Do you look at your "metabolic type"?

[LightLover]

I do find this an interesting subject:

* Do you look at/know your "metabolic type"?
* Are you believing in this, and why or why not?
* What is your opinion about the text below?


"The somewhat surprising reason for this is that any given food may be either alkalinizing or acidifying, depending on the metabolic type of the person ingesting it. Before we can be certain which foods (and supplements) a patient needs, we must know his or her metabolic type"
Source: www.bloodph.com/research/mtatype.html

LL

[RawNut]

I don't practice it and don't really agree with it. A food is either alkaline or acid or somewhere near neutral. The mineral ash is what determines the Ph of a food so if it is alkalizing in one person, it should be in all people.

In the booklet I got with my litmus paper, it states that being too alkaline is ultimately caused by being too acidic and the body then dumping ammonia into the bloodstream to neutrilaze the acid. It recommends alkaline foods for people who are too acid and for those who are too alkaline.

I don't subscribe to the "eat right for your type" theory any more either. Meat isn't good for anyone... not even type O people.

Craig

[Forever Young]

I eat whatever my body tells me to eat whenever I'm hungry, raw foods only. Forever Young :cool:

[sport]

This sounds like someone is trying to resurect the "Eat right for your type idea".
I'm not buying into that.

[ljcoolj]

I don't buy it either. My thought process goes back to one thought all the time...'humans have lived for thousands of years without knowing their blood type, body type, metabolic type (whatever you want to pick) and have been fine with eating plant food.' It makes no sense to me. What does make sense to me is that the SAD way of eating goes completely against how humans should eat. Its that simple to me.

Forever Young...where in Ohio? I'm in Fairfield, just north of Cincy.

[Forever Young]

Forever Young...where in Ohio? I'm in Fairfield, just north of Cincy.
Pansy and I live about one hour north of columbus around galion.

[dreamrawalwz]

Doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure some do better with fats while others can't handle it, but I don't know. Seems like a scam kind of like "eat right for your blood type" ..

[rawpriestess]

I suppose there is a slight possibility that people might metabolize things differently than other people, as there are some races/cultures/areas of tribes who can handle alcohol and certain spices and some that can not, because of their genetic makeup.


So, I can believe that this might be slightly true in some aspects, but it just doesn't ring true in all aspects to me.

Although I do understand that some people handle spices easier than others, and some can handle different types of food indigineous to their culture, I can't imagine that one type of food would be alkalizing to one person and not to another, even in blood types, plasma is handled the same. Where as whole blood could kill.

I don't understand everything about the human body, but I do understand what my body likes, wants and needs, and that is whole raw ripe fresh foods.

So, one day I may eat nectarines, and the next day I may eat carrots, but I'm still eating raw foods.

But that is me, and I could be wrong, but I don't care, because what I'm doing is working for me.

[Ginger]

RP I read that & tend to think it has to do with tolerance. Suse we can build up our tolerance to alcohol & spices & stuff but wouldn't we be better off without it?

[alex]

The eat right for you blood type is completely false according to Arpad Pustai who is probably the world's foremost authority on lectins. I read the book and don't buy it.

I also don't believe in metabolic typing to any large degree. Sure there are some differences between people, but the biochemical pathways of metabolism are pretty much set and affect us all to similar degrees. I don't believe that the differences are large enough to warrant completely different nutritional habits between one and the other.

I know that Dr Mercola is big on metabolic typing but I just don't get it.


alex

[LightLover]

I don't practice it and don't really agree with it. A food is either alkaline or acid or somewhere near neutral. The mineral ash is what determines the Ph of a food so if it is alkalizing in one person, it should be in all people.

In the booklet I got with my litmus paper, it states that being too alkaline is ultimately caused by being too acidic and the body then dumping ammonia into the bloodstream to neutrilaze the acid. It recommends alkaline foods for people who are too acid and for those who are too alkaline.

I don't subscribe to the "eat right for your type" theory any more either. Meat isn't good for anyone... not even type O people.

Craig

I am following you Craig, but what is a "litmus paper"?

LL

[LightLover]

To all: You can only listen to your body if you are "clean".

