No products in the cart.
The Death of Allopathic Nutrition
Address written by William L. Wolcott and Harold J. Kristal, DDS, and delivered by Harold J. Kristal, to the Orthomolecular Health-Medicine Society (OHM) in San Francisco, California on March 1, 1998.
I stand before you today bearing monumental tidings. Nutrition, as most of us have known it and practiced it is dead. The coup de grace for allopathic nutrition occurred in 1983, but the news of its demise was kept from us until recently.
When I came to hear about it, my life changed and has never been the same since. If you will do me the honor of considering what I have to say, carefully, and with an open mind, the same transformation may happen to you, just as it did to me. I can assure you, if it does, you will be more excited and optimistic about your work and the results you’ll see in the lives of your patients than you could ever have hoped for. You’ll remember virtually every day the reasons you became a doctor in the first place – to help people, to change lives for the better, to heal. You will almost not be able to believe your eyes at what you’ll see and you’ll be bursting at the seams, as I am, to share this wonderful information. I am limited by time today so I can only briefly touch on the subject and give you just a taste, just a vision of the possibilities, the tip of the iceberg. Know, however, that the philosophy behind this body of work is extensive. Please understand, there is a great deal more to communicate to you about it than what I will have a chance to discuss with you in my talk today. Let’s get to it!
There is an experience common to virtually everyone involved in nutritional therapy, whether as a practitioner or as a lay person seeking self-help. What is this common experience? The fact that when it comes to nutrition, what works for one person with a certain condition, has little to no effect on a second person with the same condition, and can actually worsen a third person with the same condition!
This confounding reality is encountered by every practitioner of nutritional science: You read about a nutrient, an herb, a homeopathic remedy, how it works wonders on a certain condition. You try it on yourself or on a patient, only to find it fails completely. You try the same on someone else and it works wonderfully. It is the experience of the obese person who tries a friend’s successful weight-loss diet and finds that it causes weight gain instead. It is the experience of a man taking zinc who finds his prostate problem worsening. It is the experience of the woman with PMS who finds intensification instead of alleviation of symptoms through the use of B6 and Evening Primrose Oil. It is the experience of someone with high cholesterol who finds that the widely acclaimed high complex carbohydrate/low fat/low protein diet worsens the cardiovascular condition. It is the experience of the athlete who encounters decreased lean body mass and decreased performance on the Zone diet.
In short, it is the universal experience of nutritional therapeutics – and what makes nutrition so confusing, baffling, and frustrating, particularly for us as practitioners, because we all believe, we all know that nutrition is important, that it “works,” … if only we could find the right supplement, the right diet, the right remedy, the right protocol.
It is the greatest of ironies that we find ourselves in the midst of an extraordinary information explosion, perhaps the greatest the world has known, but instead of bringing greater clarity, we find the confusion only deepening. More books than ever before are available on diet and nutrition, yet everywhere we look, we find contradictions. One nutritional expert says one thing; another expert says just the opposite. More scientific research than ever before is available, but in practical terms, this has universally resolved few issues and answered few questions.
Mostly, research concludes that the substance being examined is helpful for x% of the subjects and not helpful or even adverse for y%. It does not tell us either whom it will be good for or whom it will be bad for. Tens of thousands of items of research are literally at our fingertips, but where do they fit into the overall scheme of things? What do they mean in terms of universal practical application in an individual case other than trial and error? Where is the framework, the reference point from which sense can be made of the virtually endless stream of seemingly unrelated bits of information?
If truth be told, nutritional science has become more hit or miss than systematic, testable, repeatable, verifiable, and predictable. How many of us can predict with a 95% accuracy or better what the specific effects of a nutrient protocol will be in a particular individual? How many of us can predict with a 95% accuracy or better prior to its application whether a nutritional therapy will be a success or failure? I am here today to tell you that just such a thing is possible. It is not only possible, it is actually available to you right now. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
In order to obtain right answers, it’s an axiom that you must ask the right questions. It is no wonder that confusion abounds, for unfortunately, the wrong questions have been and are still being asked as nutritional science has been and still is based on an assumption that in 1983, turned out to be false. The false assumption is this: Every human’s metabolism works according to the same laws and principals, so there can be only one kind of nutrition that is right for everyone, both in terns of an overall healthful diet as well as treatment for a given disease. This false assumption led us to ask the wrong questions and thereby develop the wrong approaches. This false assumption led us to research how to treat the disease that has the person, when all along we should have been, as I’ll make abundantly clear further on, researching how to treat the person who has the disease. I mean this literally – not as some fanciful way of putting across an idea. To be successful, we must seek for ways to build health instead of treat disease.
Whether we like to admit it or not, whether we like to face this reality or not, the truth is that although we employ alternative substances such as vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc., in actuality, very little really separates those of us in the alternative realm from the orthodox. The thrust in the application of nutrition has been the same as in the employment of pharmaceuticals, namely, treating disease through finding one nutritional protocol for every condition that is right for all people. Although noble in intent, this line of reasoning is fatally flawed because of one undeniable reality: biochemical individuality.
Now, many of us today may have heard of this idea and may even subscribe to it. But, in actuality, in practice, we continue our allopathic ways. We strive to diagnose the conditions. We strive then to treat the conditions with natural therapies. We may believe we are taking into account the individual differences through the use of various tests. We may, for example, treat candida, or parasites, or believe in the value of removing mercury fillings, or use fasting techniques or detoxification. We may use certain lab tests to identify what we consider to be deficiencies and thereby prescribe specific nutritional replacement protocols. We may use lab tests or other “alternative” means to diagnose weak organs that we attempt to then treat.
