Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  The GenoType Diet  /  How have these people been typed so easily?
Posted by: Chloe, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 8:31pm
I've re-read the GTD at least 5 times.  What perplexes me most is this:

How was it determined, without fingerprinting, without secretor status, without blood typing,
without body measurements, without finger measuring, without knowing if they are prop tasters that these famous people are known to be a particular genotype?????

HUNTERS: Katherine Hepburn & Thomas Jefferson
GATHERS: Oprah and Elvis
TEACHERS: Abe Lincoln, Bjork
EXPLORERS: Charlie Chaplin, Julius Caesar
WARRIORS: Julia Child, Hillary Clinton
NOMADS: Winston Churchill and Peppermint Patty (a cartoon character!!!)

I am measuring and re-measuring...and still confused about what group definitively I fit into.

Yet, without any of the above people doing what I'm doing, what about them visually is
giving their genotype away??????  

Anyone have an answer?

Posted by: RedLilac, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 8:39pm; Reply: 1
Their blood types might be known, but not their secretor status.  Iím guessing that he profiled them from known characteristics.  It would be interesting if the people who are alive would go through the actual testing and see how close Dr. D came to guessing their GT.
Posted by: Chloe, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 9:13pm; Reply: 2
Quoted from RedLilac
Their blood types might be known, but not their secretor status.  Iím guessing that he profiled them from known characteristics.  It would be interesting if the people who are alive would go through the actual testing and see how close Dr. D came to guessing their GT.


Peppermint Patty is Charles Shultz's cartoon character from Peanuts and she's a NOMAD.
How does one know this?

All  we know is the obvious from looking at (not real) Peppermint Patty; the physical shape of her body and the shape and size of her head in relation to her body..  Nothing more will ever be known.

I honestly think there is an obvious physical characteristic, based on head shape that is
going to make one type distinctly stand out from the others and allow one to look at
a person and define their type fairly easily.  I just wanted to know what this obvious short
cut was~!  
Posted by: 312 (Guest), Sunday, January 20, 2008, 9:35pm; Reply: 3
OK, I am guessing here, but my impression is that Dr. D used them as examples of what a certain
genotype would look like, to illustrate that type.  I don't think their types were actually known..... ;)
Posted by: Kristin, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 10:06pm; Reply: 4
Quoted from 312
OK, I am guessing here, but my impression is that Dr. D used them as examples of what a certain
genotype would look like, to illustrate that type.  I don't think their types were actually known..... ;)


That was my first thought too. Perhaps it was the hand of the editor at work.... to make the types more relate-able to the general population.  

Posted by: Victoria, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 10:12pm; Reply: 5
Quoted from 312
OK, I am guessing here, but my impression is that Dr. D used them as examples of what a certain
genotype would look like, to illustrate that type.  I don't think their types were actually known..... ;)


This is my guess, as well.  I believe that these folks represent the "essence" of each type, and this doesn't necessarily mean that they are really that type.
Posted by: Chloe, Sunday, January 20, 2008, 11:08pm; Reply: 6
Quoted from Victoria


This is my guess, as well.  I believe that these folks represent the "essence" of each type, and this doesn't necessarily mean that they are really that type.


Let's assume this is correct...and that these people merely represent a type.  I want to know
what distinguishing features of each made them representative of the type they were assigned to..  Is it Hillary's short legs that makes her a warrior or is it the shape of her face?  We can only SEE certain obvious traits that would identify each person belonging to a genotype. What trait
would be so easy to identify in the people that were cited?

This is basically a rhetorical question. I don't think any of us really know the answer.  I am
just very curious.
Posted by: Novelia, Monday, January 21, 2008, 12:31am; Reply: 7
I want to know, too! Your points are excellent Chloe. :) lol for Peppermint Patty being cited. This isn't about things like secretor status and finger prints, that's for sure. :)


Quoted from Chloe


Let's assume this is correct...and that these people merely represent a type.  I want to know
what distinguishing features of each made them representative of the type they were assigned to..  Is it Hillary's short legs that makes her a warrior or is it the shape of her face?  We can only SEE certain obvious traits that would identify each person belonging to a genotype. What trait
would be so easy to identify in the people that were cited?

This is basically a rhetorical question. I don't think any of us really know the answer.  I am
just very curious.


Posted by: C_Sharp, Monday, January 21, 2008, 12:52am; Reply: 8
I had assumed (perhaps falsly) that a character like Peppermint Patty manifested the personality characteristics of a nomad--not that she physically was a nomad.

