Metabolic Natures — Core Diagrams

Figure 1 · Chapter 2 — revised 25 September 2026

The Two Axes of Metabolic Nature

Oxidative rate and autonomic tone — two independent axes, three positions on each. You get a reading on each: a direction, a lean and a strength.

Two axes · three positions each · both always reported

Fixed label order — oxidative first, autonomic second

Read from the questionnaire
Not confirmed by any test

Axis 1 · Oxidative — sets the carbohydrate band on the plate

← SlowMixedFast →

E Endurance

The slow end. Lighter, starch-led meals leave you clear and satisfied; rich or heavy protein meals tend to sit heavily; hunger comes back slowly.

Carbohydrate 50–60% of energy

A Adaptive

The middle. Answers did not lean clearly either way — settled near the centre, or divided between both ends. A low-strength reading at either end also starts here.

Carbohydrate 30–50% of energy

C Catalyst

The fast end. Protein- and fat-rich meals hold you steady for hours; starch-led meals with little protein tend to give a lift and then a dip; hunger comes back relatively soon.

Carbohydrate 20–30% · LDL-C/ApoB check

Axis 2 · Autonomic — moves carbohydrate up or down within the band, never sets it

← ParasympatheticBalancedSympathetic →

G Grounded

The parasympathetic end. A tendency toward settling rather than mobilisation: slower to get going, steadier under pressure, quicker to stand down.

Up to 5 points less carbohydrate

Cb Calibrated

The middle. Answers about mobilising and settling did not lean clearly either way — settled near the centre, or divided between both ends.

No adjustment

K Kinetic

The sympathetic end. A tendency toward mobilisation rather than settling: quicker to respond, slower to stand down.

Up to 5 points more carbohydrate

How a reading is written

Both axes, always, oxidative first — each as a direction, a lean and a strength, plus how many questions could be answered. Oxidative: fast, lean 72%, strength 64% · autonomic: parasympathetic, lean 68%, strength 41% — low strength; Catalyst · Grounded (low) as shorthand. A lean of 60% names an end; under that is the middle. Strength under 50% is low, and on the oxidative axis a low-strength reading starts from the middle (Adaptive) plate. Under 70% of questions answered, the reading is provisional. All three cut-offs are clinical judgement, not evidence. Reporting only one number per axis was the original defect: when answers are close, a single answer flips the label, and a flipped label means a different plate. Protein is set from body weight, not from either axis. The autonomic direction (sympathetic toward more carbohydrate) is a current working position, not a finding.

What this figure used to say

A 2×2 matrix placing all six types as points in one plane, with Grounded as "slow oxidiser · sympathetic" and a header reading "genetic layer · does not change". Grounded is an autonomic position and carries no oxidative label; the two axes are read and reported separately; and no genetic claim is made anywhere in this framework. Corrected 8 September 2026.

Oxidative:

Endurance

Adaptive

Catalyst

Autonomic:

Grounded

Calibrated

Kinetic

Figure 2 · Questionnaire and tests — revised 25 September 2026

Long-standing pattern versus current function

The book has this the wrong way round in seven places across three chapters. Chapter 7 is the one exception that states it correctly, and this figure follows Chapter 7. Every location is listed by page in the dated correction.

Long-standing pattern

What the questionnaire reaches for

The way you have run for years — across different diets, jobs and life stages. The thing you recognise when you read it back.

A starting hypothesis, not a measurement. The questionnaire is the closest available proxy for it and nothing more is claimed.

Sets where a protocol begins — the carbohydrate band and its autonomic adjustment.

Not validated against any test, and not claimed to be. No trial has tested whether matching a macronutrient ratio to an axis position improves outcomes.

Instrument

A 26-item scored questionnaire written in-house · direction, lean, strength and coverage reported on both axes

Where they disagree, current function governs

→

Until
the
constraint
clears

Current function

What the tests describe

HPA axis status, thyroid function, mitochondrial efficiency, cofactor availability, gut integrity — what the biochemistry is doing now.

