Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Digestive Health Support Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have you read the book, Flux? It is not a diet. It is a suggested way of eating and not intended to be a weight loss diet, if that is what you are referring to. It covers a lot of physical problems. I have talked to two drs. about it and they believe that it has merit. I don't follow it strictly, but follow some of the the guidelines. AND my IBS has improved immensely - episodes less frequent and less severe. Conincidence, maybe. However, I would not classify it as a "fad" diet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,398 Posts
This is exactly what a fad diet is. Generally, an author of questionable credentials comes up with a pseudoscientific hypothesis to base a diet on. In this case, it's the nutty idea that the foods one should eat need to correspond to one's blood type. From there, it's often whatever fits the author's fancy.If you check Amazon.com, you'll see a never-ending supply of testimonials of how this diet has helped people. But in reality, some are not really sick to begin with, some are sick but simply benefit from a change in diet (e.g, IBS), some are sick, but just get better (e.g., placebo, spontaneous remission).Over the long-term, these diets are not healthy and that can catch up on the body.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I gotta agree with flux on this one. Most health professionals scoff at the notion of eating for blood type. Check out Quack Watch for further, accurate information. I STILL think the best diet is a variety of foods, heavy on fruis and vegies and small portions.Carlene (the one in San Diego!)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
If you read the book you will see that each diet consists of a variety of all food groups, it simply tells you which choices are best in each group for your blood type. For instance, broccoli might be a better choice for me than for you, whereas cauliflower might work better for you. If goes through the groups and suggests beneficial, neutral or poor choices in each. Wheat seems to be a real no-no for me, by experience, and coincidentally by blood type. I don't find anything contradictory in the book to anything that I have read about nutrition. I am a 64 year-old woman and I will compare my BP, heartrate, general health and physical appearance to anyone 1/2 my age. I think I must be doing something right.Also, in the book, if you read it, you will see that the recommended portions are those that are recommended by nutrition experts, including Weight Watchers, which is recommended by every medical person I have ever talked to. Notice I didn't say Drs. in particular, because most doctors are sadly lacking in nutrition training. I believe that younger doctors are now receiving such training.[This message has been edited by gal4 (edited 03-26-99).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,398 Posts
As I mentioned, the diet is based on the author's imagination. That is pretty ludicrous compared to principles of nutritional science.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I kind of agree with flux on this one, but in a surprising way. In principle, I think that the idea of eating certain target foods for your blood type might be the right idea. However, I'm really at a loss as to how anyone, scientist or not, could actually figure out what food groups would be compatible without some serious research and testing on a large sample of each of the blood types. From what little I have read about this book, it seems to me that the author is just using stereotypes of what our ancestors were like to guess these foods. For example: in the past year or so, we have learned a lot about the Neanderthals, and have discovered that they weren't the dullard semi-monkeys that had been common knowledge. In the same way, the author is probably wrong in his assumptions about ancestral blood types and their environments.Another reason that I think the basic idea has merit is that there are a number of adaptations that the different races have made to make life liveable in their environments. Sickle-cell anemia comes to mind (combats malaria, I think), and there's a jewish adaptation that I can't recall right now. Many people are lactose intolerant, which is probably not a random adaptation. I'm sure there are many others. (BTW, I don't mean to imply that any race is less than another due to the fact that some of its members may or may not have a particular adaptation to their ancestral environment.)Anyway, to sum up my feelings on the matter, the idea sounds like it might have merit, but I just don't think that the author of the book did enough research to be credible. Now, if we could just find out what kind of adaptation IBS is.
bob
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
So, Flux, you are quite the naysayer. I have not been on the board long and I have learned that much about you. Exactly what are your credentials? Your profile tells me nothing. Others see you as a wannabe doctor according to what I have read. Have you ever given any support to any of these people or do you just blow holes in any theory that might prove helpful? Do you have or have you ever had IBS? I think some of these people would resent your telling them that they are not sick. I have had IBS, and believe it or not, I am managing it. Doctors have been no help at all. It has taken a good deal of detective work on my part. Share something worthwhile with these people or shut up.PS-What exactly is your physical and mental condition?[This message has been edited by gal4 (edited 03-26-99).]
