It's been around for a long time. There are several books at the library on this subject.

I can believe that but do you think there is any truth or benefit in following a diet based on your blood type?

There is absolutely NO truth (or benefit) to following such a diet. Period. We will certainly have people step up and claim that it's the best thing in the world, but they are just not right. If they lose weight, it's because they take in less calories, no matter what kind.

You seem to have a strong opinion about this sushipup. Can I ask why? I'm not interested in the diet for weight loss, oh sure I could stand to lose a few pounds but I'm thinking more on the health side of it. I have huge bags under my eyes and a few other things I would like to know if this diet would help with. I only asking, not convinced, just wondering if anyone has tried this diet with any success. My friend said several doctors have told him this.

Your message is a little confusing. You are talking about a blood type diet, and you say you are A+. Then you say you are definitely "a type A personality," and you later say your husband "looks like a B type personality". Blood type and personality types are two different things.

If you want to follow a "type" diet, you should read the books written by Dr. Elliot Abravanel -- they are for a BODY TYPE diet. The diet you should follow is based upon where your body stores extra fat (and we have ALL noticed the differences in overweight people!).

exactly the blood type and the personality type are entirely two different things. I am type O is there a type O personality no there is not. That is confusing your question.

There may be a diet for the different blood types and there may be a diet for the different personality types. I have no idea. But just because someone decided to "create" a diet for that does not mean it is specifically because of that, and does not mean it is a good healthy diet. Often times it is strictly to make money somehow.
The best type of diet is the kind you discuss with your medical team and a good nutritionist especially for those with any type of medical problems.
Good options are the ADA diet it is a diet that is well rounded and good for anyone, it is not just for people with diabetes.

There is absolutely zero scientific evidence that this "diet" is good for anything. I am just tired of pseudoscience preying on the gullibility of the American population.

Here is a link that might be useful: blood type diet

Sorry I confused you. My question was about the diet. I should have not mentioned the personality thing. I was hoping to get some feed back from someone who may have tried the diet. Maybe we should just let this subject drop. Back to being a lurker.

You asked a good question don't feel like you did anything wrong. It has stimulated discussion. Some people react strongly to some topics, no reflection on you!
Lurking is fine but we want you to feel welcome to join the discussion.
Welcome!

Doctors are just as capable of believing and promoting pseudo-scientific hogwash as those who are not doctors. Should someone who is 100 lbs overweight avoid red meat? yes. But it is because they are 100 lbs overweight, not because they are any particular blood type. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that high levels of "bad" cholesterol are detrimental to heart health, and some people have "genetic factors" that make them more prone to "bad" cholesterol based on dietary-cholesterol intake, but as far as I am aware no study has indicted blood type as a statistically significant indicator of these "genetic factors". And given how many studies have been run and how much money has been spent I'm confident that if there were any statistically significant correlation between blood type and a genetic pre-disposition for "bad" cholesterol it would have been detected.

The surface of all cells have antigens, a sort of signature for determining friend or foe. When the body detects foreign antigens it it reacts with an immune response, which, in part, includes developing antibodies to help detect and react more quickly and more forcefully when these foreign antigens are encountered again. Human blood has three critically important antigens: "A", "B", and "D" (as well as a few dozen less important antigens). "Blood type" as expressed by the common parlance of "A+" "A-" B+" "B-" "AB+" "AB-" "O+" "O-" simply indicates the presence or absence of the three critical antigens on the blood cells of the person in question. They are a useful shorthand for determining whether a transfusion from one person to another would be life-threatening or would be likely to not be life-threatening.

If you receive blood in a transfusion that has antigens that your blood doesn't have, your body can react with an immune response that can make you sicker rather than helping you. In the case of the A B and D antigens it will make you sicker and maybe kill you.

That's it. That's what "blood type" means. Those who attempt to ascribe anything more to it such as red meat is bad for people with type A blood, or type O should avoid tomatoes or whatever are guilty of the same sort of specious (and sometimes dangerous) reasoning that says blond people are unintelligent, or those with darker skin are somehow less that human, or that eating ground up tiger penises will make you virile.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm upset at the unwarranted certitude of the supposed doctors (who may in fact just be calling themselves doctors) who seem to believe that just because they went to school for a number of years, and they passed a test and they haven't yet killed enough people to have been stripped of their medical license that therefore any idea that they "really, really, really believe to be true" is scientifically valid.

Lastly there is absolutely no relationship between the type-A personality type, and the blood type A except for the fact that they both chose letters from the same end of the alphabet.

ravencajun wrote:
> Some people react strongly to some topics, no reflection on you!

Um, guilty as charged.

Someone I know believes in the blood-type diet thing, and spouts it forth at almost any provocation. I would love to say the above to her, but the words would be so much water off a ducks back, and would likely create bad blood between us.