Yet, all of this, in essence, is still an allopathic approach, meaning we are still treating the disease, the symptom, the deficiency, the condition, the organ, the dysfunction, albeit using our natural methods. In many cases, particularly through the use of mega-doses of USP nutrients, a drug-like effect is produced that suppresses symptoms. But, when this “pharmaceutical nutrition” protocol is withdrawn, the symptoms return. In such cases, no true healing takes place and the parallels to allopathic drug use are obvious. Freedom from symptoms is one thing; but, restoration of physiological, biochemical and metabolic balance and efficiency – a return to optimal health and function where therapeutics are no longer required – is something altogether different.
The problem is that the allopathic nutrition approach doesn’t work, except by chance. Almost as many people are not being helped in the alternative field as are not being helped in the orthodox field. We rationalize our failures in thinking that at least we are doing no harm since we are employing natural substances. This also is a false assumption as we will come to understand further on in my speech. Make no mistake: there are two sides to the nutritional coin. If it can help, it can also harm.
I fault no practitioner for practicing allopathic nutrition, nor do I fault myself for my past treatment methods, for I did the very same thing for many years. But, we have been at a disadvantage. There is one very important piece of information that none of us knew, and it goes back to that discovery in 1983 I alluded to earlier. This one discovery which I am about to tell you has the potential to revolutionize your practice, your results with your patients, and your world view as it applies to nutritional science. Once you view the world of biochemistry, physiology and nutrition through the perspective of metabolic typing, you’ll never see things the same again.
The discovery that was made was that:
Any nutrient and any food can have virtually opposite biochemical influences in different individuals (what we call metabolic types).
This bears repeating: any nutrient and any food can have virtually opposite biochemical influences in different individuals or metabolic types.
And, connected with this, another important discovery was that: any adverse symptom or degenerative condition can arise due to virtually opposite biochemical imbalances.
The implications of these premises are staggering. If they are true (and I am here to tell you today that they absolutely are true and I can prove it), then allopathic nutrition has no rational basis. Seeking a common therapy for all people for every condition is a wild goose chase and is doomed to failure. Any success has been and will continue to be by chance, not systematic, reliable predictability.
If any nutrient or food can have totally opposite influences, biochemically speaking, in different people, how can there be a treatment – for any condition – that can work for all people?
The answer is that there can’t be only one, and it has been yours and my experience that there isn’t, though up to now we never quite knew why. This is precisely why what works for one person can worsen the same condition in another person. As the Roman philosopher Lucretius so aptly stated, “One man’s food is another man’s poison!”
These premises also explain why scientific research on nutrition is usually so inconclusive and produces such inconsistent results. Until research on the effect of a given nutrient on a given condition is performed on a homogenous metabolic type population, you will always see variable results.
And, if it is true that two people with the same degenerative disease can have virtually opposite biochemical imbalances, and that when two opposite biochemical protocols are administered, both get well – a phenomena I have witnessed over and over again – then this clearly means that it’s not the diseases that should be treated but the underlying metabolic imbalances that have caused the diseases that need be addressed.
From this viewpoint, the diseases are the symptoms, the manifestations, the expressions of the underlying imbalances. Take high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease as an example: I have seen just as many people resolve this problem with a high protein/high fat/low complex carbohydrate diet as with the current in vogue low protein/low fat/low complex carbohydrate diet. I have also witnessed many times dramatic worsening of cholesterol levels and heart disease on low protein/low fat diets. This same scenario applies to every degenerative condition. Whether it’s cancer, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, chronic fatigue, allergies, or headaches, the same principle applies. The reality of metabolic individuality demands that the person who has the disease – not the disease that has the person – be treated!
To summarize up to this point:
- Biochemical individuality is responsible for the fact that nutrients behave differently in different metabolic types in terms of their stimulatory/catabolic/acid or sedating/anabolic/alkaline influences
- The variable influences of nutrients on different metabolisms along with the same condition arising from totally different biochemical imbalances make it impossible to treat conditions with a standardized treatment protocol
Successful, predictable, reliable therapy can only be chosen once you know the metabolic type of the patient because only then will you know how nutrients behave in their metabolisms.
How can we put this understanding into practice? How can we properly, reliably address metabolic individuality? The answer is through a systematic, testable, repeatable methodology called metabolic typing. It is true that there are tens of thousands of biochemical reactions that take place on a daily basis in human metabolism. So, it would be impractical and impossible to think in terms of treating and monitoring all of those reactions in an attempt to understand and address biochemical individuality. And, yet, this is precisely what we have been doing when we either try to treat a weak organ, address supposed vitamin or mineral deficiencies, or attempt to interpret lab results of blood, urine, hair, saliva or other tissue samples in terms of what we think are excesses or deficiencies.
The problem with this approach is that we really don’t know what we are looking at: Are we observing “the problem” or are we seeing evidence of the body’s “defense against the problem?” Is the acidity we uncover an acid imbalance that requires treatment or is it evidence of the body’s defense against an alkaline-based condition? Furthermore, we don’t know the causal factors involved in the phenomena we’re observing, so we are left with treating the symptom, which oftentimes can ultimately result in either worsening the existing problem or creating new problems later on. Chasing after symptoms with nutrition can have just as adverse a result as doing so with drugs!
