Metabolic Type and ER4YT Diets archives

Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet?

Posted by Mark Lindsay on January 25, 1999 at 23:35:20:

Is Eat Right for your Type diet the same as the Metabolic diet? If not what is the difference? I've read ER4RT. How can I determine my metabolic type? Where can I get more information on the metabolic diet. Thanks for any help you can give.


Follow Ups:


Re: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet?

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 26, 1999 at 12:25:16:

In Reply to: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet? posted by Mark Lindsay on January 25, 1999 at 23:35:20:

Mark,

Get BIOBALANCE by Dr. Rudolph Wiley.

The diets are VERY different.

Blood type does not predict inherited metabolism.

Bob


Follow Ups:


Sorry Bob, but I disagree

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:

In Reply to: Re: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet? posted by Robert McFerran on January 26, 1999 at 12:25:16:

There are several well-known links between the ABO genetic locus (ABO) and digestive/secretory parameters. This we know from studies of gene cross linkages between the ABO blood type genes on chromosome 9, band q34 and other, seemingly unrelated genes, such as pepsinogen half-life. There are even direct linkages to neurochemicals which act on digestion, such as dopamine (DBH) and nitric oxide (ARS).

As another example, the gene (FUT2) on chromosome 11, band 22 which codes for ABH non-secretion ( i.e whether you secrete your blood type in your saliva, semen or perspiration) is closely associated in excellent, very large studies (over 5000 subjects in one; 10,000 in another) with alchoholism, decreased secretory IgA, higher levels of intestinal phosphatase and insulin resistance.

These are most definitely inherited metabolic tendencies.

However, I feel the same cannot yet be said for Watson and Wiley's work. If Wiley's polymorphisms (what are generally referred to on this site as 'metabolic types') were valid beyond a mere description of some present-day event (not without its own value, by the way), they would have to be represented somewhere on the human genome, so as to allow for their tranmittance to offspring, this thereby conveying some evolutionary advantage. If not genetically based, they would be essentially random occurances, and not a 'type,' per se, at all.

Can you (or anyone else) please tell me where on the human chromosome we might find the locus for the gene which codes for Wiley's polymorphisms? Having spent the better part of this last year sifting through the incredible minutiae of the Human Genone gene maps, there is none to my knowledge. They've got a billion other gene thingys detailed, some so obscure that you wonder about their significance... but alas, no 'fast/slow oxidizer' gene.

I can't help but wonder that, if Wiley's metabolic types were indeed a true polymorphism, why is it not some huge gene chunk someplace, like ABO? Something that significant, doing all those important things... would not have a chance of eluding the kind of scrutiny going on now in molecular genetics.

Peter





Follow Ups:


Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree

Posted by Nancy on January 26, 1999 at 21:43:33:

In Reply to: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:

Peter

Thanks for your comments. This should prove to be an interesting discussion. As a lay person, however, I did not understand some of the technical aspects of your post.



Follow Ups:


Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree

Posted by Aaron Wieland on January 26, 1999 at 23:52:46:

In Reply to: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:

Thank you, Peter, for the succinct summary of associations between blood type and metabolic parameters. I've saved it for future reference, because I'm a sucker for this sort of discussion (despite the reservations I express below).

I'm not a biologist, so I need you to verify my understanding of the facts. Doesn't cross-linkage imply that two genes reside on the same chromosome, and are therefore more likely to remain together after crossover? If so, this means that, if a particular combination of alleles for these linked genes is common in a population, this combination will tend to be preserved in its offspring. But nothing would prevent some offspring from inheriting a completely different combination of alleles (this outcome would be less common, however).

My point is that a correlation between two traits in a population says absolutely nothing about the phenotype of a given individual. If the sample size was 10,000 for a study that showed a correlation between ABH non-secretion and some other trait, then I would expect that there were hundreds of subjects for whom the association was the reverse of what was true for the population as a whole.

Could you please define "direct linkage" for me? Does this term refer to two genes that are always transmitted together?

I think that you have grossly overestimated our knowledge of the human genome. The fact that the function (or partial function) of millions of genes has been identified should not suggest that we are even remotely close to knowing everything. Deactivating each gene in turn and observing what happens (which I was told is the approach used by the Human Genome Project; please correct me if I'm wrong) will certainly not reveal the full complexity of our genome. I looked for a good summary of the complexities of human genome research, and found one at http://www.worldandi.com/archive/nsnov96.htm (I've shown these excerpts to you before):

Our main limitation in identifying a gene associated with a particular trait lies in our fragmentary knowledge of the enormously complex human genome. Human DNA consists of 3.3 billion nucleotide pairs, only 20 percent of which are thought to be needed to encode the estimated 100,000 genes. The function of the remaining DNA is not known. So far, only 5,000 human genes have been detected, of which about 1,000 have been reasonably characterized in size, organization, and function. It is therefore not easy to find a gene on a chromosome and to determine its nucleotide sequence and physiological function, especially if it acts in coordination with other genes in the expression of a trait. [...]

Furthermore, gene expression is generally followed by a large network of physiological reactions, with the input of many interactive genes, making it unlikely that we will find single genes producing single effects. Rather, the effect of each gene may be counterbalanced by other cellular or environmental factors. This makes it difficult to characterize the role of a single gene in a trait as complex as sexual orientation.

But I have allowed myself to wax academic over tangential concerns. The important point is that Watson and Wiley's ideas work. If I want to assess whether a particular diet is good for me, I will do so by directly observing its effect on my health, not by worrying about genes and cross-linkages.

Cheers,
-- Aaron


Follow Ups:


Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 00:24:19:

In Reply to: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:

Dr. D'Adamo,

What do you think about the people for whom the ER4YT diet don't seem to work? Even you said it wasn't 100%, so where do they fit in?

I seem to be one of those people (I was a firm believer and a patient of your father's, Type A with strong B tendencies), and after a year on the diet, I had very minimal improvement. Where am I supposed to turn for a diet guideline to help me heal?

Thanks.

Tony


Follow Ups:


Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 27, 1999 at 01:07:45:

In Reply to: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:

Hi Peter,

I do appreciate your comments and believe that MOST of what we disagree on is semantics. Let's see if I can shed any light.

I have never said that Dr. Watson and Wiley's work is 'predicitive' in the manner that you suggest with your ABO blood typing theories. Watson and Wiley both realized that there were an infinite number of different metabolisms yet they discovered that any given individual would fall into one of three distinct general metabolic subsets. They never sought to define a gene which would predict metabolism.

Dr. Wiley discovered that the prime indicator of metabolic performance was venous blood plasma pH. Please realize that blood plasma pH is an after the fact kinda thing -- in that it is DRIVEN by the metabolic efficiency of our two major energy cycles (see Watson's NUTRITION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STRENGTH for an explaination). Dr. Wiley found that indeed if you were eating the appropriate diet that blood plasma pH would normalize at or very close to 7.46.

So instead of trying to PREDICT using some type of genetic marker (like blood type) Watson/Wiley would use an OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT of METABOLIC PERFORMANCE which was blood plasma pH.

Now let's directly address the "several well-known links between the ABO genetic locus (ABO) and digestive/secretory parameters." I have never suggested that LINKS don't exist and that ABO blood typing is not ASSOCIATED somehow with the diet to which an individual is best adapted. But the ASSOCIATION is only 75% at best. In other words that leaves 25% of the folks out in the cold -- desperately trying to make the WRONG diet work.

Please tell the good folks out there with what PERCENTAGE accuracy that YOU BELIEVE that ER4YT CORRECTLY predicts what they should eat TODAY -- not sometime in the future when we work out all the intricacies of the human genome? I know that you know it is far less than 100% but how much?

What OBJECTIVE parameters are you using to confirm metabolic performance (i.e. that the diet indeed is giving them their best possible performance)?

Dr. Watson discovered two VERY RECENT phenomenon that cannot be described with the overly simplistic MODEL that you are currently using with blood type. The first is metabolic transitioning -- the phenomenon where both males and females can actually RADICALLY CHANGE their metabolic needs as they pass through puberty, the cessation of growth, and (for women) after childbirth and/or menopause.

The second is 'metabolic cycling' -- where pre-menopausal women demonstrate HUGE difference in metabolic needs that coincides with their menstrual cycle.

Both of these phenomenon have only started happening in more recent generations. They are one of the reasons for the almost epidemic growth of things like PMS and post partum depression. Dr. Wiley suggested that rapid genetic mixing plus Chaos Theory could give the best answer for now for what is going on.

In the end what determines how well a specific diet is matched to an individual's metabolism is how their mind/bodies react to that diet.

I have found that if folks use MY elimination diet to 'clear' symptoms and then detect their major food allergens that they will get a VERY CLEAR READ (via increased energy level)indicating which specific metabolic diet works best for their mind/body. This SUBJECTIVE evaluation by the individual can be confirmed by the OBJECTIVE measurement of venous blood plasma pH.

