Quoted from Lloyd

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2180-12-94.pdf

The researchers all have contact information on the first page.



Were it me, I would be happy that someone went to the trouble of paying for a clinical trial and putting the results in a peer reviewed journal, another step towards proving my thesis.

Framed in the context of what is accepted as scientific evidence this is a novel finding.

More importantly, it is an important proof of theory.

"The Blood Type Diet is not scientifically proven"

"Well how about this study then? Here's some proof of theory! Peer reviewed!"

So, write the people on the first page and maybe they add an acknowledgment of the theory in practice prior to the study. Oh, and don't forget to thank them for running the study.

I like this:

"As our study provides a link between the host
genetic factors and the clustering of the intestinal microbiota in this Finnish cohort, it also
warrants further investigations with high-throughput techniques of microbiota analysis to
evaluate whether the specific species/OTUs responsible for the microbiota differences can be
found, thus potentially enabling new applications in the field of personalized nutrition and
medicine."

They would like to enable new applications in the field of personalized nutrition?  How about sending these people their own personalized SWAMI.

Quoted from Spring

For my part, I don't have any need whatsoever of having Dr. D.'s work "validated." It has withstood the test of time in all ways that are important to me and many, many others.

That is quite reasonable. I hope you take into account that others benefit from additional validation.

Quoted from Spring

If Dr. D. wants to use their reference in the future, that is his choice to make.

Or anyone else who is going to use that data to build a hypothesis, construct a trial or build upon those results. Might even be something that benefits you.

I have said in the past that when looking at a trial or a study, one has to look at the trial design and data along with the assumptions used in reaching the conclusions. Peer reviewed trials are not perfect in the absolute but they do provide a good source of useable knowledge. It would be a shame if researchers were criticized for doing a trial that advances knowledge. If one wants to criticize a credit (or lack thereof) that is a separate matter.

I have done plenty of trials on my diet during the last twelve plus years. In fact, I have been concerned about my diet since I was a child, and you can believe that or not.

People in general on this forum have learned the very important lesson of listening to their bodies and responding to what it tells them. It is important because their bodies are talking to them day in and day out and sometimes at  night! I credit Dr. D. a great deal for helping us to be more aware and watchful of how we react to foods and the environment around us.

I knew a while before I learned it from Dr. D.'s recommendation that chicken was causing me considerable stress. Also, I was very thankful that many of those beans were taken off my SWAMI because they had been bothering me for years on the BTD. I haven't cried because most soy products are off my lists, either.

No collection of "scientists" with names I can't pronounce have had to hold my hand and guide me through this. You will just have to accept the fact that I do not hallow the names of scientists. I have seen too much that has me thoroughly jaded. But you can be as happy as you want with this new "science" about our blood types!

Quoted from RedLilac

Dr D has always been ahead of the times – lucky for us he is.

The only thing that intrigues me is that he posits blood type O, a recessive trait that is a deletion mutation from the A sugar, came before dominant genes A and B.

Hematologists and others in the fields of evolutionary biology have observed all blood types to be millions of years old, with blood type A the original blood type of primate species, including humans.  

Modern chimpanzees are almost all A, gorillas mainly B, and orangutans have all four blood types.  All other primates possess the same ABO system as humans.

So in the evolutionary order, it should be A1, then A2, then O, with B having come sometime well before this transition.  A1 and B are the most ancestral blood types in primates. O evolved when hominids hit the ground and were exposed to far greater amounts of malaria it is hypothesized.

I have noted this before, but it has nothing to do with how the different blood types react to foods and stresses, as they are all geared somewhat differently, having strengths and weaknesses.

Perhaps more should be looked into this though, that is my opinion.  All respects to the great work of the blood type diets!  I am not trying to down it!

Quoted Text

The only thing that intrigues me is that he posits blood type O, a recessive trait that is a deletion mutation from the A sugar, came before dominant genes A and B.

Hematologists and others in the fields of evolutionary biology have observed all blood types to be millions of years old, with blood type A the original blood type of primate species, including humans.  

http://www.bing.com/search?cp=1252&FORM=FREESS&q=first+blood&q1=site%3Adadamo.com

wish you would take a moment and read through the material available

your statement is incorrect to a point

Quoted from Spring

No collection of "scientists" with names I can't pronounce have had to hold my hand and guide me through this. You will just have to accept the fact that I do not hallow the names of scientists. I have seen too much that has me thoroughly jaded. But you can be as happy as you want with this new "science" about our blood types!

So if you could pronounce their names, you would hold the work in higher esteem?

I also don't understand why you have been putting "science", "scientists" and other things in quotes.

I suspect that if any one else had continued this thread in that manner you would have , quiet rightly, suggested they stop being so petty.

