Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

For young women dedicated to low carb

saintor1
saintor1 Posts: 376 Member
edited November 24 in Debate Club
Beware.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5309613/Low-carb-diets-linked-risk-birth-defects.html
  • Women on low carb diets may be at 30 percent greater risk of having a baby with a spinal and neurological birth defect, according to a new study
  • These diets, including the Keto diet beloved by Kim Kardashian - whose children were all born health - forces the body to burn fat by depriving it of carbs
  • New research from the University of North Carolina found that women on low carb diets also had low folic acid levels
  • Folic acid is key to the development of a fetus's spine and skull
«1

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    Thanks for the original.

    Here are another bit of info from it. that seems relevant;
    There were no differences in BMI, smoking, prenatal vitamin, and/or folic acid supplement use,

    Just tracking folic acid supplement use isn't going to give the whole picture as to whether this is folic acid-related. It's possible that people who aren't on ketogenic diets have a better shot at meeting their folic acid needs through diet and that could be the key difference here once supplement use is taken out of the picture.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    Thanks for the original.

    Here are another bit of info from it. that seems relevant;
    There were no differences in BMI, smoking, prenatal vitamin, and/or folic acid supplement use,

    The full quote that includes your quote:

    "Compared to women with nonrestricted carbohydrate intake, women with restricted intake were more likely to be older, non-Hispanic white, born in the United States, have more years of education, and have higher household income (Table 1). They were also more likely to have consumed alcohol in early pregnancy, and to have planned their pregnancy. There were no differences in BMI, smoking, prenatal vitamin, and/or folic acid supplement use, or number of previous pregnancies. "

    I believe what that is saying is that woman eating low carb were no more or less likely to use a folic acid supplement, not that a supplement did nothing to help if a woman was eating low carb.
  • aeloine
    aeloine Posts: 2,163 Member
    edited January 2018
    kimny72 wrote: »
    saintor1 wrote: »
    Thanks for the original.

    Here are another bit of info from it. that seems relevant;
    There were no differences in BMI, smoking, prenatal vitamin, and/or folic acid supplement use,

    The full quote that includes your quote:

    "Compared to women with nonrestricted carbohydrate intake, women with restricted intake were more likely to be older, non-Hispanic white, born in the United States, have more years of education, and have higher household income (Table 1). They were also more likely to have consumed alcohol in early pregnancy, and to have planned their pregnancy. There were no differences in BMI, smoking, prenatal vitamin, and/or folic acid supplement use, or number of previous pregnancies. "

    I believe what that is saying is that woman eating low carb were no more or less likely to use a folic acid supplement, not that a supplement did nothing to help if a woman was eating low carb.

    Yes.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    @aeloine You and I seem to read at the same speed :lol:
  • aeloine
    aeloine Posts: 2,163 Member
    edited January 2018
    @kimny72 I was just thinking that!

  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,374 Member
    Also in the actual study:

    "An alternative interpretation of our results is that the observed association between restricted carbohydrate intake and NTDs is mediated at least in part by caloric restriction or poor diet quality in general, which have been previously associated with NTDs (Carmichael, Shaw, Schaffer, Laurent, & Selvin, 2003; Carmichael, Yang, & Feldkamp, 2012; Sotres-Alvarez et al., 2013; Suarez, Felkner, Brender, & Canfield, 2012). "
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    So basically, inadequate folic acid intake is bad? That's been known for a very long time and it's been recommended women trying to get pregnant should supplement regardless of dietary choices.

    Yes, this.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    From the study:

    "Mean dietary intake of folic acid among women with restricted carbohydrate intake was less than half that of other women (p < .01), and women with restricted carbohydrate intake were slightly more likely to have an infant with an NTD (AOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.67)."

    From the Science Daily article: "Folic acid is an essential nutrient that minimizes the risk of neural tube defects. More than 20 percent of women in the U.S. have blood folate concentrations below the recommended level to reduce risk of neural tube defects. For this reason, in 1998 the Food and Drug Administration began requiring that folic acid be added to enriched grain products. Desrosiers and her study collaborators found that dietary intake of folic acid among women with restricted carbohydrate intake was less than half of other women.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that all women who may become pregnant take a daily multivitamin with at least 400 micrograms of folic acid every day before and during pregnancy. However, because almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, many women do not initiate folic acid supplementation until later in pregnancy, after a neural tube defect may have occurred. This makes fortified foods an important source of folic acid for women who may become pregnant."
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    aeloine wrote: »
    So BECAUSE women restricted their carbs and did NOT take supplements, their folic acid levels were lower.

    That's a stretch and it is not what it said.

    If the culprit could have been the acid folic only, it is pretty much obvious that they would have reported a link with these defects and the lack of acid folic, not the low carb as they reported.

    Instead of "Low carbohydrate diets may increase risk of neural tube defects", it would have been something like "Low acid folic may increase risk of neural tube defects"


    Not only is that not a jazzy headline, as kimny said, it's well-known and not a subject of research. The importance of folic acid for pregnant women (and women who may become pregnant) is already conclusively established.

    The connection between low carbing and women (who become pregnant unplanned or otherwise without having started supplements) being deficient for the purposes of pregnancy is what this seems to be about. Important for someone low carbing with the potential/likelihood of becoming pregnant to supplement, IMO (or be very careful with the diet, but supplementation is recommended for anyone trying to get pregnant).
  • saintor1
    saintor1 Posts: 376 Member
    edited January 2018
    -

This discussion has been closed.

Categories