Start Here TDG Five-Test Programme Resilient Gut System Stress Programme Consultation — £145 Movement & Training AIdan Concierge Products Blog Learn Clinical Diagrams Resources Beyond the Mainstream Book a Call
Corrections · Metabolic Natures

Correction —
Chapter 6

Posted 2 September 2026. Applies to all printed editions of Metabolic Natures to date. Undated corrections are not corrections, so this one carries its date and stays here permanently.

The Correction

Chapter 6 has the questionnaire
and the tests the wrong way round.

Chapter 6 of the book states that the questionnaire measures your current functional expression, and that the functional tests reveal the constitutional type underneath it.

That is the wrong way round, and the book contradicts itself on the point. Chapter 7 states that sustained HPA axis dysfunction produces sympathetic indicators on both the questionnaire and the functional tests. If prolonged stress distorts the tests as well, the tests cannot be the window onto constitution that Chapter 6 claims them to be.

Chapter 7 is the one that is right. The questionnaire is the closest available proxy for long-standing constitutional pattern — a starting hypothesis, not a measurement. The tests describe what your biochemistry is doing now. Where the two disagree, current function governs the protocol until the constraint clears.

This is not a change of position. It is Chapter 6 being brought into line with Chapter 7 and with the clinical software, which has always applied the constitutional template first and overridden it from test findings in a stated order of precedence.

A fourth edition is not currently planned. Until one is published, this site is authoritative where it and the book disagree, and corrections are posted here with the date they were made.

"Anyone holding the book can read Chapters 6 and 7 and confirm the contradiction for themselves. That is the difference between a correction and a quiet rewrite."

Also Corrected

What changed on the website
on 8 September 2026

1. The six names are positions on two axes, not six kinds of person

The site previously presented six discrete types, each with a code, and assigned you one of them. It now reports both axes, always — a dominance and a subdominance, each with a percentage, in the fixed order oxidative first and autonomic second.

Why. Reporting only the stronger of the two axes means that when the two are close, a one-point change to a single questionnaire answer flips the reported result — and a flipped result means a different food guide. Under simulation with uniformly random answers, a single one-point change moved the reported Nature in around 40% of cases and moved it across axes entirely in around 20%. Real answers are correlated, so the true rate is lower, but the structural problem does not depend on the simulation: comparing two continuous magnitudes with no dead zone makes near-ties unavoidable, and a near-tie is a coin flip. Showing both numbers removes the flip instead of hiding it.

Endurance, Adaptive and Catalyst are the three oxidative positions. Grounded, Calibrated and Kinetic are the three autonomic ones. The vocabulary in the book is unchanged; what changed is that a name is now a position and a percentage rather than an identity.

2. The calcium:phosphorus ratio has been removed

It reached this framework through hair tissue mineral analysis. In HTMA it is a hair measure read as an autonomic ratio, with around 2.6 taught as ideal and a high ratio taken to indicate parasympathetic dominance. The site had it as a serum marker of fast oxidation above 2.5:1 — wrong specimen, wrong axis, wrong direction, and a threshold sitting closer to the middle of the range than to either edge, which would have classified roughly everyone above average as a fast oxidiser.

It has never been tested against macronutrient response in any case, and the underlying measurement has a reproducibility problem that comes before any question of interpretation: in 2001 JAMA published a study in which one hair sample, split between the six commercial laboratories handling most US samples, returned between-laboratory differences exceeding tenfold for twelve minerals, with nearly every mineral classified high, normal or low differently depending on the lab. Seidel et al., JAMA 2001;285(1):67–72.

There is a fair objection that laboratories differ on washing protocol and sampling site, and that this explains some of the variance. It does — and it makes the interpretive problem worse rather than better, because it means a threshold is specific to one laboratory's protocol and is not transferable to another lab, let alone to blood.

3. The eosinophil:basophil pattern has been removed

Presented as an autonomic indicator. A PubMed search on 7 September 2026 for eosinophil and basophil with ratio and autonomic, sympathetic or parasympathetic returned four papers, none of which uses an eosinophil:basophil ratio as an index of anything. Scope stated so it can be challenged: PubMed only, English-language indexing. A claim can exist outside PubMed — but a claim presented as established that returns nothing in the principal biomedical index under any framing tried is not established.

4. "Test-confirmed" has been removed, and so has the genetic-baseline claim

The sales page was headed Six Types. One Framework. Test-Confirmed. No test confirms an axis position, because no test has been validated against one. The tests describe current function — which is useful, and which changes protocols, but is not confirmation.

A section also stated that SNPs governing oxidative phosphorylation and beta-oxidation establish a constitutional baseline. No SNP panel has been tested against oxidative or autonomic position, none is used here, and the claim has been removed rather than softened.

5. What counts as the constraint clearing is now stated

"Current function governs until the constraint clears" only means something if clearing is checkable. The markers that define the constraint are named in advance, in writing, before the protocol starts, with the expected change and the timeframe. They are retested. Three outcomes are possible, and the third is the one that matters: the constraint clears and the picture shifts as predicted; the constraint does not clear; or the constraint clears and the expected shift does not happen. The third is a stated possible outcome and it counts against the framework.

← Back to Metabolic Natures