Last night we ate at an atypical Mexican restaurant with amazing food. It looked to me as though persons of every blood type could wrest a multi-course meal from its bold, extensive menu.
Called "Mamacita's", it is located in San Francisco's "yuppiest" neighborhood - The Marina. It was a Monday night, and the place was packed. There was a busy bar scene, too, viewed from afar.
We started with a shared appetizer of grilled scallops, served with a black bean coulis, a variety of tiny, kumquat-sized potatoes of various colors, miniature (Japanese?) artichokes, and grilled pencil asparagus. The scallops (a Nomad superfood) were dense and beefy, and very flavorful: The best scallops I've ever had. I wasn't crazy about the artichokes. For a B-nomad, the scallop/asparagus combination was perfect.
Then I actually passed over the lamb and kale taco for the carne asada taco, being in the mood for steak. It featured Niman ranch "organic" beef, a chili sauce, arugula, and flecks of goat cheese. David (type O) ordered the duck leg taco, with a sweet barbecue sauce and fruity slaw. The meat was perfectly marinated, very moist.
Okay, so we did order margaritas and enjoyed the chips and (tomato) salsa prelude. It would be worthwhile to go back to try the lamb, the mahi mahi, the various tuna dishes...
A Mexican restaurant with something for any and everyone. "Avoids" are easily dodged here; there's so much to choose from, and virtually everything is grilled. Clean food. Hooray!
Following up on my previous blog ("Taking it Easy: Life in the Normal Lane", 12 Feb. 2011), I notice that one of the terms in vogue on the dadamo Forum lately, in describing adherence to Dr. D'Adamo's principles, is "this lifestyle". I confess I don't know what this means.
The Bloodtype and Genotype diets are adaptable to almost any lifestyle, as I see it. To call their use - and/or Dr. D'Adamo's view of medicine - "this lifestyle" is alien to what his work means and has always meant to me. Are "Individualists" thus becoming conformists? Choosing a "lifestyle" wholesale is often related, rather, to cult-involvement!
My own lifestyle doesn't involve inordinate attention to the purchase of foodstuffs at the market, their preparation and their analysis. So I don't share what Forum participants proudly call "this lifestyle", even though I've been an avid D'Adamo proponent for 14 years.
When you call it a "lifestyle", that implies you have more of life in common with the Forum's other people (sitting in front of computer screens across the globe) than you do with human beings (in your actual vicinity) who shop and eat differently from you. If two neighbors are carpenters and each has a wife, 2.3 children, a dog, and drives a Jeep and belongs to, say, a bowling league, do their lifestyles differ that much if one avoids dairy products? Me, I don't think so. Does the vegan I know have a different lifestyle from his meat-eating friend? Not necessarily. Does Dr. D'Adamo expect his readers to adopt a lifestyle? I don't think so.
I confess: I've never really sweat this diet much. I've been more or less compliant at different points along this 14-(!) year-long path thus far. I go a year here or there without a tomato product, and then a year of having some tomato sauce once a month - much longer without peanuts, buckwheat or lentils - that sort of thing. But I generally opt for my beneficials wherever possible. Dr. D'Adamo has written that he doesn't have a problem with 60-70% compliance as the norm for someone in good health - as we B-secretors so often are! So I'm no stickler.
Maybe B is the easy blood type. We're the most omnivorous, after all, and we're frequently recognized for easy-goingness and "balancedness". That holds true for me, thanks be to God.
Being of the Nomad genotype, I've found that diet to open up even more former avoids to occasional use.
I generally avoid most: Corn, soy, buckwheat.
I'm not a big bread-eater.
I don't go for hard liquor.
I lay low on tomatoes, pork, lentils, peanuts, shellfish.
But most important is that I favor lamb, turkey, fish, eggs and beef as my animal foods, plus some dairy, almonds as my nuts, rice as my starch, that sort of thing. I favor beneficial vegetables and fruits over "avoids". I favor green tea over black, generally. I drink coffee on-again-off-again (usually year-long breaks between months-long morning coffee ways). I don't smoke or take medications/drugs.
I think it's important to remember that any American who generally opts (as I do) against corn, soy, chicken, tomatoes, pork and shellfish, say, is already an oddball. To add plenty of other items to that list is really unusual. And then to favor one's beneficials goes a lot further. So I'm definitely "on board" with D'Adamo, even though I'm casual about it.
If you're one of those B's who takes an approach similar to mine and is also sensitive to the positive effects of certain permitted foods (the energy-zap of hot peppers, for instance, or the power-station that is eggs), then there's room for you, too, at the dadamo table, IMO. Pull up a chair.
