Todd, you encourage me to write a new diet book:

Do you know Kleiber's law? It describes the relationship between mammalian
body weight and energy requirements and indicates that, although larger
mammals obviously require more energy , smaller mammals have higher basal
metabolic rates per unit body weight. Therefore smaller-bodied animals need
more energy-rich food than larger animals.

My conclusion: Human diet should depend on weight. People up to 60 kg
should mainly feed on meat and nuts, 60 - 90 kg should rely on milk and
grains, and people with more than 90 kg should prefer fruits and vegetables.

Whats wrong with my new diet book? Unfortunately body weight is only
related to energy requirements. Adaptation to certain foods, however, needs
hundreds of steps. And the activity of enzymes in the gut, the thrifty
genotype, all the genes involved in the cholesterol-, carbohydrate- and
calcium-metabolism are inherited independent of height and weight. If you
compare two isolated populations or species, body weight may be an
indicator for different selective pressures. In this case maybe you find an
association between weight and the frequency of other alleles. But in an
interbreeding population all these traits are exposed to the same
environment - giants and dwarfs have the same vitamin and trace element
requirements.  Within a population dietary recommendations can never be
based on a single gene (with the exception of specific diseases). Even the
(hypothetical) thrifty genotype does not imply, that people with and
without  this type have different micro- or macronutrient needs.

To illustrate the scientific qualification of Peter D'Adamo, just one
sentence from the first chapter of his book, dealing with hominid evolution
(I have only a german edition and try to re-translate it - excuse my
English): "Neanderthals, the first known human beings, developed perhaps
50.000 years ago." Is this the sort of information, we can trust? And we
have to trust, because we don't get data.

Long lists of recommended and forbidden foods.....
Blood type O: very wholesome: lamb, beef, salmon...
                            neutral: duck, rabbit,tuna.....
                            avoid: goose, pork, catfish.....

data?? references?? clinical or epidemiological studies??

Peter D'Adamo found a mouse (increased incidence of peptic ulcers in blood
type O), concludes: more gastric acid (and Helicobacter pylori??) - better
denaturation of protein - better suited for meat digestion - and has blown
it up into an elephant (type O should eat more meat than A and B). Data for
this elephant?? references?? clinical or epidemiological studies??

Could it be, that the spread of agriculture promoted blood type A? Why not?
But we need data und should be careful with interpretations. Some food for
thought: Peter D'Adamo believes that indigenous Americans have only blood
type O. Indeed - O has an extremly high frequency in Central and South
America, in some populations up to 100%. On the other hand blood type A and
B has been shown in precolumbian mummies (1 - 4). Why didn't blood type A
flourish in America?


(1) Boyd, W.C. & Boyd, L. (1937). Blood grouping tests on 300 mummies. J
Immunol 32:307-319

(2) Candela, P.B. (1943). Blood group tests on tissues of Paracas mummies.
Am J Phys Anthrop 30:65-67.

(3) Allison, M. et al. (1978). ABO blood groups in Chilean and Peruvian
mummies. Am J Phys Anthrop 49:139-142.

(4). Llop, E. & Rothhammer, F. (1988). A note on the presence of blood
groups A and B in Pre-Columbian South America. Am J Phys Anthrop 75:107-111.


Best wishes

Ruediger Hoeflechner (blood type 0; I love lentils, though they are not
"Paleo". No clinical symptoms of agglutinated cells)