Talk:Blood type diet/Archive 2

False Reference
There's an amusing false reference in the article: "Peter J. D'Adamo (June 2103). "Response to Various Criticisms". Retrieved 2013-08-22."

There's more than one thing wrong here. First of all, June 2103 is 9 decades from now. The URL for the reference brings up a page that indeed refers to that date, but it's not the purported date of the content on that page, rather it's a link to content that was published in June 2013. The reference is to the page content, which has been on the web since at least January 2009 (Proof: Archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20090130034725/http://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm ). --Elvey (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch.
 * Any idea why it should be used? Any objection to removing it and the associated info? --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ronz! I am just now getting around to reading the actual reference.  Off the bat, I think the reference should merely be corrected (to read "circa 2008  "); it and the associated info (which will become more readily verifiable) should not removed.  To do so would be to deprive D'Adamo of sufficient rope to hang himself.  He doesn't disappoint.  From typos ("Is the author of the criticism and expert?" to broken links (What's Wrong With the Scientific Method - http://www.dadamo.com/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/whats-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/ ) and I'm only through the first page.  I find that following more than one round of criticism can be incredibly valuable - case in point : Andrew Wakefield - it was because he kept replying, having the last word for a time, that he wrapped enough rope around his neck to hang himself by triggering the uber- thorough re-investigation that got his key paper withdrawn, and in turn his medical license revoked, the most decisive blows to the anti-vaccine industry.  Does policy support my preference? Certainly some could be swayed into D'Adamo's camp because they stop reading at a point that gives D'Adamo the last word, and they're sufficiently gullible, but I'd bet that there are responses to this response out there, and would say they're both appropriate, important content for this notable topic.  Even if we don't have rebuttal responses yet, linking to these rebuttals doesn't strike me as an UNDUE problem. --Elvey (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, but I'm not sure his response to the science is of note. I'm hoping others will join the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the relevant policy? N is about article topics, not individual things within an article, IIRC. --Elvey (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. (see WP:RS)
 * The article once stated something like, D'Adamo responds to various critics on his website, with the reference following thereafter. So it met the first criteria of relevance, and it was also a proper reference (the phrase "false reference" is not present within Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic, a portion of which follows):
 * ''Biased or opinionated sources
 * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
 * Also the following information on referencing unpublished work is relevant:
 * ''Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field...
 * Logically when the topic is criticism of D'Adamo's work and the phrase "no scientific evidence" is splashed about the page, his response is of critical importance. Now that the policy has been highlighted, I believe the original wording and the reference, updated using Elvey's suggested format, need to be re-inserted and I strongly suggest further edits be justified here on the Talk page. --Spellmagi (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding Substance
I have been monitoring this article for a number of years and I am disappointed by the lack of any real information. There was once a robust discussion on the talk page and the article featured many more areas of inquiry, and citations, but they are almost all gone.

Only the most thick-skinned contributors seem willing to even try adding anything, because all efforts seem wasted. Even when offering citations, additional information is unceremoniously removed. This is why we have a talk page, to keep these discussions in the open.

So, let me offer a piece of relevant information and ask for advice about how to word and cite it to survive the onslaught. I recently added a reference to James D'Adamo's book on blood type nutrition, One Man's Food... The book was written in 1980 and is highly relevant to the article. I intend to re-post the information, again using objective language and proper citation.

My only request is that if the citation is not perfect or the language needs some tweaking, that fellow Wikipedians will show the courtesy of correcting any errors. Otherwise there is no hope to improve this article and provide meaningful information for readers to make their own decisions.

Spellmagi (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why add it other than to promote him and his viewpoints, which violates WP:SOAP? It would greatly help if there was a third-party reference indicating it is of importance in some manner. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There would be no reason for an article about the Blood Type Diet if not for the work of James and Peter D'Adamo. See the article on the Atkins diet for comparison. It includes a lot of detail about following the diet and has an entire section on controversies. A soapbox would not include these critical viewpoints (See the "False Reference" section in the Talk page for more info on proper use of biased information in an article). There was a critical study done a few years ago on D'Adamo's diet and I will try to get that written up in the article. By the way, an earlier version of this article was quite substantive and included a similar section on controversies. --Spellmagi (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No third-party sources then? --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The study I referred to is at PLOS One's site and D'Adamo posted a detailed response on his site. . I should have time to submit this edit when I am not working. To my knowledge, this is the only third party scientific study of the Eat Right 4 Your Type version of blood type diet. I would appreciate if anyone with experience in reading scholarly articles could look for other examples of published studies that link ABO blood type and nutrition on PubMed . I am aware of these two studies off the top of my head concerning the underlying premise that blood type and diet are linked . Since the diet itself is a cultural phenomenon, it is also appropriate to reference popular media sources, like the Regis and Kathie Lee show, and the Dr. Oz radio show in its own section. Let's start there, shall we? --


 * -Spellmagi (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you haven't addressed my concerns. It's not clear to me whether you think you are, or if you're avoiding the concerns. Yes, you could look for third-party sources outside medical research.
 * My concern is that while you've making arguments for expansion of the article, none of the arguments you give are supported with third party sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Expansion of this article does not require a justification from a third-party source, if that is the implication. "Wikipedia is a live collaboration differing from paper-based reference sources in important ways. Unlike printed encyclopedias, Wikipedia is continually created and updated, with articles on historic events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years" and one of the Five Pillars, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." As a long-time collaborator on this subject matter on Wikipedia, I humbly offer my reason for restoration of the key information that was once included: the current article is a rebuttal to a proposal that is not explained first. An informative article would explain what the diet is, the intended associations between A, B, O, and AB and foods, both allowed and restricted, a history of how the diet has come to prominence and even evidence that it is prominent in the first place. In this context, the significance of the Wang article that refutes any connection between the diets and each blood type will become clear to someone who has no previous knowledge of the subject matter. Once future edits are made, all editors should feel free to make improvements, citations, rebuttals, etc, and offer their insights here on the talk page in the spirit of open collaboration.


