Hello everybody!

I recently read an article about the blood type diet on http://www.skepdic.com/bloodtypediet.html.

Basicly it was very sceptic and claimed there's been no findings in the medical science and literature that would support the assumptions the blood type diet rests on.

Also, the discussion on http://www.skepdic.com/comments/blooddietcom.html was very interesting but hard to follow. There, one apparent supporter of BTD (Eric Morrison, the last commenter on the page) said he has "a library of research that he keeps on hand, mostly from PubMed, that backs up everything Dr D'Adamo says." To which the critic answers: "You say you have a library of research from PubMed to back up the blood type diet claims. Bring it on. I searched MEDLINE and didn't find any articles on the blood type diet..."

So, to be honest, I'm a bit sceptic of the sceptic view, but this is confusing. It seems to be one man's word against another's, one saying he's got hundreds of articles in support, other saying he found none "from the same source!)There are so many diets out there, and everyone seems to be able to prove their own "scientifically"...

I would love to hear views about this, about BOTH of these webpages (the sceptic's article and the comment page)... my questions are:

Didn't D'Adamo research the influence on different lectins from loads of different food himself to the different blood types, in lab settings? Did he do it on HUMAN BLOOD or on animals??

Has OTHER researcher's findings supported BTD theory, or is it just D'Adamos own research?

If so, where could I find these findings published by others than himself, if I would want to study them for myself?

Where can I find studies that have findings CONTRADICTING the BTDtheory?

Sincerely,

Kristoffer

http://www.dadamo.com/science_abh-lewis.htm

Just an example ... check the bottom of the article ... full of scientific references ...

Let's address a bit of intellectual dishonesty here...

First there is this:

Quoted Text

Basicly it was very sceptic and claimed there's been no findings in the medical science and literature that would support the assumptions the blood type diet rests on.

Then there is this:

Quoted Text

To which the critic answers: "You say you have a library of research from PubMed to back up the blood type diet claims. Bring it on. I searched MEDLINE and didn't find any articles on the blood type diet..."

So on one hand they claim these is no scientific basis and the then subsequently equate this with the fact that there are no direct studies on the diets. This is where the dishonesty occurs, as they are two separate accusations.

There is an enormous literature on the effect of our blood groups and secretor status on the digestive tract and systemic effects on health. Try my blog for starters.

http://n-equals-one.com/blogs/

There is also a paucity of direct research on the blood type diet itself. But these are two separate issues and they should be more honest about that instead of simply moving the goal posts when it fits their biases. Anything in science can still be scientifically-based without having a large evidence basis. Many common drugs have minimal proof behind their efficacy/ mode of actions, but they've been used for years, they work, and because they are generics nobody wants to spend anymore money on them.

When the skeptic dictionary guys well-poison from laziness or prejudice against the fact that someone in alternative medicine might have actually discovered something useful, they also discourage other investigators from examining the hypothesis, which if you ask me, is exactly their goal.

Skeptics - here - have ONE OBLIGATION to honestly try each item on and in their OWN BODY.

Dr. D goes through the above mentioned types of 'considerations' by nameless unscientific types at least once a month.. He keeps the emotions to a minimum as HE is the scientist 'hiding' behind this mountain of work.  He is the one, who year after year has added to his life time of work and ever more, refined his decrees to which hundreds of scientists 'here' attest to. Dr D'Adamo allows for INDIVIDUAL exceptions, like for instance- one item on me might give me a rash if I eat it every day, but not if I eat it once a year.  He also allows for INDIVIDUAL preferences and life style, dietetic religious, cultural differences and for that matter political and scientific differences, making the THEORETICAL / EMPIRICAL science adaptable to each INDIVIDUAL person with his own age related health needs.

The  questions should never be does it work... Atom bombs work, should we use them every other day to prove it?  or just having tested them many times before, should we accept the fact that they work?  Our foods here 'own' the same PRINCIPAL.

The LATEST food group VALUE is set in Swami even while all the old books are still worthwhile teaching tools and can still stand alone.  

Swami requires some sophistication on the READERS part. The reader has to be able to use a (preferred) metric meter (easy in Finland- not so in UK or USA) to be most accurate.  He has to have the ability to be honest and make distinctions even if they go against his previous believe system.  He has to read pages and pages of introduction material and then go and read more AND evaluate differences of what is being said, or suggested.  The reader has to think.  

Researchers have to have time to do this, and those who take time have documented their findings many times here on this very chat board.  Researchers here are not biased, not paid, and have no political affiliation.  Researchers, scientific types and less so, have given time free andand and time again, have answered the question if the atom bomb would work in certain circumstances. They have questioned this or that (believe system) over and over for atomic USE in small disputes.. and sometimes even for USE in large arguments, territorial arguments,.....  and always they come out on the side of those who say the BOMB works. Food works!

