Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  Eat Right 4 Your Type  /  Explanations !
Posted by: becrola, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:04pm
HALLO,
I THINK THERE ARE SOME BIG MISTAKES AND CONFUSES ON YOUR SITE, ESPECIALLY ON YOUR CHARTS IN "BLOOD TYPE DIET/ NUTRIENT VALUE ENCYCLOPEDIA" THE LINK IS : http://www.dadamo.com/typebase4/typeindexer.htm
AS EXAMPLES : HEART (BEEF)
YOU MARKED :
        PROTEIN (17.7 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
        FAT (4 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
        CARBOHYDRATE (0 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
AND THE GRAPH SHOWS : PROTEIN 80% FAT 19%
ALL THE GRAPHS, FOR ALL THE INDEX-IN FACT ONLY THE PIE CHARTS (CIRCLE GRAPHS), BOTH- ARE INCORRECT, BECAUSE THE FIRST AND LAST ONE(THE BAR GRAPH) I CAN'T VERIFY THE VERACITY ( AND YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DATA); PLEASE, CHECK THIS, ASAP , BECAUSE YOU CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSING !
THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATE YOUR COLLABORATION!
CRISTIAN
MORE, YOU SAID: “FOLLOW SECRETOR VALUE IF YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR SECRETOR STATUS.” BUT A LOT OF SECRETOR VALUES ARE “NEUTRAL” AND THE NON-SECRETOR ARE “AVOIDS”. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Posted by: Lola, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:10pm; Reply: 1
:)

short answer, 85% are secretors

pls read forum rules and Etiquette on the use of capital letters in posts http://www.dadamo.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?n-1/b-ForumEtiquette/
Posted by: PCUK-Positive, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:15pm; Reply: 2
link doesn't work!
Posted by: SquarePeg, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:23pm; Reply: 3
Quoted from PCUK-Positive
link doesn't work!


It's obviously the uppercase version of this
http://www.dadamo.com/typebase4/typeindexer.htm
Posted by: SquarePeg, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:28pm; Reply: 4
Quoted from Lola
:)

short answer, 85% are secretors
Cristian, this means that most people should follow the secretor aspect of the diet if they don't know whether they are non-secretors.  Yes, the diets are a bit different.

Posted by: becrola, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:36pm; Reply: 5

http://www.dadamo.com/typebase4/typeindexer.htm

Verified it's working !

Lola, I think your answer is null and void . It's a non-sense. So, following your logic, the type AB have to follow the O blood type , because the O type represents 65% and AB 5%. More you have to think that I didn't tell about a avoid-secretor and neutral- nonsecretor, opposite , neutral-secretor and avoid non-secretor. I think it's more than clear that is an error.

Thank you !
Posted by: KimonoKat, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:44pm; Reply: 6
Quoted from becrola

http://www.dadamo.com/typebase4/typeindexer.htm

Verified it's working !

Lola, I think your answer is null and void . It's a non-sense. So, following your logic, the type AB have to follow the O blood type , because the O type represents 65% and AB 5%. More you have to think that I didn't tell about a avoid-secretor and neutral- nonsecretor, opposite , neutral-secretor and avoid non-secretor. I think it's more than clear that is an error.

Thank you !


There's nothing anywhere that says Type AB's should follow the Type O Diet.

You follow the guidelines for each individual food, as listed.
Posted by: Spring, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:46pm; Reply: 7
Read Square Peg's post. Lola is completely right about the secretors being in the majority. It is well worth the time and effort to know your secretor status. I got tremendous help from the diet for years and didn't know my status, but when I eventually learned that I was a non-secretor, the diet was much more beneficial to me in many different ways.
Posted by: KimonoKat, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:48pm; Reply: 8
If I'm remembering Dr. D correctly, the food nutrient values in the TypeBase have been taken from nationally accepted standards/information.  The information possibly came from published sources originating from the FDA.  I could be wrong, but that's what I seem to remember when Dr. D explained the food nutrient tables to develop SWAMI.

