EVOLUTION, BLOOD TYPES, AND WEIGHT LOSS: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF A POPULAR DIET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a best-selling diet book D'Adamo & Whitney (1996) claim that an individual's ABO blood type is the single most important factor in determining the appropriate diet for weightloss and general health. This is based on the premise that the four different blood types have evolved within the past 50,000 years and that each type is an adaptation to a particular lifestyle and diet. While each of the four recommended diets, if followed for an extended period, would likely produce weight-loss in people suffering from obesity, modem genetic research indicates that the human ABO blood groups evolved millions of years ago and pre-date the existence of Homo sapiens. With no clinical evidence or theoretical basis to support them, the claims for the supposed curative functions of D'Adamo & Whitney's Blood Type Diet are misleading and potentially dangerous.Dans leur livre de regime a succes, D'Adamo et Whitney (1996) alleguent que c'est le groupe sanguin d'une personne qui est Ie facteur Ie plus important dans Ie choix d'un regime approprie pour maigrir et rester en sante. Cette affirmation est basee sur l'hypothese que les quatre groupes sanguins ant evolue au cours des 50 000 demieres annees et que chacun resulte d'une adaptation a un style de vie et a un regime particuliers. Les quatre regimes recommandes, s'ils etaient suivis pendant une periode prolongee, seraient certes de nature a faire maignr les personnes qui souffrent d'obesite, mais les recherches en glmetiques actuelles indiquent que les groupes sanguins humains ont evolues depuis des millions d'annees et remontent meme avant I'existence de I'Homo sapiens. En l'absence de preuve clinique ou de fondement theorique pour les appuyer, lesallegations relatives aux soi-disant fonctions curatives des regimes de O'Adamo et Whitney bases sur le groupe sanguin sont trompeuses et peuvent meme s'averer dangereuses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".