Blood Type Diet Debunked

Blood Type Diet Debunked
4.8 (96%) 5 votes

A systematic review finds no evidence to support the notion that people should choose diets based on their blood type.

Comenta
Comparte

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

It was Adolf Hitler who coined a propaganda technique he called, “the big lie,” arguing that people may be more likely to believe “colossal untruths,” because “they would not believe that others would have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” So, “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility.”

The book Eat Right for Your Type makes the astounding claim that people with different blood types should eat different foods. Type Os are supposed to be like the hunter, and eat a lot of meat, whereas people with type-A blood are supposed to eat less. In one of the world’s most prestigious nutrition journals, a systematic review of the evidence supporting blood-type diets was published. They didn’t find any.

“Diets based on the ABO blood group system have been promoted over the past decade…[but] the evidence to support the effectiveness of [such] diets [had evidently] not previously been assessed in the scientific literature.” Actually, in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, there were a number of papers that came out of a day-long scientific seminar held by the Norwegian Society for Nutrition. Hard to believe they would even take the time, but evidently 40,000 copies of the book had been sold in Norway, and so, good for them. They sought to determine “Blood type diets: visionary science or nonsense?” And, they concluded: nonsense.

What was so outrageous is that “[t]he blood-type diet is promoted and justified [in the book] by [supposed] scientific arguments,” yet the author takes “no pains to prove” his ideas—just presenting them “simply as facts,” taking advantage of people’s ignorance of biology.

His arguments sound scientific, and he uses lots of big words. But, he displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the science, describing the book’s understanding of some basic tenets of blood-type biology as “absurd.” “There should be no doubt that [had the author]…practiced in Norway [as opposed to Connecticut], he would be in violation of the “so-called Quack [Law].”

The book cites the work of blood-type biochemists, but if you ask the actual experts, as scientists, they say they obviously have to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out: “[I]t must be stated that an ‘open mind’ should not extend to some of the non-scientific literature where there are books on the ABO [blood-type] system of pure fantasy. The most recent and incredulous of these claims [that] individuals of each ABO blood type must subscribe to a [particular] diet.”

I don’t know how researchers have the patience to read these popular press books, but it can “lead to an appreciation of the ridiculous aspects of the many ignorant and preposterous claims.”

“So, what should the overall assessment of [this] work be?” The nicest thing you can say about the book is: he does have a good “imagination.”

Is it any worse than people who believe their fate is “determined by” the stars, though? Well, yes, because astrologists aren’t telling a third of the population to go out and eat organ meats.

The diet is not as bad as some. “[P]ositive results reported by [some] individuals may well be due to a general improvement [in health] in diet and lifestyle (less fat and sugar, more fruits and vegetables, less smoking, [and] more exercise).” Look, anything that gets people to eat fewer doughnuts.

But though this may get lost a bit in translation, a professor of laboratory medicine at the Norwegian University of Science’s analysis concluded that the author’s “learning must be considered junk and without scientific foundation.”

What did the new review find? They sifted through over a thousand papers that might shed some light on the issue, and “[n]one of the studies showed an association between…blood type diets and health-related outcomes.” They conclude that “there is currently no evidence that an adherence to blood type diets will provide health benefits, despite the substantial presence and perseverance of blood type diets within the health industry.”

The author responded to the review on his website, saying that there’s “good science behind the blood type diet, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations,” and that if blood-type diets were just tested in the right way, just like Einstein’s E=MC2 , he would be vindicated—complaining that “you don’t see any studies on blood types and nutrition [because of] [l]ittle…interest and…available money.” He’s sold over “7 million” books! Why doesn’t he fund his own studies? That’s what the Atkins Corporation did.

And, the answer is: he has! In 1996, he wrote, “I am beginning the eighth year of a ten-year trial on reproductive cancers, using the Blood Type Diets. By the time I release the results in another 2 years, I expect to make it scientifically demonstrable that the Blood Type Diet plays a role in cancer remission.” Okay, so that would be 1998, and the results? Still not released, 16 years later.

Clever tactic, though, saying you’re just about to publish, banking that nobody would actually follow up. So, in his sequel, he said he was “currently conducting a twelve-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial implementing the Blood Type Diet, to determine its effects on the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” That was ten years ago.

As my Norwegian colleagues bemoaned, “it is difficult not to perceive the whole thing as a crass fraud.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to giftedstudieswku, Gastev, and Menage a Moi via flickr

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

It was Adolf Hitler who coined a propaganda technique he called, “the big lie,” arguing that people may be more likely to believe “colossal untruths,” because “they would not believe that others would have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” So, “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility.”

