Thomas Dekany wrote:

>>and in the case of the blood type diet that evidence is achingly
>>
>>
>absent.
>
>
>I am not sure how you can make that claim, but let's not beat it to
>death. And if it doesn't appeal to you? O well. No big deal. As long as
>you are off grains, and eat lots of meat you will be fine. Nothing is
>lost and we are still both happy.
>
>

The trouble with the blood type diet is that it is unsupported by
evidence.  Where, for example, is the evidence that type A people lack
sufficient stomach acid to initiate the digestion of meat?  I asked for
that evidence before and you claimed to be too busy to provide it.  But
I'm not too busy to have researched it myself, and I've yet to find it.
It is a fact that type As produce *less* stomach acid than type Os, but
that fact by no means implies that they produce *insufficient* stomach
acid to digest meat.  To support that claim you would need to show (a)
how much acid is needed to digest given amounts of meat; (b) type As
make less than that amount.  Furthermore, you've stated that while beef
is to be avoided for this reason, turkey is okay, so you'd also need to
show (c) that turkey protein (or soy protein, for that matter) is
digested in a manner different from beef protein, requiring less stomach
acid.  This is just *one* of the points of the blood type diet, but it's
an important one, since D'Adamo insists that type As should eat little
red meat because they "can't digest it."

It has nothing to do with whether the blood type diet "appeals" to me.
That's a retreat into relativism that I refuse to make.  Theories worth
stating in the first place are surely worth supporting with evidence.  I
make an issue of this because people who read this list might get the
mistaken idea that there is some scientific reason for type As to avoid
red meat.   To say that by agreeing to disagree, "nothing is lost" isn't
quite accurate.  The truth is lost.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]