To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

[Guest guest]

A long read but well worth the time! Taken from Dr. Mercola's website!

Some very interesting observations and theories regarding our genetic

individuality and its health implications!

 

http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/18/metabolic_typing.htm

 

 

To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

 

 

Part 1 of 2

 

By William Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic Typing

Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)

 

As a reader of this web site, it is likely that you've reached the point

where you think or even know that nutrition is important if you ever

want to get well and stay well. It's just common sense, right?

 

But you may also have come to feel that the field of nutrition is quite

baffling. And that even though there is more information available today

than ever before, that it's also become harder to find what's really

right for you or to decide just what you should do.

 

In a very real sense, the information explosion over the last 10 years

has quite possibly brought more confusion than clarity to your quest for

health. As a result, you may have found yourself asking questions like:

 

* Why is it that my best friend's nutritional supplements work

absolute miracles, but make me feel lousy?

* How can one best selling book say one thing about nutrition, and

the other bestseller say just the opposite?

* Why will a certain diet give my friend energy and help to lose

weight but make me tired and gain weight?

* Why can't I get rid of my candida overgrowth problem, even though

I've followed an " anti-candida " diet?

* How can someone eat the best organic foods, take the finest

nutritional supplements that money can buy, get plenty of rest, exercise

regularly... and still not feel well?

 

Or maybe your concern is with more serious issues like...

 

* Why are two thirds of Americans overweight?

* How can so many people be obese when people are more diet-,

health- and exercise-conscious than ever before?

* Why is degenerative disease skyrocketing?

* Why are younger and younger people falling prey to diseases of the

aged?

* Why are cancer, heart disease and diabetes increasing each year?

 

And if you're a health professional working with nutrition, you may also

be baffled by questions such as...

 

* Why does a low fat, low protein, high complex carbohydrate diet

raise cholesterol in some people instead of lower it like it does in

other people?

* Why does taking a nutritional product or protocol help one person

with a problem but not another with the same problem?

* If nutrition is so important, why doesn't it work for so many people?

 

Everywhere you look, there are contradictions. Your friend tells you one

thing. You read about just the opposite in a health magazine. And a hot

new bestseller at your local book store says something quite different

altogether. In fact, that's another problem -- wall-to-wall books on

health and nutrition, most of which just contradict each other.

 

And, maybe you've learned from your own experience that what works for

one person, doesn't help a second and can actually make a third person

worse! Don't worry, it's not you. Even scientific researchers are

confused by their findings because most studies on nutrients conclude

that while helpful to a certain percentage of people with a certain

condition, the studied nutrients don't help or even worsen the same

condition in other test subjects.

 

So how can there be so much confusion and contradiction about something

that is supposed to be so good for you?

 

The unfortunate reason is that the majority of the people talking about

nutrition know just enough to be dangerous. They know that nutrition can

be the answer, but they don't know how to use it properly. And, yes, it

is a two-edged sword: If you use it properly, it can help make you well.

But, make no mistake. If you use it improperly, it can help make you

sick or keep you that way.

 

You know. Take this nutrient for that condition. A magic bullet. One

standard nutritional remedy for each problem or a universal diet that is

supposed to work for everyone.

 

But, your own experience and all the contradictory books and articles

that you've ever read, aside from making the field of nutrition

confusing, frustrating and sometimes downright baffling, have already

shown you that this approach doesn't work. And your common sense agrees.

You know that you are unique! You know one shoe size doesn't fit all.

You know that everyone is as unique as their fingerprints. So, why would

anyone ever think that one diet is right for everyone? Or, that what

works nutritionally for one person would work for another as well?

 

The fact is, you really can eat the best organic foods, exercise

regularly, drink plenty of fluids, get sufficient rest, take the finest

supplements that money can buy... and still not feel well, or even start

feeling worse than before!

 

So, what is the answer? The answer is to find out what is right for you!

 

Not what some book says. Not what a friend says. Not what the latest fad

says is right. You need to find out exactly what is right for YOU! A

nutritional program that is tailored specifically for your kind of

metabolism and that will meet the special and unique nutritional needs

of the one and only you.

 

Bottom line? Unless you match your nutrition to your metabolism, you'll

only be wasting your time and money!

 

So why is it so hard to find right answers? How do you know who to

believe or who to trust?

 

The answer is to this universal dilemma is that for decades, the wrong

questions have been asked. Ask wrong questions and you're bound to get

wrong answers to your needs.

 

The problem is that the quest for the " holy grail " in nutrition has been

to find that " right diet, " that " healthy diet " that is right for all

people. And the quest has been to find the one right nutritional

protocol for each condition.

 

But what has been missed is the undeniable fact that on a biochemical

level each of us is as unique as we are in our fingerprints. Actually

our uniqueness extends far beyond just our fingerprints and encompasses

virtually every aspect of ourselves -- personality, behavior,

temperament, external physical traits, internal size, shape, placement

and efficiency of all of our organs and glands, and rates of our

cellular metabolism. Simply put, our DNA is unique.

 

Standardized nutritional approaches fail to recognize that, for genetic

reasons, people are all very different from one another on a biochemical

or metabolic level. Due to widely varying hereditary influences, we all

process or utilize foods and nutrients very differently. Thus, the very

same nutritional protocol that enables one person to lead a long healthy

life full of robust health can cause serious illness in someone else. As

the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius once said, " One man's food is

another's poison. " It turns out, his statement is quite literally true.

 

What accounts for all this metabolic individuality?

