Metabolic Typing Diet

[Guest guest]

BTW, this is just speculation, but I wonder if including coconut fat as main

fat source in a carbo type's diet, if that would help train their metabolism

to handle fat better? According to Atkins and exercise promoters, if one

forces one's body to burn fat into glucose by restricting carbs or exercising

beyond glycogen stores, respectively, that will stimulate weight loss by

training your body to break down fat into glucose.

So, if a carbo type were to get most of her or his fat from coconut, which

tends to be broken down into glucose instead of stored as fat because it is

short-chained, would that help " train " her or his body to break down fat in

general into glucose, and thereby increase the person's tolerance for fat in

the diet?

Chris

In a message dated 1/13/03 7:28:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, ChrisMasterjohn

writes:

> Moreover, what if this carb type were to eat a good helping of lacto-

> fermented veggies and drink lacto-fermented drinks in between meals? I'm

> sure that would help their glucose stay flowing. It seems to me that while

> some folks like Barry Sears offer a one-size-fits-all macronutrient ratio

and

> subject everything else to it, the metabolic typing diet does something

> similar, though not as bad, in saying that, although everyone has their own

> ideal macronutrient ratio, everythign should be subjected to it. A carbo

> type may well need to reduce fat if eating a normal diet, but what if that

> fat was coconut fat, therefore processed more quickly, and the above

> recommendations to include lots of lactic acid were kept?

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/03 8:09:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> (just a detail - fat isn't converted into glucose (except for the

> glycerol)

Ok, I wasn't sure about that when I wrote it but I figured, how else can it

be broken into energy? My understanding is that coconut fat tends to be

broken into energy rather than elongated, because we can only elongate so

much fat. So how is the fat converted to energy, other than to ATP through

glucose?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

>> So, if a carbo type were to get most of her or his fat from

>coconut, which tends to be broken down into glucose instead of

stored >as fat because it is short-chained,...

(just a detail - fat isn't converted into glucose (except for the

glycerol)

[Guest guest]

So how is the fat converted to energy, other than to ATP

through glucose?

>

The energy stored in fatty acids is converted to energy stored in ATP

by the Krebs/citric acid cycle. (Fatty acids enter the cycle in the

form of acetyl CoA - two-carbon sections of the fatty acid attached

to a cofactor.) The breakdown product of glucose, pyruvate, also

enters the Krebs cycle at this point. So fatty acids and glucose

share a similar pathway at this point. But fatty acids can't be used

to make the molecule glucose. (AT least fatty acids with

even-numbered crabons can't.) Some amino acids can.

[Guest guest]

Wouldn't it be more efficient for body to get via fruits/vegetables?

I used to always limit my fat because I thought it robbed the bod of

oxygen..reduced electrical energy of cell etc etc

please advise

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

From: <darkstar@...>

< >

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:51 PM

Subject: Re: Metabolic Typing Diet

>

> So how is the fat converted to energy, other than to ATP

> through glucose?

> >

>

>

> The energy stored in fatty acids is converted to energy stored in ATP

> by the Krebs/citric acid cycle. (Fatty acids enter the cycle in the

> form of acetyl CoA - two-carbon sections of the fatty acid attached

> to a cofactor.) The breakdown product of glucose, pyruvate, also

> enters the Krebs cycle at this point. So fatty acids and glucose

> share a similar pathway at this point. But fatty acids can't be used

> to make the molecule glucose. (AT least fatty acids with

> even-numbered crabons can't.) Some amino acids can.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Evely " <je@h...>

wrote:

> Wouldn't it be more efficient for body to get via

fruits/vegetables?

If you mean citric acid, the cycle is named for it but it is not the

goal of the pathway. Getting energy from glucose and fats is the goal

of the pathway. It is created and then broken down again as part of

the cycle. (complicated)

> I used to always limit my fat because I thought it robbed the bod

> of oxygen..reduced electrical energy of cell etc etc

>

No, that's not right. The breakdown of glucose and fats to create ATP

is exactly why you need oxygen. This is what oxygen does in the body.

