Says D'Adamo didn't take into account A1, A2, Rh+ or Rh-.
Quoted TextDr D
on first blood type
''In discussions I read on the matter, this sort of terminology was used to describe the evolutionary or mutation process. It makes more sense when you see depictions of the A, B and O molecules, but, very simply, the A and B molecules are more complex than O. So, speculation was that, based on other mutations that have been observed in nature, it was more likely that the simpler type O developed from more complex type A than the other way around, with the a "defective" O developing into A and/or B.''
That article went way over my head.
(Is that link part of a book? It looks like he published another book this year.)
Not that it matters at all to me, but I, too have read that blood type A came first. Is there something I can show to others who question this? I love to share the BTD/GTD but have not found anything I can pass along on this subject. The link Lola provided is great, but it deals more with when blood type AB came into being.
THANKS! Let's continue to spread the word . . .
Negligible information anyways. Speculations on first blood types doesn't change one damn fact about how our bodies respond to food, not one fact with any study related to ABO and secretor status.
By the way the oldest record of blood type we have is A, that does not prove it came first. Furthermore that Type A individual likely has nothing in common with any of the current phenotypes regardless of ABO status.
Quoted TextThe link Lola provided is great, but it deals more with when blood type AB came into being.
Quoted Text...the A and B molecules are more complex than O
Quoted Text....it was more likely that the simpler type O developed from more complex type A than the other way around
Those people need to be ridiculed for attacking an assumption to explain real world accepted facts that are contemporary and not disputed (currently).
Quoted from Lolahttp://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm
Dr D has said enough.......the choice is yours
on 'first blood'
Quoted TextNo Bee In Your Bonnett
Posted By: Peter D'Adamo
Date: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
The mutations which produced the ABO alleles are ancient, but the A and B genes were in scarce supply prior to 25-50 thousand years ago. Their gradual increase in number was a result of the forces brought about by neolithic changes including the greater lethality of pandemics and communicable diseases which worked against type O.
This was simplified somewhat in ER, but in fact is true. Should you wish, you can read someone like AE Mourant for further information.
The shroud could theoretically be Christ's and AB as well. ER only makes the point that AB are not found in significant numbers of grave exhumations until the Langobard Era (ca 900AD). However that doesn't mean that they were not found in insignificant numbers prior to that.
However, at least one Egyptian pharoah has been typed as AB, indicating that admixing of A and B genes was already occurring by 3,000 BCE. The influx of the conquering Hyskos (a semitic tribe) into Egypt and their mixing with indigenous Indo-European strains would have produced some AB -especially at the upper rungs of Egyptian society that resulted from intermarriage.
By the way, I'm not certain that one can be 'very wrong.'
All wrong is probably very wrong.
Messages in This Thread
No Bee In Your Bonnett
Peter D'Adamo -- Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
View Thread View Post Thread for This Board Read Prev Msg Read Next Msg
I agree with you, DOS, but the problem is if people can poke holes in the diet theory, this is one of the places they attack first. I am just asking if there are resources to which can direct them that would help to support Dr. D's theory on this subject, as it is one of the first subject that he discusses in ER4YT. ;)
Quoted from ruthiegirl
It might help to point out that the "what each individual should eat NOW" is based on hard science, while the "which BT came first?" is mostly speculative.
For curiosity's sake, Dr D delves into the evolution of blood types, but "meat" of his work is on individualized nutrition. Our different bodies are here now, and Dr D knows how to feed us. How we got here is fun to speculate on, but isn't the foundation of Dr D's work.
Unfortunately the argument then can arise that A's should be the meat eaters, like their ancient ancestors and O's should be vegetarians, like their ancient ancestors, so in fact, the order of the blood types does matter, according to Dr. D's theory. Just playing devil's advocate here :-/
DOS, in my humble opinion, ridiculing anyone will not help advance the ideas of Dr. D or anyone else. We are all individuals and have the right to our beliefs. I think providing the scientific evidence is a better route towards helping people counter the criticism of the diet.
Yes, but my point, our ancestors are not the ones giving us support for current research, we are; and at best our great grandparents. How people respond to food today is more important than all of history. Genetic markers may say something about our history, but they say more about our response to food and exercise.
Quoted from Maria GiovannaPatty You 'd be right if not for IAP and stomac acid and pepsine higher in Os than in As, these are the A issue with a lot of meat
I disagree. Today lies are ok, and confronting them is not. At no point will I be ok with that. It is a problem in every facet of our lives; believes mean more than simple fact. The opposite means it comes to morals where it is unethical to differ on - the problem promoting it.
Ridicule does not have to mean the "poo poo on their head" but rather a good laugh and disregard, to continue on with whatever is being worked on/discussed.