 

At any given point in time, there are a number of factors that determine

peoples' unique nutritional requirements, but none is more significant

than a person's ancestral heritage. It's a matter of classic Darwinian

principles of evolution and adaptation, natural selection, genetic

mutation and survival of the fittest. Over thousands of years of

evolutionary history, people in different parts of the world developed

very specific dietary needs as an adaptation mechanism, in response to

many unique aspects of their habitats and lifestyles -- including

climate, geography, vegetation, and naturally occurring food supplies.

 

As an example, people from cold northern regions of the world have

historically relied very heavily on animal protein, simply because

that's the primary food source available in wintry climates. Thus they

have radically different nutritional needs than people from tropical

regions, where the environment is rich in vegetative diversity year round.

 

In the early part of the 20th century, a brilliant scientist by the name

of Weston Price, DDS, demonstrated this in no uncertain terms. He

traveled all over the world and sought out all the indigenous

populations to study their diet and their health. His discoveries were

remarkable and extremely important. What he discovered was that:

 

* The diets of all the indigenous peoples were tremendously varied

(being dependent on geography, climate and the food stuffs naturally

available)

* Yet those indigenous people who followed their ancestral diets

were robustly healthy.

* But those who moved away or for other reasons strayed from their

ancestral diet developed degenerative processes.

 

What can we learn from this?

 

* First and foremost, there is no one diet that is right for

everyone, i.e., there never has been and there never will be a

universally healthy diet.

* Second, the only healthy diet is the one that meets one's

genetically-based requirements -- not what some book or diet expert says

is right. Eat a diet that is right for your metabolic type and not only

can you stay healthy but you can reverse degenerative conditions as well.

* Third, there are no good foods and there are no bad foods, except

in terms of foods that are right or wrong for your genetic makeup. Think

meat is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Inuit (Eskimo) who eats

up to 10 pounds of meat a day, yet there isn't even a word in their

language for cancer or heart disease. Think a high carb diet is bad for

you? Then how do you explain the Quetchus of South America or the East

Indians who have lived for countless generations on a near vegetarian

diet? Think dairy is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Swiss

whose ancestral diet was largely based on dairy and rye?

 

Your body is designed to be healthy. Good health is your birthright. The

ability to experience radiant health is part of the genetic code built

into every cell in your body. What you need to do in order to reclaim

your birthright is to understand what your body needs as opposed to

someone else's, in order to function the way it was intended it to. In

short, you need to eat right for your metabolic type.

 

In a previous era, before the age of modern transportation, cultures

were isolated and peoples' metabolic makeup and corresponding dietary

needs were very clear. But in today's day and age, due to extensive

intermingling of cultures, we've become a true " genetic melting pot. " In

the U.S. in particular, most of us have many different ethnic and

hereditary influences. As a result, few of us have a distinct ancestral

heritage or readily identifiable dietary needs.

 

Fortunately, however, through the research that has been done over the

past 25 years, there is available a systematic, testable, repeatable and

verifiable advanced nutritional technology that enables people to

discover their own unique dietary needs with a very high degree of

precision. This technology is known as Metabolic Typing. Through

metabolic typing those often mysterious, seemingly unanswerable

questions become perfectly clear and answerable indeed.

 

Once you know your metabolic type and you know what foods are right for

you and what foods are wrong for you, then you need a simple to follow,

step-by-step plan to help you transition into a healthy lifestyle that

you can follow for the rest of your life. You'll find none better than

Dr. Mercola's Nutrition Plan.

 

To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

 

 

Part 2 of 2

 

By William Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic Typing

Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)

 

Part 1 of this series on metabolic typing introduced the idea that

whether a given food or a particular diet is good for you or bad for you

is a matter of your genes -- not whim, appetite, preference, philosophy,

belief or even " expert " opinion.

 

It is important to realize that the idea of metabolic typing is not new.

The roots of the concept of metabolic individuality can be traced to

antiquity. The 5,000 year old East Indian system of medicine known as

Ayurveda was based on the interaction of the 5 elements and the 7 energy

centers in the individual and primary treatment addressed one's dosha

(one's metabolic type) before it addressed the symptom or disease.

 

Similarly, the ancient system of Chinese medicine recognized 5

elemental, constitutional types. Diagnosis and treatment in ancient

Egyptian medicine was based on the 7 organ systems in the body. Greek

physicians were concerned, as Hippocrates stated, with the patient who

has the disease instead of the disease that has the patient, and

evaluated the 4 humors (liver-bile metabolic types). The ancient Roman

philosopher Lucretius is attributed with the saying, " One man's meat is

another man's poison. "

 

The modern background of metabolic typing

 

In modern times, there have been some well-known and many not so

well-known medical researchers who recognized the value of addressing

biochemical individuality. In 1919, Frances Pottenger, M.D., published

his Symptoms Of Visceral Disease, where he established the autonomic

nervous system as the basis of metabolic individuality and correlated

the influence of various nutrients on the autonomic nervous system.

 

Dr. W.H. Sheldon, in the '40's, published his famous Varieties Of Human

Physique, providing photographic illustrations of his somatotypes

(ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph metabolic types). In the '50's, Dr.

Melvin Page and Dr. Henry Bieler concurrently developed concepts of

endocrine types and their relationship to various foods. Dr. George

Watson, also in the '50's, in his astounding book, Nutrition And The

Mind, published his research on the variable influences of oxidation

(glycolysis, beta oxidation, citric acid cycle) in different individuals

he classified as fast, mixed or slow oxidizers.