It's the ATP produced by through this pathway that fuels the

electrical activity of the cells etc. ATP is the common energy source

of cells.

(You can get 2 ATP from partial breakdown of a glucose molecule and

this can happen in the absence of oxygen, but you get a lot more

(around 36 ATP molecules) from the aerobic part of the pathway when

the glucose is broken down all the way.)

Martha

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/13/03 11:53:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> The energy stored in fatty acids is converted to energy stored in ATP

> by the Krebs/citric acid cycle. (Fatty acids enter the cycle in the

> form of acetyl CoA - two-carbon sections of the fatty acid attached

> to a cofactor.) The breakdown product of glucose, pyruvate, also

> enters the Krebs cycle at this point. So fatty acids and glucose

> share a similar pathway at this point. But fatty acids can't be used

> to make the molecule glucose. (AT least fatty acids with

> even-numbered crabons can't.) Some amino acids can.

Ah, ok, so that explains why there's no effect on insulin. Thanks!

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

I don't look for credentials either... after all, I take a lot of nutritional

advice from Sally Fallon, who has a degree in english <g> But, I do want

evidence, and I was a bit disappointed at the lack of such in MTD. In fact,

I thought almost every statement in it was not backed up, and some were very

poorly backed up. However, I don't discount it off-hand, b/c I know that

Walcott has published other material, and I assume they " back up " what he has

to say better, not being targeted towards popular diet genre.

Chris

In a message dated 2/13/03 3:15:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Wolcott did work with Dr. Kelley. Chapter on his work in

> Metabolic Man, 10,000 Years from Eden. In the early 1980's he developed a

> system for detecting autonomic dominance vs. oxidative dominance after

> seeing

> Kelley's autonomic model contradicted 's oxidative model.

> Personally, I don't look for credentials. Wolcott took the

> initiative

> to question why free from all the influences that most public released

> research

> is done under. All the authors of all the books mentioned on and tied to

> this

> list did the same. It all goes back to learning from the health success of

> what

> today are considered uneducated people.

>

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

murmured:

>i felt that it was right on target, though i wonder at

>the " scientific " aspect. i couldn't find any real

>credenitals for the author or the co-author. did you?

I didn't find much on credentials apart from this:

http://www.echonyc.com/~mjfahey/about_author.html

and mentions of other books on the same subject here:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rwgully/theories/metabolic_typing.htm

But overall...well...I need to read the book again. Some sciences go straight

in one ear and out the other, and this is definitely the case with MTD. Having

said that, I've been following, more or less, the plan for the Protein type and

have gelt better than I've felt in weeks. I've upped my protein a little bit,

and changed over the types of carbs I've been eating, and my depression, which

has been getting steadily worse for several months, hasn't exactly lifted as

become less...on the forefront of my mind.

Dryad, pondering

--

http://www.puritycontrol.co.uk - XF rec's at The Grove, updated 2/1/03

[Guest guest]

At 07:01 PM 2/12/03 -0800, you wrote:

>i felt that it was right on target, though i wonder at

>the " scientific " aspect.  i couldn't find any real

>credenitals for the author or the co-author.  did you?

> i am apparently a protein type and this seems very

>true of me.

>

>heather

,

Wolcott did work with Dr. Kelley. Chapter on his work in

Metabolic Man, 10,000 Years from Eden. In the early 1980's he developed a

system for detecting autonomic dominance vs. oxidative dominance after seeing

Kelley's autonomic model contradicted 's oxidative model.