Someone who has run fast for thirty years can present as slow under sustained load. That is a description of the present, not a correction of the pattern.

Governs the protocol wherever the two disagree — for the duration, and until the named constraint clears.

Confirms nothing about the long-standing pattern. No panel has been validated against an axis position.

Panels

DUTCH Plus · GI-MAP · Organic Acids · Regenerus blood chemistry

"Until the constraint clears" only means something if clearing is checkable. The markers that define it are named in advance, in writing, before the protocol starts, with the expected change and the timeframe, and they are retested. Four outcomes, all recorded: the predicted change appears; nothing changes and the constraint is still present; the protocol was not followed, recorded as untested rather than failed; or the constraint clears and the predicted change does not happen. The fourth is the one that counts against the reading, and two cycles of it means reconsidering the reading rather than adding another intervention.

A "Genetic Type versus Functional Type" model: a type fixed at conception by inherited SNPs governing oxidative enzyme efficiency and autonomic receptor density, with the tests revealing the constitution underneath. Removed, not softened. Chapter 7 of the book says sustained HPA dysfunction produces sympathetic indicators on both the questionnaire and the tests — so the tests cannot be the window onto constitution the old model claimed. No SNP panel has been tested against oxidative or autonomic position and none is used here. The blood chemistry line also cited "Randox 300"; blood chemistry is now run through Regenerus. Corrected 8 September 2026.

Figure 3 · Chapter 7 — revised 25 September 2026

The Five Blocking Factor Layers

Why a plate that fits your reading can still not work yet — and the order this practice works in

Blocking Factors — Layers Over the Long-standing Pattern

Outermost layer addressed first · The long-standing pattern is the foundation

Resolution order: 5 → 4 → 3 → 2 → 1

5

Toxic Load & Chronic Infections

Heavy metals, mycotoxins, chronic infections. In this practice's experience, other work tends to stall while these are present.

OAT · Blood Chem

Address first

4

Nutritional Deficiencies

Key cofactors short. Enzyme systems need specific minerals, vitamins and amino acids, and a protocol built on missing cofactors has less to work with.

OAT · Blood Chem

3

HPA Axis Dysregulation

Sustained stress physiology can shift how both the questionnaire and the tests read, so neither is a clean measure while it lasts.

DUTCH Plus

2

Gut Dysfunction

Digestion and absorption impaired. A well-chosen plate does less if it is not digested and absorbed.

GI-MAP

1

Food Sensitivities

Foods that provoke symptoms. In this practice's experience these are often secondary to gut function and the list tends to shorten as layers 2–5 are addressed.

GI-MAP · Food Sens

Address last

Foundation

Your Metabolic Nature

Oxidative and autonomic readings — the long-standing pattern the blocking factor layers can obscure. Clearing the layers is what makes both the questionnaire and the tests more trustworthy. No genetic claim is made here.

Resolution Sequence

5

Toxic load and chronic infections first. They add noise that makes the other readings harder to interpret.

4

Nutrient shortfalls next. Enzyme cofactors, minerals, fat-soluble vitamins.

3

Stress physiology. While it is active, the reading on either axis is provisional.

2

Gut function. Digestion, absorption and the microbiome.

1

Food reactions last. Often secondary to gut function; the list tends to shorten as earlier layers are addressed.

Many functional nutrition approaches address food sensitivities first; in this sequence they come last. Evidence grade for the sequence itself: clinical observation. No trial has compared this resolution order against any other. It is how this practice works and why; it is not a tested claim.

The TDG Connection

Each layer has a TDG test that looks at part of it: Layers 4 & 5 → OAT + Blood Chemistry. Layer 3 → DUTCH Plus. Layer 2 → GI-MAP. Layer 1 → Food Sensitivity panel. Running them together gives one picture at one point in time; no panel covers a layer completely.