Dr D’adamos comments
Was sifting through the Dadamo message board to see what Dr D has been
posting recently and thought that you all might be interested to hear what he’s
been saying about the new book and stuff. So here’s whet I found. You can use
the search facility at the web site to check the strings that these comments
where taken from if they seem a little out of context. I have tried to say at
the
beginning what he is relating his comments to, so it shouldn’t be too difficult
to
undestand.
There is some information about how to use the new tier system and why
certain foods have changed status. I have included one mailing from Steve, as I
thought it was prety pertinant too.
Hope this is interesting to you all.
Colin
‘Constancy’
Posted By: Peter D’Adamo
Date: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:10 a.m.
In Response To: Discontent amongst the masses… (Lynn), ie in response to why
foods change categories in the new book.
Virtually all the changes are lectin-related. For example, the link between
polyamine production and lectins was not understood well at the time of
ER4YT. Also, as we have seen, many dietary lectins can have a mixed function;
some effects good, other effects bad. Sometimes you learn of one before the
other. Pinto beans, leeks and mushrooms are good examples of lectin
containing foods with sophisticated and mixed biological effects. Because
knowledge of these relationships continues to expand, some begin to look
better (mushrooms) while others begin to look worse (pinto beans).
Many of these newer values are the result of determinations that are way
beyond the level of sophistication that I was using back in the 1980’s. In
particular the molecular biology of lectins and cancer cells is still beyond my
current capabilities, so we must rely on the literature for that.
Looking for the truth in science is a partially destructive process:
* If the range of data variation over time is zero, then you have a belief
system
(no growth).
* If the range of data variation over time is enormous, then you have anarchy
(no error trapping)
* If the range of data variation is small, but perceivable, then you have a
self-
improving entity.
If this is a cause of discontent for some readers, then I suspect they will
continue to be discontented with my work, for I will not change.
‘On Detailed Explanations’
Posted By: Peter D’Adamo
Date: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 8:53 a.m.
In Response To: I agree with Steve’s and ^Heidi’s^ posts above, but… (Bob L
(O-))
Reams of material for LR were generated, but wound up on the cutting room
floor; probably the material for 2-3 more LR’s never made it to the light of
day. I for one was in favor having a ‘rationale column’ and had mocked one up.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) no one else (Greg, Catherine, editors) was. The
mock up showed that even with the most telegraphic descriptions and
explanations it would have doubled the size of the diet sections. A few test
subjects also found it hard to navigate around with all the science in an area
where most people just wanted food information.
Even I must try to remember (and Steve does a good job of reminding me
when I don’t) that internet savvy people are not ‘normal.’ For example, if you
look at the bestselling books on amazon.com versus your local book store you
will in fact find that nerdy, technical books are over-represented. About 80%
of my books are sold to non-web people who are going to be technically
challenged by what I am already putting to them.
Where would we stop? At the reason? What if the reason is not explained
elsewhere? Do we have to now explain it here? Possibly, but then someone will
say that they need the citation, or the lab results? Was it double blind? Animal
or human? Reproduced? This book is not the vehicle for that. LR is designed to
be an implementation guide for the prescriptive use of the information
unlocked by our blood type genetics, not a medical textbook. That is the power
of the book. As far as critics, I stopped writing for them years ago.
For me it was more important to educate about using effective, though obscure
botanical supplements (like Rhodiola) to help type O’s more efectively clear
high catecholamine levels from chronic stress (a biological benefit) than it was
to tell them about the molecular biology of Pinto III lectin (an arcane fact).
Penguin-Putnam has asked me to consider writing a ’scientific book’. If that
comes to pass, that really would be the forum for this type of material.
‘Deja Vu all over again’
Posted By: Steve <steve@…
Date: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
In Response To: New foods (Don (O-))
There doesn’t seem to be anything worse than a food changing status.
How can it be! we wonder.
What happened? say others.
I need answers! quote the choir
Where’s the research? states the minions
Relax. Take a deep breath. Let’s look at this rationally.
First and foremost, nobody is more upset than me that pinto beans and leeks
moved to avoid. I had a quite a chili recipe going that used both of these
ingredients… And leeks are ‘not just like onions’ - they are leeks, they have
their own genetic individuality, and their own individual molecular properties.
But let’s put it in perspective. New information is constantly surfacing about
the molecular qualities of our foods. If you’ll look at the Foundation web FAQ,
you’ll notice a section on how how foods are determined to be beneficial or
avoid. If new information about a food is noted - by somebody who actually
knows what they are looking at, then it is compared to the qualities of those
lists, and the status may change. At this time, Dr. D’Adamo is the primary
person who examines the evidence and makes those determinations. In time,
there will be others, but for now, it’s him.
In LR4YT, new information was added that enabled Dr. D’Adamo to determine
that some foods which were previously rated based on a generic blood type
status could be refined based on secretor, Rh and MM status - thus changing
the rating.
So, what would happen if every single reference was included?
First of all, the book would be about 100 times it’s current size, and every
sentence would be footnoted. The book might be available in a few science
libraries, but not at your favorite bookseller.
Second, would it really change how you choose your foods? People refer to my
‘reasons’ lists as somehow being important or relevant, and also think that I
am the source of that information. In my opinion, they are not (important), and
I am not (the source). Would knowing that pinto beans are now an avoid
because they inhibit the phase shift of the warp engines really cause you to
not eat them (sorry, I couldn’t help that ;-)?