Personally, I don't look for credentials. Wolcott took the initiative

to question why free from all the influences that most public released

research

is done under. All the authors of all the books mentioned on and tied to this

list did the same. It all goes back to learning from the health success of

what

today are considered uneducated people.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

and others,

I ran into a quote in the margin of NT, but unfortunately forgot to write it

down and don't know where it is now. In any case, it referred to a study

that showed pancreas sizes could be doubled by diet alteration. Further

evidence that anatomical variation can not only be considered defective, but

can be manipulated for a given individual throughout her/his lifetime.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Dryad-

>In any case, for those of you who've read the book and taken the test,

>what do

>you think of your type and the suggested foods list?

I'm not close to finished with the book, but so far I'm not impressed at

all. I'm about 60 pages in, and so far just about all I've gotten is an

endlessly repetitive hard sell on the miraculous " technology " of metabolic

typing.

I've also caught one fundamental mistake. He takes the modern, civilized

condition of wide anatomical variation (as exemplified by the diagram of 19

dramatically different stomachs) for a purely genetic phenomenon, not

considering that a very large part of this variation is actually deformity

caused by the modern diet and documented by Price. As Price found, people

still eating their traditional diet looked much more like each other, and

there were even structural similarities across tribes and races that are

diminished in today's moderns. And if we're to assume that outward

physical variation indicates inward metabolic variation, shouldn't the

corresponding assumption that outward physical uniformity in healthy

peoples indicates inward metabolic uniformity be equally valid?

The problem is that he can't allow this assumption because it would

ultimately undermine sales of his product, and his entire pitch is

predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy or

unhealthy food or diet, and that everyone is completely unique. Well,

obviously there are metabolic variations across populations, particularly

modern populations of mixed ancestry and bad diet, and there's probably a

good deal of virtue to his program, but he's taking it too far. I doubt

very many people would say that partially hydrogenated oil is good for

anyone; it's a shining example of a very bad food. And I'm sure we'd all

agree that refined white sugar is pretty darned bad for everyone

too. Obviously different people (of different starting base healths) will

show signs of disease from eating those two things at different rates, but

that doesn't alter the fact that they're bad for everyone.

Furthermore, I strongly question the idea that some people have a

" vegetarian " type of metabolism. Price didn't find a single culture

anywhere that was completely vegetarian, and the closer to vegetarian a

culture was, the less healthy it got. Furthermore, those quasi-vegetarian

cultures he did find compensated as best they could for the lack of animal

foods in their diet by eating insects and other foods rich in essential

fats and by very carefully balancing their protein sources to acquire

adequate complete protein, strategies that range from difficult to

impossible to implement today, and even then they weren't nearly as healthy

as the meat-eaters. Even more damningly, Price found that all healthy

cultures ate a good deal of fat, many of them getting more than 50% of

their calories from fat, and yet according to the " technology " of metabolic

typing, many people should eat a LOW-fat diet! Bulls***, I say! At most,

a low-fat vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet can be useful in the short

term for some people as a sort of detox program, but obviously it doesn't

support optimum health in the long run for anyone.

I'm a so-called fast oxidizer, so his higher-fat recommendations are more

in line with what I need, but even there, he recommends far too many carbs

for me. I'll have more to say, though, as I finish the book.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for saving me some money. I was thinking strongly of buying this

book, but you have put my tentative thoughts into words far better than I

could have.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

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

Dryad-

>In any case, for those of you who've read the book and taken the test,

>what do

>you think of your type and the suggested foods list?

I'm not close to finished with the book, but so far I'm not impressed at

all. I'm about 60 pages in, and so far just about all I've gotten is an

endlessly repetitive hard sell on the miraculous " technology " of metabolic

typing.

I've also caught one fundamental mistake. He takes the modern, civilized

condition of wide anatomical variation (as exemplified by the diagram of 19

dramatically different stomachs) for a purely genetic phenomenon, not

considering that a very large part of this variation is actually deformity

caused by the modern diet and documented by Price. As Price found, people

still eating their traditional diet looked much more like each other, and

there were even structural similarities across tribes and races that are

diminished in today's moderns. And if we're to assume that outward

physical variation indicates inward metabolic variation, shouldn't the

corresponding assumption that outward physical uniformity in healthy

peoples indicates inward metabolic uniformity be equally valid?