Of course this approach suggests that the individual is fully capable of doing something complex and discerning how they feel rather than taking a simple test telling them their blood type.

I'm happy that you've come out to discuss some of these things. I'm happier that Dr. Stoll has provided us an un-censured forum for discussing these differences. I'm sad that your site does not do the same.

C'mon Peter, open your site up to discussions that might not agree with your theories.

Your patients, readers and web visitors can only benefit ---

and it won't hurt your book sales a bit.........

Bob



Follow Ups:


Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Bryan on January 27, 1999 at 11:14:50:

In Reply to: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 00:24:19:

It surly seems as I read this board, that everyone has their own theory and wants to blast the heck out of the others. Not to say that it is not healthy arguments, but maybe we should take the facts we all agree upon and try to research from there. Alternative medicine is big on saying that allopathy has a closed mind, everyone hear is closed to each others theories. When in fact it might be a combination of all of them that bring us closer to where we want to be. If Dr. D Adamo has discovered a diet that can help 75% of people, you should give him his due credit an also of course his father who was placing people on the blood-type diet in 1975 when Peter was not even at Bastyr yet. My point is that if this works for 75% of the people I doubt that anyone has come close to this with their theories and at this point everyone seems to agree to avoid the foods in which the lectins would not be good for their blood type. So lets just pick which part of the Bible we would like to belive and apply it so that we fit in.
Thank you


Follow Ups:


Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Joshua on January 27, 1999 at 11:19:41:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 27, 1999 at 11:14:50:

What was said was certainly applicable, but if blood type AB was a mutation from the other blood types such as A and B we could say that the 25% which does not fit has slightly mutated. But certainly 75% is a good implication that you are on the right track Keep going!!!



Dietary Negatives vs. Health Positives

Posted by Mary Jackson on January 27, 1999 at 11:58:23:

In Reply to: Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Nancy on January 26, 1999 at 21:43:33:

In my opinion there are many negative aspects of foods. Lectins would be one. I think we can offset a few negatives with many health positives viewing all factors as a landscape trying to make sure the landscape is a high plain.
If eliminating lectins helps you, do it, but life is too short to be a total purist in my opinion. Sometimes what we do is even more important than what we eat. I gain much energy from interaction with people. There seem to be too many variables to say that one approach is correct, so look, look, look, and keep on looking. Keep climbing higher so you can see what the fabric below you looks like. I take what everyone says and make the best of it. Mary J.



Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 27, 1999 at 12:46:49:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 27, 1999 at 11:14:50:

Dear Bryan,

You have hit on one of the traps I have observed in many of my colleagues in alternative healing; "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

The problem is that there is too much to learn. Naturopathy, Chiropractic, Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Ayerveda, Herbology, etc., etc., are all lifetime learning experiences. NO ONE can be an expert in them all. SO, we tend to see the benefit in the one we know best.

Once I learned that truth, I compensated by learning a little about as many philophies as I could handle. I needed to know enough about each one to begin to recognize the patient who needed that approach the most AND to recognize a competent practioner of each approach when I saw her/him. THAT way I could refer the patient to the professional who had concentrated on that approach and learn more about that approach as I watched my patient improve.

SO, I guess, if I have a specialty it it the glue that holds together all that will be the health care of the 21st century (which will include all of the world's healing paradigms working together).

In the meantime, it has to be up to the person seeking the healing to learn enough to help figure out which approaches they need the most (Many times more than one approach is needed to get best results.) If one is fortunate enough to have a professional nearby who has gone to the effort to learn about many approaches, one can pay him/her to help advise as a consultant.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is the hardest thing I ever tried to do. It makes allopathic medicine seem terribly simplistic (which it is).

SO, keep educating yourself and using your body mind as the testing laboratory as needed. We are all too complex for any one paradigm to work for all of us.

Walt



Follow Ups:


Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by Mike Kramer on January 27, 1999 at 23:16:42:

In Reply to: Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Robert McFerran on January 27, 1999 at 01:07:45:

Dr. D’Adamo writes:

If Wiley's polymorphisms (what are generally referred to on this site as 'metabolic types') were valid beyond a mere description of some present-day event (not without its own value, by the way), they would have to be represented somewhere on the human genome, so as to allow for their transmittance to offspring, this thereby conveying some evolutionary advantage. If not genetically based, they would be essentially random occurences, and not a 'type,' per se, at all.

What is the criticism being made? Bob, you suggest that the criticism is that Wiley is not predictive. If I understand you, you concede that this criticism is justified. But I believer that if this criticism were justified, it would be fatal. Prediction and control are, for many, the hallmarks of science. Wiley, in Biobalance, spends his entire concluding chapter elucidating the scientific method and arguing for the scientific validity of his approach. The essence of Wiley’s argument is that he can predict and control outcomes with a very high degree of success—higher than any competing program of wellness.

I would argue that Wiley’s approach is predictive to the extent that Dr. D’Adamo’s is. The latter argues that if one gets one’s blood tested for type according to the systems of ABO, Rh, MN and secretor status, one can predict which diet will be most likely to lead to a healthy outcome. The former argues that if one gets one’s blood tested for venous plasma pH, one can predict which diet will be most likely to lead to a healthy outcome in three months. Those whose venous plasma falls significantly below 7.46 need a purine-rich diet to overcome disease. Those whose venous plasma registers above 7.46 will improve their healthy by consuming a low-purine diet.

Wiley asserts that venous plasma pH is a reliable predictor of health. This is not an empty claim. He is not saying that if one knows her venous plasma pH she knows her venous plasma pH. He is saying that two distinct phenomena (pH and health) are causally linked. This claim is substantial and easily tested.

Dr. D’A does seem to suggest, as Bob has pointed out, that Wiley’s problem is failure to predict. Dr. D’A characterizes Wiley’s work as merely descriptive. Descriptions do not predict, they merely state history. History is not a science, if one uses prediction and control as the criteria of science.

Dr. D’A’s argument appears to be:

1. If Wiley’s types are scientifically valid, they would be predictive, not descriptive.
2. If Wiley’s types are predictive, they must be evolutionarily adaptive.
3. If Wiley’s types are evolutionarily adaptive, they must be genetically transmitted (since that is one of the fundamental mechanisms of evolution).
4. If Wiley’s types are genetically transmitted, their location on the human genome must be identified.
5. Wiley’s types are not localizable on the human genome.
6. Wiley’s types are not genetically transmitted (5 &4).
7. Wiley’s types are not evolutionarily adaptive (6 & 3).
8. Wiley’s types are not predictive (7 & 2).
9. Wiley’s types are not scientifically valid (8 & 1).

Let’s grant proposition 1, even though one could argue that science has as its goal understanding rather than mere prediction and control.

Since Wiley’s approach clearly is predictive to the degree that Dr. D’A’s is, there must be an error in 2 – 9.

Propositions 3 and 4 appear relatively unassailable. Since at least one of the argument’s conclusions is false (proposition 8) either one or both of propositions 2 and 5 must be false. Clearly 5 can be challenged. Just because something has not yet been found it does not follow that it is not possible to be found. The more interesting claim for me, however, is 2. It is not at all clear to me that it is true. Let us agree that a ‘type’ is a cluster of structural or functional characteristics. Not every characteristic need be adaptive. Some could be necessary but neutral consequences of other changes that are adaptive. That is, the type was not selected for, but the type is a neutral result of some other characteristic that was selected for.

On a more basic level we are still left with the pragmatic question: what is to be done with those like myself for whom ER4YT has failed. I can’t comprehend why Wiley’s approach is of necessity inadequate. Since it has no fundamental theoretical flaws, and I don’t believe it can do irreparable harm, I will take the same attitude towards it that I took towards ER4YT; let’s give it a try.

As a final note, among other things, what I love about this board is the exceptional degree of tolerance exhibited here. My introduction to the Internet was through Peter D'Adamo's board and I have nothing but great appreciation for the work he's done. I have given his book as a present to one person and recommended it to others. Walt, thanks for nurturing an environment where reasonable people can disagree. I welcome any criticisms I may receive and hope that they can help me grapple with issues that I admit I don't yet fully understand.


Follow Ups:


Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 23:37:51:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 27, 1999 at 11:14:50:

Bryan,

So, what are you saying, that for the other 25% of us for which the diet doesn't seem to work we should just give up in our search to heal and applaud James and his father for their work? Just because some of us have to look elsewhere for diets to help us heal doesn't mean that we don't respect and admire what Peter has done.

But why can't he come out and answer some of our concerns directly? Noone is going to condemn him for admitting flaws in his system - no diet is going be 100% right now. We all just want to heal, and as a Naturopath I would hope that he would be willing to do whatever it takes to help people do that, even if it means admitting that maybe his diet just doesn't work for them, and trying to find out why.

Wouldn't it be great if he teamed up with people like Rob or others, and tried to find out why 25% of the people don't get results from his diet? If that happened, everyone would benefit, which I think is what we are all, in our own ways, trying to do here.

