The description sounded like a study of diets of older times- from what you are saying it sounds like this is not just an objective look at information? Not that id be shocked.
Quoting from: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/feb/excerpt.htm
"Look at a globe: Any region with a large population of trim, healthy people reveals the same truth: Healthy populations get most of their calories from starch. Eat a traditional meal in Japan, China, or most any Asian country and you will find your bowl filled with rice, possibly alongside sweet potatoes and buckwheat. The same truth dates back throughout recorded human history. The Incas of South America centered their diet on potatoes. The Incan warriors switched to quinoa for strength prior to battle. The Mayans and Aztecs of Central America were known as “the people of the corn.” The Egyptians’ starch of choice was wheat. Throughout civilization and around the world, six foods have provided our primary fuel: barley, maize (corn), millet, potatoes, rice, and wheat."
Quoting from: http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... et#p196383
"While we are human primates and close cousin of the non-human primates, there are several distinct differences (besides the obvious) relating to food and our digestive capacities and biology.
Nat Genet. 2007 October; 39(10): 1256–1260. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
"Therefore, the average human has ~3 times more AMY1 copies than chimpanzees, and bonobos may not have salivary amylase at all. Outgroup comparisons with other great apes suggest that AMY1 copy number was most likely gained in the human lineage, rather than lost in chimpanzees 21,22 . Given that AMY1 copy number is positively correlated with salivary amylase protein level in humans, it stands to reason that the human-specific increase in copy number may explain, at least in part, why salivary amylase protein levels are ~6-8 times higher in humans than in chimpanzees 23.
These patterns are consistent with the general dietary characteristics of Pan and Homo; chimpanzees and bonobos are predominantly frugivorous and ingest little starch relative to most human populations 24. "
Humans have 600-800% more starch splitting enzymes than bononos and chimpanzees, and this is not by accident or a freak of nature. It is consistent with most all human primates."
This should expand a bit about eating habits for individuals Enjoy...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Metabolic-Typ ... yping+diet
These people' method defies common sense. They say that their claims are based on science but, if so, where is the evidence? I see none. To say that we can determine, with any certainty, our nutritional type, based on our personal but very nebulous assessment of our metabolism is hokey pokey.
They have no idea what is metabolism. It changes and responds continuously and it is an enormously complex system of digestion, absorption, transport, enzymatic synthesis and breakdown of intermediates and distribution, excretion and storage of metabolites, all in an effort to maintain homeostasis. Reducing this concept to a simple phenomenon of energy use, which we can assess for ourselves, is more superficial than adjectives can describe.
They claim to have helped tens of thousands of patients, yet have conducted no research to document their claims about metabolic and nutritional typing. These people are story tellers and unfortunately, most people are not trained to discern the difference between story telling and scientific evidence, which has allowed them to develop a large following.
On metabolism: http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Newsletter ... olism.html