T Nation

Eating for Your Blood Type


#1

Is anyone well versed in this? It seems like a bunch of crap like food combining.

My blood is B negative, and according to a book a browsed through at Barnes & Noble, I should NEVER eat chicken, tomatos, peanuts (and presumably peanut butter) yet I can scarf down all the ostrich, bison, venison, buffalo I can get my hands on. If I could get my hands on it. Also, specific dairy products are prohibited, like string cheese, and specific types of seafood are also prohibited.

I don't have stomach problems or any digestive issues at all, and I eat all the hell out of chicken, tomatos and peanut butter. So it seems like crap to me. Anyone know anything about this?


#2

If you know from personal experience that what it predicts for you is not the case, then you know all you need to know about it (from the perspective of personal use at least.)

If I ever have nothing to do and lose all integrity, perhaps I’ll write a book, “The Eye Color Diet.”


#3

I am type A and it says I shouldn’t eat red meat cause it would make me lethargic. But I feel great when I eat red meat. It is BS


#4

What is the reasoning behind your blood being used to dictate what food you eat?

Is your blood type determined by your environment and the foodstuffs that are potentially available to you?

What is meant to happen if you eat the “wrong” food versus the “right” food?

All seems a bit hokey to me, as everyone else here has said.


#5

[quote]Joe D. wrote:
What is the reasoning behind your blood being used to dictate what food you eat?

Is your blood type determined by your environment and the foodstuffs that are potentially available to you?

What is meant to happen if you eat the “wrong” food versus the “right” food?

All seems a bit hokey to me, as everyone else here has said.[/quote]

Blood type is genetic, not environmental. My dad is B neg too. I think the reasoning behind this blood type dieting is that blood type is allegedly correlated to how you digest or tolerate various foods.

The book I looked at suggested that for my blood type, eating chicken and the other things I mentioned would cause all sorts of problems from digestive issues to inflammation.

So at this point, we have a consensus of 3 believing it’s crap.


#6

At the moment science recognizes 30 different blood types.

A book that dumbs it down to 4 or 8 blood types and sells itself as a wonder diet is worthless, don’t buy into it.


#7

That diet is a pile of crap…but even if it was legitimate… WHY do you overanalyze things man?,just eat your protein stop worrying about minuscule details,…


#8

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#9

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I think the ‘theory’ behind it is some thing like this:

Originally, there was just one blood type, back in the distant past, when we were hunter/gatherers. Obvoiusly we would have eaten plenty of maet, fat and some roots, nuts, seeds and berries. What we would not have eaten is carbohydrates in anything like the amounts (or types) we do today.

So if you have this original ‘ols school’ blood type, you should eat an old school’, paleo type diet (according to the theory).

Then some of our ancestors became subsistence farmers and began cultivating crops and husbanding livestock. At around this point a new blood type emerged and was found mainly within this proto-agrarian culture. These folks were better adapted to eat corn, bread, flax, etc, etc.

Later still, as more intense farming and more freely available refined carbohydrates appeared on the scene, another bloodtype emerged.

So the theory says that if you are one of the older blood types, then you shaould avoid carbs, since you weren’t getting any ‘back in the day’. The newer types can eat carbs, but not necessarily the refined ones. If you have the new blood types, you can eat what you want.

As you can see, I only skimmed the basic facts (from a freind who believes in this) and as you can see, whilst on some superficial level there may be a form of logic to the theory, I don’t personally agree with it.

BBB [/quote]

As I can see this diet is based on evolution…BUT changing the food would make changes in the gastrointesinal tract and the manner insulin and other hormones act.and we should have all mutated not only a few because as time passed everyone started to eat carbs…This looks like a pile of Bollocks to me.


#10

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I think the ‘theory’ behind it is some thing like this:

Originally, there was just one blood type, back in the distant past, when we were hunter/gatherers. Obvoiusly we would have eaten plenty of maet, fat and some roots, nuts, seeds and berries. What we would not have eaten is carbohydrates in anything like the amounts (or types) we do today.

So if you have this original ‘ols school’ blood type, you should eat an old school’, paleo type diet (according to the theory).

Then some of our ancestors became subsistence farmers and began cultivating crops and husbanding livestock. At around this point a new blood type emerged and was found mainly within this proto-agrarian culture. These folks were better adapted to eat corn, bread, flax, etc, etc.

Later still, as more intense farming and more freely available refined carbohydrates appeared on the scene, another bloodtype emerged.

So the theory says that if you are one of the older blood types, then you shaould avoid carbs, since you weren’t getting any ‘back in the day’. The newer types can eat carbs, but not necessarily the refined ones. If you have the new blood types, you can eat what you want.

As you can see, I only skimmed the basic facts (from a freind who believes in this) and as you can see, whilst on some superficial level there may be a form of logic to the theory, I don’t personally agree with it.

BBB [/quote]

Did they actually verify by any means – perhaps time travel and directly testing these ancient peoples, or perhaps DNA testing of thousands-of-years-old bodies which are in such plentiful supply from most cultures – that these different sorts of cultures had different blood types?

Or did they pull it out of their ass like the rest of the theory? :wink:


#11

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I think the ‘theory’ behind it is some thing like this:

Originally, there was just one blood type, back in the distant past, when we were hunter/gatherers. Obvoiusly we would have eaten plenty of maet, fat and some roots, nuts, seeds and berries. What we would not have eaten is carbohydrates in anything like the amounts (or types) we do today.

So if you have this original ‘ols school’ blood type, you should eat an old school’, paleo type diet (according to the theory).

Then some of our ancestors became subsistence farmers and began cultivating crops and husbanding livestock. At around this point a new blood type emerged and was found mainly within this proto-agrarian culture. These folks were better adapted to eat corn, bread, flax, etc, etc.

Later still, as more intense farming and more freely available refined carbohydrates appeared on the scene, another bloodtype emerged.

So the theory says that if you are one of the older blood types, then you shaould avoid carbs, since you weren’t getting any ‘back in the day’. The newer types can eat carbs, but not necessarily the refined ones. If you have the new blood types, you can eat what you want.

As you can see, I only skimmed the basic facts (from a freind who believes in this) and as you can see, whilst on some superficial level there may be a form of logic to the theory, I don’t personally agree with it.

BBB [/quote]

I fail to understand how farming (which I believe only came about around 10,000 years ago) would have any significant effect on our genes.


#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#13

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#14

Damn, those Bifidobacteria really don’t like when the bloodstream has type A in it.


#15

More seriously, it’s an interesting question as to whether there could be significant genetic change in populations with regard to food processing (so to speak) in such a short time frame.

On the side favoring it, the domestic cat is only a few thousand years removed from its progenitor, Felis silvestris libyca, but has a longer digestive tract and better ability to live on non-raw-whole-small-animal diets. This is not believed to be from intentional selective breeding, but environmental selection.

But on the other side, if (no exact value is known) this was a process taking thousands of years for cats, the same number of generations for humans would be many tens of thousands of years. However we don’t know that perhaps it might not have occurred within say the first 1000 years for cats. Also of course humans might not be as genetically malleable in that regard.

I don’t at all think that supports the blood type diet argument: this is considering this subpoint as a separate question.


#16

Honestly, the average reader would be better off stuffing their face with venison, bison, or ostrich rather than the McDonald’s, Hostess, and Starbucks they have been eating. This is universally sound advice, regardless of blood type, eye color, or free or attached earlobe.

If one of these books forces a person to think critically about what they eat, then it has done its job. Trouble only comes when the reader cannot think independently and make some results-based decisons, and instead heralds the author’s advice as dogmatic truth.

-Sab