I thought it was just an illustration to help the nomad label "come to life" for the reader.
Posted by: Chloe, Monday, January 21, 2008, 1:58am; Reply: 9
Quoted from C_Sharp
I had assumed (perhaps falsly) that a character like Peppermint Patty manifested the personality characteristics of a nomad--not that she physically was a nomad.

I thought it was just an illustration to help the nomad label "come to life" for the reader.


If the genotype book was written with our personalities being the primary way to identify our genotypes, I'd have maybe seen Hillary as Warrior-like.  But, we are asked to take precise and definitive measurements of our fingers, torsos, legs, heads in addition to comparing fingerprint whirls, loops and acknowledging whether there are differences in our own fingers and hands.  There are so many different ways to measure ourselves that I found it really odd that with one look of Marilyn Monroe, Oprah or even a cartoon, that there could be an inference drawn and an example shown that says someone fits into a specific type without
having measured them. Why must I measure myself and need to strength test my results if we can look at a picture of Abraham Lincoln and figure out his type??  I don't think his personal stats, as detailed as the ones we're doing are ever going to be revealed nor is Lincoln's personality all that clear from what's known about him historically.

I'm still curious. This book is about science.. I truly can't understand how these people were typed and why they belong to the specific genotype group they have been assigned. I'm basing this on me being a Warrior and also Hillary Clinton, James Gandolfini, Michelangelo's "DAVID" (a statue with obviously no discernable personality) and Julia Child are in my group.  WHY?  And what do we all have in common?  I can't see how Hillary Clinton and Julia Child resemble
one another in body type. Or personalities...Nor does the shape of their heads match.  Knowing this would give credence to me believing I've typed myself into the right group and have done my analysis correctly.  But still, if I'm asked to arrive at a conclusion by doing detailed analysis, by what method are dead people, statues and cartoon characters typed?

Maybe I'm taking this all too literally. I really think I belong to a group that should be called
"Perpetually Questioning Everything".

Posted by: meribelle, Monday, January 21, 2008, 2:05am; Reply: 10
I find myself looking around at people and trying to put them in a genotype.  I will never know if I am right or not, but it is fun.
Posted by: Chloe, Monday, January 21, 2008, 2:36am; Reply: 11
Quoted from meribelle
I find myself looking around at people and trying to put them in a genotype.  I will never know if I am right or not, but it is fun.


Maybe you can help me here..  How would you have determined that Hillary Clinton looks like and/or acts like a Warrior?  Her face appears rather round to me and not elongated.  And how about Elvis being a Gatherer?  Does Oprah look and seem like a Gatherer?  I can see Elvis having "highs and lows" but Oprah?  She seems rather even tempered to me..And doesn't seem all that exercise challenged from her own reports of how much she actually exercises. Are you assessing people from a visual perspective or are you factoring in their personalities?

I suddenly see my overwhelming "warrior" tendency for pursuing a mental challenge inexorably until it's mastered.  But for the life of me, I can't see how I possibly relate to Julia Child. LOL!

Posted by: Mrs T O+, Monday, January 21, 2008, 2:36am; Reply: 12
Wow! I go to a large church & guess what I caught myself doing?
I noticed in the evening service, I didn't see any long heads!
This church has all kinds of ethnic groups, so I can't say it is a certain group.
I also look at folks' legs & seem to think that everyone has a longer torso.
My 'A-teacher' friend says she feels good, so the diet plus another factor is working for her. She says this diet using diamonds is easier than before. I'm so happy for her.

About the personalities, etc., I think some of them are wrong. Wasn't MM thought to be an AB? Hillary seems to have an O personality, definitely not an A or AB, but there are exceptions to the rules about personalities, we all know!
I'm sure we won't easily find out certain politicians' blood types, but it would be interesting. After I found out Bush I was an A, I assumed his wife was an O & Bush II was an O also (by apprearance & personality). Of course the rigors of the job certainly hides the personality in the stress, etc.
It would be nice if Dr. D. explained why he used certain personalities as illustrations. However, I'm more interested in learning about other things in the book!!!!!!
S S & L,
Mrs "T"    O+ [hopeful hunter]
Posted by: Novelia, Monday, January 21, 2008, 2:43am; Reply: 13
Quoted from Mrs T O+


About the personalities, etc., I think some of them are wrong. Wasn't MM thought to be an AB?


Oh good point! I had forgotten! I've read many places that she was an AB. JFK was too, apparently.

