Blood type diet

After finding out i was a “protein type,” I altered my usual meals of
meat/veggies by UPPING my fat content. It worked for me and even
retired the cravings for the emergency ganache torte. I like
combining these two “diets.” And i still eat ORGASMICALLY.
If you want more of a read, I’ve copied this following
info. from Dr. Mercola’s latest email. Maybe it will help, maybe it
will confuse you. Most of it’s superfluous, but oh well.
To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1)
By William Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic
Typing
Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)
Part 1 of this series on metabolic typing introduced the idea that
whether a given food or a particular diet is good for you or bad for
you is a matter of your genes — not whim, appetite, preference,

philosophy, belief or even “expert” opinion.
It is important to realize that the idea of metabolic typing is not
new. The roots of the concept of metabolic individuality can be
traced to antiquity. The 5,000 year old East Indian system of
medicine known as Ayurveda was based on the interaction of the 5
elements and the 7 energy centers in the individual and primary
treatment addressed one’s dosha (one’s metabolic type) before it
addressed the symptom or disease.
Similarly, the ancient system of Chinese medicine recognized 5
elemental, constitutional types. Diagnosis and treatment in ancient
Egyptian medicine was based on the 7 organ systems in the body. Greek
physicians were concerned, as Hippocrates stated, with the patient
who has the disease instead of the disease that has the patient, and
evaluated the 4 humors (liver-bile metabolic types). The ancient
Roman philosopher Lucretius is attributed with the saying, “One man’s
meat is another man’s poison.”
The modern background of metabolic typing
In modern times, there have been some well-known and many not so well-
known medical researchers who recognized the value of addressing
biochemical individuality. In 1919, Frances Pottenger, M.D.,
published his Symptoms Of Visceral Disease, where he established the
autonomic nervous system as the basis of metabolic individuality and
correlated the influence of various nutrients on the autonomic
nervous system.
Dr. W.H. Sheldon, in the ’40’s, published his famous Varieties Of
Human Physique, providing photographic illustrations of his
somatotypes (ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph metabolic types). In
the ’50’s, Dr. Melvin Page and Dr. Henry Bieler concurrently
developed concepts of endocrine types and their relationship to
various foods. Dr. George Watson, also in the ’50’s, in his
astounding book, Nutrition And The Mind, published his research on
the variable influences of oxidation (glycolysis, beta oxidation,
citric acid cycle) in different individuals he classified as fast,
mixed or slow oxidizers.
In 1956, the noted biochemist, Dr. Roger Williams, published his
genetotrophic theory on biochemical individuality, based on his
research which suggested that every human being has, because of his
genetic makeup, distinctive nutritional needs that must be met in
order to achieve optimum health and well-being. Dr. Royal Lee’s
extensive writings in the 50’s and 60’s correlated nutritional
influences of the autonomic and endocrine systems.
Dr. Emanuel Revici, in the `60’s, recognized the critical necessity
to address biochemical individuality and devoted his life’s work to
the development of an entirely new system of medicine based upon the
variances between individuals in their catabolic and anabolic
influences.
Dr. James D’Adamo, in the ’70’s, put forth a system of individual
classification based upon ABO blood types. In the mid ’70’s, Dr.
William D. Kelley met Dr. Roger William’s call for “metabolic
profiling” by becoming the first to apply William’s concept of
nutritional individuality to computer science in identifying the
autonomic types, sympathetic, balanced and parasympathetic.
Further efforts to address metabolic individuality can be seen in
current works of numerous other pioneers. Among the more recent who
have joined the ranks are Dr. Elliot Abravanel, Dr. Paul Eck, Dr.
David Watts, Dr. Rudolph Wiley, and the insightful founder of Nutri-
Spec, Dr. Guy Schenker, to name a few.
What exactly is metabolic typing and why is it important?
Metabolic typing is a systematic, testable, repeatable, and
verifiable methodology based on research and extensive clinical
experience over the last 25 years that combines the wisdom of the
ancient systems of medicine with our modern scientific understanding
of physiology and biochemistry.
Metabolic typing analyzes, evaluates, and interprets objective
physiological and biochemical indicators along with symptomatology in
order to define one’s metabolic type — the specific, individualized,
genetically-based patterns of biochemical metabolic individuality
that dictate one’s physiological and neurological “design limits” and
requirements for nutritional substances.