 

In 1956, the noted biochemist, Dr. Roger Williams, published his

genetotrophic theory on biochemical individuality, based on his research

which suggested that every human being has, because of his genetic

makeup, distinctive nutritional needs that must be met in order to

achieve optimum health and well-being. Dr. Royal Lee's extensive

writings in the 50's and 60's correlated nutritional influences of the

autonomic and endocrine systems.

 

Dr. Emanuel Revici, in the '60's, recognized the critical necessity to

address biochemical individuality and devoted his life's work to the

development of an entirely new system of medicine based upon the

variances between individuals in their catabolic and anabolic influences.

 

Dr. James D'Adamo, in the '70's, put forth a system of individual

classification based upon ABO blood types. In the mid '70's, Dr. William

D. Kelley met Dr. Roger William's call for " metabolic profiling " by

becoming the first to apply William's concept of nutritional

individuality to computer science in identifying the autonomic types,

sympathetic, balanced and parasympathetic.

 

Further efforts to address metabolic individuality can be seen in

current works of numerous other pioneers. Among the more recent who have

joined the ranks are Dr. Elliot Abravanel, Dr. Paul Eck, Dr. David

Watts, Dr. Rudolph Wiley, and the insightful founder of Nutri-Spec, Dr.

Guy Schenker, to name a few.

 

What exactly is metabolic typing and why is it important?

 

Metabolic typing is a systematic, testable, repeatable, and verifiable

methodology based on research and extensive clinical experience over the

last 25 years that combines the wisdom of the ancient systems of

medicine with our modern scientific understanding of physiology and

biochemistry.

 

Metabolic typing analyzes, evaluates, and interprets objective

physiological and biochemical indicators along with symptomatology in

order to define one's metabolic type -- the specific, individualized,

genetically-based patterns of biochemical metabolic individuality that

dictate one's physiological and neurological " design limits " and

requirements for nutritional substances.

 

The food that we eat is intended as the " fuel " for our body's cells, our

engines of metabolism. Our cells in turn convert the fuel to energy to

be used in all the life-supporting processes of metabolism that keep us

alive and healthy. But like any engine, our body needs a certain kind of

fuel to function optimally. A gasoline engine requires gasoline for

fuel. A diesel engine is designed to run on diesel for fuel. But try to

run a gas engine on diesel or a diesel engine on gas and not only will

the energy output be deficient, but using the wrong fuel for the engine

will cause real problems for the engine itself.

 

Similarly, our bodies have genetically-based requirements for specific

kinds of foods and balances of nutrients in order to produce optimal

energy and function in a state of optimal health. If we meet these

" design requirements, " we can expect to be healthy, energetic, fit and trim.

 

Failure to obtain on a regular basis the kinds of foods our body's are

designed to utilize will initially produce sub-clinical health

complaints such as fatigue, aches and pains, headaches, indigestion,

weight gain, constipation, rashes, dry skin, low blood sugar, etc.

 

But long-term deficiency of the right foods for the metabolic type will

lead to degenerative conditions like asthma, cardiovascular disease,

cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc. In other words, it's not just that the

Eskimos can eat up to 10 pounds of meat and huge amounts of fat and

almost no carbohydrate, they need to eat that way in order to be healthy

because that's what their metabolisms are genetically programmed to

utilize as fuel. Similarly, each of us has very specific requirements

for nutrients that must be met in order to obtain and maintain good

health, energy and well-being for a lifetime.

 

Without metabolic typing, there is no way to discern one's " medicine "

from one's " poison. " Without metabolic typing, there is no way to know

how nutrients behave in one person as opposed to another. In essence,

without metabolic typing, no rational basis exists from which to select

proper diet and nutritional supplementation because one's metabolic type

dictates individual responses to nutrients.

 

This gets to the heart of some core premises of metabolic typing that

have not only great significance for each individual in identification

of a proper diet, but also have profound implications for scientific

research. Let's look at two of these core premises of our system of

metabolic typing. Here's the first one:

 

* ANY NUTRIENT AND ANY FOOD CAN HAVE VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL

INFLUENCES IN DIFFERENT METABOLIC TYPES.

 

The metabolic type defines the way in which the body reacts to

nutrients. Different metabolic types react differently to the same

nutrient. For example, in one metabolic type 100 milligrams of potassium

or eating, say, an orange (also high in potassium), will cause the

body's pH to shift alkaline and produce a sedating effect. But in a

different metabolic type, the same amount of potassium or an orange will

produce an acid shift and a stimulating response. This has been observed

tens of thousands of times through both objective metabolic type testing

as well as through changes in symptomatology.

 

Now the second core premise:

 

* ANY ADVERSE SYMPTOM OR DEGENERATIVE CONDITION CAN ARISE DUE TO

VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCES.

 

This same principle applies to any adverse health complaint, from simple

to complex, from cramps to cardiovascular disease (CVD), from rashes to

rheumatoid arthritis. For example, we have seen just as many cases of

high cholesterol and CVD resolve through a high carbohydrate, low fat,

low protein diet as we have seen resolve through the opposite low carb,

high protein, high fat diet. Match the diet to the metabolic type and

any degenerative condition has a chance to reverse. But eat the wrong

foods for the metabolic type, even high quality, organic foods, and

degenerative processes will only worsen.

 

The implications of these premises are staggering.

 

If they are true, then allopathic nutrition has no rational basis.

Seeking a common therapy for all people for every condition is a wild

goose chase and is doomed to failure. Any success with that approach has

been and will continue to be by chance -- not systematic, reliable

predictability.

