On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Aaron D. Wieland wrote:

> I meant that the disease patterns for a fixed settlement with a relatively
> large population (typical of an agricultural society) would probably be
> different than those for a small, roving hunter-gather band.  It might be
> worth emphasizing the unsanitary conditions of most pre-modern cities and
> villages.  My explanation is still very speculative, as you can tell, so I'm
> afraid that I can't be more specific at the moment.

Okay, I see what you're getting at now.  It makes sense.

> >And I'm sure you have noted that it's difficult or impossible to
> >find any pattern to the lectin sensitivities, from an
> >evolutionary standpoint.  [...]
>
> That's an excellent point.  Although I support Dr. D'Adamo's work on
> lectins, we seem to agree that he may have exaggerated the effect of dietary
> lectins on health.

We just don't know.  There is the *in vitro* evidence, of course.
And one way to treat that is to suppose that a hemagglutinating
lectin *might* cause health problems, whereas one that isn't
shouldn't.  But even so, it is pretty clear that no natural
population anywhere has ever consumed just its "correct" lectins,
so we can't look for paleoanthropological or epidemiological
evidence.  And all four of D'Adamo's diets emphasize whole foods
and avoidance of processed crap, so there's the possibility that
many people would do well on *any* of them.  So, some fairly
complex crossover studies would have to be done to see what's
really going on.

> The problem is that many people nowadays are suffering
> from a leaky gut and/or a weakened immune system, so the effect of these
> lectin sensitivies is probably magnified.

Since the gut has plenty of ABO-type receptors, there is some
sense to the notion that lectins *cause* the leaky gut.  But this
could simply mean that some "master lectin" is opening the gate
for the others, and that the thing to do is avoid that one and
the others aren't such a problem.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]