Are you engaged in the battle with the bulge? Or are you considering it? Then you should surely consider the diet method developed by Michel Montignac. But don't blindly follow the instructions. Read this independent review and think for yourself.
|
 |
It is a set of diet rules to lose weight and to eat healthy. The rules are explained in a number of books with provocative titles like 'Eat Yourself Slim' and 'Dine Out & Lose Weight'. I will first treat the rules for losing weight and then list some additional health rules. They are, however, not independent of each other. Besides for cosmetic purposes, people usually want to lose weight for health reasons. Although overweight is generally considered a health risk, losing weight might also bring along health risks. The weight loss diet might lead to an unbalanced intake of bulk nutrients and/or deficiencies in micronutrients such as vitamins. Since fat tissue is also a repository of environmental contaminants, fast weight loss might bring a lot of these at once in your body systems. The Montignac method is promoting a lot of healthy eating habits, but if you don't understand it well it might also lead to unhealthy habits, like eating not enough carbohydrates.
This site is mainly based on the 1997 Dutch editions of Montignac's books. The newer editions, in particular the 1999 US edition of Eat Yourself Slim contains some modifications of the method, which partly answer my criticisms. As I am reading this book I will update my site accordingly.
Now let us have a look at the rules.
1. A basic rule is to eat only good carbs. Montignac distinguishes carbs according to their so called glycemic index (GI). Glucose sugar, potatoes, refined grains and beer are among the worst and should be banned from our diet. The bad carbs raise the blood glucose level much higher than the good ones, in proportion to their GI.
2. The next rule is not to combine fats and carbohydrates in a meal. After eating fats you are supposed to wait at least four hours before eating carbs and after carbs three hours before eating fats. The carbs raise the blood glucose level, which in turn causes the fats to be stored in your body tissues. In the 1999 US edition inclusion of some GI < 35 carbs in a fat meal is allowed.
Montignac doesn't stop at these two rules but gives additional ones, most of which are accepted and propagated by other weight loss methods:
3. You should refrain from drinking alcohol. In the 1999 US edition one
small glass of wine or even beer is allowed.
4. Minimize drinking of other drinks during a meal, but drink plenty of
water between meals.
5. Eat lots of fibers.
6. Avoid caffeine.
7. Eat at regular times, three times a day. Don't snack between meals (the
so-called grazing lifestyle). Don't eat late in the evening.
8. Fresh fruits, except strawberries, framboises or brambles, should not
be combined in a meal with other food. It is recommended, however, to regularly
eat them on a sober stomach up to half an hour before a meal or as a substitute
for a meal.
For good health it is further recommended, amongst others, to:
- Eat healthy fats, in particular from fish
- Use olive oil for baking and in salad dressings
- Frequently eat good and appropriate (with regard to carb/fats contents)
diary products,
- Stay active. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Walk or cycle to
the shop on the corner instead of taking the car.
The rules are relatively easy to apply in practice. You don't need to do any calculations. You don't need to starve, to crave or to exercise. Montignac's writing style is light, stimulating and humorous, if sometimes male chauvinistic. The diet is attractive, with lots of interesting ideas and recipes. More importantly, it doesn't force you into a one-sided menu. Very interesting is the attention paid to craving mechanisms and psychological issues.
The Montignac method considers two phases: the first one is where you are losing weight, the second starts when you have reached your desired weight. In the second phase some of the rules are relaxed. You are again allowed to combine fats and good carbs. Also you can drink three glasses of wine together with food. In addition you are allowed occasional digressions from the other rules.
Under this heading I would like to list suggestions for improvement of the method as well as criticisms. I don't want to risk my health or unnecessary restrict my food choices and culinary creativity by unfounded rules.
My first comment is that I find it surprising that no scientific experimental research has been reported in the refereed literature so far that tests Montignac's method. Perhaps this is partly due to the polemic style of Michel Montignac. He claims he has refuted the calorie theory and that anybody who still believes in it does not keeps his scientific knowledge up to date. This causes many nutritionists aim their criticisms on the scientific foundations of Montignac's method. It would be more constructive to state however that the simple theory of the calorie diet is at stake. This theory does not take into account the possibility of nutrients being excreted, nor does it consider the influence of food composition, other than caloric, on craving mechanisms and on metabolic energy use. A short study at the University Laval in Quebec, summarized in the next section, seems to corroborate the method. Below I give some further suggestions for further research.
