Genotype Diet, Anybody Heard of This?

I've just ran across this by accident. But after a little exploring the website, I'm intrigued. Without having actually read his book, there seems to be some interesting science going on with his various genotypes, but its difficult to tell as its mixed in with a lot of speculative bullshit and marketing buzz. For example, the titles he gives for the genotypes are all categorical and stereotypical and the way he describes a personality type that is meant to extrapolate to all members of that group, absolutely ridiculous. But I am interested in the various genetic differences amongst the groups he mentions. I think there could be some scientific gems buried underneath the bullshit somewhere, you just have to get past the big publisher marketing first. If anybody has any knowledge of this diet or the science behind it, I'd love your input. Link to the site is below:

http://www.dadamo.com/media/gtd.htm

Under the "Individualized Diets" tab, there is a link to SWAMI. It is a diet software that I think is based on the genotype diet, but apparently you can order a single printout for around $70, but it apparently tells you all of the foods that will benefit you or harm you based on your genetics. I'd be interested to try it, but I almost feel as if the fact it sounds too good to be true is influencing me, haha.

SWAMI Link: http://www.4yourtype.com/swamixp_video.asp

i didnt read the links but genetic or genomic seems like a qualifier similar to "neuro". throw in front of what ever you are advocating in order to give it the sound of legitimacy and technical advancement. seems dubious that thered be enough information out there to look at specific genotype and determine which diet is ideal.

It sounds reasonable, you want to believe it, but there is no way to verify it unless your life was invested in similar direction. I agree with LOT, the data is still missing. And what made me smile was seeing segmentation of the population to ''hunters, teachers, gatherers, explorers,etc''. How do you cover all the diversity of population as everybody is unique, by mixing those diets? Its very unscientific although i can see the marketing point there. That's why i have this pocked called ''be sceptical and search for mistakes you find, but try not close the door too early, cause time will tell...'' In the same pocket is also wave genetics. Dont want to ruin the thread or completely change the subject but i think it kind of fits here so i will post it below.

Imo, to good to be true is almost definetly false. Wishful thinking almost always creates an illusion.


Wave genetics:
It claims there is communication in cells without physical interaction. DNA itself appears to leave it's signature in space, which can be measured also when measured object is not present around the area anymore. It suggests telepathy and other types of biological communication.

introduction

DNA phantom effect

open letter by the father of ''wave genetics''

AS54, rdkml, and others...If some of you have too much time...

I have to agree with both of you. The only thing about the genotype diet that has me intrigued is that in the descriptions of each genotype, he provides some evidence of certain genetic variations and polymorphisms common to certain populations based on genetic heritage and the relative regions of the world one's ancestors were linked with. I think this aspect has some intuitive truth to it, that for relative populations there may be common polymorphisms that spread ubiquitously through that given population and our genetic heritage can point to the fact that we may also have these mutations. For example he mentions the process of acetylation, and that people can be classified as slow, medium, or fast acetylators and this has an effect on the effectiveness of drugs in these people and also on their susceptibility to toxins and man-made chemicals. He also mentions several polymorphisms in the genes encoding glutathione transferase which effect our overall antioxidant protection, ability to detoxify, and how we tend to age in comparison to our peers. When we examine these things in relation to specific genotypes, I believe there is some credence to this, but again, to sell this to a wide audience the book had to be cleverly marketed, and we certainly can't divide the entire population of the world into 8 or so different categories.

Beebrox,
Thanks for introducing me to those sites. Again, there seems something beautifully simple and intuitive about the concept of matter exhibiting wave behaviors. We know this duality has been a controversial topic in science for a very long time, and Einstein has some popular quotes/observations regarding this. So intuitively it makes sense, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this has a lot more light and attention shed on it in the coming years, if the information isn't suppressed and labelled rogue by the powers that be. We know that the solidarity of matter is somewhat of an illusion, that at its core matter is vibrational energy, so imagining that the way DNA interacts with its environment has to do with vibrational relationships and frequency "codes" just makes sense to me.

The solidity of matter isn't an illiusion as much as it is a scale dependent property. At certain length scales it is perfectly safe to describe matter as having solidity. Its just not a viable description on all scales.

This diet has been around for a long time. I tried it over 10 years ago. I'm blood type A and HATED the primary recommendations (mostly vegetarian, soy protien, blah blah blah). I figured I'd rather have all my blood cells stick together with lectins than be completely miserable with what I ate for the rest of my life.

Needless to say, I didn't do well on it. Biggest reason is because eating a lot of soy affects me adversely.

But it *is* interesting to read about, and there is likely some benefit to some of his generalizations.

Whodathunkit,

I am the same blood type and can't imagine thriving on that diet either. In fact, I think it would be the worst thing I could possibly do.