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Musem IBS is our adaption to the times that surround us...or... maybe that lack of adaptiation????LOL HMMM....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,398 Posts
OK. Bob, I will try to do a full present on this one...You are correct about the sickle cell/malaria connection, but with regard to blood types, science has found no use for them thus far, other than to make things difficult when someone needs a blood transfusion. The blood types are just glycoprotein antigens that sit on the surface of the red blood cell. There are many sets of such antigens, but the important ones we are using to see commonly is the ABO system. A person can have either the A, B, both (AB) or neither (O) antigens presented. (Rh is another common one.)Just by themselves, these antigens do nothing that we know about. However, people with A antigen have anti-B antibodies in their blood and people with B antigen have anti-A antibodies in their blood. People with AB have none and people with O have both. These antibodies are the ones get involved if the wrong antigen is delivered by way of receiving someone else's blood cells and the cause the antibodies to literally jump all over the invading blood cells. That in turn clumps up the red blood cells and destroys them. This is a rather unpleasant experience.According to his D�Adamo bizzare theory, lectins on the surface of food molecules are supposed to act on the blood antigens just the antibodies are. So supposedly, if you eat the wrong food for your type, you'd suffer a similar reaction.You are also correct about where he gets the actual diet from. It really sounds a variation of the paleolithic type diets, which basically postulate that people in the long past never got sick with the diseases of today and that was due to their diet. This is really a "clever" way to mask and sell this type of diet, I think.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Like I said, Flux, if you can't be any help you shouldn't waste people's time. I haven't heard anything helpful from you yet.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Flux what about my question? I am serious.what are theprinciples of nutrition science?Love Pattee[This message has been edited by Pattee (edited 03-26-99).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,398 Posts
It's pretty hard to summarize a whole field of study in a single post, but basically, we need to eat what will provide the energy requirements to live while at same time, not putting ourselves in harm's way. Years of study have led to development of dietary guidelines for this purpose. You can find good specific information at http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/ .
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks Flux.I willcheckit out .I do check out your helpful postings.As new to the internet as I am,I appreciated oh whats the word... the links you put in for web page sites .You rather intrigue me sometimes.Love Pattee
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Gezzzzzz, Flux get a damm life and stop beating stuff down with your Know it all typing. I am glad I don't come here often any more ! Your a real jerk and put down everything that is said to you.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Flux I skimmed thru it.Suspected it woulbe the same info I have from my nutritionist considering I go to an Air Force hospital.Thanks agian Love Pattee
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Flux et al:I was watching either TLC or TDC the other night, and the narrator was saying that there are about 3 genes mutated per generation by calculation. (Sorry, I don't know how they did the calculation.) However, they were only able to actually account for about 1.6 genes per generation. These 1.6 generally were harmless changes to a protein. Then didn't mention any percentage for the mutations that actually were beneficial, but I imagine it's spectacularly low
. They speculated that the other 1.4 were lost due the inability to procreate. Considering what you said about blood types, perhaps sometime in the past, these fell into the 1.6 range as random changes. IOW, they made a change to a protein, but didn't, generally, kill us. Perhaps, as you say, the different blood types are not an adaptational change. Thanks for all the info.To gal4 and all the others out there who can't help but spew their mindless venom everytime flux posts something they don't understand: Chill, go back to school, read a book, learn some social skills. You don't have to act like an ass to disagree with someone.bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,398 Posts
That number sounds kind of high, so I found this page ( http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.html , which looks authoritative, and it seems to be saying the rate is 1 x 10e-6 per gene. Coincidentally, that's the same number as you had with the "10e-" added.That page further says this adds up to 1 chance in 10 that each zygote has a single mutation somewhere. This means 9 zygotes have no mutation at all.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top