Quoted from policychecker

I suspect that if any one else had continued this thread in that manner you would have , quiet rightly, suggested they stop being so petty.

There is something to that to take under advisement.

My hope was that some previous comments could be cleared up as not being intended as divisive. If it came out looking badly, that is certainly something I might have judged better.

Quoted from Lola

http://www.bing.com/search?cp=1252&FORM=FREESS&q=first+blood&q1=site%3Adadamo.com

wish you would take a moment and read through the material available

your statement is incorrect to a point

I have read hematology journal articles and up to date research, as well as D'adamos on this subject.  Some have entire careers dedicated to this area of study.  D'adamo himself says he is not 100 percent on this area as it is not his field of study.  

But it causes misinformation.  All of these blood types are tens of millions of years old and did not evolve because of dietary changes, as all prehistoric primates and early humans ate what they could.  Does not change how foods act i do not think on genotypes though.

They may have eaten what they could, but they could have evolved and specialised, becoming accustomed to their diet. it's not unreasonable,

the difference is that eating whatever you can seems to be okay but only for a relatively short term.

dogs eat meat, if you feed them wheat they get cancer of one sort or another. if you microwaver their food they have bowel issues and constipation also

ant eaters eat ants, god knows what would happen them if they ate only strawberries

Quoted from Lloyd

I also don't understand why you have been putting "science", "scientists" and other things in quotes.

BECAUSE far too many so-called "scientists" have been the authors of such terrible "science" that mankind will be paying for it until the end of time.  Have you been living under a rock, Lloyd?

Quoted Text

I have read hematology journal articles and up to date research, as well as D'adamos on this subject.  Some have entire careers dedicated to this area of study.  D'adamo himself says he is not 100 percent on this area as it is not his field of study.  

This is true, although even if the molecular biology (phylogenetics) indicates that the mutations are millions of years old, this does not automatically imply that the phenotypic characteristics of each type were determined exclusively at that time. Geographic dispersion and founder effect would have shaped the modern day characteristics. These have always been the points behind the anthropology argument. However they were greatly simplified in the first book for the basic readership. That they were used to dispute the value of the theory represents a certain shallowness or lack of awareness of my writings on the subject before and after that book.

Quoted from Easy E

The only thing that intrigues me is that he posits blood type O, a recessive trait that is a deletion mutation from the A sugar, came before dominant genes A and B.

Maybe you didn't read it but they discovered an older remains of a human than the Type A human. Guess the blood type? Type O. To date the oldest blood type is now Type O and no longer Type A.

What that has to do with mutations or deletions, hard to say. But it shows how feeble "fact" can be. (and how dated criticisms of Dr. D now are since that argument is out the window according to their own rules)

DoS, I'm gonna enjoy meeting you..

Quoted from Dr. D

DoS, I'm gonna enjoy meeting you..

I don't have to agree with the evolutionary aspect, i still believe it not to be correct as it goes against a chief principle of biology, but everything else works well for me.  I did not criticize the heart of Dr. D's work at all, which is how different foods act in different systems.

Dr. D made a good point, there has to have been a good bit of evolution from 15 million years ago until today.

Point i was trying to make is that making enemies with fellow scientists will not help to get the work promoted.  In fact it turns people away by downing the work of other scientists, who have helped Dr. D with his work by discovering all the things they have.

Love all of you guys on this site and Dr. D!  Not trying to be an a hole.

Dr. D i will read more on what you write about it, i just read in the book i have pretty much.  Apologies for being offenseive to you and much respect to your works.  The GTD has really helped me quite a bit!

Lola i will read that link you gave me.

Quoted from Easy E

Point i was trying to make is that making enemies with fellow scientists will not help to get the work promoted.

Real scientists would pay less attention to our ramblings here than a gnat buzzing around! I know a few personally - with all those degrees after their names, too, and we have lots of fun!!   I have posted before about how we argued with one of them an entire weekend about a certain point. He went back to his labs in Oregon, did the work and found out that we were right! He was astonished! And we were grinning!

Another one told me not long ago that they were working on an apple that would stay firm and apparently "fresh" for THREE years in storage!! As far as I'm concerned, they haven't gotten there yet!! How about those watermelons that have been made so hard for shipping that you can hardly cut them with a saw? And NOW the meat in them is sometimes about as hard as the rind! Grrrrr! That ain't good science to me! Maybe those scientists need to get out in the fields and demonstrate how to use the mess they are creating to the farmers and warn them of all the consequences if they don't do it right!! I hate to think what it is doing to us when we eat the stuff! Did anyone else see the story about a whole field of watermelons actually exploding because the farmers had used too much growth hormone? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t.....gFvryyA90TpEtMnFq_aQ
And we worry about growth hormones in livestock, etc......