The solution to this dilemma lies in the fact that all those tens of thousands of metabolic processes fall under the control and regulation of just a few fundamental homeostatic systems, the most significant of which are dualistic in nature. These homeostatic mechanisms function through complementary yet opposing influences. How does this relate to nutrition?
Research has uncovered the fact that every nutrient and every food has a specific inhibitory or stimulatory effect on one or more of those systems and on one side or other of these homeostatic control mechanisms.
Thus, another very important principle is revealed: There is no food or nutritional supplement that is right or good for everyone. This includes coenzyme Q-10, antioxidants, EFAs, vitamin C, calcium, potassium … and any other nutrient you might care to name. Whether any supplement is “good” or “bad” depends on the particular biochemical balance of the individual in question, meaning which fundamental homeostatic mechanism is out of balance and what the effect of the nutrient in question will be on that imbalanced system – will it improve the imbalance or worsen the imbalance? It is the strength and balance of these control mechanisms in each individual, which define metabolic individuality and determine the metabolic type. Most significantly, metabolic typing research has uncovered the fact that no adverse condition can exist that does not involve an imbalance in one or more of these fundamental homeostatic control mechanisms!
Currently, nine of these fundamental homeostatic control mechanisms have been discovered and are utilized to define one’s metabolic type. Today I only have time to talk about two very important ones: the autonomic nervous system (the sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions) and the oxidation rate (the rate nutrients are converted to energy in intermediary carbohydrate metabolism involving glycolysis, citric acid (Krebs) cycle, and beta oxidation). And I will talk about the fact that certain nutrients stimulate and strengthen the sympathetic output, while others increase the parasympathetic output; and, certain nutrients increase the rate of glycolysis, while others slow it down.
Of central importance is the discovery that each person is genetically predisposed to greater or lesser strengths in the divisions of the autonomic nervous system and to greater or lesser rates of oxidation. These genetically-based and environmentally influenced differences help define their biochemical individuality and their metabolic type. The variable influences of these homeostatic controls, that is, the variable strengths and weaknesses, manifest in individual differences that define the metabolic type, for instance in the acid/alkaline balance. They determine both the tendency of an organism towards acidity or alkalinity and they determine
how an organism metabolizes any given nutrient, producing either an acid or alkaline result.
So, first of all we have the fact that a Sympathetic predisposition or one for a Fast Oxidation (meaning: fast conversion of carbohydrates to energy) result in shifts towards acidity, while a Parasympathetic predisposition or a Slow Oxidation result in alkaline shifts. Secondly, and just as significantly, and this is very, very important, the same foods and nutrients that acidify by virtue of their stimulating influence on the autonomic system, will alkalinize through their influence in the oxidative system.
To put it differently: We have several issues at hand.
First, within each homeostatic system, there are opposing, yet complementary influences, each of which influence oppositely the acid/alkaline balance. While the sympathetic branch causes a tendency of the metabolism towards acidity, the parasympathetic causes a leaning towards alkalinity. And while a fast oxidation makes for more acidity, a slow oxidation makes for more alkalinity.
Second, a given nutrient will have an acidifying influence on one homeostatic control system, and an alkalizing influence on the other system. For example, in one metabolic type, potassium will alkalize through acceleration of parasympathetic output, while in another type, potassium will acidify through increasing the rate of glycolysis.
Third, one more very important fact: In any given individual, one or another of the homeostatic control systems will dominate. Either the autonomic system has the stronger impact and determines the influences of nutrients in a given individual, or the oxidative system can exert its impact. Whichever system dominates will determine how nutrients behave in that person, whether they acidify or alkalinize. In other words, it is not the food or nutrient itself that determines acid or alkaline effects in the body, but it is the dominant system influenced by that food that is behind it all and ultimately determines the acid/alkaline result and other reactions to nutrients.
This principle is called The Dominance Factor and was formulated in 1983 by W.L. Wolcott, in his Healthexcel System of Metabolic Typing. The Dominance Factor explains why for any predictable, reliably successful therapy, you must first determine the dominant system and the metabolic type before you can know how nutrients behave in a patient’s metabolism and what will therefore balance body chemistry proving to be your medicine and not your poison! The application of these concepts has been formulated into a specific metabolic typing testing methodology that turned out to be very successful indeed. However, that is another story, perhaps for another time.
To serve as an introduction to these concepts, here are 4 case studies. One of the primary indicators for examination is blood glucose levels as derived from a modified glucose challenge procedure developed by Dr. Harold J. Kristal. The methodology of the test, which anyone can do, is as follows:
- 6 hour (minimum) fast
- Test blood glucose and record [use Johnson & Johnson One-Touch “Basic” Glucose Meter available from most pharmacies]
- Drink 50 grams glucose solution to which is added 3 teaspoons of Cream Of Tartar.
- Wait 30 minutes. Retest blood glucose and record
- Wait another 45 minutes. Retest blood glucose and record
- Wait another 20 minutes. Retest blood glucose and record
* Normal glucose readings during the test are between 80 – 135.
* Readings over 200 may indicate diabetes and below 50 hypoglycemia.