In all honesty, I've never been convinced of the biological determination of sexual orientation. The few studies that "seem to" confirm this are not empirically substantive. The failure of identical twin studies to prove a genetic imperative is a serious deterrent to my signing on to such a belief. However, if there are empirically-proven intrauterine as well as genetic precursors to sexual-orientation-associated temperament, for instance (bearing in mind how difficult temperament is to measure, let alone prove), then I am personally more likely to subscribe to the notion that one's sexual predilections and tendencies can be influenced by prenatal factors. Intrauterine hormone exposure may provide a link to such a sensibility; this is the angle – if one exists - most likely to sway my own opinion at this point, though still not toward a so-called "gay gene". What are some biopsychiatrists saying, and how does this relate to Dr. Peter D'Adamo's determinations of Genotype?
Prenatal exposure to one or the other pole of sex hormones has been being linked by some researchers in biopsychiatry to sexual orientation/preference/identification for well over a decade now, as but one of several factors of influence. A couple of days ago I saw a paragraph in an online textbook stating that:
- homosexual men may exhibit lower levels of circulatory androgens than heterosexuals do, and that
- the effective presence of androgens in prenatal life contributes toward a sexual predilection toward females for all, while
- a "deficiency of androgens - or tissue insensitivity to these" may lead one to be oriented toward males. (Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry).
I've also seen a study linking the opposite factor - HIGH prenatal androgen exposure - to male homosexuality. (You've been warned: Not only is acceptance of the "science" NOT universal; even the "convinced" scientists can disagree with one another.)
This caught my eye because Dr. Peter D'Adamo, in his The Genotype Diet, treats of D2: D4 (the prenatal sex-hormonally influenced ratio of index finger length to that of the ring finger) as a determinant of Genotype within his 6-type system. He writes that this ratio is "an excellent marker for sex hormone exposure. A longer ring finger means you encountered more androgens in the womb (androgens are a testosterone precursor); a long index finger means you faced higher levels of estrogen."
According to numerous respected biopsychiatry sources, D2: D4 does somewhat correlate with sexual orientation. Longer D2 (index finger) is a marker of prenatal dominance of estrogen exposure; longer D4 (ring finger) of that of androgens. Females with high androgen exposure, and males with high estrogen exposure, are apparently likelier than most to experience same-sex attractions. (I haven't yet seen a good explanation as to WHY/HOW: The "route".)
According to Dr. D'Adamo, D2: D4 definitely correlates with Genotype; remembering this, my sudden enquiry was provoked.
Here are some summarised findings of D'Adamo with respect to D2: D4 prevalence within the six genotype populations, per The Genotype Diet (2007):
GT-1 Hunters tend toward longer D4 on both hands
GT-2 Gatherers tend toward longer D2 on both hands. Also often seen is hand-asymmetry for which finger's length is greater (i.e., a difference between the two hands), a factor other researchers correlate with deviations from heterosexuality.
GT-3 Teachers may tend toward longer D2 on both hands. Or, like GT2, asymmetry between hands.
GT4 -Explorers: Longer D4 on both hands, especially among females. From another page, some likelihood that men are more prone to longer D2, women to longer D4.
GT5- Warriors tend toward symmetry between hands.
GT6: Nomads tend toward longer D2 on both hands for females, longer D4 on both hands for men.
IF D2: D4 were always and only a result of prenatal androgenic/estrogenic dominance, and IF this predominance were a surefire determinant of sexual orientation, we'd be able to predict someone's sexual preference by measuring his/her D2: D4! In that case, and only in that case, we'd expect to see – per Dr. D'Adamo's correlations of D2: D4 ratios with Genotype – homosexuality somewhat more common among:
Explorer women and men
(Warriors wouldn't correlate in any direction.
The Nomad genotype would skew strongly toward heterosexuality.)
This might automatically imply (if all bloodtypes and genotypes have no gender-preponderance) that the O bloodtype population (which contains only Hunters, Gatherers, and Explorers) is more likely to be associated with homosexuality than are the other bloodtypes.
IF you subscribe to the Genotype system, AND to the prenatal androgen/estrogen theory regarding sexual orientation, a Genotype/sexual-orientation link has interesting implications, including that certain diets and fitness-practices could be statistically associated with greater or lesser health among homosexuals. If, in the end, homosexuality were to definitively prove to be related to Genotype, sexual preference would be an important datum to consider in the "strength-testing" of genotype for type-determination and in diet/nutrient/fitness prescription according to D'Adamo's increasingly popular genotyping software, SWAMI. This is where my interest was piqued. Conclusive data here would be revolutionary, to say the least.
Feel free to supply any related bloodtype/genotype-related information you may have come across on this compelling subject.
From the Blog Journal: 4 August, 2008
Here we are, Baby Boomers. How’s your health?