The book Eat Right for Your Type makes the astounding claim that people with different blood types should eat different foods. Type Os are supposed to be like the hunter, and eat a lot of meat, whereas people with type-A blood are supposed to eat less. In one of the world’s most prestigious nutrition journals, a systematic review of the evidence supporting blood-type diets was published. They didn’t find any.

“Diets based on the ABO blood group system have been promoted over the past decade…[but] the evidence to support the effectiveness of [such] diets [had evidently] not previously been assessed in the scientific literature.” Actually, in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, there were a number of papers that came out of a day-long scientific seminar held by the Norwegian Society for Nutrition. Hard to believe they would even take the time, but evidently 40,000 copies of the book had been sold in Norway, and so, good for them. They sought to determine “Blood type diets: visionary science or nonsense?” And, they concluded: nonsense.

What was so outrageous is that “[t]he blood-type diet is promoted and justified [in the book] by [supposed] scientific arguments,” yet the author takes “no pains to prove” his ideas—just presenting them “simply as facts,” taking advantage of people’s ignorance of biology.

His arguments sound scientific, and he uses lots of big words. But, he displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the science, describing the book’s understanding of some basic tenets of blood-type biology as “absurd.” “There should be no doubt that [had the author]…practiced in Norway [as opposed to Connecticut], he would be in violation of the “so-called Quack [Law].”

The book cites the work of blood-type biochemists, but if you ask the actual experts, as scientists, they say they obviously have to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out: “[I]t must be stated that an ‘open mind’ should not extend to some of the non-scientific literature where there are books on the ABO [blood-type] system of pure fantasy. The most recent and incredulous of these claims [that] individuals of each ABO blood type must subscribe to a [particular] diet.”

I don’t know how researchers have the patience to read these popular press books, but it can “lead to an appreciation of the ridiculous aspects of the many ignorant and preposterous claims.”

“So, what should the overall assessment of [this] work be?” The nicest thing you can say about the book is: he does have a good “imagination.”

Is it any worse than people who believe their fate is “determined by” the stars, though? Well, yes, because astrologists aren’t telling a third of the population to go out and eat organ meats.

The diet is not as bad as some. “[P]ositive results reported by [some] individuals may well be due to a general improvement [in health] in diet and lifestyle (less fat and sugar, more fruits and vegetables, less smoking, [and] more exercise).” Look, anything that gets people to eat fewer doughnuts.

But though this may get lost a bit in translation, a professor of laboratory medicine at the Norwegian University of Science’s analysis concluded that the author’s “learning must be considered junk and without scientific foundation.”

What did the new review find? They sifted through over a thousand papers that might shed some light on the issue, and “[n]one of the studies showed an association between…blood type diets and health-related outcomes.” They conclude that “there is currently no evidence that an adherence to blood type diets will provide health benefits, despite the substantial presence and perseverance of blood type diets within the health industry.”

The author responded to the review on his website, saying that there’s “good science behind the blood type diet, just like there was good science behind Einstein’s mathematical calculations,” and that if blood-type diets were just tested in the right way, just like Einstein’s E=MC2 , he would be vindicated—complaining that “you don’t see any studies on blood types and nutrition [because of] [l]ittle…interest and…available money.” He’s sold over “7 million” books! Why doesn’t he fund his own studies? That’s what the Atkins Corporation did.

And, the answer is: he has! In 1996, he wrote, “I am beginning the eighth year of a ten-year trial on reproductive cancers, using the Blood Type Diets. By the time I release the results in another 2 years, I expect to make it scientifically demonstrable that the Blood Type Diet plays a role in cancer remission.” Okay, so that would be 1998, and the results? Still not released, 16 years later.

Clever tactic, though, saying you’re just about to publish, banking that nobody would actually follow up. So, in his sequel, he said he was “currently conducting a twelve-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial implementing the Blood Type Diet, to determine its effects on the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” That was ten years ago.

As my Norwegian colleagues bemoaned, “it is difficult not to perceive the whole thing as a crass fraud.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to giftedstudieswku, Gastev, and Menage a Moi via flickr

Nota del Doctor

So rarely are popular press diet books afforded such fact-checking. Kudos to these researchers. If only we had this 13 years ago, when the book was on the bestseller list!

I have a few videos on popular diets, such as:

I also wrote a book about low-carb diets, which is now available free online, full-text, at AtkinsFacts.org.

Unfortunately, nutrition illiteracy is not just a problem among the public, but also among the medical profession:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

Deja una respuesta

Tu correo electrónico no se publicará Los campos obligatorios están marcados *

Pin It en Pinterest

Share This