* The ideal/normal/median pattern ranges from 80 to 120 to 100 or 90 to 130 to 110, where 80/90 is the fasting number, taken at start of test before glucose ingestion
– 120/130 is after 30 minutes
– 100/110 is after 45 minutes.
Note that in a normal pattern, regardless of the fasting 1st number, the 3rd reading should be half-way between the first and second readings.
General Interpretations of Test:
The 3rd or 4th (final) number determines high/low blood sugar and indicates blood pH. So, in the following examples, the ideal readings would be 90 to 145 to 118, with the median being 118. Note the 3rd number is halfway between the 1st and 2nd. So, a 3rd score anywhere between 113 and 123 is Balanced/Mixed oxidation.
The closer all 3 numbers are to the ideal, the closer the blood pH is to 7.46.
ACID
90 to 145 to 76 = extreme fast oxidation/acid blood (below 7.46)
90 to 145 to 95 = moderate fast oxidation/acid blood (below 7.46)
90 to 145 to 114 = slight fast oxidation/acid blood (below 7.46)
90 to 145 to 113-117 = Balanced Range (very slight fast oxidation/acid blood (below 7.46)
IDEAL / MEDIAN 90 to 145 to 118
90 to 145 to 119-123 = Balanced Range (very slight slow oxidation/alkaline blood (above 7.46)
90 to 145 to 124 = slight slow oxidation/alkaline blood (above 7.46)
90 to 145 to 143 = moderate slow oxidation/alkaline blood (above 7.46)
90 to 145 to 152 = extreme slow oxidation/alkaline blood (above 7.46)
ALKALINE
Nutritional Protocols:
Based on the results of the testing, subjects were placed on a program of either Group 1 foods and nutrients or Group 2 foods and nutrients. In general, Group 1 involves low fat, low protein (low fat/low purine variety), high complex carbohydrate and high potassium and magnesium relative to calcium in the proprietary metabolic type supplement formula (#1). Conversely, Group 2 involves high fat, high protein (high fat/high purine variety), low complex carbohydrate and high calcium and low potassium and magnesium in the proprietary metabolic type supplement formula (#2).
The interesting phenomena is that in one metabolic group, the Oxidative Dominants:
· Group 1 nutrients increase the oxidation rate, acidify the blood and lower (normalize) the blood sugar (see subject H.D. below), and
· Group 2 nutrients slow the oxidation rate, alkalinize the blood and raise (normalize) the blood sugar (subject L.C.).
However, in the other metabolic group, the Autonomic Dominants, the same nutrients are found to have the exact opposite effects:
· Group 1 alkalinizes the blood and raises (normalizes) blood sugar (subject D. McD.), and
· Group 2 acidifies the blood and lowers (normalizes) blood sugar (subject R.P.).
[Note when R.P. was originally placed on the wrong protocol, that her original blood sugar level was worsened.]
As stated earlier, nutrition is a dual-edged sword. It can improve or worsen imbalances. This illustrates why it is so critical to know the metabolic type, and therefore the effects of nutrients in the metabolism, prior to recommending any therapy. In all four cases, conditions and complaints were resolved. These effects are summarized in the following chart:
AUTONOMIC vs. OXIDATIVE DOMINANCE
| ACID TEST RESULT (Acid Blood) | ALKALINE TEST RESULT (Alkaline Blood) | ||
| SYMPATHETIC Autonomic Dominant | FAST Oxidative Dominant | PARASYMPATHETIC Autonomic Dominant | SLOW Oxidative Dominant |
| Needs Group 1 to Alkalinize | Needs Group 2 to Alkalinize | Needs Group 2 to Acidify | Needs Group 1 to Acidify |
With this in mind, you can review the 4 case histories. Remember, Group 1 and Group 2 protocols are biochemical “opposites.”
#1 ALKALINE – Oxidative Dominant, Slow Oxidizer
| Subject | Date | Start | 30 Min | 30 Min | Median | + / – | Blood pH | Dominance | Type | Protocol |
| H.D. | 4-2-97 | 71 | 121 | 131 | 96 | +35 | alkaline | oxidative | Slow Oxidizer | Group 1 |
| “ | 5-3-97 | 74 | 115 | 91 | 94 | +3 | balanced | oxidative | Slow Oxidizer | Group 3 |
H.D. is a 45-year-old female who presented with beast cancer, obesity, very low energy, digestive problems, fibromyalgia, pains all over body. On the first test, her result was +35 above median, indicating alkaline blood. She was placed on Group 1 nutrients and foods. Upon repeating the testing four weeks later, her result was +3 above median. This moved the pH out of an Alkaline range, into a Balanced range and the protocol (Group 3) for the Mixed (balanced) type was employed. In this case, the Group 1 protocol resulted in an Acid shift.
Contrast this with Case #2 and Case #3 below. Significantly, Case #2 shows that the opposite biochemical protocol, Group 2 can also produce an acidifying effect. Of additional significance, Case #3 shows that Group 1 nutrients can also have an alkalinizing effect – just the opposite effect of that seen in this Case #1.