Third, will your world end if pinto beans and leeks are removed? If you are a
secretor, will it be that much better when cinammon is added? Micro-
management of food choice is not what this is about.
So take a deep breath and relax. If you are recovering from a serious disease,
or wish to maintain optimum health, be a bit more strict on your food choices.
Eliminate leeks and pintos (I’ve already changed my chili recipe to accomodate
black beans and pearl onions). Stay tuned for further updates. If you health is
improving, then good for you! If it’s not improving, ask yourself why, and what
you have to do to change, in order that it might improve. Ultimately, this is a
program about flexibility, self empowerment and responsibility to self.
best wishes,
Steve
‘Using the LR Tier System’
Posted By: Peter D’Adamo
Date: Wednesday, 27 December 2000, at 7:37 a.m.
In Response To: nailing this down: T2 Avoids = T1 Neutrals? (JimB(A+))
Thanks for your questioning. It can appear confusing initially, but actually it
is
simpler than it seems.
T1 is always as a value. T2 can be considered ‘important’, ‘values with minor
impact’ or even ‘neutral’ dependent on what your goals and capabilities are.
Let’s think about the T system in terms of a software analogy:
T1 + T2-As Neutrals + Neutrals = Blood Type Program ‘Lite Edition’. This is a
health enhancement level.
T1 + T2-As Major Values + Neutrals = Blood Type Program ‘Full Working
Version.’ This is the therapeutic level.
Variations, like the non-secretor and other subtypes can really only be done at
the therapeutic level.
If you take a little bit of time, you can construct exactly what you need.
The idea is to allow an individualized tailoring of the program to a person’s
relative capabilities. For example, in my practice a common dilemma are
college kids in dormitory/ cafeteria situations and elderly couples who travel
and eat out in restaurants a lot. No control over minor ingredients. In the past
they would not have had information sufficient to make any judgement call.
Now they can be a bit flexible about narrow choices/trace ingredients so as to
not have to choose between dropping the program or avoiding eating.
If anyone is still confused, my best advice is to re-read this post a few times.
‘Tiers (T1 and T2)’
Posted By: Peter D’Adamo
Date: Tuesday, 26 December 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
Tier One (T1): Most Therapeutic Beneficals, Most Harmful Avoids
Neutral: No Damage, No Benefit (as per blood type, anyway)
Tier Two (T2): Essentially ‘Turbo-Charges’ the diet. If you are ill, highly food
sensitive, overweight or otherwise want to do the program 100% then use
these values. Otherwise consider these foods as just more Neutrals.
Why was this done?
The Tier system is a response to hundreds of people asking ‘What do I REALLY
have to do to succeed on this diet? (Sort of like the blacksmith who asked the
Rabbi to teach him the Torah while he stood on one foot.* ) How many times
have you read something like ‘I’m type O and healthy, do I have to avoid foods
where vanilla is .0005% of the ingredients?’ or, ‘Does a type A do I REALLY
have to eat snails?’
We probably lose a lot of potential long term adherents because the earlier
(ER) system was perhaps too value laden… when maybe we should have
provided the ‘Cliff Notes’ version that they could have integrated into their
lives better.
The ill, fastidious, or otherwise miserable should essentially make no
distinction. These people need/want to get the most out of the program. For
them, a T1 Avoid or a T2 Avoid is an avoid.
*The Rabbi’s answer: ‘Don’t do anything to someone that you would not want
done to yourself. All the rest is commentary.’
Date: Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
In Response To: Bio-impedence test?? (B.Harvey (A+))
Stephen, the ND from Australia, is the expert on this, but basically,
The concept of bioimpedance uses the relative difference in the ability of our
tissues to transmit a small current. Fat, muscle, bone, etc. all conduct
electricity
differently (like metal versus wood or water; each has a different resistance to
electrical current). This phenomenon has been used to develop machines that
work much like EKGs or EEGs. The machine sends out a pulse of low voltage
and measures how fast, strong, and deflected the current is when it returns.
From that, computer programs have been written to take the basic data from
the machines and convert them into body fat percentage, water distribution,
lean muscle mass, etc. It is in this constellation of results that the blood
type
diet really shines; other diets (like Atkins) may have an initially faster
weight
loss, but impedance analysis shows that it is body fat, water and muscle. The
last is one part of you that you never want to lose, since muscle and organs are
what determine your metabolic rate: more muscle, higher metabolic rate. If
you lose muscle on a diet, you will be more likely to regain the weight next
time since your metabolic rate is lower after the diet than it was before.
The beauty of ER/LR is that you tend to lose body fat but retain, and often
increase muscle mass.
More and more doctors are doing this, especially since it is more sensitive that
the traditional methods such as calipers.
Peter D’Adamo — Friday, 29 December 2000, at 5:55 a.m.
In relation to changing food groups
About 8-9 food values have changed in four years.
There are about 300 food values times four blood groups = 1200 food values.
For the moment, we’ll leave out secretor status, but that would double the
number of determinations again.
9/1200= 99.25% constancy rate over four years of additional discovery and
refinement of technique.
How much of what you were told about ANYTHING four years ago remains
99.25% constant?
Pertinant