Tony


Follow Ups:


Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 28, 1999 at 00:04:47:

In Reply to: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by Mike Kramer on January 27, 1999 at 23:16:42:

Hi Mike,

Wow! That was a logic based arguement that Dr. Wiley would have really appreciated. Unfortunately the logic that he provides at the end of his book is lost on most folk. Obviously it wasn't lost on you.

I just wanted you to know that I agree with EVERYTHING in your post. I conceded that Wiley's blood plasma pH was not predictive in the exact same sense as ABO blood types but I was splitting hairs (sort of like trying to determine what the meaning of 'is' is).

What I was 'splitting' was the fact that blood plasma pH is the RESULT or the aftermath of previous metabolic activity or as Wiley puts it "the returns of cellular metabolism". It's really a performance gauge that doesn't have much predictive power until you start designing and testing various diets. In this manner it's not STRICTLY predictive in and of itself -- you need to know the other half of the equation (what diet was consumed previous to measurement of pH).

I think Dr. D uses this strict definition of 'predictive' since he suggests that all he needs to know is blood type.

You and I must be clever devils since we can 'predict' an outcome (the foods to which we are generally best adapted) using Dr. Watson and Wiley's approach :)

Bob


Follow Ups:


Great post, Tony - well said! NMI

Posted by trish on January 28, 1999 at 09:51:40:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 23:37:51:

nmi



Follow Ups:


Thanks Trish!

Posted by Tony on January 28, 1999 at 11:21:54:

In Reply to: Great post, Tony - well said! NMI posted by trish on January 28, 1999 at 09:51:40:

Trish,

Well, thank you! That partially makes up for hurting my feelings and putting in big letters that I was mistaken about Dr. Stoll's diet. I had actually been asking Rob about it, not saying that was his diet. But I've gotten my info since.

You ready for the Elimination diet? I got my freezer stocked with lamb chops and trout!

Take Care,

Tony



Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree (GREAT discussion)

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 28, 1999 at 12:11:22:

In Reply to: Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Aaron Wieland on January 26, 1999 at 23:52:46:

Thanks, Aaron.

The more we learn, the better we will become at choosing what to try for ourselves.

I think that the most underrated thing about the human genome is that they are still trying to isolate each gene. Although that IS important, it is the interactions between the genes that really has the greatest effect. We will still be trying to understand that 100 years from now.

The next most underrated thing is the way the environment changes the expression of each gene. We are not doomed to breast cancer just because we have the breast cancer gene. All it means is that we (with the bad gene) must learn more about the environmental causes of breast cancer & work harder than our fortunate friends at eliminating the factors that burden the system to the point where our "bad" gene would fail to protect us.

This, of course, wil be the last thing accepted by the allopathically tainted researchers since it would validate what all the other healing paradigms of the world have been saying for the past 45,000 years (which the allopathic paradigm has been trying to invalidate for more than 100 years).

Viva la Discussione` !

Walt



Follow Ups:


Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. (Both, And!)

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 28, 1999 at 13:16:56:

In Reply to: Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by Robert McFerran on January 28, 1999 at 00:04:47:

First, I want to say that I am not the expert in this.

HOWEVER, having said that, I AM an expert in the "big picture". My suggestion is that these are NOT mutually exclusive and the day will come when we understand how they have a bit of the truth in each of them. Our final "predictive" stance will come when we figure out how all the approaches, that have even the least positive effect, come together to form a grand paradigm of nutrition (as understood in the face of further understanding the interactions of the human genome).

Good luck to us.

Walt




Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 28, 1999 at 13:23:42:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 23:37:51:

Thanks, Tony.

See my other post about this subject.

This whole thing reminds me of what some wise man said:
"The appearance of one sparrow proves the existance of birds!"

This is still much too complex a concept for the conventional medical paradigm to understand.

Namaste` Walt




Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Bryan on January 28, 1999 at 19:24:09:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Tony on January 27, 1999 at 23:37:51:

Yes, it would be great if everyone teamed up for the good of the quest for the "Truth" with is supposed to be what science is all about. I would also think that all doctors Natropathic and Allopathic would be willing to do what ever it takes" to help people. My point was that 75% is a large number and I feel that it is large enough that he definitly has something. One thing you must say is that all of the doctors that produce diet plans for people to try on this board all say to avoid the lectins that interfere with your blood type I guess in a way everyone is saying that he's right about somthing, but let me add.... I know that Dr. James D Adamo has helped people with Arthuritis which has been said to be caused by bracing. Does thismean that the blood-type diet helps bracing in 75% of the people? Also does anyone know if the dry vitamin E is better for your liver?
Thanks Bry


Follow Ups:


Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Bryan on January 28, 1999 at 19:36:57:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Walt Stoll on January 27, 1999 at 12:46:49:

Thank you Dr. Stoll, for your BB and your response. In the vast knowlege of this world ,I know nothing and I do know what it feels like to be ill. I also wish that there was somthing that helped everyone, if there is such a thing it verywell may be found on this board. I put a earlier follow up but I will repeat a question: Is dry vitamin E better because I heard that the oil can be hard on the liver?

Thank You
Bry


Follow Ups:


Re: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet?

Posted by Mark Lindsay on January 28, 1999 at 23:05:25:

In Reply to: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet? posted by Mark Lindsay on January 25, 1999 at 23:35:20:

Thanks to all for your input on this subject. There's (excuse the pun) a lot to "digest" here.



Follow Ups:


Re: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet?

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 00:17:33:

In Reply to: Re: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet? posted by Mark Lindsay on January 28, 1999 at 23:05:25:

Hi Mark,

Blood type diets and the metabolic diets discussed here are not the same. In fact they have nothing to do with each other.

It is a lot to digest.......

Bob



Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree (GREAT discussion)

Posted by Aaron Wieland on January 29, 1999 at 01:21:34:

In Reply to: Re: Sorry Bob, but I disagree (GREAT discussion) posted by Walt Stoll on January 28, 1999 at 12:11:22:

I agree entirely with everything you've said. Environmental influences on gene expression are indeed underrated. I'm reminded of a study that tried to find a genetic basis for the scarcity of heart disease in an Inuit population. Surprisingly, it turned out that the alleles associated with atherosclerosis were actually more frequent in the Inuit sample than in the control sample of whites. The researchers concluded that the interaction between environmental and genetic influences was probably important. Click here to read the abstract.

One of my professors has a low opinion of the Human Genome Project. He thought even less of it when he learned that genome was being mapped by deactivating a single gene at a time, and then observing what "breaks." He believed that this approach was analogous to removing the wheels from a car and then concluding that they were responsible for locomotion, since the car won't move without them.

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 28, 1999 at 19:24:09:

THOUGHTS:

My original post was not to claim that my diet theory is better than anyone else's, nor that it is 100% effective in everyone (an impossibility). My own work has been the recipient of much off-handed dismissal, so I try to tread carefully on other people ideas.

Rather, I wrote to dispute Robert's assertion that blood type was not predictive of metabolic tendencies. I've felt Robert's remarks about blood type over the last year or so have been very casual, and wished he would verse himself more thoroughly if he plans to comment authoritatively upon it for the public. I also wanted to find out his feelings about the lack of an objective point of genetic determinance for Wiley's and Watson's work, something which had always held me back in accepting its more sweeping premise(s).

Some responses are quite interesting. My old friend Aaron writes a seemingly measured reply, but its main points are very weak: Our understanding of genetics isn't perfect; and Wiley's system works regardless. The critique of human genetics seems a bit of a stretch, and remember, in my first post, I never said that 'Metabolic Typing' didn't work (I have no proof of that) but rather, as currently practiced and interpreted, it appears more a collection of syndromes than a true human polymorphism.

Syndromes don't require a genetic basis. Polymorphisms do. There are many syndromes in medicine, and many effective ways of using that sort of information to help people.

However, if you are talking 'types,' be they aceylator activity (fast/slow), blood types (hundreds), HLA types (white cell antigens), even ear wax consistency (hard/soft), you have to have a gene on a chromosome somewhere, and to a increasingly large degree the location and function of these genes are very well known.

NUMBERS:

My dadamo.com friend Tony asks about people who don't respond to the ER4YT diet, such as himself. They certainly exist (see below) but in a separate thread he (type AB) writes that he is having side effects (acne and digestive problems, if I remember) from the 'hunter-gatherer' diet also. Tony, you should just skip right down to the last line of this post. You'll just find the stuff in between too frustrating!

Since 1997, about 2000/+- outcomes were reported to the outcome registry on my website in which the respondents claimed that they did the ER4YT diet and nothing else (out of about double that number total respondents). Last I counted, about 2/3's of the 'diet only' responders claimed 'significant improvement' in a prexisting condition, verifiable with before/after lab work. The total number of 'moderately improved' respondents, diet only, no supplements or medications, was around 93%. This percentage is about the same as we have recorded in our clinic in Stamford CT.

Selective results? Only the positive responders telling me about it?

You must be new to the Internet!