#2 ALKALINE – Autonomic Dominant, Parasympathetic
| Subject | Date | Start | 30 Min | 30 Min | Median | + / – | Blood pH | Dominance | Type | Protocol |
| R.P. | 5-2-97 | 72 | 103 | 110 | 88 | +22 | alkaline | oxidative | slow | Group 1 |
| “ | 6-3-97 | 74 | 125 | 135 | 100 | +35 | more alkaline | autonomic | parasympathetic | Group 2 |
| “ | 6-13-97 | 94 | 144 | 125 | 119 | +6 | balanced | autonomic | parasympathetic | Group 3 |
62 year old male Ph.D., presenting with digestive problems, low energy, high cholesterol, 10 year old problems that never were helped until now. In this interesting case, on the first test, the result was +22 above median, indicating alkaline blood. The subject was placed on a Group 1 protocol. Upon retesting, the result was +35 above median, indicating that Group 1 did the opposite in this subject compared to the previous subject – Group 1 in this instance, instead of increasing acidity, actually worsened the existing alkaline imbalance. The subject was then placed on Group 2. Upon retesting in just 10 days, the result was +6, a movement of 29 points. Group 2 nutrients had acidified the blood, moving it into a balanced range.
#3 ACID, Autonomic Dominant, Sympathetic
| Subject | Date | Start | 30 Min | 30 Min | Median | + / – | Blood pH | Dominance | Type | Protocol |
| D.McD. | 3-14-97 | 80 | 13 | 80 | 106 | -26 | acid | autonomic | Sympathetic | Group 1 |
| “ | 3-27-97 | 81 | 127 | 108 | 104 | +4 | balanced | autonomic | Sympathetic | Group 3 |
Male physician with digestive and circulatory problems who wanted to get off his heart medication.
#4 ACID, Oxidative Dominant, Fast Oxidizer
| Subject | Date | Start | 30 Min | 30 Min | Median | + / – | Blood pH | Dominance | Type | Protocol |
| L.C. | 2-12-97 | 88 | 122 | 80 | 105 | -25 | acid | oxidative | Fast Oxidizer | Group 2 |
| “ | 2-26-97 | 96 | 136 | 110 | 116 | -6 | acid / balanced | oxidative | Fast Oxidizer | Group 2 |
45 year old businessman, presenting with severe allergies to the point of incapacitation, pains in arms, inability to remember.
Note that in the two above cases, the initial test scores are over 20 points below the median indicating acid blood. Note that in the second test, performed only two weeks later, the blood chemistry moved alkaline.
But, significantly, note that the first case was placed on Group 1 nutrients and that the second case was placed on Group 2 nutrients!
4 Case Histories Summation
These cases illustrate two of Healthexcel’s System of Metabolic Typing Core Premises developed in 1983:
- Any given food or nutrient can produce biochemically opposite results in different metabolic types.
- Any adverse condition can arise from virtually opposite biochemical imbalances.
Case #1 [an oxidative dominant] exhibited an alkaline imbalance that acidified through the use of Group 1 nutrients. The alkaline imbalance that was caused by the ingestion of an overabundance of Group 2 foods and nutrients was alleviated and actually reversed through the use of Group 1 nutrients. In this case, Group 1 nutrients increased the rate of oxidation, which resulted in the acid shift.
Case #2 [an autonomic dominant] also presented with an alkaline imbalance, but when treated with Group 1 nutrients, instead of acidifying like Case #1, the Group 1 nutrients actually worsened the alkaline imbalance. In this case, Group 1 nutrients acted not via the oxidation rate, but via the stimulation of the parasympathetic system which in turn produced the alkalinity. When the Group 2 protocol was employed, the alkalinity that actually deepened through the use of Group 1, reversed
through the use of Group 2 nutrients by stimulating the sympathetic system.
Case #3 [an autonomic dominant like Case #2] presented with an acid imbalance that was reversed – moved alkaline – using Group 1 nutrients. Contrast this with Case #1 where Group 1 nutrients produced an acidifying effect. Whereas Case #1 was an Oxidative Dominant, Case #3 was an Autonomic Dominant. In these two cases the (same) Group 1 nutrients produced biochemically opposite effects.
Case #4 [an oxidative dominant] also presented with an acid imbalance. But, unlike Case #3 who also had an acid imbalance and used Group 1 nutrients to alkalinize body chemistry, Group 2 nutrients were employed to alkalinize the biochemistry. The alkalinizing effect of Group 2 nutrients as seen in this case is in direct contrast with Case #2 where Group 2 nutrients acidified the biochemistry.
From such cases, we’ve seen again and again that no food or nutrient inherently produces an acid or alkaline reaction in the body. Rather, the ultimate acid/alkaline influence is determined by the Fundamental Homeostatic Control System being affected (that is Dominant) in one metabolic type as opposed to the system being affected in another metabolic type. In the first case, the Oxidative system was dominant, causing the nutrients to behave according to the “rules” of the Oxidative system, i.e., Group 1 nutrients and foods acidify the blood in Oxidative Dominants.
But, in the second case, the same Group 1 protocol produced the exact opposite result, because unlike the first case where the Oxidative system was dominant (the dominant system dictates how nutrients behave in the body), the Autonomic system was dominant, which dictated that Group 1 nutrients have an alkalinizing, instead of an acidifying, effect, due to their accelerating influence on the parasympathetic system. Further, whereas Group 2 nutrients are known to alkalinize the blood in an Oxidative dominant, they acidify the blood of an Autonomic dominant.