If a senior member knows different, please correct me.
Posted by: becrola, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:50pm; Reply: 9

Kimonokat, I didn't tell that. Just read carefully my posts and open your minds and try to find together the rights answers and/or amend the errors. Please re-read my questions/facts and answer according to! Thank you !
Posted by: becrola, Friday, April 12, 2013, 11:59pm; Reply: 10
Kimonokat , again, it's not about the veracity of the source or the data there, but the fact there is a big contradiction between the graphs and the information; just some seconds of basic calculation. I'll give you again the example:                   PROTEIN (17.7 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
FAT (4 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
CARBOHYDRATE (0 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
AND THE GRAPH SHOWS : PROTEIN 80% FAT 19% per 100 grams
Posted by: KimonoKat, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:00am; Reply: 11
Quoted from becrola

Kimonokat, I didn't tell that. Just read carefully my posts and open your minds and try to find together the rights answers and/or amend the errors. Please re-read my questions/facts and answer according to! Thank you !


That "is" what you said.  

QUOTE:
So, following your logic, the type AB have to follow the O blood type , because the O type represents 65% and AB 5%.
END QUOTE

I do not see the "errors" that you are describing in the TypeBase.
Posted by: jeanb, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:03am; Reply: 12
So Cristian, what exactly is the error(s) you are pointing out.  Are you saying the diet is suspect because there could be typos in the typebase????

Lola is correct in how she explained things to you.  Your argument is not correct as the hierarchy of the food values is based first on the bloodtype not on secretor status.

Are you trolling or flaming??? Just curious in that the first time on the board you are sounding rather inflammatory.  
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:16am; Reply: 13
Are you a manipulating guy ? I said “following your logic...” it was about the Lola logic . Come on ! I don’t want to believe it’s a waste of time !
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:17am; Reply: 14
I don’t understand you, guys! There is somebody who can reasons right and has good intentions? I agree English it’s not my language , but I think it’s not a big deal to understand that’s a big confusing telling to following the secretor status( if you don’t know your status) when there are a lot of items NEUTRAL  in secretor and AVOID in non-secretor. The fact, IN THIS CASE, the secretors are the majority IS NOT an explanation. It’s the same as we can say for the AB type to follow the O type because O type is majority. It’s a non-sense! I’m waiting for other pertinent answers! Thank you!
Posted by: Lloyd, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:28am; Reply: 15
Hi becrola,

The best thing might be for you to reread the book, preferably in your native tongue. Or discuss it with someone in your native tongue.

Arguing won't help - the diet has been around for a long time. It would not have been around this long if there was such a serious problem as you assert. So take some time to let people help you find what you need to know. Or go somewhere else and try a different diet.

Best, Lloyd
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:28am; Reply: 16
I’m not at all “inflammatory”, but it seems you hide yourself behind your answers! I didn’t have a I relevant answer at my 2 points (the graphs and the secretor vs non-secretors). I think we can think more than a “cliché”. Anyway, if you think I’m bothering you, I can move out and act subsequently! I was thinking it could be both ways usefully.
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:31am; Reply: 17
Quoted from becrola
Hallo,
I think there are some big mistakes and confuses on your site, especially on your charts in "blood type diet/ nutrient value encyclopedia" the link is : http://www.dadamo.com/typebase4/typeindexer.htm
As examples : heart (beef)
You marked :
        protein (17.7 grams per 100 grams )
        fat (4 grams per 100 grams )
        carbohydrate (0 grams per 100 grams )
And the graph shows : protein 80% fat 19%
All the graphs, for all the index-in fact only the pie charts (circle graphs), both- are incorrect, because the first and last one(the bar graph) i can't verify the veracity ( and you have to assume the correctness of the data); please, check this, asap , because you create a lot of confusing !
Thank you for your understanding and appreciate your collaboration!
Cristian
More, you said: “follow secretor value if you do not know your secretor status.” But a lot of secretor values are “neutral” and the non-secretor are “avoids”. Could you explain this?