 

If any nutrient or food can have totally opposite influences,

biochemically speaking, in different people, how can there be a

treatment, for any condition, that can work for all people?

 

The answer is that there can't be only one treatment. This is precisely

why what works for one person can worsen the same condition in another

person. This is why what makes your friend thin can make you fat. This

is why what improves energy and performance for one person can worsen it

in another. As it turns out, metabolic typing explains why Lucretius'

adage, " One man's food is another man's poison, " is literally true.

 

And, if it is true that two people with the same degenerative disease

can have virtually opposite biochemical imbalances, and that when two

opposite biochemical protocols are administered the problem resolves,

then this clearly means that it's not the diseases that should be

treated but the underlying metabolic type imbalances that have caused

the diseases that need be addressed.

 

From this viewpoint, the diseases are not the problems; they are the

symptoms, the manifestations, the expressions of the underlying,

foundational imbalances. The reality of metabolic individuality demands

that the person who has the disease -- not the disease that has the

person -- be treated!

 

These premises of metabolic typing also explain why scientific research

on nutrition is usually so inconclusive and produces such inconsistent

results. For example, researchers have been confounded why calcium can

lower blood pressure in some but raise it in others. Similar findings

occurred with the effect of potassium. Until research on the effect of a

given nutrient on a given condition is performed on a like metabolic

type subject population, you will always see variable results.

 

In summary:

 

* Biochemical individuality is responsible for the fact that

nutrients behave differently in different metabolic types

* The variable influences of nutrients on different metabolisms

along with the same condition arising from totally different biochemical

imbalances make it impossible to treat conditions with a standardized

treatment protocol

* Successful, predictable, reliable therapy can only be chosen once

you know the metabolic type because only then will you know how

nutrients behave in that person's metabolism.

 

Degenerative conditions account for well over 80% of all of the adverse

conditions that afflict the peoples of our country. This means that only

a little over 1 out of every 10 people that go to doctors has crises or

infectious conditions that require and respond to allopathic treatments.

 

More and more people every year fall prey to degenerative conditions

and, sadly, at younger and younger ages. Diseases once viewed as

accompaniments to old age are now commonplace in our children. Yet,

currently, there is no orthodox cure for nearly any degenerative disease.

 

So-called alternative practitioners, as a group, fare little better.

Even those who meet with " success " often find that when the therapy is

stopped, the condition returns and no real, lasting healing has taken

place. Or they are baffled by the universal phenomena of failing to help

the next patient with the same condition with the very same protocol

that worked so well for the former patient.

 

We find ourselves, practitioners and lay people alike, trying futilely

to absorb the avalanche of information and research in nutrition that

has descended upon us and only promises to gain speed with

ever-increasing volume. We're bombarded with seemingly endless newspaper

and magazine articles, health books, interviews on radio and television,

internet sites, all touting opposing points of view. What are we to do

with the blessing/curse of this information explosion?

 

The problem is that there hasn't been a reference point or a framework

in which to organize and understand the thousands upon thousands of

research findings, many of which are outright contradictory in nature.

It's like an enormous jigsaw puzzle that arrives without the picture on

the box. How do the pieces fit together? How can we possibly make sense

and make use of this research? A PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) of

nutrition?

 

Even if it was possible to know the effects of every single vitamin,

mineral, fatty acid, herb, etc., and then to organize them item by item,

of what practical use would that be? How would we be any further along?

We would still have 100's or even 1000's of choices to make for each

nutrient. And every day more and more effects are being found for every

nutrient known to us.

 

Even so, it is every practitioner's experience that what works for one

patient does not work for another with the same condition. The total

body of scientific research is one gigantic pool of randomized

information that is only growing in complexity. And yet, this is

precisely the path that researchers and practitioners are following. The

wrong path was chosen and it is leading us deeper and deeper into the

dark forest of confusion. The more that research uncovers, the less

clear the picture becomes.

 

The wrong questions have been and are still being asked. Instead of

seeking answers to the effects of biochemical substances on diseases, we

need to turn our attention to understanding how nutrients effect

individual metabolisms. Instead of thinking in terms of treating

disease, we must learn to think in terms of building health and meeting

and optimizing genetic functional capacity by addressing the needs of

each individual's metabolic type.

 

The adverse influences in the environment will continue to increase in

the years ahead. In order to survive and live a full, productive life in

the current millennium, especially if one wants to live a healthy life,

it is becoming increasingly important that each individual take

responsibility for his own health and address the inescapable

requirements of his biochemical individuality, for it is only in so

doing that the body will adapt and maintain its defenses against the

adversities of the environment and that the joy and exuberance of true

good health can be known.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Personally I am really excited about this diet.. I ordered the book

(by mercola, total health I thinks the title) yesterday.. but the

place was back ordered or something so I just canceled the order. I

hope to get the diet down from a library book now, tho I would love to

own a copy! Anyone wishing to part with one for a great price is

welcome to come to me~! :-)

 

Charlie

 

 

Chinese Traditional Medicine , Domingo Pichardo

<dpichardo3 wrote:

>

> A long read but well worth the time! Taken from Dr. Mercola's website!

> Some very interesting observations and theories regarding our genetic

> individuality and its health implications!

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/18/metabolic_typing.htm

>

>

> To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

>

>

> Part 1 of 2

>

> By William Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic Typing

> Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)

>

> As a reader of this web site, it is likely that you've reached the

point

> where you think or even know that nutrition is important if you ever

> want to get well and stay well. It's just common sense, right?