The problem is that he can't allow this assumption because it would

ultimately undermine sales of his product, and his entire pitch is

predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy or

unhealthy food or diet, and that everyone is completely unique. Well,

obviously there are metabolic variations across populations, particularly

modern populations of mixed ancestry and bad diet, and there's probably a

good deal of virtue to his program, but he's taking it too far. I doubt

very many people would say that partially hydrogenated oil is good for

anyone; it's a shining example of a very bad food. And I'm sure we'd all

agree that refined white sugar is pretty darned bad for everyone

too. Obviously different people (of different starting base healths) will

show signs of disease from eating those two things at different rates, but

that doesn't alter the fact that they're bad for everyone.

Furthermore, I strongly question the idea that some people have a

" vegetarian " type of metabolism. Price didn't find a single culture

anywhere that was completely vegetarian, and the closer to vegetarian a

culture was, the less healthy it got. Furthermore, those quasi-vegetarian

cultures he did find compensated as best they could for the lack of animal

foods in their diet by eating insects and other foods rich in essential

fats and by very carefully balancing their protein sources to acquire

adequate complete protein, strategies that range from difficult to

impossible to implement today, and even then they weren't nearly as healthy

as the meat-eaters. Even more damningly, Price found that all healthy

cultures ate a good deal of fat, many of them getting more than 50% of

their calories from fat, and yet according to the " technology " of metabolic

typing, many people should eat a LOW-fat diet! Bulls***, I say! At most,

a low-fat vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet can be useful in the short

term for some people as a sort of detox program, but obviously it doesn't

support optimum health in the long run for anyone.

I'm a so-called fast oxidizer, so his higher-fat recommendations are more

in line with what I need, but even there, he recommends far too many carbs

for me. I'll have more to say, though, as I finish the book.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>obviously there are metabolic variations across populations, particularly

>modern populations of mixed ancestry and bad diet, and there's probably a

>good deal of virtue to his program, but he's taking it too far. 

Thought about this the other night in reference to what I posted on organ

difference. Like when research on lab animals doesn't give them their natural

environment, natural foods, and what that species does in its natural state.

The result may fit the present but has little to do with the " true " nature.

Organ enlargement could be from genetics and regional diets but most likely

its

an acquired, not adapted temporary survival mechanism of the body to

compensate

for and fend off disease of the present.

>Furthermore, I strongly question the idea that some people have a

> " vegetarian " type of metabolism.  Price didn't find a single culture

>anywhere that was completely vegetarian, and the closer to vegetarian a

>culture was, the less healthy it got. 

Further it says 5% of the U.S. population are true vegetarian. Doesn't say

where they're from originally or that that means vegan. Their carbo diet isn't

even close to lacto-ovo with the meats listed. This is their consensus from

the

25% carbo types in the population they've found. IIRC there are 84 variations

they've found among the three types.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

yes, i too got tired of hearing about the " technology " !!

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:Dryad-

>In any case, for those of you who've read the book and taken the test,

>what do

>you think of your type and the suggested foods list?

I'm not close to finished with the book, but so far I'm not impressed at

all. I'm about 60 pages in, and so far just about all I've gotten is an

endlessly repetitive hard sell on the miraculous " technology " of metabolic

typing.

I've also caught one fundamental mistake. He takes the modern, civilized

condition of wide anatomical variation (as exemplified by the diagram of 19

dramatically different stomachs) for a purely genetic phenomenon, not

considering that a very large part of this variation is actually deformity

caused by the modern diet and documented by Price. As Price found, people

still eating their traditional diet looked much more like each other, and

there were even structural similarities across tribes and races that are

diminished in today's moderns. And if we're to assume that outward

physical variation indicates inward metabolic variation, shouldn't the

corresponding assumption that outward physical uniformity in healthy

peoples indicates inward metabolic uniformity be equally valid?