THE atom bomb HERE works without delay. HERE it can be measured by half smart people IMMEDIATELY.  For SMART people the actual test is needed even more - the smart unbiased people are more argument loving and they can need more then one persons word for it.  All the rest listen and learn and then take it a step further.  They DECIDE for their own circumstance what is 'good' for them.  They decide to surround themselves with people who have BEEN there, and learn to trust that one does not need to get CANCER (of the brain, nor the MIND) to PREVENT it.

THE smart people come here with open minds, they ask questions born out of their own EXPERIENCE and then weigh the answer.  Sometimes the arguments are heated.. like when on O blood type wants to be a vegetarian, then there is a need for LONG PEACE tables.  Suddenly the questions focus more on PHILOSOPHY than food.  Suddenly Believe systems come into play and room has to be made to adjust.  Religion is one such time that can cause differences.  But always, there is great RESPECT here during all negotiations / questions raised / questions answered / learning happens. REAL learning / long lasting learning /life long adjustments happen.  

By comparison, when someone has a deadly illness then the PEACE negation/negotiation table becomes very small.  A few adjustment needed and many things get better again.   A few specific boundaries set, limitations understood, and peace sets in.  In the olden days onset of Diabetes meant that you where dead in 3 years.  Today diabetes is a 'mere;' adjustment to a new life style. Today the specter of cancer even can be UNDERSTOOD through the Interpretation of the science of your Genes.  Not the genes of your sophisticate/critics, but YOUR own family genes!

Then... add environment and your neighbors genes, and you quickly can see microscopical differences.  My sister has the cancer gene, I do not.  We do not share the same blood type.  She can eat foods I can not, while I and my brother eat the same. Science - yes there is science in that - all YOU need to do is to put forth Questions and YOU will get answers.  Make the question REAL.  Make it pertinent to YOU and make it current.  Proper answers will be forthcoming.

So what is the real question you wish to ask?  Answers are free here? All honest to goodness  questions will be addressed, and you will never be ignored, even if the question is only of peripheral value.  

I have a few of my own.

DID you read any of the BOOKS?  which one specifically?  
Why are you here? for health reasons? what kind.
What is your genetic inheritance?
Are you able to understand the writings and the needs for INDIVIDUAL adjustments?  

As a B You have enormous advantages.  I presume you are in perfect health at your age.  Living in Finland I expect you are not overweight and that you use activities and sports on a daily basis. As a -B- what is your favorite food you might 'have to' give up? or will the mind be the issue most difficult to overcome?

Is the air in your (genetic) neighborhood fresh and does the wind blow cobwebs of scientific prejudice away even before the 'war' of stubbornness sets 'wrong' answers in stone?  Will INTELLIGENT peace in knowledge remain?  will you believe your body or who?  

I wish some day to see your country, your Fiord's and your geographical wonders.  

Your English is good enough to understand my innuendos.. and my 'unscientific' fun..    

..."no findings in the medical science" Of course, "medical science" is not going to support anything that is directly in opposition to a good part of their modus operandi. Especially the part that makes them the most money. Too many of us have nearly lost our lives because of doctors following the dictates of "medical science." I have no patience whatsoever with the quoted statement above.

Food is fuel for the body, so in the same way you don't but gasoline in a diesel engine car, you don't put meat in an A or wheat in an O. It clogs their pipes and their engine stalls.

Hi Kristoffer,

Just to let you hear a different noise; I have been following this diet for close to a year now, but am becoming more and more inclined to the belief that this approach is incorrect.. (sorry guys)

I do agree that our bodies are probably designed to do better on certain foods than on others (a matter of individuality), but the strict separation proposed by this diet just seems inappropriate IMHO.

I am a 'Warrior' and should consequently stay away from all red meats. Still, I notice that after months of totally avoiding all red meats (while still following a hugely varied diet, including plenty of [animal] protein), I truly crave some red meat. Yes, I actually feel good the days after eating some organic beef and to me its clear my body misses certain nutrients if I don't. Similarly, I have noticed no adverse reactions at all from consuming some other 'avoids', while some so-called 'superfoods' are not at all as 'super' for me.

I am not looking for a scientific discussion as I have seen these things pass by over and over again. I just wanted to share the personal experience from someone who gave it an honest try.

Still, some final thoughts;
- I only recently realized that my canine teeth are huge and sharp; that logically seems a stronger determinant for dietary needs than e.g. one's bloodtype or fingerprints..
- Surely our ancestral societies consisted of communities eating largely the same diets. Still, their bloodtypes would have been very varied.
- I feel that following this diet (or any diet for that matter) creates a lot of mental stress, especially if you know you're consuming a meal with some avoid. I feel and know from personal experience that stress has a worse effect on your health than a 'possibly not so perfect diet'.

ps. let me add that concerning some aspects Dr D does seem to be right; as in that type Os do better in the gym, and that type As do well on yoga. It may well be that type Os do better on meat than type As, and that type Os are more frequent celiacs. Still in my experience there seem to exist as much 'inaccurateness' as 'correctness' in this diet..