Paradoxically, this was higher than in the group which included supplements, implying that indeed, certain supplements certainly can work against you in a way predictable by blood type. This by just reading a book, and in a simpler system (just ABO type) that that which I use in my own practice, which includes other blood typing groups.

Interestingly, type O responders reported on average a 27 point drop in cholesterol, a 15 point increase in HDL and a 110 point drop in triglycerides. This in a high-protein diet dismissed by Dean Ornish (whose own method can show only a drop in total cholesterol, yet increases triglycerides) as 'irresponsible.'

So what if you are one of those 7-9% 'ER4YT non-responders'?

Guess you'll just have to read my next book!


Ciao,

Peter



Follow Ups:

Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by vickir on January 29, 1999 at 07:59:31:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 28, 1999 at 19:36:57:

Nothing to do with the liver, but a word of caution to folks who need to avoid either wheat or soy: if you take natural vitamin E, the E in gel-caps is often obtained from wheat germ oil, whereas that in dry form is more likely to come from soybean oil.



Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by vickir on January 29, 1999 at 09:27:20:

In Reply to: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by Mike Kramer on January 27, 1999 at 23:16:42:

Mike,
What a great analysis! I admire your analytical prowess. Sadly, I am not gifted in that way, but this discussion does raise a lot of thoughts and questions in my liberal artsy mind.

I found Watson's and Wiley's theories intriguing but ultimately incomplete. Perhaps a less-than-optimal venous blood plasma pH is actually not caused by the wrong diet but by some other factor not being considered. The pH imbalance--and the related health problems--can be CONTROLLED but not CORRECTED by changing one's diet, similarly to the way some food allergies can be controlled--but not corrected--by avoiding the offending food. In that sense, pH is an indicator (i.e., predictor) of how one feels--and may also be CAUSALLY related to at least some health problems. But doesn't this beg the question of WHY one's pH is what it is (especially when you consider metabolic cycling and other apparently idiopathic changes in metabolic type)? Changes in metabolic type appear to be hormonally-triggered events, not just a physical manifestation of rites of passage. To me, the significance of metabolic transitioning and cycling has not been sufficiently explored.

I don't know if any of the above makes any sense. It's very complex, and I am EASILY confused.

Peace






Follow Ups:


Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes?

Posted by Mary Jackson on January 29, 1999 at 11:49:08:

In Reply to: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

Dear Peter,

I would like to see you devote some of your expertise towards juvenile diabetes. So many children are suffering endless "pokes". Some probably get as many as ten a day counting their shots and blood tests. You have an audience and could make a difference in the mentally arrested mentality towards juvenile diabetes. It's beginning to look like my own suspected mercury amalgam poisoning plays some role in the etiology of my daughter's diabetes (perhaps the metabolics if not the actual mercury). She has 3X the high normal amount of candida but her pediatrician won't treat it, because he doesn't recognize the AAL Labs candida immune complexes test as being a valid test that he can work with. I do agree with him that high blood sugars make the candida worse. I told him he ought to look into the yeast. I get frustrated that more people don't direct their energies towards trying to do something to banish juvenile diabetes. Mary J.


Follow Ups:


Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 13:42:27:

In Reply to: Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by vickir on January 29, 1999 at 09:27:20:

Vicki,

In my estimation you are right on the money with your analysis. I stopped believing a long time ago that there were 'absolutes'. Some might suggest that there might be if "all orther things being equal" but when was the last time any of us could say that about a human organism?

I do think that the cycling and transitioning could be pretty well described by the generalities of Chaos Theory. Perhaps what we are seeing is a bifurcation?

Of course what has happened (especially during the last 200 years in America) is a human experiment on a grand scale. NOBODY wants to admit that this experiment (rapid genetic mixing) might have dire results. The 'other' experiment is what happens when humans stop eating whole foods? Dr. Weston Price saw HUGE changes in health and then fertility when he was observing indigenous populations that made SLIGHT changes to their historic diets.

If you haven't read his Nutrition and Physical Degeneration you really should -- I'm sure that you would find it compelling. His insights have been incredibly valuable to me since he witnessed an experiment firsthand.

If you then read the Pottenger Cat Studies you won't be able to sleep at night...........

Bob


Follow Ups:


Re: Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes?

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 14:02:13:

In Reply to: Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes? posted by Mary Jackson on January 29, 1999 at 11:49:08:

Mary,

You need to find a physician that WILL treat your daughter's candidiasis. Why did he even run the test if, when it came back positive, he wouldn't do anything about it??

Of course now that you know that your daughter has candida overload you KNOW that she has leaky gut and you know that she will also have food allergies that cause her to take a much higher dose of insulin. Unfortunately these food allergies are doing a lot more than effecting blood sugar levels alone.

Bob


Follow Ups:


Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT?

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 29, 1999 at 14:35:22:

In Reply to: Re: Dr. D'Adamo - what about the people who don't fit into ER4YT? posted by Bryan on January 28, 1999 at 19:36:57:

Hi, Bryan.

I had not heard that about the different vitamin Es. I would be interested in the research about that.

Walt




Re: Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Aaron Wieland on January 29, 1999 at 14:35:55:

In Reply to: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

Peter,

You say that my main points are very weak. Obviously, I cannot prove that metabolic types are a true polymorphism by pointing to our ignorance of the human genome, but that isn't what I was trying to do. You made an extremely strong claim: Something that significant, doing all those important things... would not have a chance of eluding the kind of scrutiny going on now in molecular genetics. I hope that my discussion of the complexities of human genome research showed why this strong claim is unsupportable.

Regarding Tony's problems with the hunter-gatherer diet, we won't know whether his symptoms are caused by meat consumption (for example) until he runs the elimination diet and determines his allergies. I have no trouble digesting animal protein and fat, but I have a severe allergy to eggs that can leave me feeling weak, spacey, and nauseated. No diet plan can be objectively evaluated until one's food sensitivities have been identified.

The 93% success rate that you report should be viewed with a skeptical eye. You believe that the bias, if any, would be skewed in favour of the naysayers, but I'm not so certain. The Internet is indeed famous for its hostilities, but a guestbook is not necessarily comparable to a discussion forum. The day after Sharon F. posted a message to your board, describing her problems with the Type A diet and success with the H-G diet, she received several e-mails from ER4YT "failures" who had felt too intimidated to mention their problems publicly. I've had similar experiences myself. So, the direction of the bias is far from certain.

The ER4YT plan affects many aspects of an individual's lifestyle. It encourages him to eat more whole foods, to avoid common problem foods (e.g., wheat, milk, corn), and to exercise. I cannot fault such a holistic approach, but the multitude of factors means that an ER4YTer could experience an overall improvement for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability of blood type to predict metabolic type. If someone feels better when he avoids wheat and eats red meat, perhaps he should next try avoiding wheat and restricting red meat; experimentation should be actively encouraged. Too often, I see someone say, "Hey, I'm sensitive to wheat, just like Dr. D'Adamo said. Therefore, the Type O diet must be right for me," or something to that effect. (Type A's sometimes say this too, even though you clearly state that moderate wheat consumption should not be a problem for them.)

Conversely, many ER4YTers do experiment widely, sometimes arriving at a diet that bears little ressemblance to the original recommendations. For example, you surely remember the "Combining the Type A diet with the Zone" threads that continually graced your forum; a lot of Type A's feel a strong need to add more animal protein to their diet. Then, there are the Type O's who restrict themselves to small portions of meat, because they don't feel good when they eat as much protein as you recommend. There are also Type O's who feel better when they eat a much heavier diet than what you suggest, one that includes a moderate amount of fat, and that restricts "Highly Beneficial" high-carb foods such as pineapple, figs, and sweet potatoes. Yet most of these people believe that they are still adhering to the essence of ER4YT. Are these cases successes or failures?

Why am I going to such great lengths to criticize your reported 93% success rate? Because I feel that a distorted view of ER4YT's validity makes it too easy to sweep any problems under the rug. As each exception is encountered, you can dismiss it as an anomaly, making people like Tony feel insignificant when they challenge the blood type diet. Once, after a few Type A's, including myself, reported how much better we felt when we ate a heavier diet than the one you recommended, you mused aloud that we probably had toxic livers that prevented us from digesting carbohydrates properly; our un-Type A diet wasn't really making us feel good, only less worse. I have no problem with such speculation, but you never solicited any feedback from us; you seemed to be more interested in explaining our experiences away, instead of embracing them as an opportunity to learn something new.

There's no need for you to convince us of the effectiveness of a high-protein diet for some people; we "hunter-gatherers" are already well aware of that fact. ;-) What is your reaction when a Type A's formerly high cholesterol reading normalizes after adopting a meat-rich diet? How do you differentiate between a Type A and a Type O who both improve on the same diet?

Metabolic type theory also predicts that certain supplements are good or bad for a particular type. Dr. Watson carefully tested each vitamin or mineral on his subjects, and evaluated its effect on their health. This was how he arrived at the idea of metabolic types. If there is similar evidence that supplements are also ABO-specific, it would be wonderful if this knowledge could be integrated.

