I really liked the idea of the blood type diet when I first read D'Amado's book. As with the low-carb theory, it seems correct because it's so simple and elegant. But to quote Thomas Henry Huxley, "The great tragedy of Science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact". Apparently the whole evolution of blood types idea that he presents is not as grounded as he makes it out to be, although he seems to have extensive referencing. As of now, I trust the Weston A. Price Foundation, and they wrote their position here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/eat_right.html. Here's a quote:
"D'Adamo bases his theories on the assumption that early man had Type O blood, and that the A, B, and AB bloodtypes came long after. He claims that these later bloodtypes are genetically predisposed towards grains and milk products, foods that came in with agriculture and the domestication of animals, while Type Os are natural meat eaters. The evidence is less than convincing. Anthropologists can point to evidence that all four blood types existed back in the hunter/gatherer Paleolithic era, a fact that deflates Dr. D'Adamo's entire theoretical structure."
(Of course, the only link they reference to that statement is an email from someone. I'd like to know for sure.)
Also, I'm glad someone else pointed out that D'Amado has changed his position a bit, with his new "Genotype diet", which, although still incorporating blood types, does a complete flip-flop for some people following the previous diet. I briefly checked his site, dadamo.com, and apparently he thinks people should follow one or the other, depending one whether they want to avoid diseases or lose weight (
http://www.dadamo.com/which_diet_is_right.htm). I think that's bull. I think true health is the way to do both. D'Adamo's ambiguity makes for huge points against his credibility.
However, he has a clinic where he's supposedly helped a ton of people, and also the people who've read his books. There could be some truth to this blood type thing, or even the body type thing, as with the "genotype" diet (although people's bodies, as shown by Weston Price, can deviate quite a bit from their genetic potential if malnourished while growing). However, as the WAPF article points out, "all four diets eliminate chips, candy, donuts, cinnamon rolls and other junk foods comprised of sugar, wheat, salt, hydrogenated fats, and other known health destroyers. For Americans on the Standard American diet (SAD), adoption of any of the four diets would represent a considerable improvement." The very act of being forced to make one's own food, and leaving out the common irritants like grain and dairy out of most followers' diets, could account for all the benefits.
There probably has been some genetic adaption to agriculture. Obviously, when primitive peoples switched over to the "white man's" food, they got hit harder than any white man did. And still today, people with indigenous blood tend to be more prone to diabetes and being overweight, just from my own observation. But that doesn't mean that raw animal foods are not still the best diet for everyone. Obviously, we are all still the same species, and we still have the same carnivore gut that has been functioning for perhaps millions of years. Our appendix and caecums, used in herbivores for digesting cellulose, are still next to nothing. Someone also mentioned that idea about the Asians having larger pancreases, because of eating rice for so long. If that's true, maybe that would be evidence of somewhat adapting to carbs. But also keep in mind that Asians are generally shorter in stature, and come from a region with a long history of oppression, slavery, and malnourishment.
P.S. What's with SuperInfinity?? Raw Kyle wasn't even disagreeing with him, and he just snapped.
Topic: Blood Type Diet (Read 16936 times)