In my case, and perhaps it's just cooincidence, I happen to be allergic to
exactly the foods which D'Adamo suggests are best for me, and the better they
are for me, the more allergic to them I seem to be.  I'm a type "A".  I'm
severely allergic to garlic and onions, for example.  I tried the ER4YT diet for
A's at first, but of course became quite ill.  I am in debt to the diet, in the
sense that it helped me pinpoint food as the most significant part of my
problem, and specific foods to boot (although I was already thinking along
those lines).  I now thrive on a diet much closer to being type "O", including
the weight loss which often comes to those on low-carb diets (or perhaps
low-glycemic diets may be a better term, as in, high in foods which do not tend
to profoundly effect blood sugar levels).  I don't see D'Adamo's claims as
being so hard to test.  A double-blind study could be used where one group is on
their correct-type diet, another group is on specificlly a diet prescribed for
ANOTHER type, and the third, the control group, on no special diet at all.
Keep track of symptoms (using the method employed in Immuno-Lab's pilot study
where the efficacy (spelling?) of an elimination diet based on ELIZA-RAST test
results testing for IgG anti-body reactions to specific foods, perhaps.  Ok,
that sentence wasn't the best I've ever formed...) and other factors such as
weight loss and gain.  It would be hard to test cancer and heart failure rates,
but D'Adamo claims much more immediate results from his diet.  Just an idea.

Erik



> The *theory* behind the lectin part of ER4YT is impeccable.  If
> and when lectins enter the bloodstream (and D'Adamo is able to
> present sufficient evidence that some do), they either cause the
> blood to agglutinate or they don't.  If they do, then the
> agglutinated blood cells attract macrophages, an immune response.
> They can also "target" the tissues of specific organs, by means
> of molecular mimicry, causing an auto-immune response.  He goes
> on to argue that certain lectins are actually beneficial for
> certain blood types because, for example, they "mimic" cancer
> cells, thus *helping* the body to get rid of these, by
> stimulating the immune system to attack them.  Thus, he argues
> that the apparent protective effect of soy against certain
> cancers (e.g., prostate cancer) is a result of a soy lectin that
> resembles the particular cancer cell closely enough that the
> agglutinating action of the lectin triggers an assault against
> the cancer.
>
> So, in D'Adamo's view lectins cannot be regarded as good or bad
> in themselves, but only in light of their immunologic effects on
> the body, which depend to a significant extent on ABO blood type
> because these effects are a result of their hemagglutinating
> properties.
>
> On the critical side is the fact that D'Adamo is generally unable
> to give a specific account of how particular lectins are linked
> to particular health issues.  In this his theory is no worse off
> than the "foreign protein" theory of Neanderthin, but it's still
> an issue, because theories this vague are hard to put to the
> test.  Worse, D'Adamo mixes his lectin theory with a "metabolic
> type" theory that has nothing to do with lectins, but is based on
> other metabolic differences between the ABO groups.  For example,
> type As supposedly secrete less gastric acid (true?) and less
> intestinal phosphatase (I gather this one is well established)
> than type Os.  D'Adamo thinks this means that they are less
> equipped for digesting animal protein.  I am not convinced that
> he has a good case for this claim.
>
> One thing that D'Adamo does do, however, is collect evidence that
> certain diseases (notably "diseases of civilization") are not
> impartial with respect to ABO blood type, but favor certain types
> over others.  This evidence, some of which has been kicking
> around for decades, does indeed suggest that he is on to
> something.  There is no obvious reason why coronary heart disease
> and certain cancers should prefer type A blood, but there is
> unmistakable statistical evidence that they do.
>
> I have beat my head against this one for a while, but I can't
> really say that I have a clue as to what might be going on with
> this.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]