I’ve attributed my good health to a hardy genotype (Nomad), compliant diet/supplementation, and use of pure essential oils in every possible way. I’m finding out, as I look around at my ailing peers, however, that there are a few VERY high risk factors.
One is the regular/frequent use of distilled spirits. People who enjoy cocktails show far more wear and tear in their fifties than the rest of us do. You’d think it’s mostly liver ailments, but I notice that their overall immunity stinks, they can’t sleep, and they don’t manage stress well. And that’s just the beginning. If you drink, switch to a bloodtype/genotype-compliant wine or beer. If you really miss the cocktails, you can cut back gradually by using water/soda more liberally at cocktail hour, enjoying that ONE diluted drink, switching to wine at dinnertime. (Eventually take wine-only at cocktail hour if you maintain that tradition.) If you’re under fifty, start now so you won’t be using spirits at all in midlife, or you’ll be sicklier than necessary, for sure.
Another risk factor is chemicals, such as those found in diet foods/diet sodas. Rather than find yourself a plaintiff in some class action suit in midlife, or wondering why you have undiagnosible vertigo (often reversible when NutraSweet usage is stopped), switch to healthy sweeteners, for instance, recommended for your blood- or geno-type.
Third: Piling up Rx meds is an American pastime. On any given day, a Baby Boomer might be taking drugs for several conditions, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, ulcers, menopause, a cold (wrongly taking antibiotics), and insomnia.
This is NOT to be compared to the healthy person’s taking numerous supplements every day such as multivitamins, multiminerals, fiber, omega oils and a probiotic. Rx drugs come with numerous side effects, nutrient depletions, possible adverse reactions, warnings and contraindications. There could be a piper to be paid for this layering of powerful synthetic chemicals, with conditions that most MD’s will never take the time to associate with multiple medication use.
My advice is (1) that you research, yourself, each and every med you’re prescribed, and, if it fits and you end up taking it, that you use supplements to amply replenish whichever nutrients are depleted by the drug in question. (2) If you experience side effects from a medication, do NOT unquestionably take another Rx drug to reduce these effects. You might ask your MD to simply lower the dosage of the original drug, switch you to another drug, or time the drug’s administration differently; or you might investigate or use nutritional supplements to quell the side effects. Take the time, people. That “innocent” second drug will have its own side effects and depletions…and it’s a never-ending pile-up your pharmaceutically-oriented MD may not be inclined to prevent. (3) Once your condition is stabilized on a given Rx med, look into nutrient (i.e., diet and supplements) and lifestyle changes that might enable you to take a lower dosage or to eventually wean yourself completely. Many Boomers are amazed at how much slack, for instance, a good multimineral, Stress-B-Complex and melatonin can take up! If you cannot, however, forego a given medication, it’s understandable. But try to keep the number of Rx’s to a minimum.
Fourth is the obvious cigarette smoking. I’ll say no more than that it’s like drinking dirty, poisoned water --- only it’s what you put in your lungs. Who doesn’t know this?
Fifth is sexual stupidity. Maybe it was years ago. Sometimes it’s ongoing. I live in San Francisco where some people do/have done dumb stuff. There are consequences.
Sixth is Bad Parenting. If your parenting was lazy, you may now have teenaged or young adult children with knotty problems that stress you out beyond measure. “Good-enough” parenting yields the more normal “stressful-enough” result, but those midlifers who’d cut corners as disciplinarians have unruly progeny and all sorts of stress-caused conditions, all of which are serious quality-of-life destroyers. No one put it to us correctly when we were in our twenties and thirties. No one warned us: “If you don’t stick to your highest principles here, you may think the consequences will come home to roost when you’re still feeling as vibrant and energetic as you do now, but: They’ll hit you when your joints creak and you’re career-exhausted and you don’t have the resilience you now do. You’ve GOT to raise responsible, respectful adults for THAT day.”
You may find yourself described in only one of the above categories: See what you can do about it. We’re all going to die – some of us young, some of us old. If you can live without myriad health conditions until you die, wouldn’t that be easier? If your lifestyle is high-flying, high-rolling, on the edge, and you like it that way, then someone probably made you read this. Think it over.
Not everyone cares a whole lot about his/her health; a reality many health-conscious people find shocking, even unbelievable. But it’s a fact. If you know someone who mocks the natural approach of diet/supplement/herb/lifestyle/fitness or any element thereof, don’t nag. Accept. In our fifties we understand my late grandmother’s saying, “A leopard don’t change its spots,” with regard to some of our peers’ ways (and some of our own).
Oh, and see Death differently, too: Somewhat more matter-of-factly. Some of us check out sooner, some later. People make choices and – another old saying - that’s what makes horse racing.