I found a site by someone who is keen on this and on the page below they list the blood types of famous Japanese people followed by US presidents and later other celebrities. The Japanese are very into blood type and personality.

http://www010.upp.so-net.ne.jp/abofan/data-e.htm



Posted by: 2374 (Guest), Monday, January 21, 2008, 6:38am; Reply: 14
I can see Chloe's point.  It makes the Genotype Diet seem subjective and non scientific.  
Posted by: Devora, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:39am; Reply: 15
I happen to know that Peppermint Patty is a longstanding patient at the D'Adamo clinic, and that D.r D. had her blood type taken and even has her secreetor and taster status!  He also treated Thomas Jefferson in a previous incarnation, and still has all his files on him.  
Elvis is still alive, and living in Wilton, CT.
Julius Ceasar send Dr. D. and e-mail will all his stats last week.
Charlie Chaplin is a registered member on the GTD website, and Julia Child cut herself in the kitchen a few years ago and Dr. D. purchased the bloody knife for a cold 2 mil at an auction.
As to how he knows what the others are: I have no idea.  Mental telepathy, I guess.
Posted by: marianne, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:58am; Reply: 16
That's too funny, Devora! lol

I don't think the editors added the information about Abe Lincoln, Dr. D refers to him later in that chapter and points out that he had a secondary pituitary disease as well as amazing physical strength.
Posted by: Curious, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:40am; Reply: 17
Quoted from 2374
I can see Chloe's point.  It makes the Genotype Diet seem subjective and non scientific.  

I agree with Chloe and annesae. The people who critise the Genotype book say that it is not scientific. Unfortunately, the genotyping of these people seems to support them.
Posted by: Novelia, Monday, January 21, 2008, 11:04am; Reply: 18
Quoted from Curious

I agree with Chloe and annesae. The people who critise the Genotype book say that it is not scientific. Unfortunately, the genotyping of these people seems to support them.


Yes. It should have been made clear in the book that those people aren't necessarily those GenoTypes and then an explanation offered of why they fit.

Posted by: Ribbit, Monday, January 21, 2008, 1:24pm; Reply: 19
Neat thread.  I was wondering the same thing.  I don't see that I have one single thing in any way, shape, or form, in common with Hillary Clinton.  'Course, maybe our legs are the same length.  But I'm beginning to understand what this thing is with needing to know stuff.  If I question something, I'll pursue the answer or it drives me nuts.  I guess that really is a Warrior trait coming through (if I am indeed a Warrior).  

We've amused ourselves recently by trying to blood type (by temperament) the Disney characters from 100 Acre Woods.  

Tigger's a B
Pooh's an A or AB
Eeyore's an A with a serious wheat allergy
Rabbit's an O
My daughter says Christopher Robin is an AB like her, but I'm not sure what to think yet.
Posted by: Peppermint Twist, Monday, January 21, 2008, 3:00pm; Reply: 20
Quoted from 2374
I can see Chloe's point.  It makes the Genotype Diet seem subjective and non scientific.  

Why?  One can readily see that Elvis' lower legs are shorter than his upper, and his torso is longer than his total leg length, etc.*  Obviously, they had to use just the "basic" genotype calculator to give these sample people to us to illustrate our types.  Equally as obviously, if they actually went through the full battery of tests, there is a chance that they might type out as something else afterall.  But as has been said by others in this thread, the samples are just there to give us an idea of the archetype for each genotype.

When they do the same for the Jung/Keirsey/Myers-Briggs types, no one ever thinks to question how (although I have *lol*) they know what, say, Jesus' personality type was, without actually having the person him/herself take the full battery of tests.  But the point is, this person is an archetype of that type.  A quintessence.  What you/we see on the outside is, anyway.  Who knows, maybe someone who seems like an INFJ on the outside is really an ESFP (i.e., TOTAL opposite in personality, even though the "F" is shared--but the total combo package is, imho, TOTALLY opposite, even more than an ESTP and INFJ).  I don't "seem" like an "I" (introvert) to people, but I soooooooooooo totally and utterly am.

What I'm saying is, with any typing system that endeavors to provide famous examples for the student of same to get an idea of the embodiement of the type, the samples provided might actually be erroneous, but they seem like the type from the outside looking in.  They are there purely as illustrative examples.  The only way to know the type for real is to put the actual subject through the testing.  In the case of the Jungian types, the person her or himself HAS to take the tests in order for a true type to emerge, imho.  You CANNOT just look in from the outside and figure it out.  You have a good chance of doing so, if you have studied the system, but you cannot do it with certainty.  The person HAS to take the test her/himself.  But even though, therefore, some of the types listed as examples are probably erroneous, that doesn't mean that they don't give us an idea of what the type TYPICALLY looks (genotypes) or acts/thinks (Jung types) like.