A heavy smoker can light up a sigarette and don't get problems. If a non smoker does, he has to coff. But the latter longs are cleaner, the signal
the smoker is receiving is false, because his is not clean!
---
How about the following, is this to extreme or not?
I know I am extreme, but this world is soooo extreme, we also have to be extreme as a counterweight, so forgive me, the following is only meant to open a discussion and has no other intentions!
(I know to compare with a smoker is not appropiate, but I want to be clear)

Imagine that: " the high sugary fruit -eater is after some time not so clean anymore, because of the acidifying and fermenting sugar-effects , because of his "non-clean being" he receives false signals, just as the smoker does (only the smoker is much worse of..). It's not that : "what is not killing us, is making us stronger", ("Nietzche"), it is in this case : what is not killing us, makes us accustomized without knowing , and our real attention is put to sleep?

just some thoughts

LL

LL

[RawNut]

LightLover,

Litmus paper is used to determine the Ph of substance. I use it to test my saliva and urine.

I do agree with the all the others that some groups of people have adapted to tolerating some things more than others as a means of survival. I've read that caucasions are less likely to be lactose intolerant than Asians or Africans. I've read similar things about alcohol and wheat. To me, it only means that certain groups of people have inhereted genes that allow them to TOLERATE certain foods or poisons because their survival depended on it. If they couldn't tolerate milk or wheat and that was all there was to eat for a while, they died and did not pass their genes on. It doesn't at all mean that they NEED them in their diets.

I also agree that you can only listen to your body when it's clean. I read something that Storm Tolefero wrote about addictions and how the body wants to balance itself. When the addictive substance is removed, the body craves it in order to maintain the homeostasis it has gotten used to. The body pushes back against the substance and over-corrects when it's removed. Once the body has re-adjusted, the physical craving and "need" will stop - the psychological cravings might persist for a while, however.

Craig

[LightLover]

Quote:

"If they couldn't tolerate milk or wheat and that was all there was to eat for a while, they died and did not pass their genes on. It doesn't at all mean that they NEED them in their diets"


"When the addictive substance is removed, the body craves it in order to maintain the homeostasis it has gotten used to. The body pushes back against the substance and over-corrects when it's removed. Once the body has re-adjusted, the physical craving and "need" will stop - the psychological cravings might persist for a while, however"
---
Rawnut, I am following you: can I apply your story about tolerating food and not needing certain foods in your diet and cravings etc... to high-sugary-fruits..?
---
LL

[RawNut]

LightLover,

Are you talking about RAW sugary fruits? You may apply whatever I say here but please give credit to the sources that I've given.

As for the sugery fruits, let us know more about your situation and how sugary fruits pertain to it. I'd be a big help to all of us.

Craig

[LightLover]

LightLover,

Are you talking about RAW sugary fruits? You may apply whatever I say here but please give credit to the sources that I've given.

As for the sugery fruits, let us know more about your situation and how sugary fruits pertain to it. I'd be a big help to all of us.

Craig


Craig, I am certainly talking about RAW (high) sugary fruits, not for my situation, (altough I find this very interesting and want this to be discussed openly) but in general .

[RawNut]

Craig, I am certainly talking about RAW (high) sugary fruits, not for my situation, (altough I find this very interesting and want this to be discussed openly) but in general .

I have found that eating a lot of bananas helps with cravings, whether the cravings be for fats or sugars. I try to listen to my body as much as I can. Sometimes I'll eat avocado or mix nuts and nutmilk into my smoothies. That doesn't always help. Sometimes it makes me sick but eating bananas or having a banana smoothie with other fruits and greens, helps immensely! I have learned to separate them. When I have fruit, I eat the avocado later and I don't put nutmilk in with the smoothies any more.

Should there be a new thread about this?

Craig

[LightLover]

--
Rawnut, I am still eager to know if the text from you right below can be
applied to a high sugar diet
--
LL


Quote:
I do agree with the all the others that some groups of people have adapted to tolerating some things more than others as a means of survival. I've read that caucasions are less likely to be lactose intolerant than Asians or Africans. I've read similar things about alcohol and wheat. To me, it only means that certain groups of people have inhereted genes that allow them to TOLERATE certain foods or poisons because their survival depended on it. If they couldn't tolerate milk or wheat and that was all there was to eat for a while, they died and did not pass their genes on. It doesn't at all mean that they NEED them in their diets.