Damon,

Although I understand that your post is the result of your experiences, I'm not sure that it really makes the theory any more or less 'scientific.'  I think this blog can help to explain why.

http://n-equals-one.com/blogs/2012/02/22/partial-stories-have-value-too/

Something that is tried by 6 million people that helps 4.5 million may still not help 1.5 million. However unlike giving pregnant mothers thalidomide, with diet choices we really sacrifice very little to discover whether the probabilities are with us or against us.

Difficulty arises when we use day-to-day experience as the substitute for what are often suggested interventions with long anticipatory lag-times. For example, we know smoking is bad based on epidemiologic studies, but most people say that they enjoy smoking and it makes them feel better.

However I respect your observations and the time you've devoted to the system, so know that I am not disagreeing with you or even suggesting that you continue with the program. Everyone must make their own way though life.

What I am intrested in is how You can take a food, make extract(solution) from it and then test it in a petridish ?

Research a bit on lectins--- and you will learn how foods are tested. Petri dishes are used for cultures--

http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl/Lectinology

GREAT answer for all who have questions.. who wish for others to do the research, who wish to open a question and don't read the answers.. having life handed to them on a platter..

Quoted Text

Research a bit on lectins--- and you will learn how foods are tested. Petri dishes are used for cultures--

http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl/Lectinology

This answer cuts through all the Q and A..  and if it convinces someone then good, if not , there is nothing lost but 2 seconds to post this link..

Damon,

Have you had your BT rechecked, even given blood for example?

I only ask because I do wonder sometimes about non-secretors who don't find the BTD/GTD helpful - if the basic ABO is incorrect then a saliva test will surely show up as non-secretor  

Just my thoughts  

Joyce

There are just some people no matter what you present, they have a closed mind and state that this diet is not scientific or peer reviewed.  A BTD follower posted about our diet on a scientific forum and no matter what he presented it was shot down.  They just won’t listen.  I just hope slowly but surely someday Dr. D will be vindicated.  In the meantime, those of us who do believe in him will benefit from his knowledge and expertise.

@ Joyce
I have done two home tests, and one lab (blood)test; the results were unambiguous. The Warrior profile description (i.e. characteristics like facial flushing) actually describe me pretty well. That was also a reason I initially got convinced the BTD held some truth. I still do believe in the existence of different genotypes etc, but feel the dietary implications are far too exaggerated.

@ Dr D
In the n=1-article you mentioned you state:

Quoted Text

... the data showed one particularly interesting trend: the 80/20 percentage was consistent across the groups. In other words, 80% of the type Os claimed the diet was beneficial, as did 80% of the Bs, 80% of the As, etc. Now as anyone who has read even the basic book can tell you, the A diet looks nothing like the O diet.

Let me respond to this claim from a critic's point of view;

You claim the uniformity of the 80% success rate strongly supports the relevance of the BTD.  I believe this proves nothing. In fact, it is the other way around; the uniformity implies that the bloodtype specific recommendations really are totally irrelevant.

The point is; all bloodtypes are recommended to cut out universally bad foods (like fastfood, pastries, soda, etc.), reduce sugar intake, focus on unprocessed foods, and eat a more balanced, vegetable rich diet. Of course these 'general improvements' will improve anyone's health. Now think about it, if these general improvements are the only relevant dietary factors (i.e. if it doesn't matter whether you get your protein from organic beef, tofu, dairy or beans), then one would indeed expect a uniform success percentage across all bloodtypes!

You should do an experiment in which 50% of the partipants are (unknowingly) put on the 'wrong' diet. Only then success percentages and uniformity becomes relevant IMO.

@ RedLilac
Similarly, BTD followers should always have an open mind to what 'critics' have to say.

The Blood Type Diet is clearly not reductionist - especially in terms of animal protein varieties and the balance of the different food categories.

Comparing the effects of diets is a good starting point.  The most pressing question is: What monolithic (one-size-fits-all) diet claims to have noticeably positive effects in about 80% of cases?

After someone has found such a diet, we can then compare the degree of unusual and powerful effects that the Blood Type Diet has been reported to make against those of this other diet.

The sheer variety of positive effects of the Blood Type Diet is hard to explain with the assumptions that form the basis for most medical practitioners.  The difference in the world views could be compare as Mono-typic vs Poly-typic.

The fact that people can follow quite different Blood Type Diets and achieve the same result should push us towards abandoning the base assumption of all of modern allopathic medicine: that any medical variation between people can be accurately described by a normal distribution with one mean.