It should be noted that although only 4 cases are presented in this paper for the purpose of illustration, the same results have been found in thousands of cases. The results are predictable, repeatable, testable and verifiable by anyone. Group 1 and Group 2 nutrients always have the same, predictable influence on autonomic and oxidative dominants – Group 1 nutrients acidify Oxidative Dominants and alkalinize Autonomic Dominants; Group 2 nutrients alkalinize Oxidative Dominants and acidify Autonomic Dominants.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it should not be overlooked that in each case, all adverse conditions resolved, but never were the conditions themselves treated! In every case, only the fundamental homeostatic control systems were addressed. As balance was restored to the homeostatic controls, the underlying causal factors for the various conditions were removed. The person who had the disease was treated, not the disease that had the person. This is the concept that is so hard to grasp at first. When you treat the body at the level of these homeostatic controls, you are treating the pattern level, the level that influences virtually every biochemical process in the body. Once this is understood, it is easier to comprehend how one nutritional formulation can positively impact so many adverse conditions.
By influencing a homeostatic control system, you are influencing every physiological and biochemical process controlled by that system. For example, one would be hard-pressed to list activities in the body not influenced by the autonomic nervous system. And yet, through the knowledge of metabolic typing, we are talking about biochemically influencing the functioning of the nervous system. The beauty, power and elegant simplicity of this approach is truly awesome to comprehend.
Acid Blood vs Alkaline Blood
In the above testing, references are made to acid blood and alkaline blood. The term derives from work originally done by Dr. George Watson. By testing venous plasma pH, he determined that pH changes in venous plasma pH occurred from ingestion of various food groups. In his testing, he found that a pH of 7.46 was the ideal median blood pH. Higher than 7.46 was alkaline; lower than 7.46 was acid. From his research, Watson believed that the blood pH was altered through variations in the oxidation rate, the rate at which nutrients are converted to energy via intermediary carbohydrate metabolism, involving Glycolysis and Citric Acid (Krebs) Cycle. He found that fruits, vegetables and grains and specific nutrients (Group 1) lowered pH and acidified the blood. Other foods, primarily proteins (especially purines) and fats, elevated pH and alkalinized the blood. Watson also found that the closer the pH stayed to 7.46, the greater the health, energy and well-being of the subject.
However, 1) the discovery of The Dominance Factor, 2) validation through objective indicators (Kristal glucose challenge, and venous plasma pH, and 3) validation through empirical evidence as represented by the 4 cases described above, suggest that the influences of foods and nutrients are NOT one-dimensional, neither in terms of their effects on glucose metabolism nor on blood pH. This contention can be observed by anyone willing to replicate the venous plasma pH tests shown in the chart below, “Glucose Challenge vs. Venous Plasma pH.”
Glucose Challenge vs. Venous Plasma pH
GLUCOSE CHALLENGE TEST |
VENOUS PLASMA pH TEST |
|||||||||||||
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | |
| Name | Glucose Test | Med | + / – | Glucose pH Type | Glucose Possible Types | Venous Fasting pH Type | Fruit / Veges Challenge | Protein Challenge | Dominant System | ACTUAL TYPE | ACTUAL TYPE pH | 1st Venous vs Actual pH | ||
| #1 | 67 135 87 | 101 | -14 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.68 | alk | acid | alk | OX | FAST | acid | NO match | |
| #2 | 89 155 86 | 122 | -36 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.44 | acid | acid | alk | OX | FAST | acid | match | |
| #3 | 82 170 110 | 126 | -16 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.46 | ~ | acid | alk | OX | FAST | acid | NO match | |
| #4 | 75 144 85 | 109 | -24 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.44 | acid | alk | acid | AUTO | SYM | acid | match | |
| #5 | 76 153 89 |
114 | -25 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.46 | ~ | alk | acid | AUTO | SYM | acid | NO match | |
| #6 | 74 128 71 |
101 | -30 | acid | Sym / Fast | 7.47 | alk | alk | acid | AUTO | SYM | acid | NO match | |
| #7 | 71 104 141 | 87 | +54 | alk | Para / Slow | 7.44 | acid | alk | acid | AUTO | PARA | alk | NO match | |
| #8 | 87 149 163 | 118 | +45 | alk | Para / Slow | 7.53 | alk | acid | alk | OX | SLOW | alk | match | |
Column B lists the results of the glucose test, i.e., the Start, 30 Minute & 45 Minute readings
Column C lists the Median value derived from adding the 1st and 2nd values and dividing by 2.
Column D lists the value calculated from subtracting the 3rd value from the median.
Column E lists the acid or alkaline blood type derived from the value in Column D. A minus (below median) value indicates acid. A plus (above median) value indicates alkaline.
Column F lists the possible metabolic types based on the result in Column E. Acid blood types are either Sympathetics or Fast Oxidizers. Alkaline blood types are either Slow Oxidizers or Parasympathetics.
Column G lists Fasting venous plasma pH.
Column H lists the acid or alkaline blood type based on a median value of 7.46 – above median is alkaline and below median is acid.
Column I lists the result of a Fruit and a Vegetable challenge. Venous plasma pH was tested 2 hours after ingestion. Fruits and Vegetables always produced the same reaction in each individual so they are listed together in one column. It should be noted that in the Autonomic types (sympathetics and parasympathetics) Fruits/Vegies cause an alkaline result, regardless of the fasting (starting) pH being acid, alkaline or neutral. But, in the Oxidative types, the same foods produce an acid response.