The food that we eat is intended as the “fuel” for our body’s cells,
our engines of metabolism. Our cells in turn convert the fuel to
energy to be used in all the life-supporting processes of metabolism
that keep us alive and healthy. But like any engine, our body needs a
certain kind of fuel to function optimally. A gasoline engine
requires gasoline for fuel. A diesel engine is designed to run on
diesel for fuel. But try to run a gas engine on diesel or a diesel
engine on gas and not only will the energy output be deficient, but
using the wrong fuel for the engine will cause real problems for the
engine itself.
Similarly, our bodies have genetically-based requirements for
specific kinds of foods and balances of nutrients in order to produce
optimal energy and function in a state of optimal health. If we meet
these “design requirements,” we can expect to be healthy, energetic,
fit and trim.
Failure to obtain on a regular basis the kinds of foods our body’s
are designed to utilize will initially produce sub-clinical health
complaints such as fatigue, aches and pains, headaches, indigestion,
weight gain, constipation, rashes, dry skin, low blood sugar, etc.
But long-term deficiency of the right foods for the metabolic type
will lead to degenerative conditions like asthma, cardiovascular
disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc. In other words, it’s not
just that the Eskimos can eat up to 10 pounds of meat and huge
amounts of fat and almost no carbohydrate, they need to eat that way
in order to be healthy because that’s what their metabolisms are
genetically programmed to utilize as fuel. Similarly, each of us has
very specific requirements for nutrients that must be met in order to
obtain and maintain good health, energy and well-being for a lifetime.
Without metabolic typing, there is no way to discern one’s “medicine”
from one’s “poison.” Without metabolic typing, there is no way to
know how nutrients behave in one person as opposed to another. In
essence, without metabolic typing, no rational basis exists from
which to select proper diet and nutritional supplementation because
one’s metabolic type dictates individual responses to nutrients.
This gets to the heart of some core premises of metabolic typing that
have not only great significance for each individual in
identification of a proper diet, but also have profound implications
for scientific research. Let’s look at two of these core premises of
our system of metabolic typing. Here’s the first one:
ANY NUTRIENT AND ANY FOOD CAN HAVE VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL
INFLUENCES IN DIFFERENT METABOLIC TYPES.
The metabolic type defines the way in which the body reacts to
nutrients. Different metabolic types react differently to the same
nutrient. For example, in one metabolic type 100 milligrams of
potassium or eating, say, an orange (also high in potassium), will
cause the body’s pH to shift alkaline and produce a sedating effect.
But in a different metabolic type, the same amount of potassium or an
orange will produce an acid shift and a stimulating response. This
has been observed tens of thousands of times through both objective
metabolic type testing as well as through changes in symptomatology.
Now the second core premise:
ANY ADVERSE SYMPTOM OR DEGENERATIVE CONDITION CAN ARISE DUE TO
VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCES.
This same principle applies to any adverse health complaint, from
simple to complex, from cramps to cardiovascular disease (CVD), from
rashes to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, we have seen just as
many cases of high cholesterol and CVD resolve through a high
carbohydrate, low fat, low protein diet as we have seen resolve
through the opposite low carb, high protein, high fat diet. Match the
diet to the metabolic type and any degenerative condition has a
chance to reverse. But eat the wrong foods for the metabolic type,
even high quality, organic foods, and degenerative processes will
only worsen.
The implications of these premises are staggering.
If they are true, then allopathic nutrition has no rational basis.
Seeking a common therapy for all people for every condition is a wild
goose chase and is doomed to failure. Any success with that approach
has been and will continue to be by chance — not systematic,
reliable predictability.
If any nutrient or food can have totally opposite influences,
biochemically speaking, in different people, how can there be a
treatment, for any condition, that can work for all people?
The answer is that there can’t be only one treatment. This is
precisely why what works for one person can worsen the same condition
in another person. This is why what makes your friend thin can make
you fat. This is why what improves energy and performance for one
person can worsen it in another. As it turns out, metabolic typing
explains why Lucretius’ adage, “One man’s food is another man’s
poison,” is literally true.