I looked at the page and the graphs appear correct to me.



This graphs shows what fraction of a persons total daily calorie is met by eating a 100 grams of heart.

The heart contains 112 calories and it is assumed a person needs 2200 calories.
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:41am; Reply: 18
Lloyd, if you think the problem was my "english" , I think you are an hypocrite. I am on this diet, and my family, from 5 years and I respect it a lot. More, I've read all the documentations on this diet in three languages. It was just to signal some errors,which can create a lot of confusing, and try to fix them. If you think there is nothing to improve or repair I think you are on the wrong way. More, this kind of answers and attitudes, put a lot of doubt on you ! If this diet exists, is because there was people who was thinking out-of-the-box and was respected each other ! Thank you for your understanding !
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:43am; Reply: 19
C_sharp, I'm speaking about the 2 pie(circle) graphs, as mentioned in my post !
Posted by: Lloyd, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:46am; Reply: 20
Quoted from becrola
Lloyd, if you think the problem was my "english" , I think you are an hypocrite.


Think what you will. We have many members in Canada and in the Toronto area. There are many here who speak French if you would find that helpful.

Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 12:59am; Reply: 21
Thank you Lloyd and waiting for some answers in french, but I think you are the only one who's thinking my english is  a problem. This kind of polemics don't help. I'm waiting for relevant answers and an open mind / logical and respectful discussions. Thank you !
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:03am; Reply: 22
Next graph



I am not certain why this graph is important, but it appears as if graph:

Shows fat grams/(grams of protein + grams of fat + grams of Carbohydrate)  4 fat grams/ (17.7 protein grams + 4 grams protein)
= 18.4%

Shows protein grams/(grams of protein + grams of fat + grams of Carbohydrate)  17.7 fat grams/ (17.7 protein grams + 4 grams protein)
= 81.5%

I presume the slight variations in percentages is from the graph using more decimal places for grams of fat, grams of protein, grams of carbohydrate than I did.


I think a graph showing percent of calories from fat would be more useful, but that does not make the graph wrong.
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:10am; Reply: 23
Next graph:




Total fat grams = 0.5 + 1.1 + 1.3 = 2.9 total grams

Fraction polyunsaturated = 0.5/2.9 =17.2 %

Fraction Monounsaturated = 1.1/2.9 =37.9 %

Fraction Saturated = 1.3/2.9 = 44.8 %
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:11am; Reply: 24
Next graph:



From looking online and at the chart:

Heart contains very little Vitamin  E, A, C .

B12 RDA is 2.4 mcg 100 gram serving supplies 8.5 mcg (350% --Off chart)

Ca contains very little

Se RDA is 55 mcg contains 40 % or so of

Magnesium - RDA is 420 mg male or 320 female Heart supplies 21 mg this would be approximately 5%
Posted by: Lloyd, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:14am; Reply: 25
Quoted from KimonoKat
If I'm remembering Dr. D correctly, the food nutrient values in the TypeBase have been taken from nationally accepted standards/information.  The information possibly came from published sources originating from the FDA.  I could be wrong, but that's what I seem to remember when Dr. D explained the food nutrient tables to develop SWAMI.

If a senior member knows different, please correct me.


The USDA Nutrient Database was the source for (nearly) all the nutritional data, to the best of my knowledge.
Posted by: KimonoKat, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:23am; Reply: 26
Thank you. I new it was some "US" entity. :D
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:27am; Reply: 27
For me this graph shows protein 17.7 grams/100 grams = 17.7% ; fat 4 grams/100grams = 0.4% and carbohydrate grams/100grams = 0 . Now, the graph -the circle - shows : protein : 80 % ; fat 19 % and carbohydrates 0 % . I think it's a misunderstanding, somewhere !
In your reply you said "4 fat grams/ (17.7 protein grams + 4 grams protein)
= 18.4%"
                        "17.7 fat grams/ (17.7 protein grams + 4 grams protein)
= 81.5%"
So, 18.4 % = 81.5 %
I think this graph is more important than the linear graph( graph 1, before-with the calories ) who is correct.
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:32am; Reply: 28
Good english : " I new" ! Congratulations ! Smart irony !
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:35am; Reply: 29
The nutrition data in typebase comes primarily from USDA.