>

> But you may also have come to feel that the field of nutrition is quite

> baffling. And that even though there is more information available

today

> than ever before, that it's also become harder to find what's really

> right for you or to decide just what you should do.

>

> In a very real sense, the information explosion over the last 10 years

> has quite possibly brought more confusion than clarity to your quest

for

> health. As a result, you may have found yourself asking questions like:

>

> * Why is it that my best friend's nutritional supplements work

> absolute miracles, but make me feel lousy?

> * How can one best selling book say one thing about nutrition, and

> the other bestseller say just the opposite?

> * Why will a certain diet give my friend energy and help to lose

> weight but make me tired and gain weight?

> * Why can't I get rid of my candida overgrowth problem, even though

> I've followed an " anti-candida " diet?

> * How can someone eat the best organic foods, take the finest

> nutritional supplements that money can buy, get plenty of rest,

exercise

> regularly... and still not feel well?

>

> Or maybe your concern is with more serious issues like...

>

> * Why are two thirds of Americans overweight?

> * How can so many people be obese when people are more diet-,

> health- and exercise-conscious than ever before?

> * Why is degenerative disease skyrocketing?

> * Why are younger and younger people falling prey to diseases of

the

> aged?

> * Why are cancer, heart disease and diabetes increasing each year?

>

> And if you're a health professional working with nutrition, you may

also

> be baffled by questions such as...

>

> * Why does a low fat, low protein, high complex carbohydrate diet

> raise cholesterol in some people instead of lower it like it does in

> other people?

> * Why does taking a nutritional product or protocol help one person

> with a problem but not another with the same problem?

> * If nutrition is so important, why doesn't it work for so many

people?

>

> Everywhere you look, there are contradictions. Your friend tells you

one

> thing. You read about just the opposite in a health magazine. And a hot

> new bestseller at your local book store says something quite different

> altogether. In fact, that's another problem -- wall-to-wall books on

> health and nutrition, most of which just contradict each other.

>

> And, maybe you've learned from your own experience that what works for

> one person, doesn't help a second and can actually make a third person

> worse! Don't worry, it's not you. Even scientific researchers are

> confused by their findings because most studies on nutrients conclude

> that while helpful to a certain percentage of people with a certain

> condition, the studied nutrients don't help or even worsen the same

> condition in other test subjects.

>

> So how can there be so much confusion and contradiction about something

> that is supposed to be so good for you?

>

> The unfortunate reason is that the majority of the people talking about

> nutrition know just enough to be dangerous. They know that nutrition

can

> be the answer, but they don't know how to use it properly. And, yes, it

> is a two-edged sword: If you use it properly, it can help make you

well.

> But, make no mistake. If you use it improperly, it can help make you

> sick or keep you that way.

>

> You know. Take this nutrient for that condition. A magic bullet. One

> standard nutritional remedy for each problem or a universal diet

that is

> supposed to work for everyone.

>

> But, your own experience and all the contradictory books and articles

> that you've ever read, aside from making the field of nutrition

> confusing, frustrating and sometimes downright baffling, have already

> shown you that this approach doesn't work. And your common sense

agrees.

> You know that you are unique! You know one shoe size doesn't fit all.

> You know that everyone is as unique as their fingerprints. So, why

would

> anyone ever think that one diet is right for everyone? Or, that what

> works nutritionally for one person would work for another as well?

>

> The fact is, you really can eat the best organic foods, exercise

> regularly, drink plenty of fluids, get sufficient rest, take the finest

> supplements that money can buy... and still not feel well, or even

start

> feeling worse than before!

>

> So, what is the answer? The answer is to find out what is right for you!

>

> Not what some book says. Not what a friend says. Not what the latest

fad

> says is right. You need to find out exactly what is right for YOU! A

> nutritional program that is tailored specifically for your kind of

> metabolism and that will meet the special and unique nutritional needs

> of the one and only you.

>

> Bottom line? Unless you match your nutrition to your metabolism, you'll

> only be wasting your time and money!

>

> So why is it so hard to find right answers? How do you know who to

> believe or who to trust?

>

> The answer is to this universal dilemma is that for decades, the wrong

> questions have been asked. Ask wrong questions and you're bound to get

> wrong answers to your needs.

>

> The problem is that the quest for the " holy grail " in nutrition has

been

> to find that " right diet, " that " healthy diet " that is right for all

> people. And the quest has been to find the one right nutritional

> protocol for each condition.

>

> But what has been missed is the undeniable fact that on a biochemical

> level each of us is as unique as we are in our fingerprints. Actually

> our uniqueness extends far beyond just our fingerprints and encompasses

> virtually every aspect of ourselves -- personality, behavior,

> temperament, external physical traits, internal size, shape, placement

> and efficiency of all of our organs and glands, and rates of our

> cellular metabolism. Simply put, our DNA is unique.

>

> Standardized nutritional approaches fail to recognize that, for genetic

> reasons, people are all very different from one another on a

biochemical

> or metabolic level. Due to widely varying hereditary influences, we all

> process or utilize foods and nutrients very differently. Thus, the very

> same nutritional protocol that enables one person to lead a long

healthy

> life full of robust health can cause serious illness in someone

else. As

> the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius once said, " One man's food is

> another's poison. " It turns out, his statement is quite literally true.

>

> What accounts for all this metabolic individuality?

