RE: Metabolic Typing Diet (quazi poll)

[Guest guest]

DMM wrote <snip>

" I fear that this is just another in a long line of marketing diet gimmicks.

Not

that the information is wrong but that it defies its own basis which

is 'no one system is good for every one'. "

-----> Could you explain a little more what you mean by this, how does the

book defy it's own basis?

--Thanks,

[Guest guest]

Hi Dr. Mike,

I have read the book and enjoyed it mostly...my score was puzzling, though (VERY

low carb-type, and equal between mixed and protein type). Basically, I decided

I was a mixed type, but I should lean heavily towards protein type. Have I put

the recos into practice? Not completely, but I do try to avoid eating carbs

alone as they make me loopy. I resent that the authors acknowledge Price at the

beginning and then go and advocate a low-fat diet for the carb types. Price

didn't (to my knowledge) find any healthy, lowfat groups. Even traditional

groups in the tropics and the mediterranean ( " higher carb " ) eat more fat than

MTD folks claim IMO. I'm planning on doing the carb testing regime that they

reccommend (eating proteins and non-starchy veggies, then add one carb at a

time) to find my optimal mix of protein-carb-fat. I enjoyed it, but wouldn't

take it as gospel--just another tool to help me find the way.

[Guest guest]

> Did you find it easy to determine your type?

Yes.

> Did you implement the diet? Results?

I didn't really " implement " a specific diet from it, but I did adjust

the macronutrient proportions of the quality, NT-type foods I was

already eating. It helped me to get a better handle on what

effects different foods have on me in an immediate sense. I too

see it as a tool, not gospel. One of many pieces of the puzzle. I

don't see any one book or authority as the hard and fast guide to

what I should eat as an individual. NT helped me make more

positive changes in my diet, with results, than any other thing, but

Metabolic Typing, while not perfect, helped me iron out

macronutrient ratios for myself as an individual, which NT does

not really address. I'm a mixed type, not extreme in any one

category, and I've found I definitely feel much better when, at

each meal, I have a roughly even distribution of fat, carbs and

protein (the proverbial balanced meal), and maintain a variety of

different kinds of protein in my diet in general. (As was brought

up here a while back, I agree that his fat ratios may be too low for

many people.) When I eat outside those guidelines, especially

if I have a meal lacking in either protein or fat and high in carbs

(even non-processed, properly-prepared, whole carbs), I crash a

couple hours later and get hungry sooner. Not enough carbs,

and too much protein or fat, and I tend to feel very slighly

nauseated and still hungry right after eating. I'm not anti-carb,

and my diet is not low-carb, but this book has helped me dial in

how to eat them in order to maintain a sense of wellness, to

avoid blood sugar swings and energy slumps. I'd

recommended it to people who already are following the

guidelines in NT but are still having problems with blood sugar

swings, excess weight, etc.

Aubin

[Guest guest]

Firstly thanks to everyone who replied to this post. Your efforts

are appreciated.

What I mean is that this book prides itself and boasts that 'no one

size fits all' and then in the context of the book attempts to lay

out a method of analysis that would encompass all humans.

What I mean about the marketing is that while many books that make it

to print have good information as this one does, they are in print to

sell copies. And not necessarily to provide any level of

intellectual honesty. Different popular " diet " books have varying

levels of such IH. This book fails the sniff test by marketing to

those who are 'fed up with the one size fits...' routine and then

turns around and does that very thing. Unfortunately it is rare that

IH sells in this marketplace. So as I said there is good information

in this book, however it is nowhere near as comprehensive or widely

applicable as it claims. Which is reasonably typical for a diet book.

DMM

>

> DMM wrote <snip>

> " I fear that this is just another in a long line of marketing diet

gimmicks.

> Not

> that the information is wrong but that it defies its own basis which

> is 'no one system is good for every one'. "

>

> -----> Could you explain a little more what you mean by this, how

does the

> book defy it's own basis?

> --Thanks,

[Guest guest]

-

>I resent that the authors acknowledge Price at the beginning and then go

>and advocate a low-fat diet for the carb types. Price didn't (to my

>knowledge) find any healthy, lowfat groups. Even traditional groups in

>the tropics and the mediterranean ( " higher carb " ) eat more fat than MTD

>folks claim IMO.

I haven't read the book, but based on what people have said about it here,

that's been my single biggest reason not to bother. As far as I can tell,

whatever the variation there might be in dietary requirements among

different peoples, NOBODY should get only 20% of their calories from

fat. As Sally has said, rather than being a maximum, 30% should be

considered a _minimum_.

-

[Guest guest]

At 11:38 PM 9/4/02 +0000, DMM wrote:

>Firstly thanks to everyone who replied to this post.  Your efforts

>are appreciated.

I'm late and who has referred to this book the most. Thank you for your

questioning and others for their input which has helped my perspective.

>What I mean is that this book prides itself and boasts that 'no one

>size fits all' and then in the context of the book attempts to lay

>out a method of analysis that would encompass all humans.

I can see how the dietary questions could have more than an A, B or C answer.