You can get it directly from there:

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3753?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=beef+heart

Or from other sites:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3465/2

Also note that the nutritional profile of a food is considered in the GenoType and SWAMI system, but it is not a primary determinant of ratings in the Blood Type system.
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:59am; Reply: 30
A 100 grams is not relevant in this chart!



The chart only consider the portion of the food that has nutritional value.

This is what contribute to nutrition: (grams of protein + grams of fat + grams of Carbohydrate)

The part of the food that has no nutritional value is excluded because we are looking at a nutrient breakdown.

Most of the heart is water (65% or more). That and other things that the body cannot burn for fuel are not included in the chart.




Chart label indicates that it is a chart of macronutrients. There are three primary macronutrients: Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrate.

Water is not considered to be a macronutrient.  
Posted by: Spring, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 1:59am; Reply: 31
Quoted from becrola
Good english : " I new" ! Congratulations ! Smart irony !

::)
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 2:02am; Reply: 32
Thank you C_sharp; in mean time, sincerely, I don't understand your reasoning about the pie graphs, but I appreciate your collaboration and the fact you took your time to analyze them. I'm still certain there is an error, not necessarily truthlessness, maybe just an site-editor elaboration problem, but it can create a lot of confusing. Thank you !
Posted by: Spring, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 2:30am; Reply: 33
I've seen people have a lot of different problems with understanding certain things about their diets, but I have never seen anyone yet arguing with what amounts to a sign post. I have my own USDA program on my computer that anyone can download for themselves almost anywhere in the world. That is what I use. I have never looked at the graphs, etc., on this site, and I have been on these diets for nearly thirteen years. I have the same program that Dr. D. used. Here is the page:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=5720
Posted by: Lola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 2:58am; Reply: 34
Quoted Text
I’m waiting for other pertinent answers! Thank you!


get a secretor test and depending on results, adapt your guidelines accordingly
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 3:18am; Reply: 35
Lola, I agree. I think that's a fair answer !
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 3:18am; Reply: 36
Just to reformulate for some members, here, who “still” not understand the matter and are socked and stunned about my cheek to examine and present some facts.
I was concerned about 2 problems-clearly explained in my post, above- and the majority of answers were superficial, arrogant and unrelated.
Thank you to C_sharp for his collaboration, concerning the pie-graphs!
Returning to secretor-nonsecretor, my intention it wasn’t to  reinvent the wheel(or, maybe yes  ) but to understand why you have to following  a secretor value  if you don’t know your secretor status. I’m really sorry to said that but answers as “read the post...” or “because the majority is secretor” I think are more than irrelevant, and I’ve already give some explanations, about this, in my posts, before.
If you follow your secretor values-because you don’t know your secretor status- there are a lot of chances (or bad luck-depending) if you are non-secretor to harm your system because you eat AVOID food. A lot of secretor food is “neutral” and for non- secretors are “avoid” and not the opposite. Just for the fact the secretors are 80% we can harm the non-secretors. It’s a non sense. As I told before, is the same as saying for AB type to eat O type, because O type is majority. Again, I’m not here to create revolt but to clarify some problems. Just for the “grousers” , I’m on this diet(and all my family) from 5 years ago ,( and we know our secretor status) and we respect it a lot and still on it because we are happy with. That’s why I think we have to help others to understand better, and ourselves, also.
P.S.: Again for the “grousers”, every day I’m trying to improve my english and suggest you do the same , first with your native language, and after, just try to open your mind and maybe you’ll be able, one day, to understand and write another language and set aside of your arrogance and hypocrisy.
Thank you !
Posted by: C_Sharp, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 3:32am; Reply: 37
In my case.

Following a secretor diet was not ideal, but better than the diet I had before.