How long will Tony have to wait for your new book? Is there any information you could share that would help him now?

Cheers,
-- Aaron


Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 15:15:40:

In Reply to: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

Peter,

When your book came out I was one of the first to get it. I had already been delving into diet (especially the lectin connection) since I was convinced that some foods (most notably grains and milk) were responsible for enteric damage. I had read other work on lectin interactions with human physiology but I was anxious to get your (Naturopathic) take on it.

As you might know I have rheumatoid arthritis. Years ago I realized that food allergies played a part in my symptoms. This simple 'awakening' initiated a search. Why did I have food allergies in the first place?

Leaky gut syndrome came to be the answer.

What were the mechanisms that could be responsible for the INITIAL presentation of leaky gut?

- Hypothalamic overload leading to (among other things) chronic bracing (thanks Dr. Stoll)
- Damage from enteric pathogens (primarily amoebas)
- Enteric damage from specific lectins
- Diet mismatched to inherited metabolism (thanks Dr. Watson and Wiley).

I found that there was a very important link between the latter and amino acid synthesis which would not only impact cellular regeneration in the gut but also the synthesis of other hormones, enzymes, almost everything.

When I first read ER4YT I saw the connections that you were drawing between diet and anthropology. Unfortunately it didn't match what my research showed to be the anthopological record. That's o.k. since even anthropologist hotly debate their disparate theories even today.

Then I looked at the diets and was bothered a bit by the fact that so many fruits were included in the type O diet. The problem I saw is that while the initial Hunter-gatherers no doubt had access to lots of fruits the Hunter-gatherers that we pull from today were quite different. These 'second generation' Hunter-gatherers were forced to migrate from temperate climates to ones that were cold or arid -- and essentially devoid of fruit. Second generation Hunter-gatherers would probably not be well adapted to most fruits -- especially tropical fruits.

Then I started looking at friends and family and immediately found that there wasn't a very strong correlation between blood type and whether someone should be a meat-eater or a vegetarian. It just wasn't there.

As the book became more popular I saw lots of folks reporting improvement (some even though their blood type diet was mismatched to what I knew to be their metabolic needs). They had eliminated some major food allergens (mainly milk and grains) and started eating more whole foods. They felt an immediate improvement. Many contacted me later when they 'hit the wall' and saw they were no longer improving -- some were even backsliding and seeing more symptoms. I would have them test different metabolic diets to prove to themselves that one diet would provide MUCH more energy. Happily they saw improvements (including normalization of blood work) far beyond their initial blood type diet.

Peter, I'm not purposely trying to undermine your theories -- but you have sold close to a million books and there are a lot of 'square blocks out there that you insist on fitting into round holes'. Do you think we should just let them twist in the wind?

You should spend less time using the genome project to defend your theories. I really am perplexed why you seem to think that we have such a good understanding of the workings of the human genome when we don't! At best, in a hundred years we will be STARTING to get our arms around what is really happening.

Finally, the fact that you need to come here (to this BB) to defend yourself speaks volumes. This conversation could help far more folks on your BB, but of course you censor it from any dissenting opinion.

Why?

Bob





Re: Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes?

Posted by Mary Jackson on January 29, 1999 at 17:37:07:

In Reply to: Re: Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes? posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 14:02:13:

Hi Bob,

Thanks for reminding me about the food allergies. I will run that by the endocrinologist when we see her and ask her why they don't check for food allergies. A pretty standard diabetes researcher from Europe told me that food allergies are an important aspect of juvenile diabetes. Susie's pediatrician didn't run the candida test. I had originally planned to ask a Kaiser acupuncturist to get it for me, but she would have had to run it by the doc who was on vacation for two weeks. I got it from her partner who was in private practice and then I left the results for the doctor with brochures, etc. explaining the test. Apparently he never really understood the info. until I had him look up the test results in her chart, etc. I then gave him a diatribe about yeast in the gut and left some material later on a candidiasis protocol. I did have my doctor handle parts of my own candida test. I had him order the kit and I picked it up. I got the blood for the test from the lab and sent it off. He got the results and had someone call me about them, and I asked for the original copy. With a health plan like Kaiser I think you could probably ask them to get whatever test as long as you pay for it yourself. It came out the highest normal value. I then left him material on the correlation between undernormal body temps. and candida. If I get high mercury level results on the hair analysis test I am getting through my dentist I'll inform him about that too. I figure if he can't help ME, I'll educate HIM in whatever way I can to promote change. I just can't tolerate the cluelessness about yeast and the whole picture. Liver function boosting could help. Mary J.


Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Jeff on January 29, 1999 at 19:30:41:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Aaron Wieland on January 29, 1999 at 14:35:55:

Aaron,
I may be wrong, but animosity, bitterness, and resentment is no way to foster open dialogue. One would be well advised to look at the mind body connection as a important factor for health. Our emotions and attitudes can have powerful effects. Doesn't the bible say that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the mouth. Recent responses to D'Adamo's posts were both challenging (How dare you proprose a diet that didn't solve my problem? What are you going to do about it?) and full of animosity. If the messenger be an ant heed him. Let's foster an attitude of openess and dialogue. We are all here to learn from each other




Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 20:23:08:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Jeff on January 29, 1999 at 19:30:41:

Jeff,

I think that Aaron has asked a number of valid questions without animosity. It just seems that there aren't many direct answers - just a bunch of rhetoric.

Why don't you ask Dr. D to "foster an attitude of openess and dialogue" on his BB which sadly is routinely censored to erase dissenting opinions. Remind him "We are all here to learn from each other". Your exact words........

Bob



Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and numbers

Posted by Tony on January 29, 1999 at 22:46:47:

In Reply to: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

Dr. D'Adamo,

First of all, thanks for getting back to us! My friend Bryan and I were discussing today how we thought you abandoned us. We're glad you came back. But it's ashame that we can only contact you on this board, not on your own!

Anyway, I thought your answers were very interesting. But you got one thing wrong - I'm a type A. According to your father, I am a type A with strong B tendencies, something that I had posted asking you about many times on your board, but never got a response. Bryan and I are very interested in finding out the differences between the way your father and you approached the blood type diet. Since it was something I believed in, and the diet your father gave me didn't seem to be too effective, I was going to try and come to your office in Connecticut (I'm on Long Island), but I never could get a response from you about whether you thought you would have anything different to do than your father.

Well, I'm sorry I got a little carried away, but since I finally got a hold of you I thought I would just tell you everything I've wanted to for a long time.

By the way, all of the people for whom the ABO diet doesn't seem to work for (I'm not sure I'm one) just have to suffer until your book comes out? That seems kind of harsh, coming from a Naturopath. Is there going to be anything in there to help us, or are we just going to be told to find another diet system?

Thanks for everything.

Tony



Re: OUTSTANDING DISCUSSION (Just sort out the personal stuff.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 30, 1999 at 10:22:42:

In Reply to: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 29, 1999 at 07:33:23:

Friends.

You are ALL right. 100 years from now we may begin to really understand all this. For now we need to realize that humans are MUCH too complex for any one way to be THE ANSWER for everyone.

We all need all the input we can get. As the famous wise man once said: "EVERYBODY IS SMARTER THAN ANYBODY!" Think about it.

Namaste` to you all, Walt




Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 30, 1999 at 10:37:27:

In Reply to: Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by vickir on January 29, 1999 at 09:27:20:

Dear vickier,

Please see my note today in response to the FOSnote by Peter D'Adamo. You are right & I think there is an answer to your confusion----at least as much of an answer as the rest of us have available to us.

Walt




The Neurochemical Rollercoaster

Posted by Mary Jackson on January 30, 1999 at 11:13:47:

In Reply to: Re: Peter, Could You Write about Juvenile Diabetes? posted by Mary Jackson on January 29, 1999 at 17:37:07:

P.S. I've been thinking about the mercury in the teeth thing--it's just more impetus for the neurochemical roller coaster (sugar, refined carbs, chocolate, and worse things like alcohol, coffee, cigarettes, etc. are involved--I don't indulge in the latter three, thankfully and try to control the first three ). The mercury affects serotonin, etc. I think diabetic kids are maybe on this roller coaster (and for SURE autistic kids--I've seen this first hand and what their parents feed them.) I don't know how it goes from mother to child in utero exactly, but it must. I will get my own copy of Potatoes not Prozac and work it out. It's basically the same as a whole foods diet.
You keep a food diary though and record various things such as timing and how you feel. It doesn't talk about mercury that I recall but it factors in. The sugar whaps the teeth first and then the dentist starts doing 'em in with the amalgam. My second dentist made sure the whole tooth surface was covered securely. I'm reading a book about glutathione called The GSH Phenomenon by Alan Pressman. Glutathione is reduced in mercury situations and is especially evident when a person has cataracts (my dad did). My mother had her amalgams replaced many years ago and has outlived my father by 20 years--I think she could still have a higher yeast level though (she feeds that with raisin bran and milk). I keep thinking of "We Shall Overcome"! Mary J.