I tried it. It was very close to how I was eating anyways - lower carb, very high fat with a higher protein content. I am type o. I don't know anyone else who has tried it (with a different blood type say, a or ab). I don't have a weight problem but I did look into the arthritis protocol and had excellent results - it is very restrictive but if it keeps me off my meds, fine by me.
So, personally, it worked for me but so does the paleo diet when I follow the autoimmune protocol. Nothing wrong with getting it from the library and trying it out.
What I like about this lifestyle there is no calorie counting - no need and I eat high calorie.

If you eat a low protein diet, you'll lose weight. If you eat a high protein diet, you'll lose weight. If you eat a raw diet, you'll lose weight. If you avoid all grains and seed foods, you'll lose weight. Only eat foods that are green. Only eat foods that aren't green and on and on.

When you eat differently, you'll lose weight, When you lose weight, you feel better. See a pattern?

There's always been an excessive interest in the diet markets, because so many people are overweight. There will always be hucksters with unsupported claims to sell books, supplements and other products because there's lots of money to be made.

The right diet for anyone is the one they can stick on and lose weight. The ridiculous claims that are made are just that, as sushipup said

You asked a good question. Stay and ask more.

A friend and I no longer discuss diets. She follows the diet of the month every month and believes every scientific gooblygook that is spouted along with them This is a smart person with an undergrad in marine biology. She knows how the human (and sealife) body works and yet she still falls into this trap.

I follow the 'fewer calories in diet' with lots of fruits and vegetables in it and always feel great. Her latest bandwagon is that I'm not allowed to eat fruit because of the sugars in them - yea, whatever.

I can't convince her to think for herself about this topic. She puts a lot of stock in the doctors and scientists and whatever their credentials are instead of thinking for herself.

I don't know if agree or don't agree. I do find things that work for me. If I quit eating any and all sugars, be they complex or simple, I do lose weight. Not eating sugar sounds pretty reasonable, right? The moment I tell you it's Atkins, I'm a dolt.

But let's think about it, if I say, I have red hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, doesn't everyone think, "Oh my! You're sure to have a higher chance of having skin cancer". Right? There are correlates. Some things are less well known. If I said, blue eyed people are prone to macular degeneration, that's not as well known. But here, I'll give you the conclusion of a peer reviewed journal:

"Conclusions. Modest associations of eye color, hair color, and HERC2 genotype with any RPAs were found. Genes for AMD did not affect these associations. Eye color phenotype was more strongly associated with outcomes than HERC2 or OCA2 genotype." Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. September 15, 2014 vol. 55 no. 9 5855-5861

You'll notice it is a brand new, fresh out journal, not even a month old. It could be that we don't know it all yet. I'll wait until the verdict is out rather than ridicule people. There are many many MANY unknowns because we don't have the tools, or knowledge yet. Discoveries to be made!

This post was edited by rob333 on Tue, Oct 7, 14 at 14:30

My question is - define "modest association" and "more strongly associated...." for me.

rob333, I understand your point but flavour of the month diets are seldom in peer reviewed journals.

It has always been believed that fat was the bogey man and the culprit that led to poor health and so many diets were based on that belief and now we're told that sugar is the bogey-man. That information may wind up in a nutrition or other peer reviewed article after some decent studies. Then along will come all those pseudo-nutritionists who will put their own spin on the information and come up with their diets and around we go again.

Even peer-reviewed articles need to be suspect - look at the vaccination-autism debacle of Wakefield and how that turned out all based on manipulated data.

I totally agree about fad diets! When they make sense, like quit eating sugar, well, then, go ahead. But if it is to only eat a carrot when you feel like you're going to pass out, probably not a good idea. Good sense has to be what prompts the diet.

But there are past things people have done that made health better and they didn't know why, but it worked. Limes come to mind. It's even an example of a blinded study (smart that they finally thought of a way to make sure the results were solely attributable to the one factor changing). Limes worked to quell scurvy, is what I am talking about.

My point was only, wait to see if there is an association, take it all with a grain of salt, and, just maybe, there is an association. Or not. No point in saying strong things like anyone who follows such a diet is "completely" wrong. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't.

Simple, unarguable way to lose weight.

Don't ... eat!

But that way can't be pursued for a long period.

Reasonable way to lose weight ... eat ... less!

Most of us eat to much.

Which goes to waist ... and to waste.

Eat less: starve the sewers!

(No shi! ... well, less of it ... costly as it is).

ole joyfuelled ... which doesn't cause weight gain ... actually, laughter is the best medicine

If I remember correctly (it's been years), I think the premise of the blood type diet was that blood types developed at different points in history,so the recommendation is to eat the sort of diet that prevailed at the time your blood type appeared. That's an oversimplification, of course, but I believe it's close.

I never tried it, but I give it credit for individualization. There is no one perfect diet for everyone. We have different metabolisms, and differing needs. Low calorie is not the healthiest approach for everyone. Cookie8's experience bears this out.