Has anyone read Metabolic Typing by Wolcott/Fahey? Seems to me this would do away with the controversy. If everyone knew their "metabolic type", they'd know what plan was right for them. We're all different!!!

I've read it and it made a lot of sense to me. I'm a protein type so a lc plan fits. However some people are a mixed type or ever (gasp, lol!!!) a carbo type which Atkins might not fit except for the maintenace stage.

Like I said, it made a lot of sense to me. I've never believed in a one size fits all diet world.

I'm curious: what's the basis for determining one's type?

Kristine,
There's a boatload of questions in the book. In my opinion, they're difficult to answer. There is a test you can order for about $200, but it is related to another, similar book. I will post it if I can find it.

Over 20 years ago, I had gone to an alternative practitioner. He did a hair anaysis, (and what else, I can't remember) and put me on a bunch of supplements. I kept the notes from that, although I don't remember him ever explaining anything to me. Years later I pulled out those notes and noticed "FAST OXIDIZER." It wasn't until I obtained this book (by accident) that I realized what it meant.

FYI, look up the book on Amazon.com and read the reviews and also other books on the same subject. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is really IT. No more controversy!!!

Here it is: www.bloodph.com/self.html

Neat, thanks!

Interesting. As a lab tech, I'd be curious what they're looking at. But not curious enough to pay $180.

Here's a link on something that sounds like this...

Gez

Here's some more information.

Info here.

Some questions here.

And the food lists for each type here. scroll down for each type.

The book "Metabolic Typing" and all other books that present the metabolic theory are pure fraud. Humans metabolism falls into scientific rules that are the same for everyone. Everyone is NOT different. There is no scientific evidence to support the metabolic typing theory.

I test as the "carbohydrate" type, but that diet nearly killed me as it eventually will everyone. My wife tested "protein" type but her high-carbohydrate diet gave her Crohn's disease. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat, high-protein diet has restored health in both of us. She is symptom free and drug free. I am 65 and in perfect health thanks to Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades and Dr. Robert C. Atkins.

Anyone who eats a high-carbohydrate diet well eventually pay the price because carbohydrates are pathogenic. See my web page that give the accurate scientific proof:

Absolute Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Are Pathogenic.

Kent

The carbohydrate type diet as presented by The Metabolic Typing diet does not suggest you eat the "white" carbs that the American diet entails. Rather it says that type does better on a diet that contain more carbs than a protein type. It also says that a carbotype may tolerate the "white carbs" better than most.

I have to disagree that all people are metabolically the same. We cannot take our own experience and extrapolate it to everyone else's. That's been the problem with most diets and diet gurus. They find something that works for them and say everyone can lose on their WOE. Further, I know plenty of people who are and have been healthy on diets with more complex carbs and tolerate "white" carbs better than I and others. And they have no health problems either. It's when the diet is not properly balanced (and I don't mean like the USDA food pyramid) for a person's metabolic type that problems arise.

Zuleikaa, I don't know of any diet, nutrition or medical book that recommends "white" carbs, meaning white sugar, white flour and white rice. The problem with the book Metabolic Typing Diet is that it suggest a high-carbohydrate diet is the one for you if you love carbohydrates. That is nonsense. The people who love carbohydrates the most are the ones most at risk of getting a disease for the over consumption of them.

The complex carbohydrate rhetoric is not valid either, although it is the foundation for all the high-carbohydrate diet promoters like Dr. Ornish, Dr. Weil and an endless list of vegetarians.

All complex carbohydrates turn to glucose in the blood sooner or later. They keep the insulin level high and eventually lead to insulin resistance, hypoglycemia, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Nibbling on complex carbs as recommended by many of these "experts" to ease the symptoms of hypoglycemia only leads to the progression to diabetes. The quantity eaten times the number of years equals the risk level. The 300 grams of carbohydrates as recommended by the USDA Food Guide Pyramid takes about 20 years as is clearly visible by the obese shoppers in the stores.

Non starchy vegetables have a few carbohydrates which the body can tolerate, so eating them is highly recommended. It probably would be better if there were none as the case with meat. The body can convert 58% of protein and 10% of fat to carbohydrates. The dietary requirement for eating carbohydrates is ZERO scientifically and on a practical health basis.

The complex carbs and whole grain rhetoric is NOT part of a low-carbohydrate lifestyle as proposed by Drs. Eades and Atkins. Eating just a few non starchy vegetables gives one the 20 gram limit suggested by Dr. Atkins. Most obese people find they cannot go above this limit without gaining weight. I have made it a permanent lifestyle.

Kent

I didn't state that it is the case for obese people. Obviously obese people are not eating to their "type" or they wouldn't be obese. I am talking about the many people in myriad cultures, including the US, that are eating carbs and fruits on a regular basis as a regular part of their diet and remain fit, healthy and at an appropriate weight for their stature and build.

The book does not suggest that the carbohydrate type diet is appropriate if you "love" carbohydrates, otherwise that would be the metabolic type determined for me as I am a carb addict. Rather the book determines from answers to a rather lengthy and detailed list of questions where you fit metabolically and further states that the mix for a diet type be further refined to fit your own unique body chemistry by adjusting along the continuum of your type's carb:protein:fat ratio.

IMHO, determining your type by answering the questions alone is risky. For the birthday dinner, I would choose a little pasta and as much cake and ice cream as I could stuff in. Obviously, this is wrong for me, but that would be what I WANT, because my tastes are perverted! Another example...on the climate question, my choice isn't given. I don't do well in heat OR cold. Again, I wouldn't feel comfortable simply relying on the questions. If I didn't already have a clue, I'd opt for spending the money on the test, or better yet, finding a practitioner.

I belong to another forum in which many, if not most of the members are anti low-carb. They claim to have had their health damaged by Atkins and similar, and see it as their mission to prevent others from being harmed by this "evil." Who am I to doubt them...and who am I to doubt those who maintain that low-carb has been the answer? Rather, I think BOTH are guilty of making "blanket" statements like, "it didn't work for ME, so that means it is bad for everybody." Sorry, that's just too narrow-minded for me!

Greenwings,

i have also been told i am a fast oxidizer. what does that mean exactly as it pertains to real life?

also, Kent's sites are really informative and he and his wife are living proof!! K

I agree. One day I am going to pay for the test. Not so much for the typing, I know what type I am but for the supplement advice. I think the book was a bit skimpy on that but made some interesting points that I found applicable.

Greenwings
I think Atkins, or rather Atkins at induction levels, can hurt the health of people that it is not appropriate for just as a high/er carb diet can and has harmed those for which it is not appropriate. Which goes back to my point, the same one you've made in another way, it is not a one size fits all diet world and extrapolating what works for you to the population at large is not appropriate or beneficial.

Kay3osu, How did you find out?

The way I understand it, we process fuel quickly, so we need heavier protein and fat in order to sustain our energy.

I'm only learning, so consult the experts for the details. By the way, I would GUESS (again, I'm not an expert) that there are probably more of us than there are the other types.

I only have the Wolcott/Fahey book, but I'd like to eventually obtain the others.

I quickly looked at Kents links and do not for a moment doubt his or his wife's success.