Follow Ups:


Re: The Neurochemical Rollercoaster

Posted by Walt Stoll on January 31, 1999 at 10:24:39:

In Reply to: The Neurochemical Rollercoaster posted by Mary Jackson on January 30, 1999 at 11:13:47:

Thanks, Mary.

It all fits together, somehow. This is what is called "seeing the forest for the trees". It is a long road but I will bet we are closer to the end of it 100 years from now than we are now.

The AMA has held back this understanding for 100 years for their own selfish purposes. It is time for THAT to be over!

Namaste` Walt



Follow Ups:


Re: Y2.1K

Posted by Jim on January 31, 1999 at 11:17:16:

In Reply to: Is ER4RT same as Metabolic Diet? posted by Mark Lindsay on January 25, 1999 at 23:35:20:

Mark,

What a fantastic chain of discussion and rhetoric you spawned here. I cannot resist jumping in with my uneducated, ignorant personal opinions, even though we are far down on the BB by now.

To continue my disclaimer, I am humbled by the magic and complexity of things. Yup, things. Like how things work. How bumpkin-like of me, huh?

To the esteemed participants: It is amusing to read the undertones of pride and prejudice in the scientific psalms being sung on this string; Physiology Pharisees in a restrained and gentlemanly pissing contest, and I say this with the utmost respect for your knowledge and your words, which I can understand not all. I don’t blame you for my barely understanding.

You have invoked the future to bolster your arguments. Good idea. None of us will be around in a hundred years to see if you are right anyway, (unless life extension makes great bounds forward, and right away) I think, in a hundred years, ER4RT, metabolic type, current gene knowledge and all the rest may hold a place not unlike we hold alchemy today. Of course, there are those who hold that Alchemy is still a valid source of spiritual projection, even today. Perhaps your theories will one day be held as a reliable road map of the soul as well, rather than accurate descriptions of material reality. Am I getting too far out here?

You are all dedicated, intelligent, and caring scientists and healers who have done so much good. I hope you can see that sometimes you are like big overgrown naughty boys, and overly serious. I think Soupy Sails could serve as a good example for us. He would hop on his Krebscycle and ride over there and put cream pies in all your faces.

Come on, lighten up.

Jim




Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by vickir on February 01, 1999 at 08:17:12:

In Reply to: Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 13:42:27:

Bob,
A few random observations: I haven't read Dr Price's book (only parts of it quoted elsewhere), but I would expect his indigenous populations to have had relatively less varied and more stable genetic makeup than that of the cosmopolitan, world-traveling populace that predominates in today's world. If that is true, then greater sensitivity in those indigenous populations to changes in diet would not be surprising. Perhaps genetic mixing actually has some protective value against what might otherwise be lethal exposure to unfamiliar foods. (Nothing in my genetic background, for instance, prepared me for raw sea urchin.) At the level of the individual, of course, one would expect to see some less-than-optimal coming-together of genes. In an earlier day and age, those individuals would more than likely have died young and not have reproduced.
Vicki


Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and a drawing

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 01, 1999 at 11:49:13:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Aaron Wieland on January 29, 1999 at 14:35:55:

Aaron,

My post was originally to dispute the assertion posted on this board that blood type does not influence metabolism. Second to that, I wanted to broach the subject of a lack of credible genetic proof that Watson/Wiley polymorphisms actually do exist.

However, since them, the discussion appears to have changed. It is now:

'What about the people who don't respond to ER4YT'?

Which is OK (see prior post and below*), but in the midst of a lot of rhetoric, I am still asking:

1.) Why is it being said on this board that blood type doesn't influence metabolism? and,

2.) Where's the fast oxidizer gene?

Frankly, I have nothing against the Watson (who I read in the late 1970's) Wiley (who I read in the mi-1980's) theories other than that they are not true polymorphisms. I am certain that they identify viable syndromes and their interventions are effective. But that is not the criteria for a metabolic typing system, and I doubt you would find any scientist willing to say it is.


*ER4YT AS A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE
The blood type diet is now so huge (900,000 copies hardcover; the paperback will eventually ship anywhere from 6-15 times that amount) and so worldwide (34 languages) that it can be viewed as a worldwide public health measure. The website alone gets about 25,000 hits per day. Obviously with numbers like that, it is not going to be very difficult to find people who say that the diet didn't work for them. There is no such thing as a perfect public health measure. Even as low a percentage as 7-10% non-responders represents a large number of people (about the size of the Super Bowl audience). On the other hand, 14-17 Super Bowl audiences have had the diet work for them.

It would be simplistic and dangerous to think that every single human health issue is going to have some element of polymorphism to it. The best we can hope for is that about 25-30 percent of one's overall health picture is individualized to their blood type or some other polymorphism. I tried to explain this in ER4YT by saying, for example, "that despite evidence that type A gets more lung cancer than the other types, if you smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, you are probably going to get lung cancer regardless of your blood type."

Remember that children's game were you had to toggle a board, so allowing a marble to drop through a certain hole? I think it is a good model of how blood type influences succeptibility. I've schematically depicted it in the graphic. Just think of the blue lines as the path of the marble (from top to bottom) as 'disease'. Each element (genetics, etc) has certain 'holes' or 'gates' through which the disease marble my 'fall'. Some you can change, some you cannot.


Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and a picture

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 01, 1999 at 12:19:41:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and numbers posted by Robert McFerran on January 29, 1999 at 20:23:08:

Robert,

I've not 'routinely censored dissenting opinions'. A quick visit there will disclose there are plenty of those on the board and in the archives. I think we should distinguish a "dissenting" post from a "flaming" or disrespectful post. Problem is, many times these 'latter opinions' just result in long, tedious flame wars and eventually just tire everyone out. This by the way is not unique to any one board.

The ER4YT board is not a general purpose, all-topic board, like Walts. It is there to give people way to support themselves while trying the ER4YT diet. If a person posts a concern or has a problem, why would it get removed? That is what the board is there for!

If you have a dissenting opinion, why would you be there?



Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts and a picture

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 01, 1999 at 13:16:42:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a picture posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 01, 1999 at 12:19:41:

Peter,

My dissenting opinion comes from the knowledge that ER4YT is metabolically inappropriate for many people.

In the past I've only offered my opinion on your BB when I see someone that is struggling with a specific diet. Aaron is a good example. Here was a guy that was applying your blood type A diet and wasn't getting results -- in fact he might have been doing worse. He was asking for help/support and then a storm of answers came back to him -- give it time (it takes 3 months to see results), you are having a 'healing crisis', try combining the A diet with THE ZONE recommendations.

Of course all this input came from other board members that had success with their type A diet. Of course they couldn't understand why Aaron was having problems. I DID understand why he was having problems.

I didn't start blurting out that ER4YT was not an absolute (as many of the folks on the BB would like to believe) rather I asked Aaron some questions that would give me insight to his inherited metabolic needs. Aaron was not anxious to 'blow out his arteries' with the high fat, high purine diet that I was proposing so I introduced him to the LOGIC behind what I was proposing. I also turned him on to the work of Drs. Watson and Wiley. Finally after a lot of study he actually experimented with what to him was a huge dietary change. I'll let him comment on the results.

Of course I'm not going to come to your board and try to displace ER4YT theory for the folks that are doing well. I COULDN'T change their minds -- and I don't want to. BUT what about the folks like Aaron (and Tony)?

Will you let someone offer something else that will help them -- even if it flies in the face of your ER4YT theories? No 'flaming' here.

You said "If you have a dissenting opinion, why would you be there?"

To help and to learn.

How about it Peter? You might learn something too -- for your next book......

Bob




Re: Some thoughts and a drawing

Posted by Aaron Wieland on February 01, 1999 at 14:21:26:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a drawing posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 01, 1999 at 11:49:13:

Peter,

I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of the drawing and associated explanation. Surely, we all agree that health is influenced by a multitude of factors -- genetic, lifestyle, and otherwise.

I don't mind you pointing out the lack of concrete evidence that metabolic type is a true polymorphism. But that's very different from asserting that such a polymorphism cannot exist.

ER4YT is indeed very popular. That is precisely why it is so important to maximize its usefulness, partly by soliciting detailed feedback from others -- especially those people who have experienced significant problems. It goes without saying that, if the 7-10% failure rate is an underestimation, this becomes even more important.

I am puzzled by your repeated emphasis on genetic polymorphisms. In the end, while searching for a good diet, it comes down to the following question: Does this diet improve my health? If the blood type diet works for someone, that's great. If it doesn't, she should try something else. This simple approach is more sensible and scientific, in my opinion, than basing one's choices on esoteric medical research that may or may not have any direct bearing on one's health. Do Type A's produce less stomach acid than Type O's? On average, it appears they do. Does this mean I shouldn't eat much meat? I don't know; there are so many other factors to consider. Am I one of those Type A's who produces relatively little stomach acid? I don't know; the only way to learn how I react to meat is to experiment.

