METABOLIC type + BLOOD type diets

[Guest guest]

After finding out i was a " protein type, " I altered my usual meals of

meat/veggies by UPPING my fat content. It worked for me and even

retired the cravings for the emergency ganache torte. I like

combining these two " diets. " And i still eat ORGASMICALLY.

If you want more of a read, I've copied this following

info. from Dr. Mercola's latest email. Maybe it will help, maybe it

will confuse you. Most of it's superfluous, but oh well.

To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

Part 2 of 2 (Part 1)

By Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic

Typing

Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)

Part 1 of this series on metabolic typing introduced the idea that

whether a given food or a particular diet is good for you or bad for

you is a matter of your genes -- not whim, appetite, preference,

philosophy, belief or even " expert " opinion.

It is important to realize that the idea of metabolic typing is not

new. The roots of the concept of metabolic individuality can be

traced to antiquity. The 5,000 year old East Indian system of

medicine known as Ayurveda was based on the interaction of the 5

elements and the 7 energy centers in the individual and primary

treatment addressed one's dosha (one's metabolic type) before it

addressed the symptom or disease.

Similarly, the ancient system of Chinese medicine recognized 5

elemental, constitutional types. Diagnosis and treatment in ancient

Egyptian medicine was based on the 7 organ systems in the body. Greek

physicians were concerned, as Hippocrates stated, with the patient

who has the disease instead of the disease that has the patient, and

evaluated the 4 humors (liver-bile metabolic types). The ancient

Roman philosopher Lucretius is attributed with the saying, " One man's

meat is another man's poison. "

The modern background of metabolic typing

In modern times, there have been some well-known and many not so well-

known medical researchers who recognized the value of addressing

biochemical individuality. In 1919, Frances Pottenger, M.D.,

published his Symptoms Of Visceral Disease, where he established the

autonomic nervous system as the basis of metabolic individuality and

correlated the influence of various nutrients on the autonomic

nervous system.

Dr. W.H. Sheldon, in the '40's, published his famous Varieties Of

Human Physique, providing photographic illustrations of his

somatotypes (ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph metabolic types). In

the '50's, Dr. Melvin Page and Dr. Henry Bieler concurrently

developed concepts of endocrine types and their relationship to

various foods. Dr. , also in the '50's, in his

astounding book, Nutrition And The Mind, published his research on

the variable influences of oxidation (glycolysis, beta oxidation,

citric acid cycle) in different individuals he classified as fast,

mixed or slow oxidizers.

In 1956, the noted biochemist, Dr. , published his

genetotrophic theory on biochemical individuality, based on his

research which suggested that every human being has, because of his

genetic makeup, distinctive nutritional needs that must be met in

order to achieve optimum health and well-being. Dr. Royal Lee's

extensive writings in the 50's and 60's correlated nutritional

influences of the autonomic and endocrine systems.

Dr. Emanuel Revici, in the `60's, recognized the critical necessity

to address biochemical individuality and devoted his life's work to

the development of an entirely new system of medicine based upon the

variances between individuals in their catabolic and anabolic

influences.

Dr. D'Adamo, in the '70's, put forth a system of individual

classification based upon ABO blood types. In the mid '70's, Dr.

D. Kelley met Dr. 's call for " metabolic

profiling " by becoming the first to apply 's concept of

nutritional individuality to computer science in identifying the

autonomic types, sympathetic, balanced and parasympathetic.

Further efforts to address metabolic individuality can be seen in

current works of numerous other pioneers. Among the more recent who

have joined the ranks are Dr. Elliot Abravanel, Dr. Eck, Dr.

Watts, Dr. Rudolph Wiley, and the insightful founder of Nutri-

Spec, Dr. Guy Schenker, to name a few.

What exactly is metabolic typing and why is it important?

Metabolic typing is a systematic, testable, repeatable, and

verifiable methodology based on research and extensive clinical

experience over the last 25 years that combines the wisdom of the

ancient systems of medicine with our modern scientific understanding

of physiology and biochemistry.

Metabolic typing analyzes, evaluates, and interprets objective

physiological and biochemical indicators along with symptomatology in

order to define one's metabolic type -- the specific, individualized,

genetically-based patterns of biochemical metabolic individuality

that dictate one's physiological and neurological " design limits " and

requirements for nutritional substances.