It was enough better that I knew that I should be following the blood type diet.

I first determined that it was better for me to follow the A nonsecretor diet rather than the A secretor diet by testing individual foods and seeing what avoids I reacted to and which I did not.  

It was clear from the foods I tested that I did better with the nonsecretor ratings. So I assumed that would be the case for foods that I did not test as well.

I switched to the nonsecretor because it worked for me.

Later (more than a year), I confirmed my status with a Lewis test.  I think even if it indicated I was a secretor, I would have continued to follow the nonsecretor diet since it worked so much better for me.
Posted by: ABJoe, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 3:47am; Reply: 38
Quoted from becrola
So, following your logic, the type AB have to follow the O blood type , because the O type represents 65% and AB 5%.

Sorry - your logic is flawed.  You are confusing two totally different pieces of data.  
First is ABO status.  O should follow O, A - A, etc...

Secretor status is different, but very few know this subtype information when starting.  Since 80 to 85% of the population is Secretor, it is suggested to start following the Secretor values for your ABO type.  
If anyone wants to make sure that you aren't eating Non-Secretor avoids, then avoid them as well as all of the Secretor avoids...  This is a personal choice.

Does this make more sense to you?
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:04am; Reply: 39
C_sharp, that was my point. If you following the secretor status there are a lot of "avoid" food for non-secretor and not the opposite. That's why is more than logically to follow a non-secretor value if you don't know your status, because you can protect both. Anyway, I'm already tired to see that people still to hardening the neck or just not take attitude. One more time, it's possible I'm wrong, but just do some "effort" and confirm me! Or maybe, even it's not "politically correct", we have to agree that's not the ideal way to explained, but we'll re-examine this. Fortunately, there are some guys who think differently and we are not all upside down!
Posted by: Taxman, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:06am; Reply: 40
I'm new to all of this (getting SWAMI tested tomorrow by a certified practitioner) and I think the best thing is to follow the BTD diet and with that, literally, trust your gut.  If some foods feel weird to eat, AVOID!

Phase 2 is to spend a few bucks and test your secretor status.  Why not?  

Third is to delve deeper and get professionally SWAMI genotyped.  Again, the more you delve further, the more information unfolds and that is a good thing, right?  I am learning that things that appear as contradictions are not because Dr. D's research is flawed, that's not true at all.  It's because we're all individuals and have specific dietary needs different from anyone else.  It's kind of cool, really!!


Becrola, I am also new here.  What I have found is that this forum is filled with amazing human beings who offer their generous advice and guidance.  It's heartwarming to know that such a forum exists.  Your post came across as accusatory and the tone was a bit harsh.  "So because of this, I assume this!!  Explanations???".  Woah, man...easy!!  I have questions too and I have had some head scratching moments.  People like ABJoe, Victoria, Henrietta and so many others were kind to share their experiences and opinions which offered valuable insight.  

Stick around and see.  This place is gold.  These people are gold!!

Good health to all!!

Taxman
(hugegrin)
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:20am; Reply: 41
Taxman, I agree with you and with your opinion to test your secretor status. I think that's the right answer. In mean time i don't agree I'm accusatory. I can't tolerate evasive and irrelevant answers, just because there are from “veterans”. As I told you before, if I'm bothering you, no problem, but I don't tolerate neither the "politically correct” attitude, which is more than a communist way!
Posted by: Taxman, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:23am; Reply: 42
Fair enough.  Unlike those reality shows, I'm here to make friends!  That's just me!

;D
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:23am; Reply: 43
Just read the posts before, the explanations, the answers, the arrogance, and after we can deliberate about my "accusatory" status :)
Posted by: KimonoKat, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 5:36am; Reply: 44
Quoted from becrola
Good english : " I new" ! Congratulations ! Smart irony !


