Ray Audette posted an article on paleodiet from
Ruediger Hoeflechner on the subject Eat right for your type.

I'm glad that you pointed to this well investigated posting.
It shows that it's a bad idea to consider our blood groups as
to be "paleolithic" or not.
All four (main) blood groups are common *today* and the factors
A and B have been present in millions of years ago.

Ruediger:
>The idea that O is the original blood group of hunter-gatherers and blood
>type A and B came up later in history is entirely antiquated. ...
>Phylogenetic analysis suggests that the human A and B allels are at least


a few million
>years old (4, 12). Sorry, Mr. D'Adamo: blood group A and B are as
>paleolithic as blood group O. ...

Blood groups *can* be assigned as predominant among ethnic groups.
Native americans and celts have group 0 prodominating/only.
But celts (among anchestors of most europe/US whites) are not a bit less
neolithic than the more eastern groups with A and B.

Even American "indians" were agricultural.
Later, but besides some nomadic hunting "rest" populations
in more deserted areas (north and plains)
they mostly were agricultural "neolithic" as my references show.

The *interpretation* of the blood groups as "neolithic" is probably
nonsense. But the different reactions on different food items
may be valuable for people
on any diet, including paleolithic emulating diets.

I think that it must be of advantage for humanity to evolve with different

blood groups concurrently. Not one blood-group looks like dying off,
in particular not blood group 0.

But if different blood groups are sensible to different lectins
they also take *advantage* out of different lectins.

Probably D'Adamo counts A's as vegetarian and 0's as *not* because
the sensitivity of 0's to *wheat*. Because wheat is attributed by *some*
to be vegetarians food. But there are many different

grains,seeds,nuts,roots
and other plants which perfectely serve as vegetatians food,
and to which 0's are *not* sensible.

Allergic reactions on wheat for example may be easier to aquire
if there is a sensitivity to wheat lectin.
That won't prevent you to become allergic to gluten
even if the lectin doesn't bother you.
It may be less probable. But one can become
allergic to almost every single stuff on earth (mostly proteins).
Wheat or beef or fish.

I must say that i too can't subscribe to the "foreign protein" thesis as
described in neanderthin.
Proteins consist of *very* long sequences (up to 120000 or so) of always
the same 21 different amino acids. If the proteins are broken down
to shorter strings (polypeptides) during digestion,
the shorter they are, the more similar sequences will arise.
Any protein may result in the broadest range of
intermediate polypeptides, before it reaches amino acid level.

If polypeptides from gluten resemble human thyroid cell proteins,
how much more should polypeptides from animal glands
resemble human glands.
They should have much more structure in common as a nut has with us.

If not foreign proteins more or less adaption to antinutrients makes
more sense to me.
The antinutrients found in plants may more easily cause problems
without a body's defense.
D'Adamos tests help us (from the "avoid" criteria) to have one more
decision criteria about which foods to choose. For example for nuts.
And it helps to cut down the range of different food items,
which will too help our imune systems - just by getting less mixing.

In my personal experience i found that some stuff i didn't like
was on the avoid list (wheat, i'm 0)
and others i enjoy (like almonds) were not "avoid"
- or for some different reasons not easily understood "beneficial".

regards
Amadeus



--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net