The food that we eat is intended as the " fuel " for our body's cells,

our engines of metabolism. Our cells in turn convert the fuel to

energy to be used in all the life-supporting processes of metabolism

that keep us alive and healthy. But like any engine, our body needs a

certain kind of fuel to function optimally. A gasoline engine

requires gasoline for fuel. A diesel engine is designed to run on

diesel for fuel. But try to run a gas engine on diesel or a diesel

engine on gas and not only will the energy output be deficient, but

using the wrong fuel for the engine will cause real problems for the

engine itself.

Similarly, our bodies have genetically-based requirements for

specific kinds of foods and balances of nutrients in order to produce

optimal energy and function in a state of optimal health. If we meet

these " design requirements, " we can expect to be healthy, energetic,

fit and trim.

Failure to obtain on a regular basis the kinds of foods our body's

are designed to utilize will initially produce sub-clinical health

complaints such as fatigue, aches and pains, headaches, indigestion,

weight gain, constipation, rashes, dry skin, low blood sugar, etc.

But long-term deficiency of the right foods for the metabolic type

will lead to degenerative conditions like asthma, cardiovascular

disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc. In other words, it's not

just that the Eskimos can eat up to 10 pounds of meat and huge

amounts of fat and almost no carbohydrate, they need to eat that way

in order to be healthy because that's what their metabolisms are

genetically programmed to utilize as fuel. Similarly, each of us has

very specific requirements for nutrients that must be met in order to

obtain and maintain good health, energy and well-being for a lifetime.

Without metabolic typing, there is no way to discern one's " medicine "

from one's " poison. " Without metabolic typing, there is no way to

know how nutrients behave in one person as opposed to another. In

essence, without metabolic typing, no rational basis exists from

which to select proper diet and nutritional supplementation because

one's metabolic type dictates individual responses to nutrients.

This gets to the heart of some core premises of metabolic typing that

have not only great significance for each individual in

identification of a proper diet, but also have profound implications

for scientific research. Let's look at two of these core premises of

our system of metabolic typing. Here's the first one:

ANY NUTRIENT AND ANY FOOD CAN HAVE VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL

INFLUENCES IN DIFFERENT METABOLIC TYPES.

The metabolic type defines the way in which the body reacts to

nutrients. Different metabolic types react differently to the same

nutrient. For example, in one metabolic type 100 milligrams of

potassium or eating, say, an orange (also high in potassium), will

cause the body's pH to shift alkaline and produce a sedating effect.

But in a different metabolic type, the same amount of potassium or an

orange will produce an acid shift and a stimulating response. This

has been observed tens of thousands of times through both objective

metabolic type testing as well as through changes in symptomatology.

Now the second core premise:

ANY ADVERSE SYMPTOM OR DEGENERATIVE CONDITION CAN ARISE DUE TO

VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCES.

This same principle applies to any adverse health complaint, from

simple to complex, from cramps to cardiovascular disease (CVD), from

rashes to rheumatoid arthritis. For example, we have seen just as

many cases of high cholesterol and CVD resolve through a high

carbohydrate, low fat, low protein diet as we have seen resolve

through the opposite low carb, high protein, high fat diet. Match the

diet to the metabolic type and any degenerative condition has a

chance to reverse. But eat the wrong foods for the metabolic type,

even high quality, organic foods, and degenerative processes will

only worsen.

The implications of these premises are staggering.

If they are true, then allopathic nutrition has no rational basis.

Seeking a common therapy for all people for every condition is a wild

goose chase and is doomed to failure. Any success with that approach

has been and will continue to be by chance -- not systematic,

reliable predictability.

If any nutrient or food can have totally opposite influences,

biochemically speaking, in different people, how can there be a

treatment, for any condition, that can work for all people?

The answer is that there can't be only one treatment. This is

precisely why what works for one person can worsen the same condition

in another person. This is why what makes your friend thin can make

you fat. This is why what improves energy and performance for one

person can worsen it in another. As it turns out, metabolic typing

explains why Lucretius' adage, " One man's food is another man's

poison, " is literally true.