 * --Spellmagi (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Expansion of this article does not require a justification from a third-party source" It does if the expansion appears to violate our content policies, in this case WP:NOT, especially Ronz (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Old Discussion
I find it strange that I cannot find most of the previous discussion on the Talk page, but perhaps it is related to the discretionary sanctions placed on the article. Any experts on the topic out there, please offer your insight. I find it really important to explore the thoughts of the early collaborators including why the page was created in the first place. For the convenience of the reader, the original comments can be explored on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot from January 6, 2014. .

--Spellmagi (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * there is a link to archives in the beige box at the top of this page, a search box to search them. There is a bot that automatically archives old page discussions - that is not related to the DS. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good! The link doesn't exactly jump off the page so that is good to know. --Spellmagi (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Absence of evidence
The reason there is no scientific evidence to be cited in support of the blood type diet hypothesis is because no one has conducted a peer-reviewed scientific study on this topic. Hence it is quite easy for writers like this one at Mayo Clinic to make the simple statement that there is no such scientific evidence.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110612124046/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/blood-type-diet/AN01415

The reason no one has conducted such a scientific study is because the Ph D review committees in nutritional science consist entirely of academics who adhere to traditional orthodoxy which includes reflex debunking of the blood type-related concepts. Hence, no Ph D candidate would choose to commit career suicide by conducting such a study which would almost certainly be criticized (and vetoed) by the Ph D advisor as a waste of time.

However, we all know the logical fallacy about the absence of evidence not equating to evidence of absence. The blood type 'stuff' is a hypothesis that has not been tested. Nor has it been debunked to the best of my knowledge. The statements by 20 different nutritionists that there is no supporting scientific evidence does NOT equate to debunking of this hypothesis.

Incidentally, another version of this hypothesis asserts that the evolutionary history of various human gene pools governs the impact of specific medicine and nutrition on each person. As the gene map progresses, there will be a diagnostic gene test to advise each of us on suitable, 'customized' medicine and nutrition. And, of course, the concept of customized medicine and nutrition has already become fairly well accepted by relevant professionals.

And, this version of the hypothesis continues, there is some although not perfect correlation between our specific genetic history and blood type. So, blood type is not the cause or driver of our nutritional characteristics, but it is another clue or 'marker' as to what those might be. Thus, it might be premature to dismiss this hypothesis out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.93.184 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Lectins associated with Blood Types
The primary mechanism that governs the Blood Type diet is a key detail missing from this page. I propose adding a short statement and reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectin The statement could be simply " The primary mechanism that governs the Blood Type diet is thought to be the variation of Lectin processes in digestion." Yogazeal (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the Criticism.
Having read and used information in the Blood Type Diet to positive result, I have observed a few faults in the criticisms of the material.

Critics falsely claim the diet suggests blood type is the primary or most important aspect of determining one's diet and nutritional needs. This is not correct, nor the claim of the material. The material claims that the biochemical interaction between different blood types and different nutritional sources is something that should be better researched and considered when attempting to improve or maximize one's health. Dr. D'Adamo assembled the results of a number of studies, read their methodology, and suggests conditions where there might be a problem caused by specific interactions.

As an example, I was in a vehicular accident the same day I changed my diet. Because of the accident, I was examined multiple times by doctors, scanned, x-rayed, etc. to find a cause for the migraines I was suffering following the accident. Instead, it turned out the migraines were caused by my eating oatmeal for breakfast everyday. Not everyone would have this problem, Dr. D'Adamo stated on NPR in interview that about 1 in 500 suffering from migraines were persons with a type O blood type eating oatmeal on a regular basis. He did not say persons with a type O could not have oatmeal or should never have oatmeal, etc. The position is, that there are things that may be related to the handling of food biochemically by the blood type which handles the distribution of nutrition throughout the body.

The statements here are negative based on a false expectation and false claims concerning Dr. D'Adamo's material. Obviously, no single consideration will be a panacea for all medical conditions. However, downplaying the principle distribution system for nutrition in the body to a factor not to be considered seems irrational. Nor, in "Cook Right 4 Your Type: The Practical Kitchen Companion to Eat Right 4 Your Type" the recipes, developed with a nutritionist, put things together that are not consistent with the listed foods for the blood type for which they were designed. That is because he never considered the blood factor to be the only factor to be considered when determining one's dietary needs.

Kenneth Slayor (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't base article content on your personal anecdotes, but on what is reflected in reliable sources. Said sources state that the entire concept is woo, therefore so do we. It's that simple. 47.5.92.69 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good that Wiki sticks to attributed reliable sources. And yes, fad diets are merely different flavors of snake oil.  In the future, we may see certain reliable sources find a way to measure and demonstrate some form of blood type correlation with dietary effectiveness.  If so, it would be one of thousands of theories that were disbelieved and ridiculed, then later demonstrated and accepted as valid.  For example, a full understanding of the human genome map may reveal genetic correlations with dietary effectiveness.  For now, however, it is apparently too early to do so.24.1.67.182 (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)