Jump to content
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
healthy guy

What do you think of nutritional typing?

Recommended Posts

also called metabolic typing, nutritional typing groups people into three categories based on their genetics, biochemical makeup, family history, and their own interaction with their environment: There are protein types, carb types and mixed types.

Basically nutritional typing says that everyone is different and that there is no one diet that fits all. While one person will need a lot of proteins to be healthy, the other person needs a lot of carbs. The mixed type is in between.

The user "Healthoid" has had great success with eating according to his nutritional type and writes more about it here: http://healthoid.com/2008/06/05/how-to-cur...ur-acne-part-4/

There is also information on Dr. Mercolas Homepage:


This is a book on metabolic typing:


This is a self-test that determines your nutrtional type:


So I was wondering if you have any experiences with nutritional typing or at least have an opinion about it. To me it seems like many people (including myself) are convinced that eating lots of fresh vegetables, fruits, good fats, whole grains, etc. and avoiding the bad stuff like processed food, gluten, etc. is all there is to a good diet. According to Nutritional typing there is more to a good diet and that is eating according to your nutritional type.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for commenting, I hate redspots.

Does your brother eat so much protein, because he just likes it or does he know about nutritional typing and knows he's a protein type?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a mixed type according to that. But some I wasn't really sure how to answer, I don't think i'm very "in-tune" with my body :shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for commenting, I hate redspots.

Does your brother eat so much protein, because he just likes it or does he know about nutritional typing and knows he's a protein type?

He always says he eats a lot of protein cause he feels he needs it. He feels his body has a craving for it and he responds to it. He does a lot of internet research on diet and health so I guess he probably has heard of nutirional typing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to really like the nutritional typing idea and really believed in it, but the more i look into it, the less it seems to make sense.

When people take the questionnaire, they almost always end up getting the result they were hoping for. This is probably because you basically ask a meat lover how he feels after having a big meat meal. Obviously he's going to answer he feels great.

I recently took the test and got classified as a protein type, which was great because I was eating a lot of meat and enjoying it. Lately I've been experimenting with a diet based on heavy fruit and vegetable consumption, and when i took the test again I was classified as a carb type. How convenient. I think people who take the test just unconsciously answer the questionnaire so that they get the result they want, which makes it really hard to take to take it seriously.

Thousand, if not millions, of species are eating practically the same thing all over the world. A horse eats grass. A protein type horse vs a carb type horse is completely ridiculous. A horse in Asia or a horse in North America eats grass and that's all there is to it. Of course there are vast differences in food availability throughout the world, but that is not relevant.

When you look at it that way, it seems rather silly that, for example, 1 north american male needs to eat 2000 calories of fruits and vegetables a day while another would need to eat the same amount of calories from meat. I really don't see why humans would have dietary needs that vary so wildly when each other species has a very similar food intake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I understand what you are saying. But lets say all foods that the species "horse" is able to eat are a,b,c,d,e,f (a for example being grass, b=clover, etc). While the Nort American horse's ancestors only ate foods a,b,c (because those were the only ones available in their environment), the mongolian horse's ancestors only ate foods d,e,f. So over the course of thousands of years the north american horse's genetics were influenced by the intake of foods a,b,c. Now if you take that North american horse to Mongolia and have it eat foods d,e,f instead of a,b,c I can well imagine that the horse gets health problems.

Ok, of course there are foods that the american and the mongolian horse's ancestors will have had in common, but there are surely foods that one horse has been eating for thousands of years while the other one has not.

I dont' know anything about horse's food, but what I just said is also valid if grass would be the only food that the species horse could eat. Because of different climate, soil and other environmental factors there will be differences in American grass and Mongolian grass, that either horse will be accustomed to. Ok, the American horse might not die when eating Mongolian Grass instead of American, but American Grass would be better.

Also i've heard many times how people who spent their vacation in a place with a totally different diet than they were used to (an American in Asia, for example), got serious problems.

So I think there is no doubt that in different places in the world, there have been traditionally different foods available for thousands (and millions?) of years and that people's genetics have thus been profoundly influenced by their local foods. So to me it kind of makes sense that a European whose ancestors have been eating deer meat will better stick with that and a chinese better stick with his elephant meat (oops that might be illegal).

But I don't know about this stuff, it was just my thoughts. Maybe we should ask Healthoid to elaborate more on this.

So anyway, Charles_V, how are you doing what does your diet look like. Still vegetables and fruits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there are vast differences in food availability throughout the world, but that is not relevant.

How is that not relevant? That is how evolution works...you form adaptations to your environment...

I really don't see why humans would have dietary needs that vary so wildly when each other species has a very similar food intake.