I also agree that you can only listen to your body when it's clean. I read something that Storm Tolefero wrote about addictions and how the body wants to balance itself. When the addictive substance is removed, the body craves it in order to maintain the homeostasis it has gotten used to. The body pushes back against the substance and over-corrects when it's removed. Once the body has re-adjusted, the physical craving and "need" will stop - the psychological cravings might persist for a while, however.

[firefaery]

excerpted from: http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Another quasi-scientific theory is associated with the opportunistic feeder theory. This can be called the biochemical individuality theory which is often seen in far eastern "medicines" such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Ayurvedic systems. This theory suggests that since we are biochemically individual we should all eat individual diets suited to our moods, illnesses and other contrived indicators.

The logic behind biochemical individuality theory is fallacious, for although we are all unique biochemical beings, we are predominantly the same biochemical system, with low level variations. At the molecular level we differ, at the system level we are alike. If anyone imagines they can adjust their diet according to these individual metabolic variations, they are fooling themselves.

By picking only the low level system differences to indicate information about dietary choices, or moods, yin and yang and so forth, and extrapolating to the whole, we produce a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As far as we know, all cattle graze, all lions eat raw flesh, all chimps eat a diet of mainly raw fruit and vegetation and all chickens peck for grubs and grains. No animal on earth, that we know of, cooks its food before eating it, except humans. Only human behaviour breaks the taxonomic definition that that science defines for it. Humans prefer culture and technology over nature, and since our natural role is as a raw food herbivore, and because our bodies are only suited to that role, any significant perversion of it must, and does, lead to ill health. One cannot choose what to eat healthily, based on cultural imperitives since one will most likely present the wrong kind and quantity of precursor molecules, as well as introducing poisons to the body. A healthy human body cannot be operated on the wrong chemical inputs. "Garbage in equals garbage out"!


Don't know. I think metabolic typing is very accurate. I think though, it is only so because the SAD is so far from our biological needs. It may help people to clean their bodies out and transition to a raw vegan diet more painlessly. So in one sense it's fascinating because I think it will hold true for alot of people. In another it's only holding true because most people are so very far from eating the way they were meant to.

[LightLover]

firyfaery, sounds logic. Most foodfacts "tested" are only valid in the "sad world" I suppose. My father told me yesterday about the good effects of red wine and I explained him that al these effects have been measured in the sad world , in a sub-optimal diet. So you compare sub-optimal with a little less than suboptimal. This is not interesting

Really interesting would be measuring these effects in a raw world!
(so one group eats completely raw, the other group does the same, only adding 2 glasses red wine, each day)

Will take a long time before this will happen, but I am already happy with just the idea...


ll

[Shmoopie]

I don't really know anything about it, but it seems like if nothing else, it could at least be a guide. Even if only for those who don't eat well. I had a reams test done once, and seeing the results scared the bageezuz out of me. My metabolic rate was "MB" which means "midline broken". Regardless of what it means to me, I'll never forget it lol.

When I got my test results and had them explained to me, I was under the impression that the whole thing seems to be about one pH. There was so much talk about acidity/alkalinity. It seems like whatever we talked about, it all came back to that. So I don't know. If it takes that for people to understand that they need to not have an acidic environment, then I think it seems ok. I don't know anymore about it, though, other than the reams test. ANd when I got my results, the lady picked out all the problems I'd been having just based on my results, and the things she offered for change really did help. So it might not be a perfect science, or dead-on accurate, but I think there's at least some accuracy to it. At least from the little I know (if anything? lol) and my experience with it.

[LightLover]

Shmoopie, what is a "reams test"?

LL

[Shmoopie]

A reams test is a test done that...well I know it tells you your metabolic type. I *think* that that's entirely what it's made for, but I might be wrong. For the test, you give urine and saliva. They test your pH, your metabolic type, your ability to heal, your digestive function, kidney function, liver function, lung function, etc. THe test was developed by Carey Reams, a doctor, who I believe came up with the metabolic typing. If he didn't come up with it or perfect it, then he contributed something to it. He's written books that you could read if you wanted to know more.

Also, I'm not sure if the test revealed food allergies for me or not, but the diet I was put on as a result of the test did exclude glutens and some other foods. I don't know, like I said, if the test determined I had allergies to those things, or if the practitioner did, based on what she saw in the test results. The metabolic rate itself isn't something I paid attention to, but everything the test showed definitely applied to me and the things I've had troubles with. It all made sense.

That's all I know. Hope that helps.