They are there to paint us a picture.  They do not speak to how "scientific" the actual typing system is or is not.



* edited to add:  now that I've been studying pics of Elvis since I wrote that, I'm not so sure anymore!  Maybe his getting plopped into the book as a Gatherer archetype was not based on relative leg/torso lengths, etc.  But anyway, it was based on SOMETHING and my point of the post was and remains that all of these are just examples from the outside looking in, just to paint us a representative pic of what our genotype looks like.
Posted by: Chloe, Monday, January 21, 2008, 4:32pm; Reply: 21
Quoted from 2374
I can see Chloe's point.  It makes the Genotype Diet seem subjective and non scientific.  


In no way was I attempting to say that this vast amount of work isn't scientific. Obviously
there are ways to draw conclusions that I know nothing about.  But how conclusions
were drawn about identifying these types isn't quite clear to me. It's obvious that there are ways to measure body parts of many people, gather other information and crunch numbers and put people into archetypal groups.. I simply found myself asking a lot of questions that
the book didn't answer for me. This is just who I am...a question asker.  I ask questions even when I know the answers might be subjective.I want to know how the foods themselves
might be able to turn on or turn off genes.  I would think as a reader of a scientific book,
I'd like to know why certain foods were chosen.  In the Blood Type Encyclopedia, we are
told why a particular food is good or bad for our blood types.

I know the people sited in the book represent archetypes of their genotype..  BUT, what confused me the most is that I don't seem to really fit any of these types except for Explorer when it comes to issues related to the weakness of a type and because I'm a type A secretor with a rh+, I can only be a Warrior or a Teacher.  Even with those two types as my options, reading
the food lists, looking at the examples of people who might BE my sisterly/brothely archehtypes and attempting to figure out how I might relate physically strong or physically weak to any of these examples shown, I don't think I make a good fit either way.  Either there are more types than 6 or perhaps an Explorer CAN have rh+ blood and BE a secretor as the exception.  I definitely belong with a group that has inflammation as their weak link, as my C-reactive Protein levels prove that fact. I truly AM a "canary in a coal mine"  Allergists have described me that way... I have no tolerance for caffeine or medication and it doesn't take much to throw me completely off balance.  and it was stated in the book that
people who have these traits  are "almost always Explorers" For nearly 2 weeks I'm eating a Warrior diet because I fit that better than the Teacher profile..  And yesterday after new Diamond Warrior foods gave me diarrhea again, I'm at my wits trying to move forward.  I keep going back to the basic type A diet to find my equilibrium again.

I also am curious to know just how these foods were chosen.  What are the properties of,
for example, an apple and how might eating apples if they have diamonds influence how a gene is expressed?  Is it a polyphenol? Pectin?  Something else?  The answer to a question like this needs to be scientifically stated somewhere to  satisfy my compliance. If there is a way
to take a nutritional supplement and accomplish the same goal, it might give me an option
to get the food's benefit without having to ingest a food I don't tolerate.

I guess I am hoping to see some kind of studies...the methods used for even a hypothesis.  This is the way my brain works. I like to know how a conclusion is drawn.. And if I want to help my body, I think I really need to figure out which type i really am.  So far, all I can say is that my blood type is A.  And that I was doing fine on the Blood type diet for an A. And
that's not a bad thing. I can stay there but I'm always going to be wondering why I can't
find my proper Genotype "home".



Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:03pm; Reply: 22

I'm new to this thread, and have only skimmed it.  But here's one point that I have not seen mentioned:

Dr. D has apparently been doing GenoType testing in his clinic for years.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if he could type people fairly well at a glance by now -- though even he would need to do the measurements to be sure.

Haven't some of you been on the BTD for so long now that you can spot "an obvious A" or "a typical O"?

