Eat Right For Your Blood Type

"Dally" wrote in message
...
I strongly disagree with your first sentence.

In my experience, most people can't tell you a wild guess at the
macronutrient ratio of what they eat within 20%. And they have NO IDEA
how many calories they eat or even how many calories they OUGHT to eat.

Maybe that's different in the USA, I was taught basic dietetic notions like
that at school, when I was 12... The fact remain that most people do have
*some* notion of what eating right is. Have you looked at some of the
theories on obesity that were the norm a few centuries ago? Some *doctors*
believed obesity was caused by water and salt, others that it was
glandular... I mean, if you look at some of the diets back then, some are
really scary-funny... Like one doctor who recommended to eat as much
potatoes, bread and meat as possible, but to avoid food with too much water,
like vegetables - because "obesity is caused by water whose hydrogen bounded
with carbs to form fats". Or that English doctor who recommended to eat
white bread instead of whole bread and to eat soap to dissolve the fat.
Compared to that, our current level of knowledge is infinitely better. That
20% margin is very good actually. I mean, even making the difference between
food that is fat or high in carb is already a lot compared to what was
available to the people back then. Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to most people
centuries ago. Likewise for the link between sedentarity and obesity - a
notion doctors of the past did not agree on, many adviced to exercise as
little as possible to lose weight. There is a difference between not
*knowing* something and not *acting* according to that knowledge. I believe
people do *know* a lot nowadays. Even if you do believe the average level of
knowledge is that low, which I highly doubt, it's still not lower than it
was before.
At the other end of the spectrum, animals have zero dietetic knowledge and
remain slim just fine. Getting an animal fat involves domesticating it,
keeping it in captivity, cross-breeding it for generations, cutting off his
sexual glandes, feeding it frankenfood *and* putting it through a
psychological loop to stimulate its eating (like what happens to many obese
sugar-mommie pets). And even with all that, it's hard work to get pets to
super-obese range. I would say that's pretty good result if you consider
they don't even know what calories are...

"conjason" wrote in message ...
Has anyone done or doing this diet? I am so interested in this diet and
would like to know why there are not many people mentioning this diet.

I think this is the best!

Because it doesn't work. Blood type has nothing to do with what you should eat.

Lictor wrote:

"Dally" wrote in message
...

I strongly disagree with your first sentence.

In my experience, most people can't tell you a wild guess at the
macronutrient ratio of what they eat within 20%. And they have NO IDEA
how many calories they eat or even how many calories they OUGHT to eat.


Maybe that's different in the USA, I was taught basic dietetic notions like
that at school, when I was 12... The fact remain that most people do have
*some* notion of what eating right is.

You went to school in France? I won't presume to know what French
schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I grew up with no
similar body of knowledge, and based on conversations I have with
British, Australian and other North American people I would be highly
suspect that only the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.

Have you looked at some of the
theories on obesity that were the norm a few centuries ago? Some *doctors*
believed obesity was caused by water and salt, others that it was
glandular... I mean, if you look at some of the diets back then, some are
really scary-funny...

snip funny theories

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to most people
centuries ago.

You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an animal for
slaughter (and that would be humans for the past 10,000 years) knows
about this.

Even if you do believe the average level of
knowledge is that low, which I highly doubt, it's still not lower than it
was before.

I think you're wrong, because I think people got side-tracked with wrong
information. The USDA food pyramid, for example, is laughably wrong.
And before that we had the "four food groups" - also wrong. My
grandmother knew more about dieting than anyone else I know and she
cited her eating regimen that her mother taught her. She said to eat my
vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish was good for my brain and it
was good to have a drink now and then. Science has been catching up
with my Grandma my whole life.

Dally

Lictor wrote:

"Dally" wrote in message
...

I strongly disagree with your first sentence.

In my experience, most people can't tell you a wild guess at the
macronutrient ratio of what they eat within 20%. And they have NO IDEA
how many calories they eat or even how many calories they OUGHT to eat.


Maybe that's different in the USA, I was taught basic dietetic notions like
that at school, when I was 12... The fact remain that most people do have
*some* notion of what eating right is.

You went to school in France? I won't presume to know what French
schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I grew up with no
similar body of knowledge, and based on conversations I have with
British, Australian and other North American people I would be highly
suspect that only the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.