I'm a protein type with half the answers a C. There are a few physiology

questions that are only answerable if its a C answer. Leads me to lean toward

the protein type being easiest to determine from the book questions. The

clinical use of MT can involve up to 3000 questions.

>What I mean about the marketing is that while many books that make it

>to print have good information as this one does, they are in print to

>sell copies.  And not necessarily to provide any level of

>intellectual honesty.  Different popular " diet " books have varying

>levels of such IH.  This book fails the sniff test by marketing to

>those who are 'fed up with the one size fits...' routine and then

>turns around and does that very thing. 

I've felt " one size doesn't fit " myself for years because little works for me

that I work hard to be able to purchase. Pessimistic, yes I don't think this

book is it all for anyone in a nutshell. It explains this. It does give you

books to read on good fats, refers to NT and NAPD which will then lead to the

benefits of raw. Grain soaking is the extreme in this book rather than going

out on a limb like Sally with raw dairy and good fats. Someone not researching

beyond the book or knowing good dairy and fat vs. bad may only get marginal

results imo. It does give me choices other than those instinctively picked

from

NT that were right on to my type. Marketing wise I'd have to agree that it was

written for a broad market to increase its saleability.

Unfortunately it is rare that

>IH sells in this marketplace.  So as I said there is good information

>in this book, however it is nowhere near as comprehensive or widely

>applicable as it claims.  Which is reasonably typical for a diet book.

I think it narrows down choices to hopefully achieve absence of cravings for

your non type or foods that are nutrition absent. The only other mainstream

diet book I've read is The Zone and it was far too confusing to do anything

with for me. Too many choices.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> What I mean is that this book prides itself and boasts that 'no

one

> size fits all' and then in the context of the book attempts to lay

> out a method of analysis that would encompass all humans.

, how do you advise people go about determining the

macronutrient balance that's best for them (aside from noticing

the obvious results of food sensitivies)? Do you make specific

recommendations to your clients on this subject? Or do you

think it's not a relevant issue?

A lot of people, even those following NT and WAPF info, seem to

have confusion about how to figure out the right macronutrient

balance of their diet, if the way they're doing it now is not quite

right for them. Metabolic Typing is the only book I know of that

addresses it on an individual basis. If you think his method of

analysis is flawed, is there a system you feel is superior?

Aubin

[Guest guest]

> , how do you advise people go about determining the

> macronutrient balance that's best for them (aside from noticing

> the obvious results of food sensitivies)? Do you make specific

> recommendations to your clients on this subject? Or do you

> think it's not a relevant issue?

===============Although there is some merit to pct of macros I

honestly look at this as nearly as absurd as counting calories or fat

grams. Good information for your own knowledge however nowhere in

the natural world and certainly none of the glorious traditional folk

we read about ever give this even a first thought much less a second

thought. So while it is good entertainment for the inquisitive and

may assist some who are novices all in all I feel it is more

complication of a rather simple topic in the name of marketing.

>

> A lot of people, even those following NT and WAPF info, seem to

> have confusion about how to figure out the right macronutrient

> balance of their diet, if the way they're doing it now is not quite

> right for them. Metabolic Typing is the only book I know of that

> addresses it on an individual basis. If you think his method of

> analysis is flawed, is there a system you feel is superior?

This book does a great job of acknowledging the some of ther very

many factors that effect metabolism. In that area they do a great

job. And for the purpose you site here Aubin this is the best book

I've seen for that. I'm just not so sure that its a necessary

activity. But for those who want that, this would be a good resource.

DMM

>

> Aubin

[Guest guest]

Good grief, I see this is a really old message, but I'm just now looking at

it and have an answer, which I wouln't have had last September.

I think the book is good to read. I really liked how it brought in all the

various considerations. After reading Wharton, Metabolic Man, I was just

confused with all the many ways of looking at things. Walcott brought it

together so it made sense. Actually I never finished the figure your type

chapter, so I didn't take all the recommendations all that seriously. One of

these weeks I'll look at it again. I don't think it is really all that easy

to figure what is best to eat. Maybe I'd say I'm a little sceptical of the

whole business. I guess it would be different if you started out with bad

eating habits and definite health problems, so you really needed to take a

new approach to eating. That wasn't my situation.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/

..

----- Original Message -----

From: " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 12:51 PM

Subject: Metabolic Typing Diet (quazi poll)

> I am posting this only to those who have actually read the MTD.

> While I find this work excellent in its acknowledgement of the many

> parameters that determine an individuals health status. I fear that

> this is just another in a long line of marketing diet gimmicks. Not

> that the information is wrong but that it defies its own basis which

> is 'no one system is good for every one'. However I would recommend

> it as good informational reading.

>

> I actually am posting because I'd like to know from the non health

> care folks what their thoughts and experience of this book was.

> Did you find it easy to determine your type?

> Did you implement the diet? Results?

>

> I am curious as to your general impressions. Thanks for your input,

> and my clients thank you too, as this gives me a better understanding

> from a clients perspective.

>

>

> DMM

>

>

>

>