Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  Eat Right 4 Your Type  /  Bunking the DeBunking ERFYT and The BTD*
Posted by: Tom Martens, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 12:52am
I was re-watching some YouTube videos by Dr. D'Adamo and came across some negative videos that were making some off the wall claims against ERFYT and The Blood Type Diet.  Some were comparing cows dogs and cats blood types, some were saying no scientific evidence- blah, blah blah.

It didn't sit well with me that these videos didn't have any positive responses or comments to back up Dr. D'Adamo's work so I have been busy rectifying this problem.  Here are my reply's to the various critics:

The very lectins that Dr. D’Adamo has found to cause problems with each blood type are the same food lectins used by scientists and doctors used in staining for cancers and pathogens.

Staining is the same as binding and scientists and doctors have been using food lectins to identify cancers and pathogens for over 50 years.

You are flying in the face of empirical, peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Who would want to believe anything you claim against ERFYT or The Blood Type Diet if you refute this?  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do cows, dogs or cats have varying levels of stomach acid with each blood type like humans?

Do cows, dogs or cats have varying levels of IAP with each blood type like humans?

Do cows, dogs or cats have varying blood viscosity with each blood type like humans?

Do cow, dogs or cats glycosylate (the expression of the glycoprotein (sugar/amino-sugar on the outside of the cell) the same as humans?

Do cow, dogs or cats express blood types with the same sugars as humans?

The answer is no.
Posted by: gulfcoastguy, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 1:02am; Reply: 1
You're not going to convince them. Haters will hate and the AMA hates competition.
Posted by: Lola, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 1:47am; Reply: 2
worth reading

http://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm
Posted by: DoS, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 2:36am; Reply: 3
Tom, I feel surprising good about being able to discuss legitimacy of D'Adamo's work. Feel free to ask me any question a skeptic, debunker, etc would. I practice a lot, and many of my friends have started to accept there isn't really any reason not to believe it, just the option to choose (since they are young and healthy).

There are some people that you just can't deal with, because they play "if this then that" - and no other because they are loud and obnoxious. Like certain radio personalities that would get punched in the face in a bar. But you don't always run into that.
Posted by: Tom Martens, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 2:43am; Reply: 4
Quoted from Lola


I know this - but I've tried to come up with a short, easy to understand and scientifically irrefutable answer to block the naysayers. :)
Posted by: yaeli, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 3:05am; Reply: 5
Thanks Tom and Lola. This link goes to sharing in FB and with some learned people (mainly doctors: my former boss, head of internal medicine department; my two private physicians).
Posted by: walk_the_walk, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 6:34am; Reply: 6
The date at the top of the article is June 2103 - maybe that's how long it will take before all the skeptics come round...

Luckily, we are all already in the know...
Posted by: Goldie, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 11:35am; Reply: 7
Worth reading...

http://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm

If the link above does not work, then hell might have to freeze over before naysayers will consider changes in 'what they think they know'...

Great answers by MY BEST Doctor!  

Dr D, I have no words of gratitude to express just how many ways you saved not only my health, but also my inner life.  Ever since I saw a video on BTD many years ago, on my deathbed with pneumonia, I was able to feel secure in knowing that I have the tools to finally make and keep me healthy.  

I had suffered for many decades despite all possible investigations’ by medical personnel who assigned me many devastating 'sick' labels...  Today, for near two decades later, for the price of a book, I know that I prevented mayor illnesses, of which my brother died at on early age, and to which I was susceptible to also.  Yet, every day, I can contribute to my own healing just a little more.

The greatest value of all your introductions of this or that in the books you wrote might have been lucrative to you, just as a spy novel might be as well, (your work would lend itself to that.)  However: Allowing ignorant people the ability to communicate with others for many, many years on this open message board, displays’ your ultimate generosity of spirit, leaving a legacy of openness to all sort of questions and subsequent discussions which, then become underscored by learning, on all levels, in a non threatening study center.  

Science, medical and other wise, had many chances to make me well.  Nothing did, until BTD made a happy life possible after 5 decades of suffering endlessly.  Your work has done that.  THANK You Dr. D'Adamo for Your perseverance and learned research and most appreciated; the simplicity of words by which you communicate your health giving suggestions, leaving all the doors open for Individualized SELF experimenting- allowing learning from our own 'living' experience!  

Well done Dr. D.
Posted by: ruthiegirl, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 2:22pm; Reply: 8
If you want something quick and simple, I'd suggest posting a link to the main page and encouraging viewers to do their own research.
Posted by: Seraffa, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 3:26pm; Reply: 9
Quoted from walk_the_walk
The date at the top of the article is June 2103 - maybe that's how long it will take before all the skeptics come round...

Luckily, we are all already in the know...


LOL  LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL

You're doing a good job, Tom.  :) It's a job I couldn't do without sending myself into ...well you know......neural convulsions but then again, naysayers are usually a small group manipulating social media to make themselves look larger.


Kinda like the first time you cross into the D.C. beltway and see the White House up close. It's really small, too  ;)
Posted by: SquarePeg, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 7:28pm; Reply: 10
When a critic argues that BTD is not scientifically proven to be effective, my understanding is that the critic is referring to a lack of clinical studies.