>

> At any given point in time, there are a number of factors that

determine

> peoples' unique nutritional requirements, but none is more significant

> than a person's ancestral heritage. It's a matter of classic Darwinian

> principles of evolution and adaptation, natural selection, genetic

> mutation and survival of the fittest. Over thousands of years of

> evolutionary history, people in different parts of the world developed

> very specific dietary needs as an adaptation mechanism, in response to

> many unique aspects of their habitats and lifestyles -- including

> climate, geography, vegetation, and naturally occurring food supplies.

>

> As an example, people from cold northern regions of the world have

> historically relied very heavily on animal protein, simply because

> that's the primary food source available in wintry climates. Thus they

> have radically different nutritional needs than people from tropical

> regions, where the environment is rich in vegetative diversity year

round.

>

> In the early part of the 20th century, a brilliant scientist by the

name

> of Weston Price, DDS, demonstrated this in no uncertain terms. He

> traveled all over the world and sought out all the indigenous

> populations to study their diet and their health. His discoveries were

> remarkable and extremely important. What he discovered was that:

>

> * The diets of all the indigenous peoples were tremendously varied

> (being dependent on geography, climate and the food stuffs naturally

> available)

> * Yet those indigenous people who followed their ancestral diets

> were robustly healthy.

> * But those who moved away or for other reasons strayed from their

> ancestral diet developed degenerative processes.

>

> What can we learn from this?

>

> * First and foremost, there is no one diet that is right for

> everyone, i.e., there never has been and there never will be a

> universally healthy diet.

> * Second, the only healthy diet is the one that meets one's

> genetically-based requirements -- not what some book or diet expert

says

> is right. Eat a diet that is right for your metabolic type and not only

> can you stay healthy but you can reverse degenerative conditions as

well.

> * Third, there are no good foods and there are no bad foods, except

> in terms of foods that are right or wrong for your genetic makeup.

Think

> meat is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Inuit (Eskimo) who

eats

> up to 10 pounds of meat a day, yet there isn't even a word in their

> language for cancer or heart disease. Think a high carb diet is bad for

> you? Then how do you explain the Quetchus of South America or the East

> Indians who have lived for countless generations on a near vegetarian

> diet? Think dairy is bad for you? Then how do you explain the Swiss

> whose ancestral diet was largely based on dairy and rye?

>

> Your body is designed to be healthy. Good health is your birthright.

The

> ability to experience radiant health is part of the genetic code built

> into every cell in your body. What you need to do in order to reclaim

> your birthright is to understand what your body needs as opposed to

> someone else's, in order to function the way it was intended it to. In

> short, you need to eat right for your metabolic type.

>

> In a previous era, before the age of modern transportation, cultures

> were isolated and peoples' metabolic makeup and corresponding dietary

> needs were very clear. But in today's day and age, due to extensive

> intermingling of cultures, we've become a true " genetic melting

pot. " In

> the U.S. in particular, most of us have many different ethnic and

> hereditary influences. As a result, few of us have a distinct ancestral

> heritage or readily identifiable dietary needs.

>

> Fortunately, however, through the research that has been done over the

> past 25 years, there is available a systematic, testable, repeatable

and

> verifiable advanced nutritional technology that enables people to

> discover their own unique dietary needs with a very high degree of

> precision. This technology is known as Metabolic Typing. Through

> metabolic typing those often mysterious, seemingly unanswerable

> questions become perfectly clear and answerable indeed.

>

> Once you know your metabolic type and you know what foods are right for

> you and what foods are wrong for you, then you need a simple to follow,

> step-by-step plan to help you transition into a healthy lifestyle that

> you can follow for the rest of your life. You'll find none better than

> Dr. Mercola's Nutrition Plan.

>

> To Succeed at Any Diet, You Must Know Your Metabolic Type

>

>

> Part 2 of 2

>

> By William Wolcott, Founder, The Healthexcel System of Metabolic Typing

> Author, The Metabolic Typing Diet (Doubleday)

>

> Part 1 of this series on metabolic typing introduced the idea that

> whether a given food or a particular diet is good for you or bad for

you

> is a matter of your genes -- not whim, appetite, preference,

philosophy,

> belief or even " expert " opinion.

>

> It is important to realize that the idea of metabolic typing is not

new.

> The roots of the concept of metabolic individuality can be traced to

> antiquity. The 5,000 year old East Indian system of medicine known as

> Ayurveda was based on the interaction of the 5 elements and the 7

energy

> centers in the individual and primary treatment addressed one's dosha

> (one's metabolic type) before it addressed the symptom or disease.

>

> Similarly, the ancient system of Chinese medicine recognized 5

> elemental, constitutional types. Diagnosis and treatment in ancient

> Egyptian medicine was based on the 7 organ systems in the body. Greek

> physicians were concerned, as Hippocrates stated, with the patient who

> has the disease instead of the disease that has the patient, and

> evaluated the 4 humors (liver-bile metabolic types). The ancient Roman

> philosopher Lucretius is attributed with the saying, " One man's meat is

> another man's poison. "

>

> The modern background of metabolic typing

>

> In modern times, there have been some well-known and many not so

> well-known medical researchers who recognized the value of addressing

> biochemical individuality. In 1919, Frances Pottenger, M.D., published

> his Symptoms Of Visceral Disease, where he established the autonomic

> nervous system as the basis of metabolic individuality and correlated

> the influence of various nutrients on the autonomic nervous system.

>

> Dr. W.H. Sheldon, in the '40's, published his famous Varieties Of Human

> Physique, providing photographic illustrations of his somatotypes

> (ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph metabolic types). In the '50's, Dr.