If a Type O tries the blood type diet and feels awful, but feels great on a vegetarian diet (e.g., he has more energy, and his weight, cholesterol, and blood sugar normalize), what do you say? "I'm sorry, but I cannot support your diet, because we know that Type O's need red meat; therefore, you are merely treating the symptoms of a syndrome, which cannot possibly be healthy for you in the long term?" Or do you continue to perform increasingly expensive and specialized blood tests, until you find some permutation of traits that seems to explain the alleged anomaly? I would sincerely like to know how you would approach such a scenario.

Cheers,
-- Aaron


Follow Ups:


I Could Give the ADA and the Food Industry a Smack in the Chops

Posted by Mary Jackson on February 01, 1999 at 15:12:25:

In Reply to: Re: The Neurochemical Rollercoaster posted by Walt Stoll on January 31, 1999 at 10:24:39:

Hi Walt,

I got to a place of understanding I needed to reach (but of course, whole new doors are opened--the tip of the iceberg phenomenon as you say). I would like to know how these things all weigh out (poisons like mercury, fractioned foods, lectins, ancestral patterns, etc.). I think I could use a metal allergy test (I'm investigating the MELISA test) as well as a hair analysis test). I'll keep working these things out! Thanks for the comments. Mary J.



Follow Ups:


Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work.

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 01, 1999 at 17:31:06:

In Reply to: Re: Wiley is predictive. If he's wrong it could only be because his approach doesn't work. posted by vickir on February 01, 1999 at 08:17:12:

Vicki,

Undoubtably genetic purity leads to frailty of a sort. You are quite correct about the indigenous peoples observed by Dr. Price. SLIGHT variations in diet resulted in HUGE changes in health.

A bit of genetic mixing is no doubt a good thing -- providing sort of a buffering against change. I'm not sure what the results of successive generations of mixing will yield.

Bob



P.S. The metal allergy test is $500

Posted by Mary Jackson on February 01, 1999 at 18:06:28:

In Reply to: I Could Give the ADA and the Food Industry a Smack in the Chops posted by Mary Jackson on February 01, 1999 at 15:12:25:

Hi Walt,

Scratch the MELISA metal allergy test--they send it to Sweden, etc. I don't want to know if I'm allergic to mercury that bad!!! Mary



Re: Some thoughts and a drawing

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 01, 1999 at 21:59:15:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a drawing posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 01, 1999 at 11:49:13:

Peter,

Shortly after ER4YT came out and your site was up I asked you if you were familiar with Dr. Watson and Wiley's work. I was anxious to see hear your critique of their work.

Your reply came back that you had never heard of them. I think I printed the response and might still have it somewhere in my 'food file'.....

That was o.k. with me since while I've tried to read EVERYTHING that I can about humans and food I'm sure that there will be things that slip between the cracks. Watson and Wiley's work certainly never made the best-seller list so I could see how they might have avoided your scrutiny.

Now that you claim that you had Watson and Wiley's books under your belt for some 14 years can you tell me where their ideas failed? How many patients did you test with their different metabolic diets? How many venous blood plasma pH's did you or any of your Naturopathic colleagues at Bastyr take? How did you resolve the metabolic cycling phenomenon that Wiley observed in pre-menopausal women?

Wow, a website that get 25,000 hits a day and about 60 new messages a day. One might infer that folks interested in blood type diets can't type......

Just kidding of course. Congratulations on the ever growing, sweeping success of ER4YT. When folks ask me what is the best book written on diet I always say ER4YT and BioBalance. ER4YT for the concept of lectin intolerance and BioBalance for metabolic subset, metabolic cycling and shifting.

Bob


Follow Ups:


Re: specific nature of polymorphisms

Posted by Kyra on February 01, 1999 at 22:24:35:

In Reply to: Sorry Bob, but I disagree posted by Peter D'Adamo on January 26, 1999 at 20:18:28:


Peter,

As to polymorphisms: given that new ones are being discovered as genetics research becomes more complex, why wouldn't it be possible for Wiley's and Watson's work be attributable to heretofore undiscovered polymorphisms? Linkage analysis carries much inherent risk of imprecision given the amount of human eyeball-to-data analysis required to verify results, even along with the assistance of automatic gene sequencers. One inaccurately labeled sequence and phhht... RFLPs. Taq and Alu polymorphisms. Surely we're not going to stop there. New data may yet verify metabolic typing as per Watson or Wiley.

Kyra




I'm waiting for the FINAL answer to this :-)

Posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on February 02, 1999 at 07:48:40:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a drawing posted by Robert McFerran on February 01, 1999 at 21:59:15:

Having never read ERFYT or any of the similar blood type/diet books, I don't follow this thread too closely. The diagram was colorful, I liked it, whether I understood what was being discussed or not. With some different labels and some arrows to signify some inputs from different players, it might make a fun marble game. :-)

When you guys get it all figured out, could someone please post a two (or three, at the most) paragraph summary of the final answer to "What we should eat". Then I'll just read that :-)

RocketHealer (Lazybones!) Jim++


Follow Ups:


LOL:-) ô¿ô

Posted by Tony on February 02, 1999 at 15:15:39:

In Reply to: I'm waiting for the FINAL answer to this :-) posted by RocketHealer Jim++ on February 02, 1999 at 07:48:40:

Well said Jim!




Re: Some thoughts about your response (correct format)

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 02, 1999 at 17:03:26:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a drawing posted by Robert McFerran on February 01, 1999 at 21:59:15:

If my HTML is correct, Bob's statements are in regular text and mine are in italics:

"Shortly after ER4YT came out and your site was up I asked you if you were familiar with Dr. Watson and Wiley's work. I was anxious to see hear your critique of their work. Your reply came back that you had never heard of them. I think I printed the response and might still have it somewhere in my 'food file'....."

I'd be interested in seeing your copy of the reply sometime. My original paper on blood type in the late 1970's written at Bastyr College speculated that blood type might have a link to oxidizer status. It is still on file in the library there...

"That was o.k. with me since while I've tried to read EVERYTHING that I can about humans and food I'm sure that there will be things that slip between the cracks. Watson and Wiley's work certainly never made the best-seller list so I could see how they might have avoided your scrutiny."

But they hadn't...

"Now that you claim that you had Watson and Wiley's books under your belt for some 14 years can you tell me where their ideas failed?"

I never say they did. I just said they were not a polymorphism.

"How many patients did you test with their different metabolic diets? How many venous blood plasma pH's did you or any of your Naturopathic colleagues at Bastyr take? How did you resolve the metabolic cycling phenomenon that Wiley observed in pre-menopausal women?"

Bob, I don't research Wiley's work. I research D'Adamo's work. My original reason for responding to your original post was to dispute your claim that blood type does not determine metabolic functions, not to prove that Wiley or Watson's work is wrong, other than not being a true polymorphism. The former is important to me because you are in a position of responsibility on Walt's website. The latter is less important, but worth dialoging about.

"Wow, a website that get 25,000 hits a day and about 60 new messages a day. One might infer that folks interested in blood type diets can't type......"

Many more people go to the site to order the blood typing kit than to use the message boards.

"Just kidding of course. Congratulations on the ever growing, sweeping success of ER4YT. When folks ask me what is the best book written on diet I always say ER4YT and BioBalance. ER4YT for the concept of lectin intolerance and BioBalance for metabolic subset, metabolic cycling and shifting."

Thank you, and good luck on your own book.


Follow Ups:


Great Smokies Sent My Dentist a Big Binder of Info.

Posted by Mary Jackson on February 02, 1999 at 17:08:05:

In Reply to: The Neurochemical Rollercoaster posted by Mary Jackson on January 30, 1999 at 11:13:47:

Hi Walt,

I think I made a good choice with Great Smokies. My dentist asked for some info. with the hair analysis test, and he got a big binder. He found it quite interesting. After the dentist I went to the health food grocers and looked at the things touted for mercury detox like Dentox (homeopathic), ProAlgen, glutathione, and essiac. Also liver cleanses like Bupleurum (Chinese herb) and milk thistle. I'm prepping in case the merc. level is high. A person posted something amazing to the amalgam list about having DMPS (chemical mercury chelator) injected right into his thyroid. It raised his body temperature a couple of degrees towards normal. I'm sure my HMO would have a cow over that one! Mary J.



Re: A small thought

Posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 02, 1999 at 17:13:47:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts and a drawing posted by Aaron Wieland on February 01, 1999 at 14:21:26:

"If a Type O tries the blood type diet and feels awful, but feels great on a vegetarian diet (e.g., he has more energy, and his weight,
cholesterol, and blood sugar normalize), what do you say? "I'm sorry, but I cannot support your diet, because we know that Type O's
need red meat; therefore, you are merely treating the symptoms of a syndrome, which cannot possibly be healthy for you in the long
term?" Or do you continue to perform increasingly expensive and specialized blood tests, until you find some permutation of traits that
seems to explain the alleged anomaly? I would sincerely like to know how you would approach such a scenario."