Medical reports by allopathic researchers, ironically, verify that some important factors related to digestion are distributed in a pattern that can be only descibed by multiple normal distributions, segregated by simple genetic factors, with means that about nine standard deviations apart.

We can abandon the “Mono-typic” assumption of modern medicine but keep the knowledge, which the body of work as a whole, offers us.

My personal experience is SWAMI isn't working for me, GTD and BTD weren't great for me either. The Arthritis BTD Diet does work for me although there were a couple of things I had to omit but, overall, works for me. With that said, I can't hate on the SWAMI, BTD and GTD because my body was a very damaged state. I am almost 100% and may try my SWAMI again in a couple of months, not sure yet.
As far as medical journals go, you will never find support for full natural therapies as it is pharmaceutical funded. I personally got off all my DMARD medications and anti-inflammatories just by changing my diet. I went from unable to turn a door knob to lifting a stack of dishes with one hand, doing regular HIIT workouts, pushups, etc.  I am all for an all natural diet that promotes regular exercise and if I have to try them all to see what works for me, then, so be it. I have also seen a lot of people on the forum who have had excellent results and I do enjoy reading their stories.

People are always confused when I ask if things are scientific before I buy into them. My Yoga instructor gave me a really strange look. Once I got refused service at a coffee shop when I asked if the herbal mocha ginseng tea was scientific... People just don't understand my need for scientificity. They don't understand how important it is that things are scientific, the weight of it all.

Similarly, BTD followers should always have an open mind to what 'critics' have to say.
Oh, we had an "open mind" about several different diets and opinions out there - probably going back to before you were born. The point is, we were disappointed in every single one of them and ALL the advice from ALL doctors as to what we should or should not do! SOME doctors are getting part of the message today simply because the Baby Boomers are demanding eternal youth on a platter and mean to get it one way or another, and they are smart enough to know that the general way of eating is NOT working!! And some of them are getting the message that ONE DIET DOES NOT FIT EVERYONE! Oh, yes, we've been going 'round this issue for a very long time! Oh, and FYI, I am older than the Baby Boomers!

Quoted from DoS

People are always confused when I ask if things are scientific before I buy into them. My Yoga instructor gave me a really strange look. Once I got refused service at a coffee shop when I asked if the herbal mocha ginseng tea was scientific... People just don't understand my need for scientificity. They don't understand how important it is that things are scientific, the weight of it all.

I guess I would have the same reaction as the people referenced here...  You may need to be more specific in your questions to get answers...  
What answer would you expect from the question, "Is the herbal mocha ginseng tea scientific?"
  
Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop waitress to be able to provide a scientific explanation from a PhD perspective?  ... and is she being paid to spend the time it would take to provide such an explanation?  She is probably wondering what kind of a nut would ask such a question, when all she wants to do is provide you with whatever you want to eat and drink...  It is up to you to know if the drink is "scientific" enough for you to order it or not.

I like how creepy the diet is.   Wait, how did U know I couldn't eat that? *looks around* {{{creepy}}}

It's like someone is following me around watching!     

Quoted from 18545

I like how creepy the diet is.   Wait, how did U know I couldn't eat that? *looks around* {{{creepy}}}

It's like someone is following me around watching!     

I like that part too! But most of the time it is like someone read my mind and agreed with me!! Still sort of "creepy!" But a good creep!

I think it is very healthy that these discussions can be had, and that everyone takes time to really think about how the diet is or isn't working for them.  I think I've read enough testimonies on here to be people's recovery or improvements to believe that there is a lot to be recommended to following one of the blood type diets.  
As a woman I know when I was younger those monthly cravings for chocolate was for something in the chocolate that I could have got through another source.  
Perhaps a craving for beef is a sign that there is something in beef that is missing from Damon's diet?

Quoted Text

You should do an experiment in which 50% of the partipants are (unknowingly) put on the 'wrong' diet. Only then success percentages and uniformity becomes relevant IMO.

The last paragraph in the blog says that the most common issue with non-responders is that they have their ABO type wrong. This is a common finding in our clinic as well. That should fit your concept of a wrong diet.

Also bear in mind than many people start out the BTD/GTD already on a nice healthy diet. Here is a guy on a super healthy diet that did nothing for him.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshapiro/Pemphigus/AboutSteve.html

DOS is too funny..

Kristoffer:
How about trying the diet for a few months & see what happens?  Make sure you know your blood type for sure & find out if you are a non-secretor.

Then go back to eating foods that are bad for your type & see the reactions?

If you find you think the diet has some merit but are not ready to commit yourself to it, try to avoid the worst foods for your type like dairy & wheat for O; red meat & dairy for A; chicken & corn for B, etc.

Sigh