If there are any clinical studies of BTD, that's all that's needed.
Posted by: ruthiegirl, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 7:33pm; Reply: 11
Sometimes the critic has only read the first book and complains about the lack of scientific evidence in a book written for the lay audience, while ignoring Dr D's later works.
Posted by: Tom Martens, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 8:21pm; Reply: 12
Quoted from Seraffa


LOL  LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL   LOL

You're doing a good job, Tom.  :)...


Thanks :)

Posted by: DoS, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 8:23pm; Reply: 13
Critics don't know anything, like saying "not scientific". What does that mean?

Ask them what scientifically would mean. Point out that the opinion on bloodtype and diet information being related to the first blood type (O became the oldest recorded recently), advent of agriculture, etc, is a speculation toward why the bloodtypes function how they do, not an excuse for creating a diet. First and foremost scientist scientifically have scienced studies on ABO topics, just check pubmed for peer reviewed, medical community accepted studies.

The real arguement against D'Adamo by the health community is that he doesn't have a double blind study proving his theories for diet. It is not whether they were formed based on science. It's a misconception based on only examining the first book.

When you argue with people you have to accept that D'Adamo does't have an answer to everything, but has formulated, with 'science', the most logical conclusion for diet recommendations. If you blindly say he's right and don't accept any room for criticism, then you sound dogmatic and will be ignored/not taken seriously. Essentially you make an arguement that D'Adamo's work is a better choice, not a difintive correctness, in order to avoid dogmatic ills that lead to heated arguements/biases.
Posted by: Tom Martens, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 8:59pm; Reply: 14
Quoted from DoS

The real arguement against D'Adamo by the health community is that he doesn't have a double blind study proving his theories for diet. It.


The funny thing about that is none of the "major" diets or even the governments food pyramid has ever been double blind studied.
Posted by: walk_the_walk, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 10:07pm; Reply: 15
Ahem...

Seraffa, Bore da! Cariad - you use a quote from me (walk_the_walk post no.9) about the date of Dr. D's article page being June 2103 - i.e. 90 years in the future from today and thank Tom M for his work... ??)

Moderators/Administrators - eye for detail alert!!!! - Not in this thread - In the opening sentence of the revered article link from Dr. D - June 2103 minus June 2013 equals = 90 years into the future...

My EXACT point in my post no.9 - (clearly everyone too busy to pick up on the detail)...

http://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm

Tom M - I agree with your latest post, and the reason why there have been no double blind, peer reviewed studies on ANY of the major diets is because to do so, would require monitoring EVERYTHING that the participants put into their mouths over an extended period of time which is nigh on impossible to achieve without one to one monitoring 24/7 which would be cost prohibitive on a scale large enough to be acceptable as a scientific study. Unaffordable by any of them which is why none of them have done it...

Carla ;)  

Posted by: ruthiegirl, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 10:11pm; Reply: 16
I think I've heard of some dietary studies being done on patients in mental hospitals. All their food was prepared by the hospital, and in theory these individuals were physically healthy.

I don't recall the exact nature of those studies, how large they were, etc. The move now is to push patients into outpatient care as soon as possible, so I don't know if that's even a practical course to consider for future studies. Besides the fact that these patients are NOT healthy. Many of them would probably not need to be hospitalized if they were eating right for their type.
Posted by: DoS, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 10:40pm; Reply: 17
Quoted from Tom Martens


The funny thing about that is none of the "major" diets or even the governments food pyramid has ever been double blind studied.


That's an interesting point. Double blind studies do get conducted on all the individual things, even sometimes parts of the pyramid, but never the whole thing.

While interesting, it still has studies with more majorities directly showing that some foods are beneficial for humans, even though not everyone in the study responded well. That isn't true for ABO. No one really does studies say showing soy is best for Type A and AB. Even if they did it wouldn't really tell us much about whether the whole BTD had validity. But that is also true of the pyramid not having any thing to back up its validity as a whole.

The funny part is that D'Adamo's work stays within the food pyramid guides; despite a lot of poor misconception among poor "critics".
Posted by: Amazone I., Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 11:02am; Reply: 18
this all means artwork and we need to understand that we are on the wrong way if we try to close a living system!!! :o :-/ :P(shrug)(mad)(evil)(grin)
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 11:31am; Reply: 19
Very interesting thread.

There is a term called 'statistical power' which  calculates the minimum sample size required so that one can be reasonably likely to detect an effect of a given size. For nutritional studies, this often approaches 1000+ participants. Now, times this by four (each blood type) and add controls. Provide each subject with engineered meals and pay for admin followup and experimental work.

Turns out some ideas are bigger than the current experimental model.
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 11:36am; Reply: 20
'D'Adamo's Index of Scientific Importance':

Your discovery is valuable when (in ascending order):

5. There is Widespread Acceptance.
4. The Experts Agree With it.
3. It is Lambasted by Opponents with Skin in the Game.
2. It Engenders Humorous Dismissal.
1. It Evokes Frothing Apoplexy.
Posted by: ruthiegirl, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 1:01pm; Reply: 21
Quoted from DoS

The funny part is that D'Adamo's work stays within the food pyramid guides; despite a lot of poor misconception among poor "critics".


