Dear Mark: Metabolic Typing
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my weekly newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Dear Mark,
I’d love to see your take on the validity of the metabolic type diet. I have found that a primal-style eating plan similar to yours works wonders for me, but I have seen some people comment that they maintain lean bodies with a very different approach than you. One commenter even stated that he gains weight when he increased fat calories. It seems like people can react differently to certain foods.
Metabolic typing periodically gets a boost in press every once in a while. The premise of typing suggests that people have distinctive metabolisms that are best served by a corresponding nutrition profile. Presumably, these metabolic distinctions are genetic differences based on your ancestors’ geographic origin. For example, if your ancestors are from the South Pacific islands, your nutritional needs differ significantly from those of the Lapps in Scandinavia, etc.
(Metabolic typing is different from the “blood type diet” you might occasionally hear about, but some people try to emphasize what they see as the overlap between the two “theories.”)
Traditional metabolic typing uses three categories: protein type, carbo type, and mixed type. As you can probably guess, “protein types” are supposed to eat protein- (and fat-) rich diets. “Carb types,” according to this theory, do well with a high carb, low protein and fat diet. “Mixed types” are supposed to thrive on equal parts proteins, fats and carbs.
And it gets more intricate/convoluted from there. Your “type” theoretically shows if your sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system is “dominant” in your personality and physiology. Some of the tests and descriptions go into detail about everything from “fast/slow oxidation” to endocrine gland dominance. Supposedly, if you eat “according to your type,” you will finally be able to maintain good health and a normal weight. You can get long, exhaustive testing and reports that gives you this information, usually for a certain price. (Imagine that.)
What’s my estimation of this theory? Hooey, humbug, nonsense. But let me tell you why.
In last week’s post Did Grok Really Eat That Much Meat?, we cited research highlighting the substantial role that animal sources (fish/meat, fat/protein) played (and still play) in traditional hunter-gatherer diets. The study established a range of animal source intake between 45-65% of total energy intake. While the 20% difference isn’t exactly trivial, it’s still pretty minor in the grand picture.
It’s true people sometimes respond slightly differently to particular foods (like raw nuts, for example), and occasionally we find tolerance related patterns within particular ethnicities. An example of this pattern would be the fact that most of the world has a higher level of lactose intolerance than certain European ethnic groups. Nonetheless, we’re still talking about pretty targeted food sources. Despite these relatively minor patterns and individual issues, the fact is we all share the same biochemistry. (As in, our bodies all pump out insulin in response to carb intake….) Some people might be more sensitive to lectins, but lectins are still processed by those people’s bodies the same way they are by everyone else’s systems. The same goes for other food sensitivities, even those that may show a population-based pattern.
Let me say it this way. Having particular sensitivities to foods or preferences for foods doesn’t equate with the need for a different macronutrient composition in your diet. One size fits all may not be exactly right - there is a range. But that range is much narrower than the metabolic typing theorists want to suggest… We each might prefer to get our protein through a unique combination of meats and other foods (nuts, etc.), but we share the need for significant protein intake.
There are, indeed, other individual factors that influence our nutritional needs and sensitivities, but I’d argue that these don’t have anything to do with where Great-, Great-, Great-, Great- (and so on) Grandpa came from. They have to do with age, gender, personal medical condition and hormone balance, exposure to toxins and allergens, etc.
And then there’s the part about weight maintenance/loss. Sure, some people out there have a harder time gaining muscle mass despite their best efforts. Some people, while they’re perfectly healthy, have a harder time maintaining a “thin” physique. But a type report isn’t going to offer any new answers. Controlling your hormonal balance by minimizing carbs is the key. (And as for those people who eat carbs but look thin, they’re still throwing their body into hormonal havoc, despite their denial. Thin doesn’t necessarily equal health.)
Once again, within our individual ranges, we can all expect to achieve a healthy body by practicing what we know to be true over millions of years. At the end of the day, there’s undeniably a surprising consistency in our nutritional needs. A hunter-gatherer style diet (cornerstone of the Primal Blueprint) has held up time and time again as offering the best promise for true health and best protection against chronic disease.
Thanks, as always, for your questions and comments, and keep ‘em coming!
trp0 Flickr Photo (CC)
Further Reading:
No-Duh Study: Exercise is Good and Lowers Obesity
Dear Mark: What is a Healthy Body Weight?
Primal Blueprint for Men and Women?
Skinny Fat: Where Skinny Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Healthy
Art De Vany: Metabolic Shifting
Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds
Posted By: Mark Sisson
(
Thank you for adressing this Mark! I actually found the Primal Lifestyle partially because of internet researching after reading “Eat Right for your Blood Type”. I have often thought about asking you for your thoughts on this concept. I know that this post is about metabolic diets and not bloodtype diets, but I think that almost every one of your points could be applied to either so i will count this as an answer to my question too!