And, if it is true that two people with the same degenerative disease

can have virtually opposite biochemical imbalances, and that when two

opposite biochemical protocols are administered the problem resolves,

then this clearly means that it's not the diseases that should be

treated but the underlying metabolic type imbalances that have caused

the diseases that need be addressed.

From this viewpoint, the diseases are not the problems; they are the

symptoms, the manifestations, the expressions of the underlying,

foundational imbalances. The reality of metabolic individuality

demands that the person who has the disease -- not the disease that

has the person -- be treated!

These premises of metabolic typing also explain why scientific

research on nutrition is usually so inconclusive and produces such

inconsistent results. For example, researchers have been confounded

why calcium can lower blood pressure in some but raise it in others.

Similar findings occurred with the effect of potassium. Until

research on the effect of a given nutrient on a given condition is

performed on a like metabolic type subject population, you will

always see variable results.

In summary:

Biochemical individuality is responsible for the fact that nutrients

behave differently in different metabolic types

The variable influences of nutrients on different metabolisms along

with the same condition arising from totally different biochemical

imbalances make it impossible to treat conditions with a standardized

treatment protocol

Successful, predictable, reliable therapy can only be chosen once you

know the metabolic type because only then will you know how nutrients

behave in that person's metabolism.

Degenerative conditions account for well over 80% of all of the

adverse conditions that afflict the peoples of our country. This

means that only a little over 1 out of every 10 people that go to

doctors has crises or infectious conditions that require and respond

to allopathic treatments.

More and more people every year fall prey to degenerative conditions

and, sadly, at younger and younger ages. Diseases once viewed as

accompaniments to old age are now commonplace in our children. Yet,

currently, there is no orthodox cure for nearly any degenerative

disease.

So-called alternative practitioners, as a group, fare little better.

Even those who meet with " success " often find that when the therapy

is stopped, the condition returns and no real, lasting healing has

taken place. Or they are baffled by the universal phenomena of

failing to help the next patient with the same condition with the

very same protocol that worked so well for the former patient.

We find ourselves, practitioners and lay people alike, trying

futilely to absorb the avalanche of information and research in

nutrition that has descended upon us and only promises to gain speed

with ever-increasing volume. We're bombarded with seemingly endless

newspaper and magazine articles, health books, interviews on radio

and television, internet sites, all touting opposing points of view.

What are we to do with the blessing/curse of this information

explosion?

The problem is that there hasn't been a reference point or a

framework in which to organize and understand the thousands upon

thousands of research findings, many of which are outright

contradictory in nature. It's like an enormous jigsaw puzzle that

arrives without the picture on the box. How do the pieces fit

together? How can we possibly make sense and make use of this

research? A PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) of nutrition?

Even if it was possible to know the effects of every single vitamin,

mineral, fatty acid, herb, etc., and then to organize them item by

item, of what practical use would that be? How would we be any

further along? We would still have 100's or even 1000's of choices to

make for each nutrient. And every day more and more effects are being

found for every nutrient known to us.

Even so, it is every practitioner's experience that what works for

one patient does not work for another with the same condition. The

total body of scientific research is one gigantic pool of randomized

information that is only growing in complexity. And yet, this is

precisely the path that researchers and practitioners are following.

The wrong path was chosen and it is leading us deeper and deeper into

the dark forest of confusion. The more that research uncovers, the

less clear the picture becomes.

The wrong questions have been and are still being asked. Instead of

seeking answers to the effects of biochemical substances on diseases,

we need to turn our attention to understanding how nutrients effect

individual metabolisms. Instead of thinking in terms of treating

disease, we must learn to think in terms of building health and

meeting and optimizing genetic functional capacity by addressing the

needs of each individual's metabolic type.

The adverse influences in the environment will continue to increase

in the years ahead. In order to survive and live a full, productive

life in the current millennium, especially if one wants to live a

healthy life, it is becoming increasingly important that each

individual take responsibility for his own health and address the

inescapable requirements of his biochemical individuality, for it is

only in so doing that the body will adapt and maintain its defenses

against the adversities of the environment and that the joy and

exuberance of true good health can be known.

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

----------