Yes, but Dr. D goes to great length to describe O's as the oldest and were the hunter/gatherers, A's as the agrarians, whose blood changed to type A to accommodate the change in lifestyle once the herds were all hunted out and people began living together in communal groups and growing their own crops, etc., etc. You cannot separate which blood type came first with his theory on what one should eat as it is the central axis on which his theory rests in ER4YT.
Then I would disown ER4YT (when I read it I never got the impression that it was anything more than an anecdote). I never tell people about the backdrop story of bloodtypes and diets. It is utterly unimportant.
If Dr. D based his recommendations for bloodtype diet on his pet theory - that he is more educated on than most people - then I guess we can all just be very thankful the rest of his work is based on science instead of "guess and check".
I disagree. Today lies are ok, and confronting them is not. At no point will I be ok with that. It is a problem in every facet of our lives; believes mean more than simple fact. The opposite means it comes to morals where it is unethical to differ on - the problem promoting it............
Quoted TextThe mutations which produced the ABO alleles are ancient, but the A and B genes were in scarce supply prior to 25-50 thousand years ago. Their gradual increase in number was a result of the forces brought about by neolithic changes including the greater lethality of pandemics and communicable diseases which worked against type O.
Disowning and calling his theory "an anecdote" and "guess and check" in is first book, which was probably his most popular book is an interesting option for you, but I don't see how you can pick and choose what is relevant or important to YOU! His theory and his subsequent theories are based on his scientific understanding that blood type O is the oldest. Even the genotypes, in his most recent book, are relevant to blood type. In other words, an A can not be a Hunter or a Gatherer, which would be considered the oldest of the genotypes as well.
1. Dr. D'Adamo to my knowledge does not posses a time machine. His accumulated information, and conceptual knowledge lead him to this opinion. If you search anywhere in the criticisms of his work when discussing the idea he states it is a matter of opinion that differs, not facts as other people would like you to believe. Why are the opinions? Because none of them where alive when it all went down.
2. His work on what food to eat has nothing to do with chronological order of bloodtype appearance. It doesn't matter if Type O blood came from whales, Type A blood came from aliens in a dHis theory and his subsequent theories are based on his scientific understanding that blood type O is the oldest.istance galaxy, and Type B blood came from demon hell spawn - Type O's still have problems with the wheat germ lectin, Type A still have less IAP to digest fatty acids, and Type B blood are still predisposed to nitrogen balance problems.
3. I believe in a the BTD/GTD, but the one I believe in is backed by science, even if it is not a double blind study, backed, practice. Where Dr. D'Adamo gets information from outside his own work I search for and find all over the place in journals. I can not on my own come to any better conclusions that he already has - my understanding is not even in the same reality. What I don't do is follow a diet that is based on a matter of opinion on irrelevant information to my health.
4. Genotype's (phenotypes) are not an accumulation of information based on chronological discovery. They are what they are called, phenotypes (GenoType is just the pseudo-pragmatic name), which BTD did not fully account for but started to in LR4YT. It has nothing to do with the fact that Hunter/Gatherer societies predate agriculture, when it comes to a Type A blood not being a Hunter/Gatherer. The Genotype names are just monikers for ideas that suit the phenotypes; not phenotypes Dr. D'Adamo wanted to apply a bloodtype to. All of the studies on Type O still apply to both GTD1 and GTD2; but by differentiating the phenotypes between the Type O we can work on treating the genes to prevent the predisposed problems that each phenotype is more likely to be subject to, than just doing a blanket technique with the BTD.
Please though by all means use the chronological ideas of bloodtype and phenotype as speculations, opinions, of why people may respond to certain foods. Just pleas stop confusing them for the true science behind this revolutionary work. (example, Type O have more IAP, a study done in the 1950s, so it makes since they can breakdown and transfer fats across the mucosa in the intestines, in the proper form, yet mice when they are given a serum to reduce IAP, gain more weight than control mice on a high fat diet)
If I was Dr. D, I would actually consider having the humility to apologize for representing a matter of opinion in his first book as potentially being more than that, or maybe just admit it was a mistake because of all the flack he has received; since it belittled the phenomenal work he has been doing. Perhaps a new print of it would be appropriate, if it all continuing with printing that particular book.
Quoted from 14442
Well here is my take on it: blood type theory isn't for everyone. Those who can't/won't do the work themselves to prove it don't deserve it. Maybe they need to wander the rest of their lives or go here and there seeking help. This diet seems to attract people who have already been searching for answers. A lot of people aren't like us. I have heard also that As were first on other boards but these very same people who argued with me, really both As and Os since we are the dominant blood groups, retreated back in to "science" even though all the Os said they were on Atkins and the As were all horrified at ditching grains or having to exercise every day. If they want to spread lies why not let them. The As can keep having acid reflux and the Os can go on antidepressants and anti anxiety medicine, it's really their choice. People have had 15 years to learn about blood type since it was first introduced to the public. The concept apparently just doesn't resonate with some people and that is OK. But no the science part of it is beyond most people's understanding since most people aren't scientists. It's really just pseudo intellectualism with most people, actually very common in my generation who likes to tear everything apart mentally. Point this out to someone ie "you're not a scientist" and it means nothing. It's a pointless joust, might as well do something else.