My mother, who is a big proponent of the “eat right for your blood type” methhidoly constantly gives me a hard time for living primally when I have type A blood which means that i should be eating a lot of whole grains according to ER4YBT. Dropping whole grains was one of the greatestest things that I ever did for my health! Not only were grains wrecking havoc on my body but also on my moods, emotions and thinking!
Son, dropping grains has been the single best thing I have ever done for myself healthwise. Too bad it took me nearly 50 years to figure out. Better late than never…
Yes, MT is a bunch of baloney. The similarities between one human and the next far outweigh any minor differences. And the methods they use to determine your “type” are pure nonsense. Great post, Mark.
I second that opinion. I’ve seen hogwashier health theories before, but MT does reek of half-truth and shady guesswork.
Interesting perspective, as always, thanks!
I only know, for sure, what works for myself and have often wondered how much truth was found by others in that ‘metabolic type’ plan. I never bought into it because as mom in a house of 7, I couldn’t fathom preparing meals that were right for each different type. “I prepare real food, you eat. Be thankful if you can.”
I am doing quite well on the Primal Blueprint diet. I am still struggling to get 100% grain free, but I have come a long way and I feel sooo much better.
I really love telling people that my 50 pound weight loss was achieved by eating HIGH FAT and protein and by avoiding grains as much as possible. This always leads into a lengthy discussion…sometimes a debate! The point is, PRIMAL WORKS! You don’t need to hand over your paycheque to some club so that you can follow their points system or exclusively eat their food or be told what type you are or……
I have improved my health by applying common sense principles–which I had to LEARN! Isn’t it fascinating that humans are the only species that don’t inately KNOW what they should eat!?
We need to learn to listen to our amazing bodies. That should be the first step in any journey towards improved health.
Keep up the good common sense lessons, Mark. I’m learning a lot.
I must admit, I had been undecided about the metabolic type concept. I assumed that perhaps some people did have more of a tolerance to grain-type carbs than others, and that this explained why some people eat a lot of healthy grains but avoid getting fat whilst others do not. But your explanation has focused my mind a little and I see now that perhaps it is is, as you nicely put it, hooey.
One thing I decided was hooey the moment I first heard about it was the blood type diet. That one seemed flawed at the most fundamental because it seemed to assume that if our blood type evolved at a certain time then out digestive functions also evolved at that time, which I can think of no logical reason for.
I wonder if I could make a few bucks by writing a book called ‘The Hair Colour’ diet? Maybe ginger people have to eat carrots, oranges, tomatoes and pumpkins, whereas blonds stick to bananas, yellow peppers and egg yolks…
Ha ha… Methuselah, that book would probably make you a fortune! People are far too eager to believe anything. Too bad I have read your blog and know ou to be too ethical to jump on the scam wagon
Awesome post, this is something I have always wondered about and it has even caused me to question my Primal Diet after hearing so much good stuff about eat right for your type. Posts like these are great for people at all levels, and help re-assure any doubters of the lifestyle, great stuff!
Son of Grok - thanks for stopping by. Of course you are right that I would not stoop to profiteering from the weak and the hopeful, but on the other hand I am more than happy to ridicule those who do…so I think my next post might be a spoof along the lines of my proposed book. Thanks for giving me the idea! I just need to find a way of making sure no one thinks it’s for real…
Agree or disagree - you are always an insightful and fascinating read.
Of course, I totally agree with you.
Skip the diets; learn how to eat properly and live a healthy life and you will find so many challenges simply do not exist for you and you will be better equipped to deal with the ones that do pop up.
There. Now you can skip the newest diet-of-the-month-book and save your money.
Cheers!
I was interested to see this old saw of metabolic typing coming up again. Apes have blood type A and O and likely many other alleles. Only the most common one among many are used to type blood.
What would be the reasoning behind the preference of type A for grains when apes have the same type? None whatsoever.
Even if there were a preferred type for early farmers, and there isn’t, it would only be because it conferred some immune system advantage and have nothing to do with diet. Early farming, circa 11,000 years ago, exposed humans to new pathogens and expanded population size sufficiently to maintain diseases too lethal to exist among early humans living in small groups.
Great post Mark!
At it’s simplest….
If we believe this MT, then I guess a lot of groks went real hungry…because they couldn’t and wouldn’t eat what the rest of the tribe ate? OK then
…and here is the post…
The Hair Colour Diet
Methusela’s post is great… .i recommend a read
I’m surprised that Dr. Mercola pushes the MT diet so heavily. I generally trust Dr Mercola, and find his website to be full of great, paleo-friendly advice.
I never wanted to jump to conclusions about MT, since at first glance it does seem that some people can simply handle grains/carbs/whatever much better than others (like myself).