The problem is that he can't allow this assumption because it would

ultimately undermine sales of his product, and his entire pitch is

predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy or

unhealthy food or diet, and that everyone is completely unique. Well,

obviously there are metabolic variations across populations, particularly

modern populations of mixed ancestry and bad diet, and there's probably a

good deal of virtue to his program, but he's taking it too far. I doubt

very many people would say that partially hydrogenated oil is good for

anyone; it's a shining example of a very bad food. And I'm sure we'd all

agree that refined white sugar is pretty darned bad for everyone

too. Obviously different people (of different starting base healths) will

show signs of disease from eating those two things at different rates, but

that doesn't alter the fact that they're bad for everyone.

Furthermore, I strongly question the idea that some people have a

" vegetarian " type of metabolism. Price didn't find a single culture

anywhere that was completely vegetarian, and the closer to vegetarian a

culture was, the less healthy it got. Furthermore, those quasi-vegetarian

cultures he did find compensated as best they could for the lack of animal

foods in their diet by eating insects and other foods rich in essential

fats and by very carefully balancing their protein sources to acquire

adequate complete protein, strategies that range from difficult to

impossible to implement today, and even then they weren't nearly as healthy

as the meat-eaters. Even more damningly, Price found that all healthy

cultures ate a good deal of fat, many of them getting more than 50% of

their calories from fat, and yet according to the " technology " of metabolic

typing, many people should eat a LOW-fat diet! Bulls***, I say! At most,

a low-fat vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diet can be useful in the short

term for some people as a sort of detox program, but obviously it doesn't

support optimum health in the long run for anyone.

I'm a so-called fast oxidizer, so his higher-fat recommendations are more

in line with what I need, but even there, he recommends far too many carbs

for me. I'll have more to say, though, as I finish the book.

-

[Guest guest]

That's not the problem with his book at all, it's EXACTLY the point he's

trying to make!

Price found many people living in traditional communities eating the diets

they had eaten for generations, healthy, happy and showing strong similarities

to each other. But diet alone isn't what makes them similar to each other.

It's the environment they live in, the soil their food is grown in, the water

they drink. It's also a long period of adapting to your environment over many

generations that makes a happy healthy population.

If you are one of those fortunate people still living in your ancestral

homeland, eating a locally produced natural diet you would have no need of

metabolic typing. You'd only have to look to the diet of your ancestors for

the answers to your health problems. Wolcott says this quite clearly in his

book. In our modern world however we've moved around geographically,

intermarried, we live in a more polluted environment and we eat a far more

processed diet. We are not at all like those communities Price found. Just the

movement of populations away from their traditional homelands and the

intermarriage of so many different people have changed our genetic heritage,

add environment and diet and you have a far more complex picture. That's the

whole point of Wolcott's system. If you are a swiss mountain villager still

living in the Loetschental valley eating a natural chemical free diet (if

that's still possible) as Price described it, then you wouldn't need metabolic

typing. But what if you are a New Yorker of mixed Swedish and African decent?

And what about your kids? You've just married German, what is their 'natural

diet'? There are now too many factors to be able to look to your ancestors for

all the answers. Your probably not living on locally grown produce from health

soils and probably don't have that option even if you wanted to. That's where

metabolic typing steps in and trys to provide some guidelines based on your

bodies reactions. It's a tool for use not a dogma.

As for the assertion that Price didn't find any healthy vegetarians, that's

not true. He didn't find any healthy VEGAN'S. There is a big difference.

Vegetarians eat fish and diary and get plenty of animal fats, vegan's don't.

They also get proteins from grains and beans. The Swiss villagers ate a

largely vegetarian diet based around dairy and rye bread with meat only once a

week but he found a very healthy community. As for vegetarian metabolic types

I can introduce you to one. I have a friend who went vegetarian in mid life

and who has never looked back in terms of his health. I personally went the

other way, from veggie to meat eater and my health is much improved.