Gerard Pascal, head of nutrition and food hygiene at the French National Institute of Food Research, reportedly said Montignac's method is dangerous and scientifically unfounded. Unfortunately the reference, linked to above, does not indicate more precisely what these dangers might be. Are current official dietary guidelines better founded in science? In any case the Montignac method leaves plenty of room to follow the official Dietary Guidelines on meal composition with respect to the partitioning between different nutrients. The only criticism one may have is that the recipes are focusing too much on fatty dishes.
Mid 1997, the Dutch Consumer Union (Consumentenbond) has repeated this criticism indicating the Montignac method might lead to 'imbalances' in your nutrition. Asked what they meant by that, they responded by saying the method would lead to too much (saturated) fat intake. They based that on a calculation done on the menu proposals in the French issue of Montignac's book. The webmaster of the Dutch Montignac site has pointed out to me that these calculations are rather rudimentary and based on debatable assumptions. In the February 1998 issue of their periodical they come back on the issue on the basis of surveys they have done on a number of members following the diet. Their conclusion is that the Montignac method leads to a reduced calorie intake. Some of the test persons consume too much fat, some too little, some show deficiencies in vitamin A and D and linolic fatty acid uptake. Nevertheless their overall assessment is much more favorable.
In the Dutch paper Volkskrant of 19 September 1997, the director of the Dutch Obesitas Clinic in Hilversum, T. Leverink-Krebbers, said: "That popular Montignac method is nonsense. Eating things separately? It all comes together in your stomach. That contains so much acids, it does not differentiate. We used to have Dr. Atkins: no carbs, only fats. That also put your body off-balance. Our dietitians laugh about it."
Of course, this criticism neglects that one of the cornerstones of the Montignac diet is exactly separating the intake of different foodstuffs so that they don't mix in the stomach. When one takes a wider look however, one should not stop at the stomach. Foods are partly decomposed in the stomach and then transferred to the first part of the intestinal tract, the duodenum and small intestine. The residence time in the stomach is between 0.5 and 3 hours. Fats and carbohydrates are digested and transferred to the bloodstream from the duodenum and small intestine, where they might remain up to four hours. When in the blood stream fats still run a risk of interacting with the ingested carbohydrates. Montignac suggests that surplus fats are secreted. He doesn't indicate, however, by what mechanism this process takes place. If lipids (fats) remain in the bloodstream, the time between a fats and a carbohydrates meal should ideally be longer than the three hours indicated by Montignac.
In the Volkskrant of 31 October 1997 top nutritional scientist Martijn Katan of the Department of Human Nutrition of Wageningen University commented that the Montignac method is a mixture of obvious truth, accepted knowledge and pure nonsense. He also points at the dubious treatment of the fate of fats. Unfortunately the article does not further specify Katan's judgments.
In the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad of 19 December 1997, W. Saris, Professor in nutritional science at the University of Maastricht, attacks some of the basic scientific foundations of the Montignac method. Firstly he indicates that there is no way that fats can leave your body by the back door. A person losing a significant amount of fat through his stool is considered ill. Secondly, Saris indicates that the insulin triggered mechanism of fat storage that Montignac invokes is only of minor importance. Another, direct, route seems to be the main one.
In the Dutch Journal of Medicine (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde) of 31 January 1998, K.A.M.I. van der Pant, F. Holleman and J.B.L. Hoekstra, of the Department of Internal Medicine of the Utrecht hospital Diakonessenhuis also challenge the scientific foundations of the Montignac method. Amongst others they cite research on the glycemic index that supposedly shows that in mixed fat/carbs meals the concept is of little value. It seems, however, they base themselves on rather old and dubious research. See Dr. Wolever's rebuttal to similar criticisms, which were made in the context of diabetes care, though. They also question Montignac's specific food choices on the basis of GI values they derive from the first article on the subject, published in 1981, neglecting a whole body of more thorough follow up research.
Although I think some of the comments cited above are well founded, casting
serious doubts on Montignac's scientific underpinning of his method, they
do not preclude that there exists still a physiological basis for the success
of the method. 
The discussions
focus too much on the short term fat metabolism (highlighted in figure opposite),
neglecting satiety and basic metabolic rate issues invoked by Montignac.
It is quite possible that the eating rules stimulate the self-regulating
functions of the body and that diversions from them disturb them. There
is too little known about satiety mechanisms to exclude this. Moreover,
only a small disturbance of the regulation mechanisms is enough to cause
a substantial increase in weight over time, so the second criticism of Saris
is not that conclusive. What is needed is experimental research, not theoretical
deliberations.
Interestingly enough, none of the experts cited above seems to be aware of an article by Professor Walter Willett et.al., of the School of Public Health of Harvard University in the February1997 Journal of the American Medical Association, of which the abstract and an American Medical Association press release can be found on the web. In this study a correlation between the glycemic index of the subjects' menu and the likelyhood of developing non-insulin dependent diabetes was found, thus giving empirical support to part of Montignac's theory.
