PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bill Dooley <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:48:15 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
The validity of the blood type diet is of course far from proven, but
his ideas are certainly interesting. I just ran across something Dr.
D'Adamo posted last August about the technical basis for his
recommendations. I don't think he'd mind being quoted:

 <begin quote>

Q: Recently, I read this criticism of your theory: "The author claims
that this occurs in vivo, and that this is the source of the diseases
that will occur if you don't "eat right 4 your type." The problem is
that lectins, like every other food protein, are digested into their
constituent amino acids prior to absorption. We absorb the same 20
individual amino acids whether we are carnivores, vegans, or anything in
between, and amino acids do not react with blood group antigens. The
only evidence he presents is the in vitro demonstration of
agglutination, which has been known for decades and which does not apply
in vivo, as I explained above, and some case studies of people he's
"cured" by changing their diet to one supposedly correct for their blood
type. I'm sure I don't have to mention why such case studies are
worthless as scientific evidence." I was very turned on to your book
because it is the closest thing I have seen in the Western scientific
paradigm to the Chinese and Vedic characterization of individual
biochemistry. I'd like to believe it has scientific merit since it is
based in a scientific paradigm. How do you respond to the above
criticism?

A: Like most of my critics, this one zeroed in on one aspect of the
theory (lectins) to the exclusion of all others, and thinks that is all
there is. Obviously, the book is based on more than just lectins. I like
to think it has "three legs":


Leg One is the lectin hypothesis.

Leg Two is the effect of foods on each type with regard to interactions
with intestinal flora (bacteria which, by the way, are "profiled" by ABO
type) and the gut mucous (the largest source of blood type antigens
other than red blood cells). This is the polyamine part. Polyamines is
just a fancy word for all those chemicals ("indoles") that shown up via
the urinary indican test. They have even more interesting "actual"
names: scatole (from "Scatological?"), cadaverine (from "cadavers") and
putrescine (from you-know-what). They are essentially aromatic
hydrocarbons made by the colon bacteria either as a result of
malabsorbing food or from the stiulation of the colon bacteria to grow
via lectins. Very carcinogenic.

Leg Three is the secretory differences with regard to digestive juices
(enzymes and acids), whose relative levels are known to be associated
with ABO type, probably through genetic linkage.

As far as lectins being digested into constutent amino acids: This is
absurd. By that same token, we would "digest" every organic poison out
there into amino acids and assimilate those also. I suggest the critic
envision taking a dose of the lectin "ricin," or botulism toxin. If he
or she is so certain that they will digest this compound into amino
acids, they should have nothing to worry about. The medical literature,
by the way, if full of poisonings that have resulted from the intake of
plants known to be poisonous by virtue of their lectin content. Not only
do they resist hydrolysis (acid digestion in the stomach) but they also
can be identified intact in both the blood stream and lymphatics of
animals as little as ten minutes after they are fed a meal containing
them. How come the animals didn't break them down into amino acids?
Lectins in some baby food preparations have been found to be the cause
of enteritis in neonates. Why didn't these children break them down into
amino acids?

This critic really needs to do his homework. Ignorance in the guise of
sophistry is not valid criticism.

 <end quote>

Link to the quoted material:
http://www.dadamo.com/forum/board-add/add4.htm

Bill Dooley

ATOM RSS1 RSS2