Bob, et al.,
I have finished reading Oz Garcia's book, "The Balance", and I am a bit confused.
I am very sure (with your help) about being a HG (type O) yet according to his criteria (which seems fairly ambiguous) I would have a "slow" metabolism or "slow burner", which would be quite the opposite. He says one of the testing points to determine metabolism would be that hypoglycemia is a potential problem of a slow burner, and diabetes being a problem associated with either. Also, his three diets seem remarkably similar, the only real difference being the fast burner has a bit more expanded list of dietary options. He does talk about purines, and that only fast burners should ingest them. By diet, I should be "fast", but by his definition I would be "slow".
I just don't get it.
I have alot of faith in your theory, which makes sense to me. I have (with your guidance ) proved the validity of the HG diet for myself.
There seem to be alot of contradictions in his book. Either that or I am misunderstanding something fundamental in his theory.
Since you both draw from some of the same sources for references, I just can't put the two together. You seemed to be fairly supportive of him (or perhaps just polite?) in your post a while ago when someone thought your theories were so similar they thought it might be your book.
Some (75%?)of what he says seens to make sense yet I have a hard time understanding his conclusions.
Is he way off or am I?
I am looking forward to your comments. This is really bugging me.
Still really looking forward to your book...
Re: Slow/fast metabolism vs. HG/Ag...Bob??
Posted by Robert McFerran on January 09, 1999 at 17:45:47:
In Reply to: Slow/fast metabolism vs. HG/Ag...Bob?? posted by Louise Anderson on January 09, 1999 at 14:04:04:
I'm still waiting for my personal copy of Garcia's book. I had browsed a friend's copy and read some of the promo stuff on his internet web site. From that I gleaned most of his insights were from Dr. Watson and Dr. Abravanel -- which led me to believe that his diets would be similar to the ones offered by Health Excel. My friend (who also hadn't read all the book yet) suggested it was the same stuff I was suggesting.
As you know I DON'T ascribe to the work done by Dr. Elliot Abravanel and don't use it in my theories of determining your BEST DIET. Instead I go with trying to detect food allergies (via the elimination diet) and also eliminating a handful of foods based on blood type. I'm also going to frown on overeating 'new' foods to which we might be poorly adapted (i.e. - most grains, milk, potatoes, yeast containing products, etc.) These recommendations will be VERY strict for those folks that are VERY sick and need to be assured of getting results.
I know that Garcia's book is targeted at fairly healthy folk and therefore less restrictive than what I'm recommending. Thanks for making me aware that he is coming up with some very different conclusions.
Look for me to post a more comprehensive 'book review' once I'm read his book a few times. Now I'm REALLY excited about getting it........
A quick review...
Posted by Louise on January 09, 1999 at 20:27:52:
In Reply to: Re: Slow/fast metabolism vs. HG/Ag...Bob?? posted by Robert McFerran on January 09, 1999 at 17:45:47:
In a nutshell...
He starts out explaining why we need to customize our diets as opposed to a "one size fits all" approach. He gives a quiz to determine your type of metabolism. There are some very subjective questions such as " I get angry... 1)easily 2) almost never 3) occaisionally". My problem with answering these questions is -compared to what??
He then does a quick runthrough of anthropological history and migration patterns (a la D'Adamo). He mentions blood type and devotes three pargraphs to blood type theory, but doesn't relate it to his own.
He devotes a chapter to stress, poor diet and pharmecueticals.
Then, a chapter on "Women and Weight", followed by some general advice on "good eating", including explanations of eichosanoids (a la Sears).
He then gets into the three metobolic types "slow burner" , "fast burner" and "mixed".
He says the population consits of 70% slow burners. 20% are fast burners and the remainder are mixed.
A slow burner is someone who is dominated by the parasympathetic nervous system, para thyroid and pancreas.
He relates hypoglycemia, hypothyroidism, and hyperinsulianemia, and a pear-shaped body,(which seems a contradiction) cold feet and hands, insomnia, slow thinking, calm and cautious with a big appetite. He also associates localized osteoarthritis (as opposed to systemic)with being a SB.
He recommends a "lighter" diet without purines, five meals a day- two small, three large.
Fast burners are the "type A" driven types. They are dominated by the sympathetic nervous system -adrenals and thyroid. They tend to be hyperglycemic, jealous, impulsive, anger easily, are worriers and have addictive personalities. They are prone to low calcium levels, high blood pressure, profuse perspiration, and sodium retention. Also, hypertension, hyperthyroidism, MS, Parkinson's, ulcers, etc.
He recommends a diet high in purines and more fat. Anything the slow burners eat is OK too. He enccourages three solid meals and mini-meals in between.
A mixed burner is pretty "normal" in every way- which is ironic being they are only 10% of the populus.
Then he ends with recommendation for antioxidents and life extension supplements.
Frankly, I don't feel like I fit either category- fast or slow, and certainly not mixed. I have some characteristics of both extermes, yet fall more to the slow side, which is totally opposite of the Hunter Gatherer metabolism.
I am sure I left out huge hunks of info, but I think that is the gist of it. I am waiting anxiously for you to get it read it and let us know what you think of it.
Thanks for your prompt reply,
Re: A quick review...
Posted by Robert McFerran on January 09, 1999 at 23:23:48:
In Reply to: A quick review... posted by Louise on January 09, 1999 at 20:27:52:
Thanks for your review. Now I'm thinking that I spent 20 bucks on something that isn't going to give me any real insight -- of course other than how to reply when someone asks me how my recommendations compare to those in THE BALANCE. I'll sit it on the bookshelf next to THE ZONE and THE ORNISH PLAN :)
I understand that folks can have different shapes the same way there are endomorphs, ectomorphs and mesomorphs but I've never really found any strong correlation to organs like adrenals, thyroid, ect. -- and certainly not to metabolism.