Have you looked at some of the
theories on obesity that were the norm a few centuries ago? Some *doctors*
believed obesity was caused by water and salt, others that it was
glandular... I mean, if you look at some of the diets back then, some are
really scary-funny...

snip funny theories

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to most people
centuries ago.

You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an animal for
slaughter (and that would be humans for the past 10,000 years) knows
about this.

Even if you do believe the average level of
knowledge is that low, which I highly doubt, it's still not lower than it
was before.

I think you're wrong, because I think people got side-tracked with wrong
information. The USDA food pyramid, for example, is laughably wrong.
And before that we had the "four food groups" - also wrong. My
grandmother knew more about dieting than anyone else I know and she
cited her eating regimen that her mother taught her. She said to eat my
vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish was good for my brain and it
was good to have a drink now and then. Science has been catching up
with my Grandma my whole life.

Dally

"Dally" wrote in message
...
You went to school in France?

Yes, I'm French.

I won't presume to know what French
schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I grew up with no
similar body of knowledge, and based on conversations I have with
British, Australian and other North American people I would be highly
suspect that only the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.

That's weird. I'm not claiming we got the latest breakthrough in nutrition,
but we did get *several* lessons on basic stuff. Twice in junior high
school, at the first year and last year (same year as sexual education), and
then again during high school as part of the scientific options (this one
getting more serious with the whole metabolism and ATP cycle). All part of
the biology lessons. In junior high school, pretty everyone learnt basic
stuff like the different macro-nutriments, our equivalent of your FDA food
pyramid (421 version here - 4 carbs for 2 proteins for 1 fat), how calories
work... My gf is a pure non-scientist, yet she remembers the basic pretty
well, so it's not just only me
And this was fifteen years ago. Since then, they have put more emphasis on
this. I will have to ask my younger sister, but I'm pretty sure she already
received some basic lessons even in primary school. Moreover, they also get
extra-curricular information. My mother works at a nursery school, and *all*
similar schooles have a yearly event when kids are taught about the various
tastes (what are the basic tastes, how various food tastes, making them try
various food and spices...), which is actually a pretty good idea I think.
Not to mention that all the meals are checked by a dietitian (that's a legal
obligation), so the kids at least know how a balanced meal is supposed to
look. While looking at my 11 y.o. sister magazines, I also noticed quite a
lot (too much IMHO) information on diets. She's very aware that eating too
much causes obesity, that obesity can kill you, that fat is bad and stuff
like that. Just like she knows smoking kills you. I have been reminded
plenty enough of all that from her!

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to most people
centuries ago.

You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an animal for
slaughter (and that would be humans for the past 10,000 years) knows
about this.

Obviously, the doctors back then didn't know about that... But the general
populace was probably wiser... However, do you really think that nowadays
people do not even have that *basic* knowledge? I mean, when you talk to
obese people, they are well aware that they are not eating like they should,
that they should exercise and go on a diet and stuff like that. It's only
that they somehow don't manage to *do* it. At least, that's my experience
here... If it's not yours, then something is awfully wrong in the USA... I
mean, even wronger than it looks...

I think you're wrong, because I think people got side-tracked with wrong
information.

I didn't say otherwise I did say people have access to a bunch of
information, from their education to the magazines. I didn't say it was the
correct one. The problem is that each generation of doctor think he has the
Truth. The doctors with the funny water theory are not different from the
doctors who prescribed fasting in the fifties, and the ones who prescribed
the proteidic diet a few decades ago (some still do actually).
But my point is that people seemed to do better with *no* information at
all. I mean, two centuries ago, most people did not know how to read or
count, I doubt they were counting calories. Contrary to what some people
think, they also had plenty enough to eat to become obese - back then, the
average French ate more than 1.5kg of bread a day, you could certainly get
any westerner fat with similar food. *Some* people were poor, but not that
poor.
If people managed to do fine with no special knowledge, and without specific
diets (because I doubt most people went to see a doctor to get one), maybe
we're going the wrong way by trying to solve the problem with stuffing
people with medical information...

My grandmother knew more about dieting than anyone else I know and she
cited her eating regimen that her mother taught her.

That's what I call "cultural eating". All cultures have developped a set of
recipes that form their culinary culture. And if you look at them, you
realize most of them are very clever. A lot aim to lower the glycemic index
(which is important if you're hungry). The Indians managed to create a
viable vegetarian diet, without any "scientific" knowledge, which is quite a
feat. Many managed to find a quite perfect equilibrium between the different
fat sources...
If you look at the USA (and Europe to a lesser extent), both the food
industry and the dietitians have worked at destroying or perverting all
existing cultural eating during the past century...

