplifying an actually complex process, but it gives you the idea. If you're interested in learning more about the development of civilizations, check out the Pulitzer-prize winning book, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jarod Diamond.

Plane Crazy
Former Chinese Archaeology student.