Is the Blood Type Diet right for Rh Negative People?


A frequent question that I get is about whether or not the blood type diet is good for us. I am reading articles critical of it still stating the success rate is high. So, there we go … if it works, then work it. If not: Listen to your body.

Dr. D´Adamo himself is type A like me, but if I had to guess, I would say he is rh positive since there is so little info on rh negatives on his site and in his book.

That´s where we come in:

I believe that the key to anything is to listen to your body. Whatever works for you, do it. But don´t listen too much to guidelines from others.
Listen to yourself first.

Please give me some feedback. Feedback can be left below the Youtube video. If you have some information to add, please let me know here:

We, the Rh Negative People!

History of the World through the Eyes of Rh Negative Blood


This is the name of my latest video. You can watch it here:

Is the paleo diet the key to good health?


According to certain proponents of the Paleolithic diet, practitioners should derive about 56–65% of their food energy from animal foods and 36–45% from plant foods. They recommend a diet high in protein (19–35% energy) and relatively low in carbohydrates (22–40% energy), with a fat intake (28–58% energy) similar to or higher than that found in Western diets.

800px-Pork_roast_dinner

The paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet or paleodiet), also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet, is a modern nutritional plan based on the presumed ancient diet of wild plants and animals that various hominid species habitually consumed during the Paleolithic era—a period of about 2.5 million years which ended around 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture and grain-based diets. In common usage, the term “paleolithic diet” can also refer to actual ancestral human diets, insofar as these can be reconstructed.

800px-Sashimi

See what you can eat …

New “The Tech” article claims rh negative blood NOT from Neanderthals


Not too long ago I have posted Were the Neanderthals O negative? and the conclusion was that they could have been, but that there is no proof.

7B8855ad42-cae2-4cc6-8843-b0ce971b9

Now a brandnew article by Dr. Barry Starr from Stanford University claims that the origin of rh negative blood in us couldn´t possibly come from the Neanderthals as the timeline would force the origin to precede their existence.

The article sounds sort of vague and lacks detail. But nonetheless, here it is:

Did Rh- blood come from Neanderthals? I have seen postings on the web that say that it entered human DNA around 35,000 years ago and that seems about right for coming from Neanderthals.

-A curious adult from California

July 9, 2013

If the 35,000 number were right, then this wouldn’t be a bad guess. But that number is almost certainly incorrect. Rh- blood probably arose millions of years ago rather than tens of thousands.

Keep in mind that when I say Rh- here, I mean the form that is common in Europe. This is just one of lots of ways of being Rh-. This means there wasn’t some single event of outbreeding that explains all forms of Rh- blood. Lots of individual specific events have happened over our history.

And even if we do focus just on the form common in Europe, the 35,000 number still doesn’t work. This form predates modern humans settling down in Europe.

One of the big clues that this form of Rh- has been around for a long time is that it is the most common form in Africa as well as Europe. Now I don’t mean it is as common in Africa as it is in Europe. It isn’t. What I do mean is that even though being Rh- isn’t very common in Africa, if you have the blood type, then the most common way is the same in both Africa and Europe.

And don’t just take my word for this. Because there isn’t a lot of information out there about the evolutionary history of Rh- blood, I decided to consult one of the big names in the field, Dr. Bill Flegel of the National Institutes of Health. Here is what he had to say in an email when I asked about the 35,000 number:

35,000 years is very likely incorrect and too recent. The RHD deletion occurred in Africa, almost certainly before anyone migrated out of Africa. Keep in mind that the common RHD deletion worldwide is also *the* prevalent D negative RH haplotype in Africans today. How should that be, if the RHD deletion somehow occurred in connection with groups migrating out of Africa?

What this all means is that it is extremely unlikely that the common form of Rh- blood originated in Neanderthals and then spread into humans through breeding. It simply arose too long ago for this to be true.

This also means that even if we see evidence that Neanderthals had this form of being Rh-, that doesn’t mean we got it from them. A more likely explanation in that case is that we shared common ancestors who had the same form of Rh- blood in their blood.

I should mention that so far we don’t have any evidence either way about the Rh status of Neanderthals (although we do know that some of them had O blood type). The part of the DNA that is involved in Rh status is tricky to read and we haven’t yet been able to figure it out in Neanderthals. But again, even if we do see evidence of this form of Rh- blood in Neanderthals, this doesn’t mean we got it from them.

OK so Rh- blood almost certainly did not come from Neanderthals. It also did not come from aliens or anything else like that. Rh- blood is just another genetic variation like the ones that lead to red hair or blue eyes.

In fact, the gene involved in being Rh-, the RHD gene, is arranged so that DNA differences will spring up more often than in other DNA regions. This is why there are so many different ways to be Rh-.

So the tricky part isn’t explaining how the common Rh- form first arose. It is inevitable that this region of the DNA will turn Rh- every now and then. No the tricky part is explaining how something that can cause problems in pregnancy could become more common in Europe than elsewhere.

