Archives for: February 2004, 21
Nutrition Action Healthletter's failure to fairly evaluate the Blood Type Diet
I have to admit that I didn't expect rave reviews of the BTD from Nutrition Action Healthletter, but their treatment of the BTD was still a letdown for me. They said it's not scientific at all, which tells me they didn't research the science citations at all. To say "It's about as scientific as a horoscope" is low. You don't have horoscopes reaching every cell of your body, or on genes close to other genes (linked to) that are involved with disease susceptibility. From their review all I can tell that they read is the foodlists!
Where it really let me down though was that for the other diets they evaluated, they also evaluated the healthiness of each diet. For BTD they just copped out and wrote, "NA, different for every type and ancestry". How hard is it to break it down and evaluate 4 diets? What would they have found? Every type's diet is at least as healthy as, if not much healthier than, the other diets they covered.
The other thing that struck me as incongruous was that they criticized this and many of the diets for claiming that they can improve health. Here cspi works to improve the quality of our food and our health, yet now they say that diet can't improve your health? The next page talked about how omega-3's can reduce inflammation. Get it together guys!
Dr. D'Adamo is one of the few, if not the only, author listed who works for many of the same causes that they do. The only one who tells us to avoid overly processed foods and dangerous additives, to get our food from good sources: organic, free range, free of added antibiotics and hormones... He's not slapping his name on low-quality processed Franken-foods and marketing them to the masses as part of some low-carb (capitalist) revolution.
I just don't get it.
Of course after being diagnosed with celiac disease I've felt left out from mainstream nutrition, and for some time I cancelled my subscription to NAH. This was my first issue after reinstating it. There was this article and an article on which doughnuts are least deadly. Ha ha! What do I care about doughnuts?
Even though I laud and actively support their work, especially when it comes to improved food labeling, food safety testing, and bioengineering, I found this issue to be extremely closed-minded. Of course out of everyone on their editorial board there is not one N.D.; surely they could find one N.D. out there to include in their 'unbiased' reporting. They need someone in there who can mix things up a bit, and get them thinking a little harder.