Isn't Peppermint Patty a red-head?  That's a typical Nomad trait (though of course not conclusive).  And as for David, Dr. D may well have measured him!
Posted by: 312 (Guest), Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:33pm; Reply: 23
Chloe,
I understand what you are trying to say.  I also thought I should possibly be an explorer.  I am left handed, have some awful springtime allergies, can bat righty (when I used to play softball as a kid in school), have had liver problems.....But I don't type out as one.  I also am not sure how I am doing with the added dairy products, they taste great, but seem to cause water retention in my system,
and block desired weight loss.  So instead of eating like a gatherer, I could just stay on a version of the type O diet.  But I have measured and have the family history of a gatherer.  So I am bit at odds,
but not really upset by it.  Perhaps, imho, maybe in time, there will be some adjustments?  I mean
you are one or the other genotype.  Maybe the explorer is sort of an oddity that may have additional
variables yet to be discovered?   Just again, imho.  I am still eating like a gatherer, but really monitoring my dairy reactions......Maybe in the spring, when hayfever season arrives, I'll know more.  But I hear your fustration.  
Posted by: Ribbit, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:33pm; Reply: 24
Chloe,
I asked my husband to remeasure my legs this morning.  We had been doing both leg segments sitting down.  It was suggested we do the upper leg measurement sitting down with all body parts at right angles.  Then we were to measure the lower leg with me standing up.  That shifted my numbers enough to make me into a Warrior instead of a Teacher.  I don't know how you did your measurements, but if you are very close with your numbers in leg length, as I was, it might be worth going back and making sure you were standing/sitting correctly.

The Warrior diet may have too much dairy for you if it gave you the runs (if you were eating the dairy suggestions).  Could be, though, it's just cleaning you out.  Or you're not a Warrior.
Posted by: OSuzanna, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:38pm; Reply: 25
The instructions in the book and the online videos tell you to measure sitting down, with the joints at right angles.
Posted by: Carol the Dabbler, Monday, January 21, 2008, 7:47pm; Reply: 26
Quoted from OSuzanna
The instructions in the book and the online videos tell you to measure sitting down, with the joints at right angles.



Right, for the torso-height and upper-leg-length measurements.

For lower-leg length, the book says (p. 59) to stand in your stocking feet.

Posted by: Dr. D, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:04pm; Reply: 27
Good grief... ;D
Posted by: Ribbit, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:10pm; Reply: 28
Hey, now.  You have to understand, Dr. D.  This is all new for us.  We read the entire book and there was so much new stuff, it was a little overwhealming (especially for some of us who have to have things spelled out real simple-like).  (I do think that's the fastest I've ever read through a book that size.)  And some of us are close enough in measurements for it to be a big deal whether you're sitting or standing.  Makes the difference between Warrior and Teacher for me, and those two diets are very different.  It's "Measure once, eat twice.  Or, measure twice, eat once."
Posted by: Dr. D, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:16pm; Reply: 29
I'm reacting to the Peppermint Patty part of the thread.
Posted by: Chloe, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:24pm; Reply: 30
Quoted from Dr. D
I'm reacting to the Peppermint Patty part of the thread.


Please tell me what about PP makes her a NOMAD?

Posted by: Dr. D, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:34pm; Reply: 31
Red hair..
Caesar..left handed
Marilyn Monroe.. Body type
Lincoln.. Sinewy build
Jefferson..incessant hunger
Gandolfini...dolicocepalic headshape

The idea came from Sheldon's 'atlas of man' where he used animal metaphors for the somatotypes.

Typing from my iPhone so the posts are not very wordy..
Posted by: OSuzanna, Monday, January 21, 2008, 8:49pm; Reply: 32
Quoted from Dr. D
Good grief... ;D


I get it  ;)


Carol, Even if I don't get my info 100% right all the time... for lower leg, I was remembering the video for measuring.. :-/
Posted by: Chloe, Monday, January 21, 2008, 9:00pm; Reply: 33
Quoted from Dr. D
Red hair..
Caesar..left handed
Marilyn Monroe.. Body type
Lincoln.. Sinewy build
Jefferson..incessant hunger
Gandolfini...dolicocepalic headshape

The idea came from Sheldon's 'atlas of man' where he used animal metaphors for the somatotypes.

Typing from my iPhone so the posts are not very wordy..


Thanks a bunch for your answer, Dr, D....  Poor Jefferson, sounds just like my dog!  LOL

Posted by: carnivsrus, Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 7:28am; Reply: 34
Perhaps you are thinking of the little red haired girl with whom  Charlie Brown held a high degree of infatuation for  in many of the strips series.
iemnli carnivsrus
Posted by: GillianR, Wednesday, January 30, 2008, 8:02am; Reply: 35
carnivs "R" us. LOL

Chloe,
     Maybe you should join us explorers for a trial. I can totally relate to how you are thinking and questioning. I had so many questions I couldn't ask them all.  There are many of us who are interested in details. I don't like answers to be glossed over, either. Obviously we are all passionate about Dr. D' and his diets. I have no doubt that the theories and facts that Dr. D. proposes will stand up to heavy scrutiny and who better to scrutinize and question than those who are on your side.
Keep up the interesting questions.
Print page generated: Friday, August 22, 2014, 10:17am