As you know Dr. Watson was a psychiatrist and used a questionaire format to help folks predict their metabolism. Health Excel uses a similar questionaire. Dr. Wiley had a very interesting list of six questions that he thought could sometimes predict inherited metabolism. I know that I'm going to regret this -- but here goes:
Answer true or false to each of the following:
1) I need at least one cup of coffee every morning to wake me up and get me started.
2) A glass of wine typically unwinds me and helps me to relax.
3) The less I eat, the better I feel. In fact I've tried fasting in the past and found that I've felt great.
4) After eating meat, fish, or poultry for lunch (especially if it's fried as you'd find at a fast food or take-out) I find that I get sleepy and/or thirsty later that day.
5) As far as sex is concerned, I can take it or leave it. Sex doesn't do much for me.
6) When I go to the dentist I usually don't need novocaine when I have my teeth drilled.
Yes's supposedly suggest an Agriculturist metabolism while no's suggest a Mixed or Hunter-gatherer.
Perhaps the Agriculturists should watch out for the sex crazed Hunter-gatherers with the sensitive teeth.
Posted by louise on January 10, 1999 at 12:47:11:
In Reply to: Re: A quick review... posted by Robert McFerran on January 09, 1999 at 23:23:48:
Sorry if I burst your bubble. I think you may still find the book interesting, yet most likely not earth-shattering. He strings together different theories but does not really integrate them. And as I mentioned, his conclusions don't seem to match his own assertions.
Garcia doesn't list anything in his references, credits or bibliography from Watson or Wiley.
He does, however, list Covert Bailey, Robert Atkins, and Pritikin, as well as Barry Sears and Peter D'Adamo.
BTW, I thought there was a fairly well founded assertion that the "apple shape", or gut fat, indicates hyperinsulinanemia. Which is why I thought it odd he would say "pear-shaped" and "hyperinsulinanemia" (describing a slow burner) in the same breath (so to speak) without any explanation as to why that would be the case.
Having a few specifics, like uric acid count and blood sugar patterns, give an objective criteria as as a guideline to determine metabolic type. Whose contribution was that?
Are there others?
Posted by Robert McFerran on January 10, 1999 at 13:58:08:
In Reply to: Sorry... posted by louise on January 10, 1999 at 12:47:11:
Dr. Wiley's premise is that there is only ONE objective indicator of what is really happening -- and that is to take blood plasma pH's throughout the day using decidedly Agriculturist 'test meals' for breakfast, lunch and dinner. These meals would assist Agriculturists by lowering their blood plasma pH back toward optimal levels. Hunter-gatherers and Mixed types would also see a reduction in blood plasma pH levels -- but they would drop far below the optimal 7.48 -- and induce symptoms.
Wiley also declared that ALL hypoglycemics were Hunter-gatherers. Then the problem becomes how to you define hypoglycemia. I met a woman just yesterday who is obviously a H-G. I asked her if she was hypoglycemic and she said no -- that she was recently tested for this in her doctor's office (she has an HMO insurance). She said that they took a fasting blood sugar -- and it was 68. The doc told her that in order to be hypoglycemic she would need a blood sugar of 65 or lower. She even showed me the sheet with her other blood work values and the ranges. I noticed immediately that the ranges for what were considered 'normal' were much broader than anything that I had seen before. I guess if you have ignorant physicians and broader 'normal' values for an indication of disease that you will ultimately have less stuff that you will have to treat?!
Sorry, I'm getting a little off track.
I think that there are some objective variables that point to your metabolic identity but blood plasma pH is the only one with 100% correlation. Of course listening to your mind/body while testing the various diets will be just as accurate. The allopathic monolpoly has intimidated patients to the point where we will deny our own interpretation of how something effects our mind/body in deference to a lab test. No wonder the concept and impact of biochemical individuality has been lost -- and is only now being reconsidered.
Posted by Susan MIerswa on January 10, 1999 at 19:52:01:
In Reply to: Re: Sorry... posted by Robert McFerran on January 10, 1999 at 13:58:08:
A question has come to mind reading this discussion. Do H-Gers have a high pain threshold to your knowledge?
Posted by Robert McFerran on January 10, 1999 at 22:18:30:
In Reply to: Re: Sorry... posted by Susan MIerswa on January 10, 1999 at 19:52:01:
I'm not going to go down that road with my analysis BUT apparently Dr. Wiley found that (generally speaking) Agriculturists could endure non-novacaine drilling better than Hunter-gatherers. I don't think that we should assume that this holds for other pain issues beyond the teeth.
Personally I ALWAYS ask for novacaine when the dentist comes at me with a drill :)
I found the phone number for the distributor of organic meats and buffalo jerky that you requested.
Creekside Outpost -- 812/948-9118
Ask for Ladyhawk or her husband Phil to place an order.
Oh My God
Posted by Thomas Seay on January 11, 1999 at 23:57:03:
In Reply to: Slow/fast metabolism vs. HG/Ag...Bob?? posted by Louise Anderson on January 09, 1999 at 14:04:04:
How I look forward to the day when I can approach each meal with the same sobriety and detachment that I do in performing statistics.
Posted by Thomas Seay on January 12, 1999 at 00:13:07:
In Reply to: Re: Sorry... posted by Robert McFerran on January 10, 1999 at 22:18:30:
Do H-Gs enjoy sex more than others?
Are you suggesting that H-Gs engage in
In a mixed relationship (H-G and Agriculturalist)
shouldn't the former be the master
and the latter be the slave?
If one is a fast-burning agriculturalist, should whipped-cream
be replaced with "tofutti"?