But it’s interesting to see you’re stance on the issue.
Yeah your right. The eskimos don’t have a hereditary need for a certain diet just like the quechua indians in south america. Really? Really? Really? You mean living in the arctic is no different then living in a jungle? Your logic needs some logic. Read Biochemical Individuality by Roger Williams. Your the quack pal.
Lets see: World with many different habitats, extremely diverse ecosystems, and a species that has adapted to almost every one of them. Look at Dr. Price’s Nutritional and Physical Degeneration. He found people living off the land as their ancestors did were extremely healthy. On wildly diverse diets based off available food sources. Argue that. You don’t see a difference in their needs? Metabolic Typing is the most successful diet plan I have used in my ten years of personal training. I have finally found something that can consistently work from one person to the next. Quacks? Researchers like Roger Williams, William Kelley, George Watson, Francis Pottenger, and Weston Price developed Metabolic Typing. These pioneers and scientists were far superior to the real ‘quacks’ of allopathic one size fits all medicine today which is based off money more then helping people. Every client I see needs a specifically tailored diet as well as exercise program.
It’s of course also interesting to note that the people who lived off the land ate what agreed with them. They were able to intuitively eat that which made them feel better and were never exposed to the varying “health viewpoints” that exsist today. They were not peer pressured into eating one way or the other, but in fact chose what was best for them.
If one follows the primal blueprint (which is excellent), they would have a positive spin on this post by Mark.
They follow Mark = they eat according to the primal blueprint = the follow mark = they have a positive spin on this article.
conversely, a vegetarian, high carb low fat person would not be following Mark and probably not even be reading this post.
In my experience, being a protein type while living with a carb type, and me being 2.5 times her weight, if she eats what I eat, she feels like crap and gains fat. IF she eats high carbs, grains, fruits and sugars, she drops weight and feels great.
I think there is something to be said about individual needs.
and again, I eat primal.
Being an MT advisor, I think some of the value of MT is going unrecognized and I’d like to mention a few things.
Even though all MT diet plans include whole grains and dairy, I believe that one of the main reasons why MT enjoys such great success is that it gets people eating whole foods instead of processed crap. I think that’s something we can all agree on.
In my opinion, MT is not a contradicting alternative to the primal diet, but instead a more advanced implementation of it. I’m living proof of this because I follow both a primal and a MT diet. In fact, my diet is probably more primal than many of the people here!
Sure, if you want to improve your health without getting too involved with your diet, just focusing on the primal principles will get you bye without MT. But if you want to maximize your results, I think MT has a lot of value.
Mark mentions a range of 45% - 65% of animal food in hunter-gatherer diets. This is pretty close to the range for MT. 40% is recommended for the carb types (slow oxidizer or sympathetic dominant), 55% is recommended for the mixed types (mixed oxidative or autonomic balanced), and 70% is recommended for the protein types (fast oxidizer, parasympathetic dominant).
MT is also not just based on genetics. It inherently does takes into consideration the “age, gender, personal medical condition and hormone balance, exposure to toxins and allergens” that Mark mentions. This is the difference between a “functional” type and a “genetic” type. It’s also why people who are ill often transition to different types as they recover.
For what it’s worth, I’m a “fast oxidizer” and my meals consist of mostly meat and fat with a smaller portion of vegetables and/or fruit. (no, I don’t measure it out exactly, and that’s not recommended either) With less meat and fat than this, the meal doesn’t hold me over as well. (Yes, I know, Grok sometimes had to go extended periods without food). My wife is the opposite of me and neither of us would do as well if we swapped diets. In fact, my wife couldn’t even bring herself to eat the ratio of meat that I eat.
I’ll be a believer in MT until someone proves to me that an Eskimo can do just as well with half of their meat and fat intake being replaced by fruit. I doubt that’s the case, but I’m open minded to the possibility.
Similarly, why are Native Americans more susceptible to blood sugar problems when they eat modern food? Not only is this a potential indication that their metabolism is geared towards less carbohydrate, but it also shows that minor differences in metabolism can have significant effects.
Regarding the dominance of the sympathetic or parasympathetic side of the autonomic nervous system, either dominance is usually pretty obvious in someone’s behavior. Sympathetic dominants are usually intense and parasympathetics are usually laid back. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that different foods will stimulate either side of the ANS for better or worse depending on a person’s dominance. My dominance is sympathetic and I definitely believe that following my diet balances my sympathetic tendencies.
It seems to me that the only significant argument against MT is that it’s too elaborate. That’s understandable, but what’s wrong with someone going the extra mile with their diet if they want to? While some people may not want to deal with the structured nature of MT, I think it deserves more credit than “hooey, humbug, and nonsense.”
If anyone can refute the validity of MT with a logical explanation, I’d be happy to hear it.