And, if it is true that two people with the same degenerative disease
can have virtually opposite biochemical imbalances, and that when two
opposite biochemical protocols are administered the problem resolves,
then this clearly means that it’s not the diseases that should be
treated but the underlying metabolic type imbalances that have caused
the diseases that need be addressed.
From this viewpoint, the diseases are not the problems; they are the
symptoms, the manifestations, the expressions of the underlying,
foundational imbalances. The reality of metabolic individuality
demands that the person who has the disease — not the disease that
has the person — be treated!
These premises of metabolic typing also explain why scientific
research on nutrition is usually so inconclusive and produces such
inconsistent results. For example, researchers have been confounded
why calcium can lower blood pressure in some but raise it in others.
Similar findings occurred with the effect of potassium. Until
research on the effect of a given nutrient on a given condition is
performed on a like metabolic type subject population, you will
always see variable results.
In summary:
Biochemical individuality is responsible for the fact that nutrients
behave differently in different metabolic types
The variable influences of nutrients on different metabolisms along
with the same condition arising from totally different biochemical
imbalances make it impossible to treat conditions with a standardized
treatment protocol
Successful, predictable, reliable therapy can only be chosen once you
know the metabolic type because only then will you know how nutrients
behave in that person’s metabolism.
Degenerative conditions account for well over 80% of all of the
adverse conditions that afflict the peoples of our country. This
means that only a little over 1 out of every 10 people that go to
doctors has crises or infectious conditions that require and respond
to allopathic treatments.
More and more people every year fall prey to degenerative conditions
and, sadly, at younger and younger ages. Diseases once viewed as
accompaniments to old age are now commonplace in our children. Yet,
currently, there is no orthodox cure for nearly any degenerative
disease.
So-called alternative practitioners, as a group, fare little better.
Even those who meet with “success” often find that when the therapy
is stopped, the condition returns and no real, lasting healing has
taken place. Or they are baffled by the universal phenomena of
failing to help the next patient with the same condition with the
very same protocol that worked so well for the former patient.
We find ourselves, practitioners and lay people alike, trying
futilely to absorb the avalanche of information and research in
nutrition that has descended upon us and only promises to gain speed
with ever-increasing volume. We’re bombarded with seemingly endless
newspaper and magazine articles, health books, interviews on radio
and television, internet sites, all touting opposing points of view.
What are we to do with the blessing/curse of this information
explosion?
The problem is that there hasn’t been a reference point or a
framework in which to organize and understand the thousands upon
thousands of research findings, many of which are outright
contradictory in nature. It’s like an enormous jigsaw puzzle that
arrives without the picture on the box. How do the pieces fit
together? How can we possibly make sense and make use of this
research? A PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) of nutrition?
Even if it was possible to know the effects of every single vitamin,
mineral, fatty acid, herb, etc., and then to organize them item by
item, of what practical use would that be? How would we be any
further along? We would still have 100’s or even 1000’s of choices to
make for each nutrient. And every day more and more effects are being
found for every nutrient known to us.
Even so, it is every practitioner’s experience that what works for
one patient does not work for another with the same condition. The
total body of scientific research is one gigantic pool of randomized
information that is only growing in complexity. And yet, this is
precisely the path that researchers and practitioners are following.
The wrong path was chosen and it is leading us deeper and deeper into
the dark forest of confusion. The more that research uncovers, the
less clear the picture becomes.
The wrong questions have been and are still being asked. Instead of
seeking answers to the effects of biochemical substances on diseases,
we need to turn our attention to understanding how nutrients effect
individual metabolisms. Instead of thinking in terms of treating
disease, we must learn to think in terms of building health and
meeting and optimizing genetic functional capacity by addressing the
needs of each individual’s metabolic type.
The adverse influences in the environment will continue to increase
in the years ahead. In order to survive and live a full, productive
life in the current millennium, especially if one wants to live a
healthy life, it is becoming increasingly important that each
individual take responsibility for his own health and address the
inescapable requirements of his biochemical individuality, for it is
only in so doing that the body will adapt and maintain its defenses
against the adversities of the environment and that the joy and
exuberance of true good health can be known.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am and is filed under lifestyle. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.