What Do You Think Of Metabolic Typing?

[Ryan999]

I was just reading an article by Paul Check about the variation in the anatomy of humans and how that effects what diets are optimal for humans. Basically people near the equator do better on higher carbohydrate diets, people near the poles and from Europe do better on higher protein/fat diets, and mixed races have a bit of a mixed diet. People near the equator in some instances had literally double the distance from mouth to anus as people near the poles.

I'm Irish (so I guess a protein/fat type) and I can identify with this very well. If I have too many carbs and not enough protein/fat I'm the most irritable person in the world an hour later and I haven't been able to figure it out. I need meat/eggs at almost every meal to feel satisfied and now it makes a lot of sense. A lot of times I would try meals of cheese and OJ and would be miserable.

Can anyone relate to this? Is there anything to this?

*I just want to add I'm not discrediting Peat at all, just bringing up the fact that there might be a lot of variation within the Peat diet as far as macronutrient ratios are concernced, and this isn't talked about enough.

 

[gretchen]

I spent about a decade involved with blood typing, so no, I would not do metabolic type. I've found that that typing systems aren't very scientific.

 

[Combie]

The biggest problem i have with metabolic typing, apart from prescribing a perfect diet based on a questionnaire, is that your metabolic type can change. Doesnt that show that theres no such thing as a metabolic type? I think the reason northerners do better initially on protein and fats is to do with glucose clearance. Most northern folk are better off starting with more fats simply because they have adapted to relatively low carb diets and their ability to handle glucose reflects that. Once you slowly start to up the carbs, you are going to be able to handle it better, and become a "mixed" or "carbo" type. Of course, the book by walcott is designed to sell. So they call it a "protein type" when its really a "fat type", (because the mainstream are scared of fat), and do not allow sugar (because theyre all scared of sugar too) pretty much at all. We all know that fructose (and fat) is the key player in handling your blood sugar properly, and if you use sugar instead of starches, you will progress to being a "carbo type" much more quickly.

Bunk

 

[yerrag]

Resurrecting an old thread, I benefited from using metabolic typing, even as now I realize its foundation is very much based on empirical data and not so much on understanding human physiology on a deeper level. Having read up (and continuing to do so) on Ray Peat, I can appreciate why there would appear to be metabolic types, and why metabolic types can change into the "balanced type" after taking the right steps.

I don't consider metabolic typing to be bunk. By classifying people into types, it makes it easier for people to understand where they are, and the food and supplements prescribed for them are much easier to follow. They do not have to know why they are the way they are, and why such a food or supplement is better suited for them. Given the confusing landscape in which health and nutrition resides, it is easier for a novice to navigate the waters with simple classifications. Consider that there are practically no doctors whom you can see that practice along the lines of Ray Peat's thinking, it is very much left to the person to read up and apply his principles. It is a daunting task, not recommended for the average person.

In the end, what counts is whether our body reaches a state of homeostatis, which is what health is about.

Certainly, Ray Peat is superior. I did not learn about how unhealthful PUFAs are with metabolic typing.