Another team of US investigators (Ludwig e.a., JAMA Vol. 282, No. 16, 1999; PDF file, regular HTML web page.) have investigated the role of fiber consumption and its association with insulin levels, weight gain, and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in a sample of some three thousand young adults over a period of ten years. They found that fiber had strong inverse associations with body weight, waist-to-hip ratios, fasting and post-glucose insulin as well as other CVD risk factors. In comparison with fiber, intake of fat, carbohydrate, and protein had inconsistent or weak associations with all CVD risk factors. The authors believe that the above mentioned associations are mediated, at least in part, by insulin levels. They state that "the high insulin levels associated with low-fiber diets may promote excessive weight gain by several mechanisms, involving alterations in adipose tissue physiology, shunting of metabolic fuels from oxidation to storage, and increased appetite.
A short experimental study group by at the Université Laval in Québec city, summarized (in French) in the Québec Science October 1998 issue, also seems to corroborate the method. In this study 12 voluntary obese and overweight test persons were followed during three consecutive periods of six days. They were having their meals at the hospital and the amounts of food registered. Also their satiety feelings were surveyed after each meal. During the first period they could eat at will from dishes containing 30% fat. During the second period they could eat at will from meals obeying to the Montignac restrictions. In the latter period the test group ate 25% less calories than in the first, resulting even in a lower fat consumption level. Only protein consumption was higher than that of the control group. This is in line the results of the Consumentenbond survey mentioned above. Obviously the persons felt satisfied after each meal. In the last period the test persons were again given the menu of the first period, but now they were allowed to eat only the amount of calories they ate in the second period. Reportedly they still felt hungry after each meal in this period. An abstract of a conference poster of this research (J. Dumesnil e.a., Int J Obes 1998; 22(suppl 3):S135) curiously attributes the results of this experiments solely to the high protein content of the second diet. The nature of the carbohydrates and whether or not the carbohydrates and fats separation rule has been applied. This is the more puzzling because Montignac is co-author of this abstract. Further it could be commented that the sample of test subjects is rather small and the time period very short.
If indeed the mechanism of the method is that in the end you eat less calories, one wonders why the argument that Montignac invokes against calorie based dieting, i.e. that the body responds with a lower metabolic rate, is not equaly valid against his own method.
I am anxious to hear more details and follow ups of this study.
Possibly these supporting studies will trigger a more constructive debate of the merits of the different elements of the method. In the next paragraphs I give a number of issues that need clarification.
In the US, the Montignac plan has been more succesfully marketed by the so called "Sugar Busters!" an operation run from New Orleans by some medical doctors and a former Fortune 500 CEO: H. Leighton Steward, Morrison C. Bethea, Sam S. MD Andrews, Ralph O. Brennan, and Luis A. Balart. They have streamlined the method and adapted it to the US situation. The big difference with the Montignac method is that they did not include the rule on the separating carbohydrates and fats. In fact their version is more of a high protein diet. In a next update of this site I will come back to this variety of the method.
I would like to address now the issue of 'border values'. Why is a GI smaller than 50 OK? Why is the borderline not 80 or 30? In section D of the paragraph on carbs in Technical Annex I of the 'Dine Out' book Dr. Robert puts the borderline on 60. The same question applies to the cocoa contents of at least 70% for chocolate. In fact in the 'Dine Out' book the limit is set on 60% on one page and again on 70 on the next. It seems a little bit of number magic. In the case of chocolate it might also concern the definition of a marketing niche: Montignac markets 70% and 85% chocolates at some $ 3 per 100 g. Most other producers go to 60-65% and charge only $ 1.50.
Montignac is quite rigid in dividing up carbohydrate foods in good and bad, especially in his first publications. The GI is not such an exact figure as more detailed lists show. Montignac also gives a rule of thumb saying that processed foods are generally worse in terms of GI than unprocessed. This rule, however does not always hold. I will illustrate this below with examples from staple carbohydrate foods, vegetables and fruits.
However, a more fundamental issue is that Montignac divides up foods as such between good and bad. The mechanism that he puts forward, combined with elemental knowledge of the digestive system, however, should logically lead to the conclusion it is the combination of the specific properties of the food, i.e. GI, combined with the amount that is consumed, that determines its effect. So if 200 grams of a GI 50 food are allowed in a meal, then 100 grams of a GI 100 food should be likewise acceptable, because they have the same effect in terms of insulin levels. Of course foods that are consumed together add up in their effect on insulin and blood sugar levels. In that respect Leverink-Krebbers' remark certainly is to the point, if it was meant in this way. In the 1999 US edition the combination of GI with quantity of carbohydrates consumed is introduced as the quantity to be managed in the second phase.