> Melvin Page and Dr. Henry Bieler concurrently developed concepts of

> endocrine types and their relationship to various foods. Dr. George

> Watson, also in the '50's, in his astounding book, Nutrition And The

> Mind, published his research on the variable influences of oxidation

> (glycolysis, beta oxidation, citric acid cycle) in different

individuals

> he classified as fast, mixed or slow oxidizers.

>

> In 1956, the noted biochemist, Dr. Roger Williams, published his

> genetotrophic theory on biochemical individuality, based on his

research

> which suggested that every human being has, because of his genetic

> makeup, distinctive nutritional needs that must be met in order to

> achieve optimum health and well-being. Dr. Royal Lee's extensive

> writings in the 50's and 60's correlated nutritional influences of the

> autonomic and endocrine systems.

>

> Dr. Emanuel Revici, in the '60's, recognized the critical necessity to

> address biochemical individuality and devoted his life's work to the

> development of an entirely new system of medicine based upon the

> variances between individuals in their catabolic and anabolic

influences.

>

> Dr. James D'Adamo, in the '70's, put forth a system of individual

> classification based upon ABO blood types. In the mid '70's, Dr.

William

> D. Kelley met Dr. Roger William's call for " metabolic profiling " by

> becoming the first to apply William's concept of nutritional

> individuality to computer science in identifying the autonomic types,

> sympathetic, balanced and parasympathetic.

>

> Further efforts to address metabolic individuality can be seen in

> current works of numerous other pioneers. Among the more recent who

have

> joined the ranks are Dr. Elliot Abravanel, Dr. Paul Eck, Dr. David

> Watts, Dr. Rudolph Wiley, and the insightful founder of Nutri-Spec, Dr.

> Guy Schenker, to name a few.

>

> What exactly is metabolic typing and why is it important?

>

> Metabolic typing is a systematic, testable, repeatable, and verifiable

> methodology based on research and extensive clinical experience over

the

> last 25 years that combines the wisdom of the ancient systems of

> medicine with our modern scientific understanding of physiology and

> biochemistry.

>

> Metabolic typing analyzes, evaluates, and interprets objective

> physiological and biochemical indicators along with symptomatology in

> order to define one's metabolic type -- the specific, individualized,

> genetically-based patterns of biochemical metabolic individuality that

> dictate one's physiological and neurological " design limits " and

> requirements for nutritional substances.

>

> The food that we eat is intended as the " fuel " for our body's cells,

our

> engines of metabolism. Our cells in turn convert the fuel to energy to

> be used in all the life-supporting processes of metabolism that keep us

> alive and healthy. But like any engine, our body needs a certain

kind of

> fuel to function optimally. A gasoline engine requires gasoline for

> fuel. A diesel engine is designed to run on diesel for fuel. But try to

> run a gas engine on diesel or a diesel engine on gas and not only will

> the energy output be deficient, but using the wrong fuel for the engine

> will cause real problems for the engine itself.

>

> Similarly, our bodies have genetically-based requirements for specific

> kinds of foods and balances of nutrients in order to produce optimal

> energy and function in a state of optimal health. If we meet these

> " design requirements, " we can expect to be healthy, energetic, fit

and trim.

>

> Failure to obtain on a regular basis the kinds of foods our body's are

> designed to utilize will initially produce sub-clinical health

> complaints such as fatigue, aches and pains, headaches, indigestion,

> weight gain, constipation, rashes, dry skin, low blood sugar, etc.

>

> But long-term deficiency of the right foods for the metabolic type will

> lead to degenerative conditions like asthma, cardiovascular disease,

> cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc. In other words, it's not just that

the

> Eskimos can eat up to 10 pounds of meat and huge amounts of fat and

> almost no carbohydrate, they need to eat that way in order to be

healthy

> because that's what their metabolisms are genetically programmed to

> utilize as fuel. Similarly, each of us has very specific requirements

> for nutrients that must be met in order to obtain and maintain good

> health, energy and well-being for a lifetime.

>

> Without metabolic typing, there is no way to discern one's " medicine "

> from one's " poison. " Without metabolic typing, there is no way to know

> how nutrients behave in one person as opposed to another. In essence,

> without metabolic typing, no rational basis exists from which to select

> proper diet and nutritional supplementation because one's metabolic

type

> dictates individual responses to nutrients.

>

> This gets to the heart of some core premises of metabolic typing that

> have not only great significance for each individual in identification

> of a proper diet, but also have profound implications for scientific

> research. Let's look at two of these core premises of our system of

> metabolic typing. Here's the first one:

>

> * ANY NUTRIENT AND ANY FOOD CAN HAVE VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL

> INFLUENCES IN DIFFERENT METABOLIC TYPES.

>

> The metabolic type defines the way in which the body reacts to

> nutrients. Different metabolic types react differently to the same

> nutrient. For example, in one metabolic type 100 milligrams of

potassium

> or eating, say, an orange (also high in potassium), will cause the

> body's pH to shift alkaline and produce a sedating effect. But in a

> different metabolic type, the same amount of potassium or an orange

will

> produce an acid shift and a stimulating response. This has been

observed

> tens of thousands of times through both objective metabolic type

testing

> as well as through changes in symptomatology.

>

> Now the second core premise:

>

> * ANY ADVERSE SYMPTOM OR DEGENERATIVE CONDITION CAN ARISE DUE TO

> VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE BIOCHEMICAL IMBALANCES.

