Re: _Biochemical Individuality_ -- good book?

December 22, 2003

You can not find him on McGraw-Hill/Contemporary web site.

But I did find these two sites. There was a write up on him in Texas Monthly,

but the article will not display

Hope this helps

http://www.cm.utexas.edu/williams/

http://www.doctoryourself.com/books_williams.html

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Anyone know anything about this? I couldn't glean anything from the

reviews on Amazon, and the excerpts provided didn't reveal anything really

relevant. It seems like it might be a better version of _The Metabolic

Typing Diet_ (and without the hard sell) but I wasn't able to find out its

attitude on fat, for example. (Amazon's sample pages seemed to be messed up.)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879838930/ref=pd_cpt_gw_3/103-563\

9078-7903015

-

December 22, 2003

Ruby

There's a Texas Monthly alcoholism article on the first site here

http://www.cm.utexas.edu/williams/255.htm

,

Have Biochemical Individuality 1977 6th printing. There are more recent

editions. Is almost entirely animal and human studies with ranges of organ

size, shape, anatomical, composition individuality, high low ranges for

enzyme, endocrine, excretion. pharmacology affects, nutritional ranges of

potassium, calcium, trace elements, amino acids, vitamins A, B, C, D.

doesn't go into any macronutrient proportion theory only

possibilities for nutrition by individual. Was hoping it would define more

Kelley, then Wolcott's assignment of nutritional types to high low

ranges. Shows there is individuality only. Interesting and complex.

Wanita

At 03:44 AM 12/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>You can not find him on McGraw-Hill/Contemporary web site.

>But I did find these two sites. There was a write up on him in Texas

Monthly, but the article will not display

>Hope this helps

>http://www.cm.utexas.edu/williams/

>http://www.doctoryourself.com/books_williams.html

>

> Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>Anyone know anything about this? I couldn't glean anything from the

>reviews on Amazon, and the excerpts provided didn't reveal anything really

>relevant. It seems like it might be a better version of _The Metabolic

>Typing Diet_ (and without the hard sell) but I wasn't able to find out its

>attitude on fat, for example. (Amazon's sample pages seemed to be messed

up.)

>

>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879838930/ref=pd_cpt_gw_3/10

3-5639078-7903015

>

>-

December 22, 2003

In a message dated 12/22/03 11:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Was hoping it would define more

> Kelley, then Wolcott's assignment of nutritional types to high low

> ranges. Shows there is individuality only. Interesting and complex.

Is there really any reason to believe anything mroe than that?

Kelley/Wallcott's classification system isn't very convincing to me, but even

still, MTD

admits that individuals can change over time, and, moreover, the real success of

MTD lies not in its macroanalysis of categories, but in its fine-tuning

suggestions that are really nothing more than a food diary, which anyone can do

without the possibly dubious macroanalysis Walcott offers.

Chris

December 23, 2003

In a message dated 12/23/03 4:50:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >>Was hoping it would define more

> >>Kelley, then Wolcott's assignment of nutritional types to high low

> >>ranges. Shows there is individuality only. Interesting and complex.

> >

> >Is there really any reason to believe anything mroe than that?

> >Kelley/Wallcott's classification system isn't very convincing to me, but

> even still, MTD

> >admits that individuals can change over time, and, moreover, the real

> success of

> >MTD lies not in its macroanalysis of categories, but in its fine-tuning

> >suggestions that are really nothing more than a food diary, which anyone

> can do

> >without the possibly dubious macroanalysis Walcott offers.

> >

> >Chris

>

> There's a reason " why " and " how " some food combinations or even one food or

> supplement works for me. Just because is not an answer to me. Don't know

> exactly what is looking for in this book but its not nutritional. He

> asked about fat in particular.

But the fact that the supplement or food combination works for _you_ is no

more indicative of the kind of broad classifications Walcott offers than what

Biochemical Individuality offers, is what I'm saying. I read MTD, and it seemed

to me like " just because " was the most common answer to the assertions in the

book, which was I found to be a major disappointment.