Not exactly. I'm getting plenty of protein and fiber, and getting enough "fruits and vegetables" (even though my "fruit" servings as per SWAMI fall far short of the USDA recommendations) but where are my 6-11 daily servings of grains?
Posted by: DoS, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 3:05pm; Reply: 22
Current one says 6oz
Posted by: Goldie, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 9:01pm; Reply: 23
Quoted Text
The real arguement against D'Adamo by the health community is that he doesn't have a double blind study proving his theories for diet. It is not whether they were formed based on science. It's a misconception based on only examining the first book.


I did a Double Blind study... and here are the results:

I spent Decades in misery, my Dr. Bills where over the roof, and still I was sick as a dog.

I was so sick that in time I developed pneumonia... 105 temp.  Antibiotics fixed that, but my intestinal shut down needed way more time.

Then I learned about BTD and tried it, sometimes doing great on the Super Beneficals and Beneficials, and feel great.  Then I go to sis and eat what good gourmet foods she has in her house. She is a great shopper and a great chef. She is B and I am O.  She has no clue what would be good for me.  I eat what is there and the next day I gained weight or feel ill.

So a double blind study, yes, I do one every so often, and the results are visible in my bank acct.  I hardly spend any money on my health any more, where before I spent 150 Thousand out of packet in addition to Aetna full coverage health insurance.  

Today I can keep the thousands I used to spend, is that double blind?  Yes MY bank acct is the blind part of the study.  

The only part of the study I do not participate in every day, is in trying to teach those with blinders on their head and horrible characters who feel the need to attack, showing their own ignorance and lack of self expertise after having done the BTD from any one of the books written for exactly people like him or her.. Stupidly, lazy and full of the need for self aggrandizement.  Sorry people! Sorry characters.  

I dare any of them to just try and do the work, not for others - but for their own body, mind and wellness. My dare will not be taken up... that I am certain off... I dare them to do a study of ONE! … be the Judge and Jury, and be the one who would go back to feeling miserable...  

I bet a bar of chocolate for any of the nay-sayers to take me up on my dare...  but I am afraid I will be the one eating it.
Posted by: walk_the_walk, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 10:43pm; Reply: 24
Quoted from Dr. D
Very interesting thread.

There is a term called 'statistical power' which  calculates the minimum sample size required so that one can be reasonably likely to detect an effect of a given size. For nutritional studies, this often approaches 1000+ participants. Now, times this by four (each blood type) and add controls. Provide each subject with engineered meals and pay for admin followup and experimental work.

Turns out some ideas are bigger than the current experimental model.



Dr.D - And what about the Nonnies? - Double the costs again - or you may have a revolution on your hands!!

Isn't it funny how we can go from "Big Picture" to "Portion Size" within 2 posts on the same thread?! - Individuality at play...

And who is going to get the vegan / veggie/ paleo / primal / atkins / body ecology / SAD / DASH /DoWopDaWiddlyPiddly/ et al communities to participate and to include and compare and monitor their results...Quite..pigs might fly...
Posted by: SquarePeg, Thursday, October 24, 2013, 7:03pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from Dr. D
Very interesting thread.

There is a term called 'statistical power' which  calculates the minimum sample size required so that one can be reasonably likely to detect an effect of a given size. For nutritional studies, this often approaches 1000+ participants. Now, times this by four (each blood type) and add controls. Provide each subject with engineered meals and pay for admin followup and experimental work.

Turns out some ideas are bigger than the current experimental model.
Yes, there are four blood types, but a study of just one Blood Type (O for instance) would be a step in the right direction.

Select N type Os.  For three months N/2 subjects would follow BTD; the other N/2 would follow a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet (no meat, fish or poultry, but dairy & eggs allowed.)

Test before and after three months:
vital signs
weight
waist size
endurance
strength
HDL / LDL
glucose
inflammation markers

plus a brief self-assessment survey

------------------

Let N=40.  So what?  The two groups are getting nearly the exact opposite diet from what they need, so you'd expect a measurable effect.  A group of grad students at BU could conduct this kind study in two successive semesters.

In another year, do Type A, BTD vs Atkins.

Repeat.

Then critics can attack the study, not the diet.

If this were started this five years ago, we'd have some interesting data by now.

Double-blind of course is impossible, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied.

BTW, in industry we typically use N=5 for each group.
Posted by: ruthiegirl, Thursday, October 24, 2013, 7:25pm; Reply: 26
I don't think Dr D himself has the resources to conduct these studies. My hope is that others (some of his students, perhaps?) will do some studies based on Dr D's findings, and that, over time, the data will accumulate.
Posted by: Averno, Thursday, October 24, 2013, 10:16pm; Reply: 27

First, we create a billion dollar pharmaceutical company. Then we fund the studies to determine the truth. Then we fix the truth to fit the desired results.

Short of that, we'll have to settle for promoting a results-based health approach that speaks for itself.






Print page generated: Wednesday, October 1, 2014, 6:23am