You can't improve scientific knowledge by running random experiments based on outlandish claims, you have to do so by positing an explanation of a mechanism in a feasible way and testing the universe to see if it follows your proposed rule.
In the modern version, it links the behaviour of the blood agglutination to lectins as a fact, in the original it is posed as a possibility that needed study. Knowing what we now do about lectins, this seems unlikely. However the fact is that he saw the physical change, and Dr Peter Adamo Snr was a blood work specialist. Whether that change was caused by bad practice or a real food connection is worth study in my opinion.
Also of note, all those type Os? He recommended a diet that reads as pure Paleo/Primal (recommnding dumping cereals and legumes), which would benefit a higher percentage of the population than the 1% Ancel Keyes believed to be aided by HCLF. A study done using his food recommendations would benefit HFLC scientific study as well.
Oh my lord, this is the funniest thread ever.
The blood type diet is quite possibly the stupidest, most absurd hypothesis ever to rear its ugly head. Seriously, if our good health depended on knowing our blood type and adhering thusly to a set of "good" and "bad" foods, how in the good goddamn did we ever survive and evolve as a species for this long, a time period in which we've known about blood types for the proverbial blink of an eye?! How anyone can believe in this stuff at all is completely beyond me.
Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like the Perfect Health Diet a lot.
Griff's cholesterol primer
5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
bloodorchid is always right
And the study would support the claim that digestive systems of people of different blood types varies how?Originally Posted by JudyMac
So, sociologically, one wrong theory (blood type diet) would cause less harm than another (Lipid hypothesis), so we should fund scientific studies which will fail to reinforce the former? What are you talking about?Originally Posted by JudyMac
I'm not a doctor or a scientist or a genius or a lawyer or a politician or anything. But I think I'm intellectually justified in agreeing with thisOriginally Posted by The Scientist
We will have to agree to disagree.
Mine are in Biomedical Engineering and Clinical Nutrition. I can see some things that I personally would investigate, you don't.