>

> This same principle applies to any adverse health complaint, from

simple

> to complex, from cramps to cardiovascular disease (CVD), from rashes to

> rheumatoid arthritis. For example, we have seen just as many cases of

> high cholesterol and CVD resolve through a high carbohydrate, low fat,

> low protein diet as we have seen resolve through the opposite low carb,

> high protein, high fat diet. Match the diet to the metabolic type and

> any degenerative condition has a chance to reverse. But eat the wrong

> foods for the metabolic type, even high quality, organic foods, and

> degenerative processes will only worsen.

>

> The implications of these premises are staggering.

>

> If they are true, then allopathic nutrition has no rational basis.

> Seeking a common therapy for all people for every condition is a wild

> goose chase and is doomed to failure. Any success with that approach

has

> been and will continue to be by chance -- not systematic, reliable

> predictability.

>

> If any nutrient or food can have totally opposite influences,

> biochemically speaking, in different people, how can there be a

> treatment, for any condition, that can work for all people?

>

> The answer is that there can't be only one treatment. This is precisely

> why what works for one person can worsen the same condition in another

> person. This is why what makes your friend thin can make you fat. This

> is why what improves energy and performance for one person can

worsen it

> in another. As it turns out, metabolic typing explains why Lucretius'

> adage, " One man's food is another man's poison, " is literally true.

>

> And, if it is true that two people with the same degenerative disease

> can have virtually opposite biochemical imbalances, and that when two

> opposite biochemical protocols are administered the problem resolves,

> then this clearly means that it's not the diseases that should be

> treated but the underlying metabolic type imbalances that have caused

> the diseases that need be addressed.

>

> From this viewpoint, the diseases are not the problems; they are the

> symptoms, the manifestations, the expressions of the underlying,

> foundational imbalances. The reality of metabolic individuality demands

> that the person who has the disease -- not the disease that has the

> person -- be treated!

>

> These premises of metabolic typing also explain why scientific research

> on nutrition is usually so inconclusive and produces such inconsistent

> results. For example, researchers have been confounded why calcium can

> lower blood pressure in some but raise it in others. Similar findings

> occurred with the effect of potassium. Until research on the effect

of a

> given nutrient on a given condition is performed on a like metabolic

> type subject population, you will always see variable results.

>

> In summary:

>

> * Biochemical individuality is responsible for the fact that

> nutrients behave differently in different metabolic types

> * The variable influences of nutrients on different metabolisms

> along with the same condition arising from totally different

biochemical

> imbalances make it impossible to treat conditions with a standardized

> treatment protocol

> * Successful, predictable, reliable therapy can only be chosen once

> you know the metabolic type because only then will you know how

> nutrients behave in that person's metabolism.

>

> Degenerative conditions account for well over 80% of all of the adverse

> conditions that afflict the peoples of our country. This means that

only

> a little over 1 out of every 10 people that go to doctors has crises or

> infectious conditions that require and respond to allopathic treatments.

>

> More and more people every year fall prey to degenerative conditions

> and, sadly, at younger and younger ages. Diseases once viewed as

> accompaniments to old age are now commonplace in our children. Yet,

> currently, there is no orthodox cure for nearly any degenerative

disease.

>

> So-called alternative practitioners, as a group, fare little better.

> Even those who meet with " success " often find that when the therapy is

> stopped, the condition returns and no real, lasting healing has taken

> place. Or they are baffled by the universal phenomena of failing to

help

> the next patient with the same condition with the very same protocol

> that worked so well for the former patient.

>

> We find ourselves, practitioners and lay people alike, trying futilely

> to absorb the avalanche of information and research in nutrition that

> has descended upon us and only promises to gain speed with

> ever-increasing volume. We're bombarded with seemingly endless

newspaper

> and magazine articles, health books, interviews on radio and

television,

> internet sites, all touting opposing points of view. What are we to do

> with the blessing/curse of this information explosion?

>

> The problem is that there hasn't been a reference point or a framework

> in which to organize and understand the thousands upon thousands of

> research findings, many of which are outright contradictory in nature.

> It's like an enormous jigsaw puzzle that arrives without the picture on

> the box. How do the pieces fit together? How can we possibly make sense

> and make use of this research? A PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) of

> nutrition?

>

> Even if it was possible to know the effects of every single vitamin,

> mineral, fatty acid, herb, etc., and then to organize them item by

item,

> of what practical use would that be? How would we be any further along?

> We would still have 100's or even 1000's of choices to make for each

> nutrient. And every day more and more effects are being found for every

> nutrient known to us.

>

> Even so, it is every practitioner's experience that what works for one

> patient does not work for another with the same condition. The total

> body of scientific research is one gigantic pool of randomized

> information that is only growing in complexity. And yet, this is

> precisely the path that researchers and practitioners are following.

The

> wrong path was chosen and it is leading us deeper and deeper into the

> dark forest of confusion. The more that research uncovers, the less

> clear the picture becomes.

>

> The wrong questions have been and are still being asked. Instead of

> seeking answers to the effects of biochemical substances on

diseases, we

> need to turn our attention to understanding how nutrients effect

> individual metabolisms. Instead of thinking in terms of treating

> disease, we must learn to think in terms of building health and meeting

> and optimizing genetic functional capacity by addressing the needs of

> each individual's metabolic type.

>

> The adverse influences in the environment will continue to increase in

> the years ahead. In order to survive and live a full, productive

life in

> the current millennium, especially if one wants to live a healthy life,

> it is becoming increasingly important that each individual take

> responsibility for his own health and address the inescapable

> requirements of his biochemical individuality, for it is only in so

> doing that the body will adapt and maintain its defenses against the

> adversities of the environment and that the joy and exuberance of true

> good health can be known.

>

>

>