Yes I read the book and I took it further and had an analysis done. It worked

for me and because of it I forced myself to introduce liver into my diet and

to up my intake of red meat and it's working too.

Den

> The problem is that he can't allow this assumption because it would

> ultimately undermine sales of his product, and his entire pitch is

> predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy or

> unhealthy food or diet, and that everyone is completely unique. Well,

> obviously there are metabolic variations across populations, particularly

> modern populations of mixed ancestry and bad diet, and there's probably a

> good deal of virtue to his program, but he's taking it too far. I doubt

> Furthermore, I strongly question the idea that some people have a

> " vegetarian " type of metabolism. Price didn't find a single culture

> anywhere that was completely vegetarian, and the closer to vegetarian a

> culture was, the less healthy it got. Furthermore, those quasi-vegetarian

[Guest guest]

Den,

Price did not find any healthy vegetarians. " Vegetarians " do *not* eat fish,

*pollo*- vegetarians do. In traditional usage, vegetarian means vegan,

lacto-ovo-vegetarian means dairy and eggs, and pollo-vegetarian means they

eat fish. " Vegan " is a modern term that has displaced " vegetarian, " which,

in turn, has replaced " lacto-ovo-vegetarian. " But even with the modern

usage, it would be completely arbitrary to say vegetarians eat fish but not

red meat, but would not be arbitrary to say vegetarians don't eat *flesh* and

vegans don't eat any animal products. Anyway, the " vegetarian " bantu eat

frogs and insects and aren't vegetarian at all, like every other

insect-eating traditional culture.

There is definite truth in the idea of metabolic typing; however, I think

was saying, and if so, I agree, Walcott takes it way to far. Right in

the beginning of the book he claims if your Greek (Italian? I forget) you

might do fine on pasta! Yeah, right.

Price did find an enormous variety in diets, but he also found commonalities.

Among them, diets at least 30% fat. He also found trends. The Bantu he

found ate much less animal fats and had significant tooth decay, for example,

though far less than the modernized.

Walcott consistently fails to back up his points with evidence. He appeals

to popular perceptions instead. EG, he continually refers to the fact that

scientific evidence is in total contradition of itself in terms of nutrition.

This is not true in many areas (though there is a degree in truth) but more

commonly *interpretations* differ, largely due to twisting of evidence, and

this feeds the *popular perception* that there is no consistent scientific

findings in nutritional science. The only time I noticed Walcott actually

backing this up, he noted only two " conflicting " studies on two different

issues each, and in each case, there was one study that showed supplementing

something, Potassium in one example I think, had a positive effect, and

another showed no effect. This is an absurd example. It not only ignores

tens of different variables that could be accounted for, including the form,

bioavailability of the supplement, etc, but also isn't even directly

conflicting. If people had opposite reactions to potassium, he should be

able to show studies that showed a *negative* effect of the potassium, to

balance out the first study, or a study that included people having positive

and negative reactions.

As to the outward and inward anatomical characteristics, I think what

was saying, and again, if so, what I would also say, is that while there is

natural variation in outward characteristics, much of it does not belong.

And, like Walcott uses the analogy of varying outward characteristics

reflecting varying inward characteristics, using the same logic we could

argue that these varying inward characteristics are reflecting disease

states, and not normal variation. Likely it is due in part to both diseased

states *and* normal variation. But Walcott takes it too far in assuming it

is *all* normal variation.

It should be noted that Price found facial characteristics of healthy people

to essentially be the same across the world. If you take a look at the

Gaelic people he studied, they have facial characteristics most people would

probably associate with Africans-- broad nostrils, wide, round faces, broad

palates, etc. There is obviously regional commonalities that differ from

region to region, most obvious skin color in this example; however, a very

large portion of what we would normally consider to be ethnic variance is

actually a reflection of malnutrition of certain populations relative to

others.