Column J lists the result of a Protein challenge. pH was tested 2 hours after ingestion. It should be noted that in the Autonomic types (sympathetics and parasympathetics) Protein causes an acid result, regardless of the fasting (starting) pH being acid, alkaline or neutral. But, in the Oxidative types, the same foods produce an alkaline response.
Column K indicates the actual Dominant System as determined from the venous plasma pH measurements of the Fruit/Vegies and Protein challenges. Depending which way the pH shifts, Autonomic or Oxidative dominance is known. Fruits and vegetables always acidify the Oxidative Dominants due to the increased CO2 and carbonic acid produced from their oxidation in glycolysis. However, in the Autonomic Dominants, fruits and vegetables always result in an alkaline shift due to their stimulation of the parasympathetic system. Conversely, proteins produce alkalinity in Oxidative Dominants and acidity in Autonomic Dominants.
Column L indicates the Actual Metabolic Type, derived from synthesizing Column F with Column K. Column F lists potential Autonomic and Oxidative types. Column K determines the Autonomic or Oxidative Dominance.
Column M indicates the Actual Type pH based on Column L. Acid types are Fast Oxidizers and Sympathetics. Alkaline types are Slow Oxidizers and Parasympathetics.
Column N compares the 1st (fasting) venous plasma pH (Column H) result with the Actual Type pH (Column M). Most notably, a reliable correlation does exist, indicating that an absolute venous pH value can not be used to reliably determine the dominant metabolic system, i.e., how the body chemistry reacts to foods and nutrients. It does appear, however, that the relative change in venous pH direction (acid/alkaline) that occurs from a controlled biochemical stimulus, will accurately indicate the dominant metabolic system
As regards Venous Plasma pH, significantly, note in the chart above, “Glucose Challenge vs. Venous Plasma pH,” that in Column I, in subjects #1,2,3,8, fruits and vegetables produced an acid shift, while in subjects #4,5,6,7, they produced an alkaline shift. In Column J, in subjects #1,2,3,8, protein produced an alkaline shift, and in subjects #4,5, 6,7, protein produced an acid shift.
As regards the Glucose/Potassium (Cream of Tartar) Challenge, Column E shows that the same challenge resulted in both acid and alkaline shifts, depending on the subject tested. So, we see further evidence that any given nutrient or food can produce different biochemical influences in different metabolic types.
The chart also illustrates a method for analyzing metabolic types. Note that in whatever methodology is used, two things must be determined:
1. The Dominant Fundamental Homeostatic Control System (e.g., autonomic or oxidative). The dominant system must be determined in order to understand the “rules” by which nutrients will behave in the subject’s metabolism. In other words, will potassium be acidifying or alkalinizing? Will animal protein be acidifying or alkalinizing, stimulating or sedating?
2. The Metabolic Classification within the Dominant System (e.g., Fast/Mixed/Slow in the Oxidative System or Sympathetic/Balanced/Parasympathetic in the Autonomic System). Which side of the duality – the biochemical “fence” – one is on must be determined in order to select the proper biochemical “push” required to balance
body chemistry, i.e., Group 1, Group 2, or (in the case of a Balanced/Mixed metabolizer) Group 3 nutrients and foods.
In Column F, the possible Classifications are determined via the results (above or below median) of the glucose challenge, where above median equals the “alkaline types” and below median equals the “acid types.”
Column K indicates the Dominant System based on the results of the food challenges to the venous plasma pH. Remember, the Autonomic and Oxidative responses are opposite to the same food challenges.
So, for example, in subject #1, the glucose result was below median, indicating acid blood, suggesting either a Sympathetic (an autonomic dominant type who thus would require Group #1 nutrients to alkalize or balance body chemistry) or a Fast (an oxidative type who thus would require Group #2 nutrients to alkalize or balance body chemistry).
Column K indicated that the venous pH challenge determined a subject whose system responded according to the oxidative system (fruits/veggies acidified and proteins alkalinized). Therefore, subject #1 is a Fast Oxidative Dominant (as determined from Columns K and F) and thus requires Group 2 as opposed to Group 1 foods and nutrients to balance body chemistry.
Interestingly, neither test by itself, the glucose challenge nor venous pH, is sufficient to determine the Metabolic Type as both the Dominant System as well as the Classification within that system must be accurately determined in order to know for certain how nutrients will behave in any individual’s metabolism.
The reality of the existence of metabolic individuality and the methodology of metabolic typing that has been evolved over the last 14 years, have yielded one other critical principle in HealthExcel’s System of Metabolic Typing: Absolute values in biochemical testing are of little use in defining individual metabolic requirements and prescribing successful nutritional protocols!
Given the reality of metabolic individuality, the concept of lab test “Normal Values” must be reevaluated. A “normal” lab test value for one metabolic type may prove indicative of a pathological value in a different metabolic type. For example, a blood glucose of 85 in a genetic fast oxidizer may indeed be normal, but in a genetic slow oxidizer may result in severe adverse symptoms.
Although methods such as blood tests or bioelectric evaluations can determine organ dysfunction, they reveal nothing concerning what to do about the dysfunction. Organ dysfunction is not the problem, but is a symptom of the true problem – imbalance in biochemistry as reflected in imbalance in one or more fundamental homeostatic control mechanisms. Only by determining the metabolic type will it be known how biochemical substances behave in the metabolism and only then can appropriate protocols be designed since truly one’s food is another’s poison.
