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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.