An example is the potato, about which Montignac is
very critical. Rick Mendosa, in his excellent site on the glycemic
index, points to the fact that large differences exist between different
potato varieties. The low GI varieties almost fall within the range accepted
by Montignac for other foods, so these should be selected when planning
a 'small offense'. Likewise many white pastas completely fall within the
range of 'good carbs'. It seems Montignac used an atypical value. Note that
Mendosa uses a different reference food than Montignac, i.e. white bread
instead of glucose, so Mendosa's GIs are 37% higher. In his table Montignac's
borderline value of 50 equals 68, which underlines the arbitrary nature
of this value. In Mendosa's list whole wheat bread is way into the bad category.
Only barley kernel, rye kernel, and oat bran breads are within Montignac's
good carbs category. Likewise, couscous, which Montignac lists as an example
in his carb meals for the weight loss phase, has a high GI.
Rice is an interesting contradiction to the general rule that processed
foods tend to have a higher GI. Brown and white rice virtually have the
same high GIs, whereas those of unpolished and glutinous rice are substantially
lower.
Here Montignac's prime target is the carrot. When cooked, it indeed seems to have a high GI. But with a carb contents of only 7-10 %, and taking into account that you eat a bit less per serving than potatoes, does it really matter when you eat a regular portion? The book "The Glucose Revolution" says about carrots "...a normal serve of carrots would contribute only a small amount to the rise in blood sugar. Carrots and other foods like tomatoes and salad vegetables that contain only a small amount of carbohydrate should be seen as 'free' foods for people with diabetes." If carrots are a small offense the more so should be pumpkin. It has a lower GI and half the amount of carbs compared to carrots. Pumpkin substitutes very well for carrots. Beets are in the same carb range as carrots, but have lower GI values. Beware of the veggie's darlings parsnips, though! They are one of the highest GI vegetables and contain a similar amount of carbs as potatoes (20%). Separate mention deserve also broad, or fava, beans, which contain high GI carbs, so eat them with moderation. Montignac lists vegetables in general as having a GI of less than 15, except carrots. As demonstrated above there are a couple of other exceptions.
The same as for vegetables goes for fruits, which Montignac lists categorically with a GI of 30, except bananas. Bananas, however, are not the only fruits with a high GI. According to Mendosa's lists pineapple, mango, melon, kiwi, papaya (pawpaw), and watermelon are also in the same range. They also contain carbs, although relatively less. Grapes are just on Montignac's borderline.
In later editions of his basic books Montignac already indicates changes in thinking about GI data. He corrects previous condemnations of pulses. In the introduction of his recent Provençal Cook Book (Recettes, Tome 2 in French) he hints at the increasing knowledge about GIs, which might result in acceptable potato and white rice varieties. He even considers avocados, peanuts and almonds acceptable in the weight loss phase.
Apparently addition of fats to carbs lowers the GI of the resulting food. Thus pastas have a much lower GI than the flour they are made off, due to the added fats. Dark chocolate has a much lower GI than that of the sugar in it. As mentioned above avocados, peanuts, almonds and other nuts have also proven to have low GIs, probably because of their fat content. On the other hand the Purdue University study refered to above shows that the low GI of fructose does not influence its fat storing potential compared to glucose.
Mendosa points to an important exception to the rule that fat lowers the GI: pizza! Montignac followers should even more shun this fast food, than what would be suggested by the mere ingredients of white flour and fats. Pizzas seem to be able to raise your blood glucose level for four to nine hours!
Thus it is not enough to know the GI of the ingredients of a meal, but also of the combination. Needless to say there is very little empirical material available.
Given the GI lowering activity of fats and protein one can question the wisdom of separation of fats and carbohydrates. A separate carbohydrate meal, even consisting entirely of 'good' carbs can raise blood sugar levels much higher than a mixed meal. Although Montignac suggests fat tissue results from storing of blood lipids, blood sugar surplusses can also be converted into fat deposits. High insulin levels also hinder utilization of fats deposits by the body. One can also raise the question whether by low GI carbohydrate meals not just as well blood sugar levels could be reached that contribute to the development of insulin resistance.
Montignac bases the basic rules on the hypothesis that many persons following a modern nutrition pattern suffer from hypoglycemia. Interestingly, the Hypoglycemia Association recommends a couple of rules that are contrary to those of Montignac. Among others they recommend to distribute your food intake over the day and to eat carbs with fats.