This is a community driven forum. We try to be kind to others here.
Posted by: Amazone I., Saturday, April 13, 2013, 5:45am; Reply: 45
I'm demanding myselve *who's that hypo here*??) ;)...and I feel happy for not being alone with my pidginings ;)  ;D(funny)(funny) :X
Posted by: Adopted4, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 2:26pm; Reply: 46
Cristian,

First off let me say English is a difficult second language to acquire for many. Because I have 4 internationally adopted children I've seen the struggles firsthand of learning English, particularly grammar and spelling. You're doing a great job communicating with us!

I do also agree that learning your secretor status is very important, although for large families like mine following each's own blood type diet, buying secretor tests for everyone is an expense that isn't necessarily feasible, at least not all at the same time. For many reasons I won't get into I guessed I was a non-secretor and had that entered into my SWAMI for many months. However, last winter I spent Christmas money I had received to buy myself (and my husband) a secretor test, and much to my surprise I found out I was a secretor. There were foods I was eating and drinking regularly, such as lamb, sweet potato, and an occasional seltzer water. All of those foods became strict avoid when I discovered my secretor status.

You see, there are some foods non-secretors can eat/drink that secretors can't because secretors secrete their blood type antigens into their digestive tracts, thereby causing problems that non-secretors won't have.

I've also encountered the same thing with my type B sons with multiple foods. One  son we know is a non-secretor and the other, who has very few health problems, is most likely a secretor. There are quite a number of foods my B non-secretor son gets to enjoy such as tomatoes, pumpkin, amaranth, and stevia that my secretor son avoids . I know there are other foods on the type O diet, such as lentils, pinto beans, and avocados that non-secretors are allowed to have that secretors shouldn't eat.

All I"m saying is that you should maybe rethink whether a person of an unknown secretor status would be better off eating like a non-secretor. I know that philosophy was not the best for me, and immediately after I got my secretor test back I was the first to admit on these forums that I was wrong and should not have assumed my secretor status. I think it was good advice to anyone that read my post.

I sincerely hope you continue on this forum because there truly are very wonderful, supportive people here.                                                                  
Posted by: becrola, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 3:22pm; Reply: 47
Adopted4, thank you ! Appreciate!
Posted by: yaeli, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 4:40pm; Reply: 48
Quoted from becrola
Kimonokat , again, it's not about the veracity of the source or the data there, but the fact there is a big contradiction between the graphs and the information; just some seconds of basic calculation. I'll give you again the example:                   PROTEIN (17.7 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
FAT (4 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
CARBOHYDRATE (0 GRAMS PER 100 GRAMS )
AND THE GRAPH SHOWS : PROTEIN 80% FAT 19% per 100 grams
The pie percentages reflect calories, not weight.

4 minutes later: I read further and I see that C_Sharp has already elaborated on this and has provided a comprehensive explanation.

Posted by: Spring, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 5:29pm; Reply: 49
There has not been any EVASIVE answers whatsoever on this thread or any other that I have ever read on this forum. NONE. And English is spelled with an E.  ;D "Shocked" and "stunned?" About what?
Posted by: Spring, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 5:35pm; Reply: 50
Quoted from becrola


Yes, because C_Sharp fixed it for you. "Thanks, C_Sharp!"  ;D
Posted by: lann1958, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 5:55pm; Reply: 51
i understand what your saying about following the secretor status if you dont know your status. but if you dont know the odds are your a secretor so would make more sense to follow secretor status. there are avoids on one that are neutrals on the other, so you wont be 100% compliant. you can just eat the foods that are listed on the benificiels or neutrals for both secretor and non secretor, until you find out your status
Posted by: Spazcat, Saturday, April 13, 2013, 7:13pm; Reply: 52
Certainly it makes sense to adopt the secretor diet when the status is unknown, and as others have mentioned, it can be adapted to make it more compliant if one so chooses.  We do have free will in this.  What doesn't make sense is to liken that recommendation to suggesting everyone just follow the O diet if their BT is unknown.  Never seen anyone here do that!  If you don't know your blood type, it's pretty hard to follow a blood type diet.   :)
Print page generated: Sunday, September 21, 2014, 8:13pm