The most likely explanation is that being Rh- had some advantage in our past or maybe even today. Another possibility is that being a silent carrier might be useful. In either case, the advantage of being Rh- would outweigh the disadvantage of having problems with having Rh+ babies.

Rh- Spread

It is confusing that the Rh- blood type is as common as it is because it can have such profound effects. If an Rh- mother is pregnant with an Rh+ child, the child is at risk for something called hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN). And each child she has afterwards is at a higher risk.

Nowadays a woman can be given a couple of RhoGAM shots to prevent these problems from happening. But even a hundred years ago this wasn’t an option.

From a biological point of view, if being Rh- had only this effect, then Rh- women should have fewer children. This means that the DNA that leads to being Rh- should be passed down less often. Over time, being Rh- should become less and less common and, perhaps, even disappear.

But this clearly has not happened in Europe. Around 18% of people of European descent are Rh- compared with 1-3% of Africans (see the table at the end of the answer for a more statistics like this). Something weird seems to be going on in Europe.

One possibility is that the Rh- people happened to settle together. If everyone has Rh- blood, then there is no disadvantage to having it. Two Rh- parents are at little risk for an Rh+ baby which means the baby is at little risk for HDN.

There do appear to be some areas of higher concentration in Europe. For example, the Basques of the Pyrenees between Spain and France are 35% Rh-. That is a lot but still, 65% of them Rh+ and nowhere else in Europe is the concentration so high. This means that this is probably not the explanation.

Another possibility is that there is some advantage to having Rh- blood and/or carrying a silent version of it in your DNA. The latter case would make it similar to sickle cell anemia.

People with sickle cell anemia used to die very young in life. This makes it hard to understand why it is so common in certain areas of the world.

The reason it persists is that if you carried a silent version of the gene, you were resistant to malaria. The 1 in 4 chance for the child of two carriers to end up with sickle cell anemia was not as high as the risk of the parents dying from malaria before having kids. So, over time, this gene spread through the population.

We haven’t yet found anything so obvious for Rh- blood but a recent idea is that it may protect from a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii. It doesn’t keep you from getting the parasite, but it might make the effects less severe.

Toxoplasma gondii affects people’s motor skills. For example, it seems to slow down people’s responses so they are more likely to get in car accidents.

A couple of recent studies showed that having one copy of Rh- and one copy of Rh+ protects someone from these effects. In other words, Rh+ people who carry a silent Rh negative copy of the RHD gene may do better in areas with lots of Toxoplasma gondii infections. Like in Europe, for example, where being Rh negative is much more common than other places in the world.

While we may not know the reason for the spread of the most common form of being Rh- in Europe, what we do know is that it did not suddenly appear in humans 35,000 years ago. Most likely it arose in Africa hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.

And what we also know is that Rh- blood will always be around because of how the RHD gene is set up in our DNA. Even if the most common form we have been talking about disappeared, a new Rh- form would take its place. Someone, somewhere will always be Rh-.

More here: Did Rh- blood come from Neanderthals?

Rh negative people are more likely to have car accidents


If you think I´m joking: I´m not!
And the reason is that toxoplasma gondii has a bigger effect on rh negative people.
funny-car-crashes-2

Up to 43% of the French population may be infected, depending on eating habits and exposure to cats, and almost one third of the world human’s population may be infected.

1517587_698831893482118_1265605748_n

Worldwide the number is somewhere around 20-60 percent.

Latent toxoplasmosis, protozoan parasitosis with prevalence rates from 20 to 60% in most populations, is known to impair reaction times in infected subjects, which results, for example, in a higher risk of traffic accidents in subjects with this life-long infection. Two recent studies have reported that RhD-positive subjects, especially RhD heterozygotes, are protected against latent toxoplasmosis-induced impairment of reaction times. In the present study we searched for increased incidence of traffic accidents and for protective effect of RhD positivity in 3890 military drivers.

(More information here: Toxoplasma gondii has a bigger effect on rh negative people)

Recent studies have proven that people who are rh negative are up to 6 times as likely to be affected by this having car accidents than rh positive individuals.

And here is where it gets very interesting:

The high proportion of Rh-negative persons in the European population could be connected with the fact that, until recently, big cats (the definitive host of Toxoplasma gondii) were practically not present here and thus toxoplasmosis was rare (and Rh-negative persons were at an advantage compared to the rest of the population). The low percentage of Rh-negative persons in Africa (less than 1%) could be related to the high prevalence of toxoplasmosis there, which often approaches 100%.

Those who are rh negative Rh -/- are the most affected. Those who are rh positive, but carry the rh negative gene recessivley Rh +/- are the least affected. And those who are purely rh positive Rh +/+ are only slightly better than that of Rh-negative homozygotes (but worsens more slowly) while in rh negative individuals the condition worsens almost immediately.