She said to eat my
vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish was good for my brain and it
was good to have a drink now and then.

Yes, but the grandma of the futur will follow the advice of her doctor or
read women magazines... That's exactly what the majority of the people are
doing... Including the obese ones (or at least, they're trying and
repetitively failing)...

"Dally" wrote in message
...
You went to school in France?

Yes, I'm French.

I won't presume to know what French
schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I grew up with no
similar body of knowledge, and based on conversations I have with
British, Australian and other North American people I would be highly
suspect that only the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.

That's weird. I'm not claiming we got the latest breakthrough in nutrition,
but we did get *several* lessons on basic stuff. Twice in junior high
school, at the first year and last year (same year as sexual education), and
then again during high school as part of the scientific options (this one
getting more serious with the whole metabolism and ATP cycle). All part of
the biology lessons. In junior high school, pretty everyone learnt basic
stuff like the different macro-nutriments, our equivalent of your FDA food
pyramid (421 version here - 4 carbs for 2 proteins for 1 fat), how calories
work... My gf is a pure non-scientist, yet she remembers the basic pretty
well, so it's not just only me
And this was fifteen years ago. Since then, they have put more emphasis on
this. I will have to ask my younger sister, but I'm pretty sure she already
received some basic lessons even in primary school. Moreover, they also get
extra-curricular information. My mother works at a nursery school, and *all*
similar schooles have a yearly event when kids are taught about the various
tastes (what are the basic tastes, how various food tastes, making them try
various food and spices...), which is actually a pretty good idea I think.
Not to mention that all the meals are checked by a dietitian (that's a legal
obligation), so the kids at least know how a balanced meal is supposed to
look. While looking at my 11 y.o. sister magazines, I also noticed quite a
lot (too much IMHO) information on diets. She's very aware that eating too
much causes obesity, that obesity can kill you, that fat is bad and stuff
like that. Just like she knows smoking kills you. I have been reminded
plenty enough of all that from her!

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to most people
centuries ago.

You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an animal for
slaughter (and that would be humans for the past 10,000 years) knows
about this.

Obviously, the doctors back then didn't know about that... But the general
populace was probably wiser... However, do you really think that nowadays
people do not even have that *basic* knowledge? I mean, when you talk to
obese people, they are well aware that they are not eating like they should,
that they should exercise and go on a diet and stuff like that. It's only
that they somehow don't manage to *do* it. At least, that's my experience
here... If it's not yours, then something is awfully wrong in the USA... I
mean, even wronger than it looks...

I think you're wrong, because I think people got side-tracked with wrong
information.

I didn't say otherwise I did say people have access to a bunch of
information, from their education to the magazines. I didn't say it was the
correct one. The problem is that each generation of doctor think he has the
Truth. The doctors with the funny water theory are not different from the
doctors who prescribed fasting in the fifties, and the ones who prescribed
the proteidic diet a few decades ago (some still do actually).
But my point is that people seemed to do better with *no* information at
all. I mean, two centuries ago, most people did not know how to read or
count, I doubt they were counting calories. Contrary to what some people
think, they also had plenty enough to eat to become obese - back then, the
average French ate more than 1.5kg of bread a day, you could certainly get
any westerner fat with similar food. *Some* people were poor, but not that
poor.
If people managed to do fine with no special knowledge, and without specific
diets (because I doubt most people went to see a doctor to get one), maybe
we're going the wrong way by trying to solve the problem with stuffing
people with medical information...

My grandmother knew more about dieting than anyone else I know and she
cited her eating regimen that her mother taught her.

That's what I call "cultural eating". All cultures have developped a set of
recipes that form their culinary culture. And if you look at them, you
realize most of them are very clever. A lot aim to lower the glycemic index
(which is important if you're hungry). The Indians managed to create a
viable vegetarian diet, without any "scientific" knowledge, which is quite a
feat. Many managed to find a quite perfect equilibrium between the different
fat sources...
If you look at the USA (and Europe to a lesser extent), both the food
industry and the dietitians have worked at destroying or perverting all
existing cultural eating during the past century...

She said to eat my
vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish was good for my brain and it
was good to have a drink now and then.