The rule of not drinking during a meal is a little inconsistent with the inclusion of soups and liquid sauces in the recipe books. I think the digestive system is flexible enough to handle a wide variety of liquid/solid ratios. Still, when you apply this rule it stimulates to eat healthy and satiating vegetables and salads. Of course alcoholic drinks are another chapter. They are definitely fattening. Still, in the 'Dine Out' book (Ch. XI) Montignac lists some wines, which supposedly have a beneficial effect on obesity.
In the Province recipes book Montignac comments that the fruit eating rule is not a weight loss issue. However, if the rule of eating at regular times is significant for weight loss, the fruit rule should be to. The eating of fresh fruits during or after a meal supposedly disrupts the regular digestion of foods.
Montignac is a little chauvinistic when it comes to different national culinary habits and their sources. He insinuates that the French bravely resisted the introduction of the potato, whereas the Nordic people submissively accepted it, 'possibly out of necessity'. This is not true. The Dutch resisted it fiercely when the then French occupier tried to impose it on them. Later they cunningly were tempted to accept it. There were plenty of alternatives. The ideal latitude for growing grains is way to the north of France. The reason why the potato is so successful is its high yield per hectare, consequently its low price. Root crops typically yield some five times the amount of grain that could be produced per hectare. By the way, the French occupier also prohibited vineyards in the low countries, thus forcing them to switch to beer, now identified as unhealthy by Montignac. One more for the French: ironically they figured out the worst bread in terms of GI, the famous baguette (check Mendosa's lists mentioned above.
The scientific foundations of the Montignac method have been severely attacked by nutritional scientists of high standing. While I think they put their finger on some serious theoretical weaknesses, I still think they did not conclusively prove there is no physiological basis for the success of the method. The digestive system is too complex to settle this issue by theory alone. Food scientists should pragmatically approach the method as hypothesis to be experimentally tested, rather than quarrel about whether or not it has been scientifically proven. A short study at the Universite Laval, summarized above, seems to have done just that and indicates the method is indeed effective, but the methodology is rather weak and the interpretation raises new questions. Other studies seem to confirm the importance of selecting low GI carbohydrates. It is clear that some elements of Montignac's theory need reconsideration. As I show above also the details of food selection are sometimes debatable. Moreover, the focus should be more on the combined effect of specific amounts of foodstuff than on specific types of food. Hence one should not pay too much attention to the details of the method and be very strict in the exclusion of certain types of food. Just focus on reducing bulk sources of high GI carbohydrates. Also do not take the Montignac marketing hype that says you can eat as much as you want too literal. It makes sense to keep striving for a balanced and otherwise healthy diet. With this page I want to encourage people to make up their own mind and not blindly follow a book. In addition, I hope to help people to find information on foods that Montignac doesn't address in his books.
- Experimental diet research is badly needed. As a follow up to the Universite
Laval study I would suggest to have test groups:
(a) eating according to Montignac guidelines,
(b) eating the same ingredients, but without applying the mixing and timing
rules,
(c) eating the same amounts of fats, carbs and proteins, but substituting
high GI carbs for the low GI ones,
(d) as (c) but with carbs and fats again separated.
Besides measuring body weight, it would also be interesting to analyze the
test subjects' excrements.
- Obviously we need better and more extensive GI values, with more exact descriptions of the state the food was in, i.e. production methods and location, freshness, ripeness, quantitative recipes, cooking time, additives, etc. What would be the GI of a Montignac carb pizza made of whole wheat flour and topped with Swiss green cheese, smoked horse meat, shrimps (see below) and the usual vegetables?
- The same holds, if to a lesser degree, for conventional nutritional values. I wonder whether the continuous changes in production, conservation and preparation methodologies are sufficiently analyzed for their consequences on nutritional values as reported in reference works.
- In addition we need a better understanding of the GI value of combinations of fat and carbohydrates, not only on the level of ingredients but also for dishes and combinations of them.
- There is a business opportunity in the development of lower GI carbohydrate foods, (apparently Montignac is working on this)
- Development of more pure fatty or carb or low GI varieties of the mixed carb/fat foodstuffs is also desired if the separation rule turns out to be valid. Unfortunately Montignac produces his chocolates with cane sugar, which is high GI, and not with low GI fructose.
Experiences, questions, remarks, requests? Put them in my guestbook. If I can, I will answer questions and requests. Have a look at what other visitors have written.
View/sign my new guestbook! | View old guestbook (39 messages posted before February 1999)
The entries will not be used by me for commercial purposes. Please do not put commercial messages in my guestbook.
Last updated (partially): February 11th, 2002 (c) Marcel Bovy