Aaron,

The answer is right on my website, courtesy of Steve Shapiro:


Q: I home-tested as a Type O Negative, which I plan to reconfirm at a lab.
Since I have been a lacto vegetarian for 26 years for religious reasons,
naturally I was horrified. I believe firmly in my choice of spiritual path, and
also believe in the validity of the ER4YT diets. I have spent over an hour
searching the indexes for advice on how to mange within these parameters.
Will avoiding the negative foods and supplementing with protein powder
suffice? To give you a better picture of my personal health situation, it has
been just the last 3 years that I have not felt well. I pulled out of chronic
fatigue with acupuncture and chinese herbs; I lost 20 pounds this year due to
digestive problems & stress, and I was already thin (tested negative for
leukemia or diabetes); I have become increasingly allergic to wheat & coffee;
and I never feel rested, am chronically constipated and have no extra energy
to exercise. I cannot, and will not eat meat, fish, fowl, or anything that
contains them, and I LOVE tofu. What's a spiritual girl to do?


A: Steve Shapiro has a nice way of responding to this very common dilemma:

"Always remember that it's your body, and ultimately up to you
to decide what to eat or not eat. If you'll take the time to go back
through the archives of this board, you will find posts relating to
this subject. Basically, you have these options:

1) Choose to eat flesh foods

2) Avoid flesh foods & type O avoid veggies/beans/fruits/etc.
Pick your diet from the Type O OK beans, veggies, dairy (if you
eat that), fruits etc.

2a) Supplement appropriately

3) Continue eating from the wide variety of vegetarian (dairy or
not) foods that you have been choosing from, and come back to
this question again should your health start to deteriorate. If it
does not deteriorate, and you stay healthy, then the subject is
moot. "


In summary:

"Vis Medicatrix Naturae...Anyway You Can, baby."

Peter




Follow Ups:


Re: Some thoughts about your response (correct format)

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 02, 1999 at 21:25:27:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts about your response (correct format) posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 02, 1999 at 17:03:26:

Peter,

I keep telling myself that I've gotta learn that HTML stuff so I can post appropriately for these complex discussions.

I think that we've come completely full circle on this one.

Basically by saying "Bob, I don't research Wiley's work. I research D'Adamo's work" -- you infer that you don't care whether venous blood plasma pH is better at predicting inherited metabolism than blood type. Am I hearing you right on this one?

Did you dismiss Wiley's work out of hand simply because he had a Ph.D. in biophysics not Naturopathic medicine or was it because he wasn't in your family?

I still don't think that blood type is indicative of inherited metabolism. I don't believe that an associated genetic polymorphism predicting metabolic needs has been validated via ABO blood type. There is obviously a positive correlation but little beyond that. Maybe you will find the real genetic indicator in the future.

When folks ask me what is the conections between the metabolic diets and the blood type diets I'll have to continue saying "none".

The problem here is that folks come to this BB and want to know what diet I think that they should try. I suggest (after a series of questions) a diet appropriate for one of the three metabolic subsets. They can then PROVE to themselves that this is their BEST diet by testing against the other diets. In the end their BEST diet is the one that delivers the most energy. They can FEEL it with their mind/body.

What good does it do to advise folks to eat based on a blood type diet when I know full well that it will be wrong over 25% - 35% of the time? There is no room for the mind/body interpretations of the individual.

Rocket Healer Jim and Tony listen up! Help Peter and I by answering the following question.

Would you rather eat based on a perceived genetic polymorphism (that has a limited association with inherited metabolism) or Watson/Wiley's algorithm (that has a strong one)?

Would you prefer to trust a questionable absolute or your own mind/body?

Bob

algorithm


Follow Ups:


A slight rephrasing

Posted by Aaron Wieland on February 02, 1999 at 23:18:03:

In Reply to: Re: A small thought posted by Peter D'Adamo on February 02, 1999 at 17:13:47:

Thank you for the response, Peter. However, you answered a somewhat different question from the one I was trying to ask. My question wasn't, "How can someone follow the blood type diet without compromising his beliefs?" -- it was, "What do you do if a patient's health worsens when she follows the blood type diet, and improves considerably when she adopts a radically different diet?"

There's a concrete example of what I'm talking about at the link below. Unfortunately, many posts are archived on that page. Search for the post "Experience with Elimination/Metabolic diet," by Linda Hynds.

Cheers,
-- Aaron



Follow Ups:

A better link

Posted by Aaron Wieland on February 03, 1999 at 00:49:45:

In Reply to: A slight rephrasing posted by Aaron Wieland on February 02, 1999 at 23:18:03:

I hate to make people wade through the archives to find the post I mentioned. So, I extracted the message, and FTPed it to my (actually non-existent) website. If you click on the link below, you will be taken directly to Linda's post.

Cheers,
-- Aaron




Answered the best I could...

Posted by Tony on February 04, 1999 at 00:24:38:

In Reply to: Re: Some thoughts about your response (correct format) posted by Robert McFerran on February 02, 1999 at 21:25:27:

Rob,

If I could understand the technical stuff of what you and Dr. D'Adamo are discussing I could give you a better answer. If I knew what you meant by ABO having a limited association with inherited metabolism, and Wiley having a strong one, then maybe I'd know what to say.

What I can say, is that although Dr. D'Adamo's system may not seem to work for everyone, I think it helps a huge percentage of people, and I have no idea what the percentage of the Wiley system is. So I really don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be so confused myself. I even feel that one diet may seem to help me in my extremely ill state, but may not be right once my health 'normalizes'. (For example, a H/G diet for an extreme hypoglycemic.)

Both of you are trying to help people, so how can anyone find any fault with that? I think I would definitely be inclined to try out a questionable absolute first. But In the end, I think it comes down to what makes you feel the best. As long as you learn to listen to your body and know what that is!

Tony


Follow Ups:


Re: Answered the best I could...

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 04, 1999 at 11:41:00:

In Reply to: Answered the best I could... posted by Tony on February 04, 1999 at 00:24:38:

Tony,

We all try the 'absolutes' first -- even though in the back of our mind we KNOW that things probably aren't that simple.

Once you learn how to listen to your mind/body you'll appreciate any system that allows you experiment and find what is best for you.

As far as percentages go I've never found a person that did not fall into one of Dr. Watson's metabolic subsets. In other words one of the three diets would yield more energy than the other two. You of course have to put in the work to determine that. The percentages are higher than ER4YT because YOU make it work.

While you might seem that you are more EXTREME when you are sick -- in all probability you will remain within the your metabolic subset (albeit less extreme) when you get well. The only exceptions that I know of is after chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant.

In the end this is all philosophical. Do you want to figure out what works best for you or do you want someone to tell you what works best for you?

Folks that are ill have a MUCH MORE SENSITIVE GAUGE of what works and what doesn't since they don't have much in the way of immunological reserves to 'buffer' their symptoms. Tony, take advantage of this fact.

Bob


Follow Ups:


Re: Answered the best I could...

Posted by Bill on February 06, 1999 at 12:34:13:

In Reply to: Re: Answered the best I could... posted by Robert McFerran on February 04, 1999 at 11:41:00:

I've been following the discussion... I haven't read ER4YT.

Seems to me that ER4YT is a happy compromise between the allopathic and traditional approaches. A diet based on blood type is simple and easy to understand, kinda like taking a pill. A diet based on metabolic type is harder and requires thought and experimentation.

Since ER4YT is effective for most people (75%?) it seems a good starting point. However, it should be acknowledged that other approaches that involve more work on the patients' parts exist, and may prove more effective. It sounds like this is the admission that Bob is trying to get from Peter.

Meanwhile, ER4YT is getting millions to see the effect diet has on health, helping shift the responsibility for health more onto the shoulders of individuals rather than doctors.

Bill


Follow Ups:


Re: Answered the best I could...

Posted by Robert McFerran on February 06, 1999 at 21:36:24:

In Reply to: Re: Answered the best I could... posted by Bill on February 06, 1999 at 12:34:13:

Bill,

Thanks for a succinct and accurate synopsis of this thread.

You bring up the good point that when trying to measure the effectiveness of any dietary regimine it is important to understand the sub-group of individuals that are reporting the results.

Dr. Barry Sears claims the effectiveness of THE ZONE is very high. Yet he was not working with folks that were chronically ill. Instead he was using college athletes as test subjects. These college students with typical college diets would seemingly be able to increase performance with almost ANY dietary regimine.

ER4YT has found an audience of folks that are relatively healthy as well as some that are chronically ill.

When Dr. Wiley and Watson were doing their work ALL of their test subjects had chronic illness. Regaining health of these patients was a high bar to hurdle.

Bob



Return to Dr Stoll Home Page

Post a Message

Main Archives Page

More Metabolic Type and ER4YT Diets archives