If anyone has slow-oxidizing ancestors with relatively low-fat diets, they

will still fail to live up to ideal health on Walcott's plan because he

doesn't direct them to eat insects or frogs, and directs them *against*

eating organ meats, which would pretty much ensure their lack of the

fat-soluble nutrients tribes like the Bantu prized.

I don't see how a metabolic type could be vegetarian or non-vegetarian, since

one could eat a high-protein or low-protein, high-fat, low-fat, high-carb, or

low-carb diet all pretty easily while being a vegetarian or a meat-eater.

Vegetarians in the long-run are going to run into problems most likely,

unless they are eating lots of high quality eggs and dairy and were very

healthy to begin with. Sometimes those problems take 30 or 40 years in some

individuals (as stores of B12 deplete or utilization of certain nutrients

declines with age), but they eventually come.

Chris

In a message dated 2/18/03 6:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,

den@... writes:

> hat's not the problem with his book at all, it's EXACTLY the point he's

> trying to make!

> Price found many people living in traditional communities eating the diets

> they had eaten for generations, healthy, happy and showing strong

> similarities

> to each other. But diet alone isn't what makes them similar to each other.

> It's the environment they live in, the soil their food is grown in, the

> water

> they drink. It's also a long period of adapting to your environment over

> many

> generations that makes a happy healthy population.

>

> If you are one of those fortunate people still living in your ancestral

> homeland, eating a locally produced natural diet you would have no need of

> metabolic typing. You'd only have to look to the diet of your ancestors

for

> the answers to your health problems. Wolcott says this quite clearly in

his

> book. In our modern world however we've moved around geographically,

> intermarried, we live in a more polluted environment and we eat a far more

> processed diet. We are not at all like those communities Price found. Just

> the

> movement of populations away from their traditional homelands and the

> intermarriage of so many different people have changed our genetic

heritage,

>

> add environment and diet and you have a far more complex picture. That's

the

>

> whole point of Wolcott's system. If you are a swiss mountain villager

still

> living in the Loetschental valley eating a natural chemical free diet (if

> that's still possible) as Price described it, then you wouldn't need

> metabolic

> typing. But what if you are a New Yorker of mixed Swedish and African

decent?

>

> And what about your kids? You've just married German, what is their

'natural

>

> diet'? There are now too many factors to be able to look to your ancestors

> for

> all the answers. Your probably not living on locally grown produce from

> health

> soils and probably don't have that option even if you wanted to. That's

> where

> metabolic typing steps in and trys to provide some guidelines based on

your

> bodies reactions. It's a tool for use not a dogma.

>

> As for the assertion that Price didn't find any healthy vegetarians,

that's

> not true. He didn't find any healthy VEGAN'S. There is a big difference.

> Vegetarians eat fish and diary and get plenty of animal fats, vegan's

don't.

>

> They also get proteins from grains and beans. The Swiss villagers ate a

> largely vegetarian diet based around dairy and rye bread with meat only

once

> a

> week but he found a very healthy community. As for vegetarian metabolic

> types

> I can introduce you to one. I have a friend who went vegetarian in mid

life

> and who has never looked back in terms of his health. I personally went

the

> other way, from veggie to meat eater and my health is much improved.

>

> Yes I read the book and I took it further and had an analysis done. It

> worked

> for me and because of it I forced myself to introduce liver into my diet

and

>

> to up my intake of red meat and it's working too.

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

--- In , ChrisMasterjohn@a...

wrote:

> Den,

>

> Price did not find any healthy vegetarians. " Vegetarians " do

*not* eat fish,

> *pollo*- vegetarians do. In traditional usage, vegetarian

means vegan,

> lacto-ovo-vegetarian means dairy and eggs, and

pollo-vegetarian means they

> eat fish.