All scientific work should be validated and replicated.  It is a good thing.  Maybe some things will be found true, and others do not hold up.  That is how innovation occurs.

DoS, a single case does not prove the case described above, that recessive traits do not evolve before dominant traits.  I  am sure this find was a hominid, in which case, yes, it was probably O, as O became quite common in hominids walking on the ground all the time, esp in tropical areas where malaria was common

here Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgHyBYenBso&feature=youtu.be

Interesting article

http://www.economist.com/node/21560523

Quoted from Dr. D

Interesting article

http://www.economist.com/node/21560523

Wow, wow, and more wow! Dr. D., I hope you take good care of yourself. There is still so much to do!

Quoted Text

In the case of multiple sclerosis, a confirmatory study was published last year by Kerstin Berer and her colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg, Germany. They showed, again in mice, that gut bacteria are indeed involved in triggering the reaction that causes the body’s immune system to turn against certain nerve cells and strip away their insulation in precisely the way that leads to multiple sclerosis.

Quoted Text

Clinical trials have indeed shown that probiotics (a mixture of bacteria found, for example, in yogurt) ease the symptoms of people with irritable-bowel syndrome, who often have slightly abnormal gut microbiomes. Whether they can cause a beneficial shift in other people is not known. A paper published last year by Dr Gordon’s group reported that in healthy identical twins the microbiome is unaffected by yogurt; when one twin was asked to eat yogurt regularly for a couple of months while his sibling did not, no change in the microbiome was seen.

Quoted Text

Yogurts are limited in the range of bacteria they can transmit. Another intervention, though, allows entire bacterial ecosystems to be transferred from one gut to another. This is the transplanting of a small amount of faeces.

Quoted Text

the microbiome is medically accessible and manipulable in a way that the human genome is not. It can be modified, both with antibiotics and with transplants. If the microbiome does turn out to be as important as current research is hinting, then a whole new approach to treatment beckons.

A few things from range of interesting ideas presented. From confirmatory studies and clinical trials to suggestions of direction for future research based on reasonable hypothesese.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2180-12-94.pdf

Background

The human gastrointestinal tract (GIT) comprises an extremely dense and diverse microbiota.
The GIT of an adult may harbour even 2 kg of bacterial biomass representing over 1000
bacterial species, of which majority can not be cultivated [1]. This microbiota in the large
intestine is mainly composed of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla making up respectively
over 75% and 16% of total microbes in the GIT [1]. The human intestinal microbiota has
recently been shown to cluster into three distinct enterotypes [2] and of these enterotypes,
Bacteroides and Prevotella dominated microbial communities have been reported to be
associated with long-term diets [3]. Previously, twin studies have suggested a role for the host
genotype in determining the microbiota composition [4], but the genetic host factors
potentially affecting the gastrointestinal microbiota composition are unknown to a large
extent.The mucosal layer covering our gut epithelium has an important role as the first layer of host
defences, but it also enables contacts between intestinal microbiota and the host [1,5]. The
microbial biomass in the large intestine is mainly residing in the lumen and the mucosaassociated
population differs from the lumen population [1]. There is a continuous interplay
between the mucus secretion and degradation by bacteria as bacterial metabolites have been
shown to act as signalling molecules modulating the mucus synthesis [6]. The mucus is
mainly composed of mucins, large glycoproteins containing a protein core and attached
oligosaccharides [7]. We recently observed a significant association between the blood group
secretor status (encoded by fucosyltransferase-2, FUT2, gene) and the intestinal
bifidobacteria composition [8]. The secretor status defines the expression of the ABO blood
group antigens in the mucus of secretor individuals (80% of Western population). These
antigens are expressed in the intestinal mucosal layer, and act as binding sites or carbon
sources for the intestinal microbes, thereby providing a host-specific genetic agent affecting
the microbiota composition [9,10].

Quoted from Lola

here Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgHyBYenBso&feature=youtu.be

Thanks.  I always avoided fatty foods for the most part!  

It is the genes that correlate with the blood type that matter, as Dr. D states in the genotype book.

A's and explorers (as do gatherers) do badly with fatty meats and certain other types of fats.  Hunters and nomads are said to not have to worry about the fat content.  Heart disease is not a risk for explorers, but A's have a higher risk when compared to O, but lesser than AB.

But all blood types risk is raised when they abuse their body and trash it i would guess.  I have seen some people abuse cocaine heavily for years and not have heart problems at all, and others that had heart attacks with moderate use in counseling (i am a counselor).

So genes, which correlate with blood type generally, and more specifically with ones genotype, determine ones risk for heart disease or any disease at all.  

I saw this video was made by Eric, that is an excellent promo looks like the documentaries i love watching on netflix!  There needs to be a movie length documentary on the blood type diet and the genotype diet.