Yes, but the grandma of the futur will follow the advice of her doctor or
read women magazines... That's exactly what the majority of the people are
doing... Including the obese ones (or at least, they're trying and
repetitively failing)...

"conjason" wrote in message ...
Has anyone done or doing this diet? I am so interested in this diet and
would like to know why there are not many people mentioning this diet.

I think this is the best!

Before I started Atkins a friend told me about this book. I am O-, so
what she was saying sounded vaguely low-carb.

She liked it because her uncle lost a lot of weight with it, which
convinced others in her family to give it a try. That worked, and
basically they all came to use it if needed.

Now, I was fairly skeptical. I looked up reviews on the web. Amazon
gave what I thought was a good feel overall - basically, it only got
extremes - mostly 1 or 5 stars, with some 2 or 4 stars. The low end
were primarily people saying it made no sense, with a smattering of
people that tried it and it didn't work. The high ratings were people
who tried it and it worked.

All in all, I didn't have a consistant feeling, and instead went with
Atkin (DANDR) and am quite happy. My feeling is that he probably has
something that works for some people, but his explanations do not
really explain it.

Cheers,
=Blue

I missed the beginning of this conversation but I looked into that book
before doing Atkins and I think it makes perfect scientific sense if you
read it from front to back. I also followed it religiously and lost a
little weight before switching to Atkins. The food allowance is too
structured in my opinion on the ERFYBT book
I am a type 0+ and I just decided that since I am already a meat eater
Atkins might be good. (of course I eat plenty of veggies as well)
I have often thought of switching to ERFYBT after I get to goal. Not going
above my carb limit of course, but adding things like spelt pasta and sweet
potato. Who knows, It's been a while since I have read that book. For now, I
am sticking with Atkins.

just my thoughts.
hugs,

Tonya
www.lowcarbcrew.com



"Bob (this one)" wrote in message
...
MU wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:38:40 -0700, GaryG wrote:


That's because that "diet" is bogus, and has no scientific basis. The
only
value in that diet was the $$ the author raked in from selling books to
gullible people desperate for a simplistic solution.


Hm. And here I thought Bob Atkins was dead.

About as dead as your credibility. Say, did you ever look it up after
I showed you that you didn't know what it meant?

Bob

I missed the beginning of this conversation but I looked into that book
before doing Atkins and I think it makes perfect scientific sense if you
read it from front to back. I also followed it religiously and lost a
little weight before switching to Atkins. The food allowance is too
structured in my opinion on the ERFYBT book
I am a type 0+ and I just decided that since I am already a meat eater
Atkins might be good. (of course I eat plenty of veggies as well)
I have often thought of switching to ERFYBT after I get to goal. Not going
above my carb limit of course, but adding things like spelt pasta and sweet
potato. Who knows, It's been a while since I have read that book. For now, I
am sticking with Atkins.

just my thoughts.
hugs,

Tonya
www.lowcarbcrew.com



"Bob (this one)" wrote in message
...
MU wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:38:40 -0700, GaryG wrote:


That's because that "diet" is bogus, and has no scientific basis. The
only
value in that diet was the $$ the author raked in from selling books to
gullible people desperate for a simplistic solution.


Hm. And here I thought Bob Atkins was dead.

About as dead as your credibility. Say, did you ever look it up after
I showed you that you didn't know what it meant?

Bob

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:46:40 -0600, "Tonya"
wrote:

I missed the beginning of this conversation but I looked into that book
before doing Atkins and I think it makes perfect scientific sense if you
read it from front to back. I also followed it religiously and lost a
little weight before switching to Atkins. The food allowance is too
structured in my opinion on the ERFYBT book
I am a type 0+ and I just decided that since I am already a meat eater
Atkins might be good. (of course I eat plenty of veggies as well)
I have often thought of switching to ERFYBT after I get to goal. Not going
above my carb limit of course, but adding things like spelt pasta and sweet
potato. Who knows, It's been a while since I have read that book. For now, I
am sticking with Atkins.

Well, I haven't read this book, but I am also an O+ and have lost just
fine on a balanced diet. I see no reason to think blood type makes
any difference. Most diets work for a large number of people if they
follow them carefully, hence there's significant anecdotal evidence
that every popular diet works. Probably most people could take any of
the recommended eating plans in the blood type diet book, follow it,
and lose weight.

Chris
262/141/ (145-150)