Quoted TextYou cannot separate which blood type came first with his theory on what one should eat as it is the central axis on which his theory rests in ER4YT.
First, different levels of IAP
Type A neutralizes IAP
Response in humans is probably the same, but for example this would explain why people with less IAP benefit from lower fat diets
If you get the gist, IAP works in conjunction with other things, such as enzyme CD36, to transfer fat across the mucosa. The thing is that what is being transfered can be different structures of protein, different lengths rather. In other words it decides what type of fat makes its way into the blood.
No science? Animal Manure
There is more than enough reason for Type A people to eat low saturated fat diets. You want more? I got more. Piss on no science.
Quoted TextIt has been estimated that the serum alkaline phosphatase activity of non-secretors is only about 20% of the activity in the secretor groups.
Quoted TextThese findings suggest that the link between group O individuals and adaptation to cholesterol-containing foods in the diet (such as meats) reaches its greatest accommodation in group O secretors. Conversely, group A non-secretors would have the lowest levels of intestinal alkaline phosphatase and the greatest difficulties in handling dietary fat.
Quoted TextWith more sensitive techniques for demonstrating alkaline phosphatase activity, it was found that small amounts of this enzyme are present in the serums of 10 to 15 per cent of group A secretors, and a smaller number of nonsecretors. The serums of approximately 70 to 80 per cent of Group O and B secretors contain this enzyme, in much larger quantities than in the Group A secretors or nonsecretors. Group AB persons are intermediate in percentage of positive persons and in quantities of phosphatase in serum.
Quoted TextThe concentration of the intestinal phosphatase is lowest in the serum during fasting and rises after ingestion of fat, reaching a peak at about seven to eight hours. This increase is most marked in Group O and B secretors, but it is detectable in most people. The concentration of intestinal alkaline phosphatase in human thoracic-duct lymph rises after a fatty meal, and presumably most of the intestinal phosphatase enters the blood by way of the lymphatic system. Schreffier and Langnall et al measured the alkaline phosphatase concentration in the mucosa of the human small intestine. The former found no correlation between alkaline phosphatase levels and ABO groups or secretor type, but the latter observed that Group O and B secretors had the highest mean concentration of alkaline phosphatase, Group A secretors had the next highest concentration, and nonsecretors had the lowest amount; in that study, however, there was a marked overlap between the three groups in the range of enzyme activity, and the differences observed were much smaller than those found in serum. In view of these data it seems likely that the ABO and secretor genes influence the rate at which the intestinal phosphatase enters the blood, or its catabolism, rather than its synthesis in the intestine.
Are they older? It is just an idea (propagated by me). You need to remember that all the phenotypes (genotypes) would of most likely evolved through secretor genes. That means the phenotypes we have are more suited for secretor genes than non-secretor genes. If it was the other way around I would suspect we would have different phenotypes that were not as prone to disease as nonnies, and yet also probably have more non-secretors - maybe it would even be a dominate trait. Explorers are a good example of people that while often nonnie, are in such good health (with quirks perhaps) no one would exactly suspect them of being one. They may of evolved much more strongly with the nonnie gene, allowing them to be a higher functioning group naturally as nonnies. I know that unfortunately there are lots of Explorers with not-so-great gene expression these days but they are less often the mesomorphorphic, independent person, the phenotype is capable of, these days. I am sure the modern world has thrown in its monkey wrenches (toxins).
Just imagine if all our phenotypes were built around non-secretors (FUT2 gene). Secretors could be the unhealthy ones! Although I would suspect a different structure of society. Genetic expression through evolution is probably more powerful than some antigens floating around in fluids. Imagine if Crohn's patients autoimmune system was so self-regulating that they never had Crohn's or autoimmunity, just one diarrhea flush, because their phenotype was so evolved at killing foregoing invaders without becoming autoimmune; in contrast a secretor might just have to live with it if it got past the piddly antigen in the fluids, which only protects against antigen binding shaped things.
IAP helps with processing fats, not necessarily, specifically, meat. Remember Type A have less stomach acid (teachers/warriors), which probably plays as big of a role as IAP in the whole meat situation. Type A get cardiovascular disease often, and not digestive troubles from meat (all the Paleo people that die early, that are Type A are an example since they would not do Paleo if they where having black tar blood stools). Also there are different levels of different enzymes besides IAP. Lastly every bloodtype tends to host significantly different enteric bacteria. For bloodtype O lets say the bacteria that they naturally have is able to work with meat, yet push out the bad ones a Type A would let populate on a meat diet; or something to that effect.