And I don't see why humans would have such complex brains when all other species have less sophisticated ones... :rolleyes:

We aren't like other animals. We are "special".

This stuff has been scientifically documented. There are huge physical and biochemical differences between different people. For example, Asians have larger pancreases which allow them to handle large amounts of carbohydrates and starch (ie rice) better than other people.

The best information is in the book Biochemical Individuality by Dr. Roger J. Williams. It has tons of data on differences in enzymes, organs, etc. between different people, and the differences are huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't see why humans would have such complex brains when all other species have less sophisticated ones... :rolleyes:

actually nm i cant be bothered to argue this, it's irrelevant to the discussion, please delete my post mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say the availability of the food is not all that important because an animal's diet will be similar anywhere in the world. The horse used in my previous example would eat a grass based diet in Asia or in America. Obviously the vegetation is different in both regions, but the diet will still be based on grass, no matter what type. If no grass is not present somewhere, chances are the horse won't be around either.

I see no reason why humans would be different from the rest of the animal kingdom and somehow develop metabolic types. We are not special. Species evolve. Giraffes have long necks so they can reach the leaves in high trees. Antelopes are fast and agile so they can run from predators. Primates have more developed brains because they have very little going for them physically and need to make use of tools and other creations of the mind to survive. I propose that humans are smarter simply because we NEED to be smarter. We have even less going for us than the rest of the primate family when it comes to physical prowess. Even puny chimpanzees are way stronger than us. This calls for a more developed brain, a simply physical adaption just like every other animal out there.

There's also the fact that the vast majority of mankind lives on a plant-based diet. Civilizations that get the bulk of their caloric intake from animal food are pretty rare. America as we know it, probably the biggest meat-eating civilization in the world, is only a few hundred years old. Anyone who claims that Americans have adapted to a meat-based diet in such a short time really needs to get a library card and read the basic theories of evolution. Aside from America, I can only think of the Inuit and the Masai tribes. Inuits live under extreme conditions and have an extreme diet. They cannot be used as a valid argument for metabolic typing as they do not resemble any other culture in the world. Besides, a quick google search reveals that their average lifespan was around 45 years old when Russia established contact with them. Nowadays, they live on average 10 years less than junk food eating Canadians and the gap keeps getting bigger. I don't know if those numbers are 100% accurate, but it is well known that Inuits are short-lived. As for the Masai tribe, they barely eat meat. Most of their animal food is cow blood and whole cow milk. Whole milk is not even a protein food, it's a fatty food. Even then, their lifespan is shorter than most plant-based cultures.

When you take those few abnormalities out of the pictures, you're left almost exclusively with humans eating mostly a plant-based diet all over the world. Emphasis on "Plant-based". I did not say vegan. This pretty much automatically takes protein types out of the picture and leaves us only with carbo types and maybe mixed types as you can't really be on a high protein plant-based diet unless you gorge on vegan protein powders or other modern nutritional atrocities.

So that brings me back to the horse analogy. Without taking the abnormalities into consideration, humans also seem to live on their plant-based, carbo type diets all over the world. The climate and food supply changes from region to region, and this produces different racial traits that make us different. Just like Asian and American horses differ in shape, size and color.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the absolute truth about metabolic/nutritional types. There is one thing I know for sure though: over-priced nutritional typing questionnaires like the only used by doctor Mercola are worthless scams. Determining your metabolic type by asking you how you feel after eating your favorite food and how you feel after eating your least favorite food is a practice that has not scientific value whatsoever and produces results that inevitably point toward your favorite eating patterns, providing almost guaranteed satisfaction and comfort. Most metabolic typing enthusiasts are using those inaccurate tools to determine their type, and if those 3 tyes really do exist, chances are those questionnaires are sending them in the wrong direction most of the time.

Besides, as an Atkins disciple, it's very hard to take Mercola seriously. Even from his grave, Atkins sends thousands to their deaths to their death every years, and thousands more straight to the hospital for heart surgery with his high fat/protein animal food based diet recommendations. Most protein-type diets are in reality fat-based diets which deprive the body of critical carbohydrates and put the body into ketosis for extended periods of time. This is dietary suicide and it's on of the reasons why I no longer believe the whole metabolic typing ideology.

I'd also like to point out that I'm just posting this to stimulate discussion, so please don't get too passionate trying to prove me wrong. If someone can show me reasonable evidence, I'll be glad to happy to change my stance on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Charles, here's some evidence that you should read:

http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Individu...1042&sr=8-1 (buy the book, it's well worth it)





I've read both sides of this issue and it's very clear to me what is true, but I invite you to look at the other side and decide for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes