Dietary Theories

As Foodie was preparing to set off on a summer escapade, she received this urgent question from inquiring website visitor Jenny:

"What is the difference between the two philosophies; Eat Right 
for Your Blood Type, and Feed Your Genes ?  It seems like there 
would be a lot of similarities and that, in the end, the 
prescriptions would be about the same?  Or am I wrong?  Please, let 
me know!!"

Anyone? Anyone? Please give this one a whirl, informed Bloggers. Meanwhile, Foodie will report in  from the road when possible. ( Lobster rolls! Crab cakes! Fried clams and cole slaw.. Blueberry pie, sweet corn, lush tomatoes...)

Comments

[Cynthia]

These are not conflicting philosophies, but rather different objectives. The Blood Type diet focuses on the foods that help your body operate best from day to day, the ones that won't give you indigestion or acid reflux or make you bloat or have headaches, and the ones that help you maintain optimal health and energy levels overall. The Genes diet is how to prevent damage to your DNA. It focuses more on nutritional supplements and how to keep DNA from going through the kinds of mutations that cause premature aging or cancer. So the books can be complementary, depending on what you are trying to accomplish. I'd say that, if you have a family history of cancer or premature aging, start with Genes. If you're just trying to maximize your health, energy levels, and feel better overall, start with the Blood Type diet. But one doesn't cancel out the other. This isn't one of those "one side must win" carbos vs. protein battles.

[KathyF]

The blood type diet is bogus. It's been debunked numerous times, by reputable scientists.

Eating right for your genes is different, in that if you have a predisposition to certain cancer or heart disease, it makes sense to use dietary weapons to ward off whatever you may be likely to inherit.

For instance, I have a family history of heart disease, but I'm pretty sure my near-vegan diet is the best I can do to prevent dietary aggravation of heart disease. My thinking (and that of lots of scientists) is that generally, genes can give you a predisposition to inherit a disease, but there must be an environmental trigger in order for the disease to develop. (What we eat is considered "environmental" for purposes of this discussion.)

[Cynthia]

I'd be interested in seeing that debunking -- because every article I've seen attacking the Blood Type diet has simply attachked D'Adamo's theories of why it works, not the actual results. (I had dismissed his theory of why it worked as soon as I read it, and have been annoyed that no one seems to get beyond arguing over that.)

But the important thing is that everyone I know who has tried the Blood Type book has had dramatic results in some area of health improvement, myself included. And I find that it's a pretty reliable way to determine what will cause indigestion or other problems. Of course, it doesn't take allergies into account, but it explains that you can do that for yourself. I by no means follow the diet slavishly, but I now know what to avoid if I don't want to be up all night with acid reflux or if I don't want to have my joints aching and stiff. It's hard to ignore something that works.

I think the most important thing D'Adamo did, even if you don't like his diet, is to spotlight the fact that we are not all supposed to be eating the same thing. Many other studies, besides his, have shown that different groups share different needs, from Asia's general lactose intollerance to a greater need for fish among Scandinavians. The diet gets you focused on paying attention to how things make you feel. So use the Blood Type diet as a spring board. If it helps, great. If not, you've lost nothing. Every blood type has lots of beans, veggies, fruits, and protein to choose from, so it's not like you can't have a balanced diet while you're seeing if it helps.

But even if you have no interest in the Blood Type diet, I agree that it is important to look at the the ways you can avoid disease through diet and nutritional supplements. Innumerable studies have been done on the benefits of supplementation in preventing everything from birth defects to cancer to Alzheimer's disease, so whatever else you do, research the nutrition that can keep you from running into trouble. I haven't read the Gene Diet, but I've read a dozen books like it, as well as medical newsletters, and you really can improve your health with a combination of reasonable diet, reasonable exercise, and some good supplements. Just find out what's right for what you're worried about.

[KathyF]

Here's one debunking: http://www.earthsave.org/news/bloodtyp.htm...remember, it's difficult to argue against someone who insists on using the label "science" to refer to something that's not based on science at all.

Eating certain foods based on your blood type makes about as much sense as all redheads avoiding chocolate. Or people with blue eyes avoiding peas.

Here's another article which points out the fallacies in the argument:http://www.acu-cell.com/btd.html

As for anecdotal evidence that a certain diet works, again, that's not science, it's common sense: I can give you a placebo that might make you feel better too, but it doesn't mean it actually helps.

[Cynthia Clampitt]

Actually, both of the sites were just for competing dietary philosphies rather than scientific treatises that attacked blood type research. There was a bit too much of "I really didn't like it when he said...," instead of the "Research shows that..." that I was hoping for. Interestingly, one of the sites even gave a list of diseases that are correlated to blood type -- so even one of these sites suggests that there is a blood type-health correlation.

So I'm afraid we'll have to simply agree to disagree -- though just on this. I agree with you entirely about the environmental triggers and genetic predisposition to disease.

As for anecdotal evidence -- if you have enough of it, it begins to look a lot like research -- and there are thousands upon thousands of people who have been helped by the blood type diet. While it might be silly to say that redheads shouldn't eat chocolate, there are vast populations that are genetically predisposed to reacting adversely to certain foods, such as the general Asian intollerance to milk, so it is not too far-fetched to imagine that other genetic factors, such as blood type, might also be indicators of predisposition. As noted, even one of the sites you listed mentions a strong correlation between blood type and disease.

And yes, I know a placebo can make some people feel better, but without going into details about my friends' credentials or how we set up tests to eliminate any chance of placebo effect, suffice it to say that, whatever explanation there might be for the health improvements, it was not placebo effect.

So while I continue to be less than totally compliant with the blood type diet, I do avoid the foods that have clearly caused me serious problems in the past, and I will continue to recommend it to friends as a potential source for ideas of where and how to experiment with fine-tuning their own ideal eating plans. Because, as I said earlier, the greatest blessing of the diet to my mind is that it has finally made it widely known that diet is not "one size fits all." We need to pay attention to how we react to foods and find the ones that are best for us and our health issues.

And with a family history of heart disease, it sounds as though you have made a good choice for protecting your own health and avoiding those environmental triggers. May you live long and prosper.

[Cynthia]

In light of what Kathy said about her family history and diet, I thought I'd pass along this recent article from "Wired," which reports, in essence, that DNA is not destiny, it's how the DNA expresses itself, and that can be altered by diet, lifestyle, and other interactions with the environment. I know she already knew this, but I still thought she (and others) might find it encouraging.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68468,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

Of course, drug companies see it as a way of predicting how people will react to drugs, but most epidemiologists, as well as the natural healing community, sees this as a real confirmation of what they've been saying all along about diet and nutrition.

Science is finally catching up with the health gurus. ;-)