Just a slight correction:

Pollo = chicken

Pesco = fish

Aubin

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> Price did not find any healthy vegetarians. " Vegetarians " do *not* eat

> fish, *pollo*- vegetarians do. In traditional usage, vegetarian

> means vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian means dairy and eggs, and pollo-

> vegetarian means they eat fish. " Vegan " is a modern term that has

> displaced " vegetarian, " which, in turn, has replaced " lacto-ovo-

> vegetarian. " But even with the modern usage, it would be completely

> arbitrary to say vegetarians eat fish but not red meat, but would not

> be arbitrary to say vegetarians don't eat *flesh* and vegans don't eat

> any animal products.

I once read an article on vegetarianism on Time's web site, and came across

a statistic which I found terribly amusing:

" In a survey of 11,000 individuals, 37% of those who responded 'Yes, I am a

vegetarian' also reported that in the previous 24 hours they had eaten red

meat; 60% had eaten meat, poultry or seafood. "

Perhaps I'd have more luck picking up college girls if I started calling

myself a " lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-vegetarian. "

--

" After all, I don't eat pork...very often " Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

--- , Keep us posted!

In , Berg <bberg@c...> wrote:

>

> > Perhaps I'd have more luck picking up college girls if I started

calling

> myself a " lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-vegetarian. "

>

> --

> " After all, I don't eat pork...very often " Berg

> bberg@c...

[Guest guest]

Yeah, that vegetarian term is so ambigous. The recent article on the

Vilcabambas called them vegetarians too, but talked about a viejo eating

eggs and (I think) chicken. I've never seen an egg tree or a chicken sprout

before. I have a book on the Vilcabambas which states they also ate guinea

pigs. Not tons, but they ate them. Some vegetarians even try to claim the

Hunzas are vegetarians but they even eat animal products, like milk, butter

and cheese. (Not to mention their occasional meat stew.) According to

Banik, the Hunzas drank *lots* of soured milk. (I don't think it was cow's

milk, though. Maybe yak or something else.)

Marla

>

> " In a survey of 11,000 individuals, 37% of those who responded 'Yes, I am

a

> vegetarian' also reported that in the previous 24 hours they had eaten red

> meat; 60% had eaten meat, poultry or seafood. "

[Guest guest]

You two are hysterical. . . I'm laughing out loud.

Ken, Durham

In a message dated 2/19/03 7:56:35 AM, s.fisher22@... writes:

<< >>>Perhaps I'd have more luck picking up college girls if I started

calling

myself a " lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-vegetarian. "

---->gads! another restrictive extremist diet!

Suze Fisher (a lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-INSECTO-vegetarian) >>

[Guest guest]

>>>Perhaps I'd have more luck picking up college girls if I started calling

myself a " lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-vegetarian. "

---->gads! another restrictive extremist diet!

Suze Fisher (a lacto-ovo-pesco-pollo-carno-INSECTO-vegetarian)

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

I hope no one out there takes offense, but...

The healthiest vegetarians are liars.

Ron

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

From: Marla

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:30 PM

Subject: Re: Metabolic Typing Diet

Yeah, that vegetarian term is so ambigous. The recent article on the

Vilcabambas called them vegetarians too, but talked about a viejo eating

eggs and (I think) chicken. I've never seen an egg tree or a chicken sprout

before. I have a book on the Vilcabambas which states they also ate guinea

pigs. Not tons, but they ate them. Some vegetarians even try to claim the

Hunzas are vegetarians but they even eat animal products, like milk, butter

and cheese. (Not to mention their occasional meat stew.) According to

Banik, the Hunzas drank *lots* of soured milk. (I don't think it was cow's

milk, though. Maybe yak or something else.)

Marla

>

> " In a survey of 11,000 individuals, 37% of those who responded 'Yes, I am

a

> vegetarian' also reported that in the previous 24 hours they had eaten red

> meat; 60% had eaten meat, poultry or seafood. "

[Guest guest]

I love It!

Thanks, Doc!

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

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

I hope no one out there takes offense, but...

The healthiest vegetarians are liars.

Ron