LoT,

If you get a chance, I'd love to hear more about what you mean by that. This is extremely interesting stuff. The way I've come to understand things is that if we start to examine things at a quantum level, the idea of a particle as we would normally describe it isn't accurate. Normally we think of a particle, or at least describe it pictorially, as a spherical shape, or at least a body with a spherical geometry. It's actually kind of difficult to put into words, but think of electrons circling around the central part of an atom. We tend to think of them as circling around a spherical "membrane" within the field. It seems like the repellant forces of these various energetic bodies is what gives the solidarity to structures, despite the fact that most matter actually consists of only empty space. But at a quantum level this idea of a particle really isn't accurate. We have to think of things more like a wave that moves in multiple dimensions. The vibration of that wave is what gives the appearance of actual geometry. The way I've heard it described is like a fan blade. When the fan is on, the the movement of the individual blades creates the appearance of a "plate", but that geometry is an illusion created by the movement of the blades. There is no plate, which is evident when we shut the fan off. This shutting the fan on and off is analogous to the act of observing matter on a small scale. When we aren't directly observing or artificially slowing down matter for observation it behaves like a wave, only upon observation do we see matter behave as a particle. I believe this is what prompted Einstein to say, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it".

Sure.

To keep it from becoming novel sized, I'll keep the level of argumentation away from quantum theory and all the apparent conundrums (tho thats an area of interest of mine ) and specific details of the physics.

If we as organisms lacked the capacity for language and to abstract we would not have statements like "matter has solidity" or any statements at all. But we would still have conditional operative schemata (if under a perception of a certain quality, then this or that action would result in this or that outcome, etc) about the world which would be a form of basic knowledge. Even dogs have such schemata. My dog doesnt attempt to jump through the window at me when I am standing outside even those she can percieve me and interact with my visage through the glass. Similarly my dog doesnt attempt to run through the door at me when it is shut, despite being able to hear my voice calling to her. Thus it would appear the dog has some rudimentary "knowledge" about the solidity of these objects. The dog also have no language, and thus no powers of representational abstraction and generalization, so it never runs into the trouble that we do with compare our knowledge from our perception, and the contextless statements we abstract from our specific situational perceptions, to our scientific data, and see that they don't hold under all conditions. It just wouldnt arise for the dog that there are some situations under which it wouldnt make sense to treat those objects as solid. They don;t have means to investigate the scales of length underwhich they wouldnt appear solid. Pretty much the error lies in stripping away all the conditional details that make "that matter has solidity" true in various situations. We turn it into a contextless generality and then it becomes false as a generality, because there are some situations under which it doesn't hold, whether it be for certain length scales, or whether the substance has a permeability with regards to the things that permeate them or whatever. This happens mainly due to communicative expedience. Imagine if we had to list off all the qualifiers and things that had to hold for it to be true that matter is solid every time we wanted to convey the solidity of matter in a communication. On the whole lots of matter has solidity with regards to our bodies interacting with it at the macroscopic length scales we interact with them (in line with the resolving power of our vision). So solidity is a real experiential form of knowledge. You could regard it as what John Locke and the empiricists termed a secondary quality. It arises as an interaction of your perceptual aparatus with the world. But this gives it a conditional character. It is solid for things that are like you, existing at your length scale, or for bodies which have certain similar properties which would cause them to interact with the "solid" objects in the "solid like" manner. On somewhat absurd solution has been proposed to avoid us running into problems with overgeneralizing, and that is to avoid all uses of the verb to-be. So rather than saying this matter is sold, I'd say "when I interact with it, the feeling of solidity confronts me", or something similar. That would give all of our statements the contextual experiential character which we form our generalizations out of. As a student of NLP you may be aware of this as E-prime or English Prime. I don't think going that far is necessary and neither did the founder of General Semantics of which NLP drew inspiration from. As long as you are aware of the cognitive processes behind what is going on you are fine. I could see certain adherents to a form of strong metaphysical realism saying the entire treatment I gave is erroneous, and that matter is either really solid or really not solid. But I think for them we could unpack the statement of "matter is sold" and qualify with all those conditionals to the point that "matter is solid" would just be a shorter substitution for the much longer more accurate metaphysically realist statement for that situation.

I want to say something about averaging, but I can't quite get it to be coherent. I'll just give a sketch. Density for example. We say matter has a certain density and you can cast it in terms of number of particles per volume. At macro levels for certain materials the density is uniform. But even for those uniform density objects what happens to your "reading" of the density when you change the volume you sample it at? Density is mass or number of units per a volume. When you go small enough, youll find spaces in between your units and there the density is 0. So you'd the see the density start to fluctuate as you change the scale or the size of your sampling volume. So density is an averaging of sorts which only has a utility or even a well formed definition at a certain scale. This sort of thing is discussed with greater sophistication than I am giving it by Mandelbrot in the Fractal Geometry of nature, the early pages of the book. He goes over other things like dimensionality. A string looks 1 dimensional very far away. As you zoom in, you see that its really three dimensional like a cylinder, if you zoom in further, the curvature becomes negligible and it looks like a planar surface with no curvature, zoom further, you'll see it has a composition, etc.

LoT,

Fascinating stuff. Thank you for that. It really is a perspective changer. I had never considered the implications for the intensive properties like density. We assign these as a generalization to any given quantity of a specific substance, but like you said its all a question of scale. Given that no form of matter, once we get to a certain degree of magnification, is completely homogeneous, this means that density is really just a generalization that only applies to our interaction with matter at a certain scale, and it really becomes of more practical significance than objective reality. Our percepive apparatus becomes a pivotal backbone of how we understand anything mathematically and scientifically, and tying this in to how our brains evolved to form logical relationships with the world surrounding this probably has huge implications for how we came to understand these phenomenon in the way we do. That was a great post LoT. Thanks sir. You've spurred me on to want to delve into this deeper. I feel like I need more physics background to go much further though.