My main point, though, is that MTD doesn't seem to offer anything

substantive beyond guiding you to your own individual requirements through trial

and

error. The general test seems to me almost worthless, and to be almost

completely subject to the reader's preconceptions. If you find out you are a

" protein

type, " that really doesn't do you any good until you fine-tune your " type "

with what is essentially a food diary, in which case you come out no better than

someone who just used the food log to begin with.

Also, his prescriptions for macronutrient ratios seem to be way off base, and

I doubt you follow the protein type recommendations. For example, he says to

eat *more* protein than fat, but I doubt there's a single person on this list

who does so. People with blood sugar fluctuations are bound to wind up

categorized as a " protein type " by Walcott's book, but many of these people can

do

great on soaked oats with a half stick of butter, which contains hardly any

protein.

So what I'm saying is that perhaps Biochemical Individuality (I haven't read

it) hits the nail much more on the head than does Metabolic Typing Diet.

Chris

December 23, 2003

At 05:53 PM 12/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>In a message dated 12/22/03 11:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> Was hoping it would define more

>> Kelley, then Wolcott's assignment of nutritional types to high low

>> ranges. Shows there is individuality only. Interesting and complex.

>

>Is there really any reason to believe anything mroe than that?

>Kelley/Wallcott's classification system isn't very convincing to me, but

even still, MTD

>admits that individuals can change over time, and, moreover, the real

success of

>MTD lies not in its macroanalysis of categories, but in its fine-tuning

>suggestions that are really nothing more than a food diary, which anyone

can do

>without the possibly dubious macroanalysis Walcott offers.

>

>Chris

There's a reason " why " and " how " some food combinations or even one food or

supplement works for me. Just because is not an answer to me. Don't know

exactly what is looking for in this book but its not nutritional. He

asked about fat in particular.

Wanita

December 23, 2003

In a message dated 12/23/03 9:14:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Butter would definitely lessen the oatmeal's GI, couldn't be a long term

> daily protein substitute if you are a protein type and wouldn't be

> appropriate if you've stopped eating gluten.

It wouldn't, but that's sort of the point-- if one has hypoglcemia, the test

in MTD will inevitably classify you as a " protein type. " Walcott claims if

these people don't eat the absurd amount of protein he recommends they will

suffer muscle deterioration. That just doesn't jibe with my experience or that

of

anyone I know.

Have you read Metabolic Man,

> 10,000 Years from Eden?

Yes.

Chris

December 23, 2003

" MTD, " (Metabolic Typing Diet) is that Mercola's book?

Judith Alta

December 23, 2003

Chris-

That's what I was wondering, and why I asked. The problems with _MTD_ were

legion.

>So what I'm saying is that perhaps Biochemical Individuality (I haven't read

>it) hits the nail much more on the head than does Metabolic Typing Diet.

-

December 23, 2003

Judith-

No, though he's a big fan of metabolic typing. It's a book by Wolcott.

> " MTD, " (Metabolic Typing Diet) is that Mercola's book?

-

December 23, 2003

Butter would definitely lessen the oatmeal's GI, couldn't be a long term

daily protein substitute if you are a protein type and wouldn't be

appropriate if you've stopped eating gluten. Have you read Metabolic Man,

10,000 Years from Eden?

Wanita

> People with blood sugar fluctuations are bound to wind up

>categorized as a " protein type " by Walcott's book, but many of these

people can do

>great on soaked oats with a half stick of butter, which contains hardly any

>protein.

>

>Chris

December 24, 2003

In a message dated 12/24/03 10:47:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >It wouldn't, but that's sort of the point-- if one has hypoglcemia, the

> test

> >in MTD will inevitably classify you as a " protein type. "

>

> Which would give " some " scientific basis to the blanket statement based on

> research in Metabolic Man that most non insulin dependant women have acid

> blood, most NID men have alkaline blood and all diabetics have alkaline

> blood.

In what way? There is no hypothesizing, predicting, or testing, involved in

the test, so how can it give a scientific basis to something?

I'm not sure what statement about NID and acid/alkaline you are referring to.

Could you by any chance provide a page number?

Also, it is impossible that all diabetics have alkaline blood, because a

simple superficial review of diabetic research will show that acidosis is a

common

problem among diabetics.

Food ash, its acidity/alkalinity outside the body has been a point

> of contention here before along with general consensus that the same foods

> eaten by many individuals would produce the same acid or alkaline levels in

> the saliva and urine of all. True, WAP did not agree with this.

More importantly, his research proved the theory wrong.

He preceded

> and inspired most researchers of biochemical individuality.

But most of them, especially Walcott, seem to have fundamentally missed the

take-home message of Price's research, and Walcott, in my view, fundamentally

misrepresents Price's research in his book.

Am not saying

> blood ph is the answer or the basis. More a result of individual process.

I think I agree if I understand you right. All I'm trying to say in this

thread is that I think that Walcott's contribution to metabolic typing is not

only superfluous but probably serves to confound the issue rather than clarify

it, so if Biochemical Individuality avoids the types of classifications Walcott

introduces, that might be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

Chris

December 24, 2003

In a message dated 12/24/03 3:25:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> But most of them, especially Walcott, seem to have fundamentally missed the

>

> take-home message of Price's research, and Walcott, in my view,

> fundamentally

> misrepresents Price's research in his book.

I should revise this to only refer to Walcott, as I've read very little of

the others.

_MM_, however, doesn't give me a good impression of them, since the maximum

fat allowance is 30% among all the metabolic typers he cites.

Chris

December 24, 2003

>It wouldn't, but that's sort of the point-- if one has hypoglcemia, the test

>in MTD will inevitably classify you as a " protein type. "

Which would give " some " scientific basis to the blanket statement based on

research in Metabolic Man that most non insulin dependant women have acid

blood, most NID men have alkaline blood and all diabetics have alkaline

blood. Food ash, its acidity/alkalinity outside the body has been a point

of contention here before along with general consensus that the same foods

eaten by many individuals would produce the same acid or alkaline levels in

the saliva and urine of all. True, WAP did not agree with this. He preceded

and inspired most researchers of biochemical individuality. Am not saying

blood ph is the answer or the basis. More a result of individual process.

Walcott claims if

>these people don't eat the absurd amount of protein he recommends they will

>suffer muscle deterioration. That just doesn't jibe with my experience or

that of

>anyone I know.

Had muscle deterioration year and a half ago pre protein increase on high

carb, low/ bad fat, low protein SAD diet except for coconut which l'd added

few months prior. Was 118 lbs., smallest l'd been since 7th grade. Could

put my thumb and middle finger around my arm below the elbow and have them

touch. Am 128 lbs.now, been there for 6 months, muscle increased below

elbow to now 1 1/2 times my reach, this weight l've never maintained, was

always 132 lbs.and over prior to the drop to 118. Nothing changed in my

diet or activity level to make that happen. Schwarzbein describes the

same manifestation of muscle deterioration in her book although IIRC the

man is vegetarian.

>

> Have you read Metabolic Man,

>> 10,000 Years from Eden?

>

>Yes.

And it has no relevance to you to Wolcott? If there's no relevance the

result of this discussion will likely be agree to disagree because of the

misunderstanding that can happen with this form of communication. Have

never stated that MTD is the answer to me by itself. Have stated as finding

quite important, satiety for at least 4 hours and lectins that affect

certain blood types.

Wanita

December 24, 2003

Biochemical Individuality is " only " research results as l said in my

original post to . Said why l read it which could have been omitted. As

my teenage daughter and friends say to each other all the time " TMI, TMI "

too much information. Never said the book was a bad thing just not what he

was looking for.

Wanita

>I think I agree if I understand you right. All I'm trying to say in this

>thread is that I think that Walcott's contribution to metabolic typing is

not

>only superfluous but probably serves to confound the issue rather than

clarify

>it, so if Biochemical Individuality avoids the types of classifications

Walcott

>introduces, that might be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

>

>Chris

December 24, 2003

If you understand maximum 30% fat as misrepresenting WAP who other than the

Inuit in WAP's groups ate more than 30%? l can't tell from the information

in NAPD who that could be. Agree its low to those that need dietary fat

most and in relation to the undernourishment of present day food. This is

40 years of research with plumetting food quality throughout.

Wanita

>_MM_, however, doesn't give me a good impression of them, since the maximum

>fat allowance is 30% among all the metabolic typers he cites.

>

>Chris

December 24, 2003

Wanita-

No, actually it might be exactly what I want -- a scientifically detailed

look at metabolism and metabolic variation. I'm still trying to solve the

riddle of my own problems, and Wolcott was not particularly helpful, except

for his emphasis on purines.

>Never said the book was a bad thing just not what he

>was looking for.

-

December 24, 2003

Wanita-

Surely the Masai did, and how about the Swiss, with all their fatty dairy

foods? And any consumers of traditional sausages would unquestionably have

gotten more than 30% of their calories from fat. 30% was probably

approaching the _minimum_ for healthy peoples.

>If you understand maximum 30% fat as misrepresenting WAP who other than the

>Inuit in WAP's groups ate more than 30%? l can't tell from the information

>in NAPD who that could be.

-

December 24, 2003

In a message dated 12/24/03 6:44:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

rawbabymama@... writes:

> If one uses oil for cooking and also for sauces, as well as consumes foods

> with full fat - nuts/seeds, meat, milk, eggs, etc- and keeps carbs

> relatively low, fat calories will automatically be more than 30%. Mine is

> about 55%, and I'm currently raw vegan(looking to change a bit); I feel

> terrible if I eat any less than that.

I don't do anything to restrict my carbs whatsoever, and my fat has to be at

*least* 40%, perhaps much higher.

For example, how could you eat potatoes without fat? If I bake a potato, I

can't eat it without butter. I usually fry them, lately in coconut oil. I fry

2 potatoes, sliced thinly with one onion, 4-5 cloves of garlic, and spices,

in four tbsp of coconut oil, which provides 480 calories from fat.

Most protein sources are rich in fat. Eggs are 75% fat, milk is less, but

has twice as much fat as protein. Beef is some 40% fat even when all the

visible fat is trimmed.

I think the " Indians " Price studied ate about 80% fat, according to WAPF.

Walcott's misrepresentation of Price's research is in his implication that

Price's research provides the foundation for the notion that " one's man meat is

another man's poison. " That maxim might be true, but it certainly is NOT the

take-home point of Price's work. Price emphasized the similarities in

micronutrients once the superficial differences in *foods* were broken down, and

proceeded to forge a " universal diet " that contained the micronutrients he

believed most important to dental health for his patients, regardless of their

ancestry. Walcott seems to me to be " using " the epic stature of Price's work

for

his own ends, which is intellectually dishonest, because he does not give the

impression that he is coming to very different conclusions about Price's work

than Price himself did.

The 30% fat is not a misrepresentation of Price; it is the authors' own

recommendations.

But note that these are people advocating *metabolic typing*. Presumably the

*maximum* they allow for should not be the *minimum* Price's subjects were

eating! (besides maybe the Bantu) Since the Inuit ate 75% fat, the " Indians "

ate 80% fat, and the Masai must eat at least 60% fat I would think, the idea

that a metabolic typing range that purports to assess the full range of

metabolic possibilities has 30% as a ceiling and has most people falling around

20%,

is simply preposterous.

Chris

December 24, 2003

If one uses oil for cooking and also for sauces, as well as consumes foods

with full fat - nuts/seeds, meat, milk, eggs, etc- and keeps carbs

relatively low, fat calories will automatically be more than 30%. Mine is

about 55%, and I'm currently raw vegan(looking to change a bit); I feel

terrible if I eat any less than that.

take care