Blood Type diets: I posit that they are a step in the right direction. It gets you to think about: (1) moving away from the one size fits all approach purported by the Food Pyramids, fad diets etc. (2) Your gut health is a product of nutrigenomics - i.e. what youve inherited from your descendants, (3) an anthropology approach to human health as opposed to a thermodynamics law adherence to calorie in = calorie out, and most importantly (4) eliminating processed food - all that crap made by those sponsors of the Dieticians Association of Australia (Nestle, Campbells, Arnotts, McDonalds, Coca Cola, Grains & Legumes Society etc.) or endorsed by the Healthy Heart Tick (Milo, Nutri-Grain etc.). Admittedly Im no authority on the Blood Group diet(s) so I invite mutual dialogue and respectful discussion. Its a step in the right direction but still has a ways to go. For most people it would be a massive step forward and almost guaranteed improved health - just taking out processed food (especially bread and sugar) would do a lot for most. My concerns about its limitations is that I dont think it goes far enough. Whereas grouping all people into 4 groups is an improvement, I still think there should be further consideration for n=1 as we are each all uniquely coded with an individual genome. The analogy I use is - what if psychotherapy decided that Freuds approach (late 19th century) was all we needed to understand human psychology? If we had stopped at just Freuds psychoanalytic approach that would be paramount to what the Food Pyramid models endorse with their adherence to the 1977 US Dietary Guidelines and the 1878 Max Rubner isodynamic law of nutrition to explain calorie expenditure. Dr DAdamo has at least moved on from 1977 which is almost paramount (continuing the comparison to psychology evolution) to embracing the next wave of psychotherapy paradigms of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy, B.F.Skinners Behavioural therapy and then the Humanist approaches of the mid 20th century. Today we have a myriad of psychotherapy models to help understand the multitude of personalities and psychological intake and output. If ever you meet a psychotherapist so dogmatic in their approach to state that Freuds way is the only way then Id recommend finding someone else more flexible to recognising individuality. I would apply this same recommendation to nutrition advisors. Anyone still with a strict adherence to the 60:25:15 macronutrient approach has little to offer those who have problems metabolising carbohydrates. On a personal note, B types should avoid sesame yet I know I dominate on tahini. Reading dadamo/bloodtype_B.htm also seems to have a degree of divination about ascribing personality to blood type. I can only imagine a B type blood group tribe all exhibiting the same behaviours - I tend to want to kill people like me!!! This questionable association is a step in the right direction linking personality to food intake but I find their justification citing science difficult to accept. There are three types of scientific study: Epidemiological (case control and cohort studies), Interventional (this is the Gold Standard - RCT, double blind, placebo controlled) and meta analysis (lit review). Whereas I havent delved deeply into Dr DAdamos scientific articles I would be skeptical to find anything of a Gold Standard. Similar to Ancel Keyss 1950s studies (he was the progenitor of the USDGA) based on observation and then attributing causation through correlation although DAdamo is bordering on speculation. I wonder how many people succumb to self fulfilling prophecy after reading their blood type horoscope? There is also reference to meat. For my mind its best to eat meat (1) according to your genome (ask me about my Dutch friend Reuben Visser), and (2) that is the best (grass fed) quality. Meat has come under all sorts of mistruths because of poor study design. Beef can be defined as McDonalds pattie as well as Robbins Island Wagyu. Obviously there is no comparison. Its like comparing instant to espresso - theyre theoretically both coffee but...... Kudos to Dr DAdamo for making reference to biochemical pathways, i.e. nitrous oxide for B types. Again, hes on the right track. But it is only skimming the surface. I dont think his knowledge or his assessment is advanced enough to comprehend this: platformgentechnologie.nl/genetech/maatschappelijk_debat/image2.gif I have this poster hanging on my wall to remind myself that calorie in DOES NOT equal calorie out and also that we are but on the cusp of understanding the links between nutrition and the genome (only mapped last decade). In the mean time - stay away from anything processed or GMO because theres just too much going on for us to be certain these post-Industrial Revolution chemicals (>160,000 never before seen on the planet) arent messing with our blueprint. I personally believe there is a wealth of evidence (factual and anecdotal) supporting this view but for whatever reason (conspiracy theory?) its ignored. Now if Im wrong about all this then I hope I have the academic humility to admit so in the face of convincing evidence. To not would only make me as good as conventional dietitians and nutritionists. Dr DAdamo is a maverick who had the academic courage to purport a new approach. Similar to Freud he should be revered for challenging the status quo but at the same time realised as but a stepping stone to further understanding. Il finish with this tho: If youre on the Blood Group diet and its working for you then dont change - if youre not getting the results you want then know that there are other options (e.g. my baby - LCHF). If it aint broke dont fix it.
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:52:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015