The farther back in time the last fatty meat was, so non-secretors eating low fat meat in large quantities actually makes a lot of sense.
You need to remember that all the phenotypes (genotypes) would of most likely evolved through secretor genes. That means the phenotypes we have are more suited for secretor genes than non-secretor genes. So you are saying we went from the stronger expression of genetics to the weaker expression instead of the other way around?
Quoted from Dr. D
ERFYT was a very simplified representation and was never intended to be the technical type explanation. There is still ample evidence, however, that because of infectious disease resistance and genetic drift, type O probably greatly outnumbered the other blood groups until the neolithic age, even if the molecular mutations that produced them are far older. That's what the book was really trying to describe.
nonnies? Nonnies perhaps have, in a way. If every one stayed a nonnie they would of still evolved, but I would suspect they would be healthier today. Although with a lack of diversity in immune system who knows; maybe humans would of been eliminated.
I would just stick to what Dr. D recommends, and exercise. You don't have digestive problems do you? I wouldn't worry about it unless something actually feels wrong. I mean don't eat super fatty red meat, eat lean stuff, and you should be fine. You might have less IAP but your metabolism probably burns fat and protein quickly - especially if you don't eat much grains like nonnies prefer.
How do you feel? You could always get your cholesterol and LDL/HDL levels checked to make sure they are not seriously out of control. Go for low fat meats (lamb & buffalo naturally are). You can even order meat with low fat ground in when it comes to beef.
Quoted from radioronIf blood type A came before blood type O, it would tend to validate the theory of Creation rather than evolution. In Genesis 1:29, God commanded Adam and Eve to be vegans.
No science? Animal Manure
Quoted from AKArtlover
Quoted from articleIf Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins.
Quoted from shoulderblade
As far as I can see in order for it to survive you would need a number of mutations simultaneously which would be indicative of a serious need for the mutation.
I was trying to find some medical journals that support this research since my mom said "there is no scientific basis" and that "recent studies show type A was the first".
I found these three articles:
Enas Talib Abdul-Karim. "Blood Type Diet: Scientific Evaluation." Iraqi Journal of Medical Sciences 7.3 (2009): 1-4.
Laura Power. "Biotype Diet Systems: Blood Types and food allergies." Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Science 16.2 (2007): 125-135. Link to her site
N. Saitou and F. Yamamato. "Evolution of primate ABO blood group genes and their homologous genes." Molecular Biology and Evolution 14.4 (1997): 399-411. Link
Abdul-Karim referenced Saitou and Yamamato to showcase that D'Adamo is wrong in that the O-type is oldest, and that all 4 types existed 4.5 million years ago, ergo the 40,000 yrs ago changes never happened. S&Y say that A existed first based on analysis of Gorillas, Orangutans, cows, mice, other animals. I didn't see any results from humans. They say that A->O->B.
Power says that there's no evidence for lectins, and that A's do best on omnivore diets. Her study was solely on allergies, not intolerances or effects on the body. Says D'Adamo didn't take into account A1, A2, Rh+ or Rh-. Both Power and Abdul-Karim say that there were no clinical studies, only online feedback used, and no references. I did find another, a book review of ER4YT that did say he was glad someone else was taking lectins seriously, but he didn't like the approach of the book (eg. unscientific).
I am wondering if what they say is true, and how they arrived at it. It is my understanding that the popular books (Eat Right, Live Right, etc.) are "dumbed down" versions for the everyday-Joe. The hard science would be found in the medical journals. I also was reading the Scientific Basis on this site, and found many other doctors giving credence to lectins, and reactions to food.
I am of the opinion that these peer-reviewed journals are against naturo-pathy, and don't like quick advances and understandings of medicine without 100 yrs of testing before they believe it. This science is 130 yrs old though, so I don't know what's wrong with it. If you want to take into account Hippocrates and Ancient Egypt, then it's over 4000 yrs old. (eg. Food=medicine or poision)
Quoted from Dr. DMost of the criticisms appear to think that Eat RIght For Your Type is the limit of the science. Some critics have never even bothered to read Eat RIght.
When Laura Power gets a real Ph.D. degree from an academic institution, versus the diploma mill that she purchased her current one from, I might take her criticisms more seriously.
Quoted from AKArtlover
Maybe eating meat? ;D
Who was first and why is actually totally irrelevant to all the facts we have about the ABO system currently. Human beings could have been transposed onto earth 150 years ago, with a false history placed at the same time. It wouldn't change the information we have now if it had happened; the diet recommendations would be identical because they are entirely based on modern studies, experiments, and observations
It isn't unusual to be born blood type O with a parent that is A or AB, despite the dominance factor. It could have to do with health perhaps?