Absolute values of lab tests have another inherent problem when employed to determine nutrient protocols: They are a measure of only one of many levels through which the body is organized and in this sense provide a kind of “tunnel vision.” Assessment is of only one level and not necessarily indicative of what might be termed the “overall metabolic style of functioning” – how one person’s metabolism reacts to nutrients as opposed to another’s. For example, if high calcium levels are found in the blood or the hair, which are tissue level substances, it is not necessarily indicative of cellular calcium levels, which is where the (biochemical) action is.
Rather than absolute values, it is the relative changes in values catalyzed through biochemical challenges utilizing substances whose metabolic effects are known that provide the greatest clues for understanding metabolic individuality. For example, the effects of potassium on the fundamental control mechanisms are well-understood. Potassium produces acid changes in the Oxidative Dominants and alkaline changes in the Autonomic Dominants. Proteins produce alkaline shifts in Oxidatives and acid shifts in Autonomics.
Conclusion
Degenerative conditions account for well over 80% of all of the adverse conditions that afflict the peoples of our country. This means that only a little over 1 out of every 10 people that go to doctors have crises or infectious conditions that require – and respond to – allopathic applications. More and more people every year fall prey to degenerative conditions and, sadly, at younger and younger ages. Diseases once viewed as accompaniments to old age are now commonplace in our children. Yet, currently, there is no orthodox cure for any degenerative disease. So-called alternative practitioners, as a group, fare little better. Even those who meet with “success” often find that when the therapy is stopped, the condition returns and no real, lasting healing has taken place. Or they are baffled by the universal phenomena of failing to help the next patient with the same condition with the very protocol that worked so well for the former patient.
We find ourselves trying futilely to absorb the avalanche of research in nutrition that has descended upon us and only promises to gain speed with its ever-increasing volume. What are we to do with this blessing/curse? – the seemingly endless and often contradictory minutia of biochemical research? The problem is that there hasn’t been a reference point, a framework in which to organize and understand the thousands upon thousands of research findings, many of which are outright contradictory in nature. It’s like an enormous jigsaw puzzle that arrives without the picture on the box. How do the pieces fit together? How can we possibly make sense – and make use – of this research? A PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) of nutrition?
Just think about it for a moment. Even if it was possible to know the effects of every single vitamin, mineral, fatty acid, herb, etc., and then to organize it item by item, of what practical use would that be? How would we be any further along? We would still have 100’s or even 1000’s of choices to make for each nutrient. And every day more and more effects are being found for every nutrient known to us, and this will continue ad infinitum. Even so, it is every practitioner’s experience that what works for one patient does not work for another with the same condition.
It should be obvious that the whole thing is one gigantic pool of randomized information that is only growing in complexity. And yet, this is precisely the path that researchers and practitioners are following. The wrong path was chosen and it is leading us deeper and deeper into the dark forest of confusion. The more research uncovers, the less clear the picture becomes. The wrong questions have been and are still being asked. Instead of seeking answers to the effects of biochemical substances on diseases, we need to turn our attention to understanding how nutrients effect individual metabolisms. Instead of thinking in terms of treating disease, we must learn to think in terms of building health and optimizing genetic functional capacity.
But, a change is in the air. We find ourselves at the dawning of a new millennium. And, we find also a dawning of a new understanding about health and disease that holds promise of revolutionizing both research and practical application throughout the healing arts and sciences. With it we will see true healing and health restoration to a level not previously seen in modern times.
The concept of unique individual requirements for nutrition is certainly not an original idea brought forth by HealthExcel, nor even is the term “metabolic typing.”
Writings of the ancient Greek physicians such as Hippocrates give evidence of the recognition of the validity of addressing the needs of the whole person rather than the symptoms of dis-ease. To paraphrase their thinking on the subject, they recognized that different sorts of people had different kinds of maladies. Similar concepts can also be seen in the ancient healing arts in the Far East, e.g., the yin and yang of Chinese medicine, and the correlation of the five elements to individual classifications (called doshas) in the over 5,000 year old Ayurvedic medicine of India.
A revival of this notion of health being dependent on one’s ability to obtain all the nutrients for which one has a genetic requirement is in motion. Dr. Roger Williams, the noted biochemist from the University of Texas, and the discoverer of pantothenic acid, expounded his genetotrophic principle in which he showed that our individual characteristics which are an expression of our uniqueness, are based in our genes and that these genetically inherited differences extend to even the level of the individual cell in determining the rate of individual cellular activity.
According to Dr. Williams, all people are genetically predisposed to specific biochemical needs, which, if not met, lead to degenerative disease. This he termed a person’s biochemical individuality. Decades ago, Dr. Williams advocated the need “… to develop techniques for identifying the inherited pattern of susceptibilities and resistances that is unique to each individual. Call it a `metabolic profile’ or any other name you wish, but plainly it represents a necessary precondition for making rational programs of nutrition, tailored to fit each individual’s special requirements.” That insightful call to common sense given the undeniable reality of metabolic individuality is being addressed through The HealthExcel System of Metabolic Typing. I invite all of you to see for yourselves, as I have, the vision of possibilities afforded through metabolic typing and reap the benefits to both the practice of your science and the good health and well-being of your patients. I promise you that you’ll never be the same again.
I wish you all well, and God-speed in your endeavors.
