Low carb and breastfeeding
Replies
-
But doing LC and being concerned about milk production or whatever possible consequences when you're in full control of the situation, is just silly. . that is something you can absolutely control assuming there are no medical conditions involved.
Exactly what are you running scared of ? An LC mother has pretty similar blood sugars to a healthy carb eating mother for many hours per day so the breast tissue can do its stuff exactly the same way the brain does.
http://www.drbriffa.com/2009/05/08/higher-fat-rather-than-high-carb-diet-appears-to-have-benefits-for-nursing-mothers-and-their-babies/ cites Mohammad MA, et al. Effect of dietary macronutrient composition under moderate hypocaloric intake on maternal adaptation during lactation. Am J Clin Nutr (22 April 2009).0 -
Maybe a more extreme example might help you see my logic. It's like saying "I AM GOING TO GO SMOKE CRYSTAL METH AND BREAST FEED."
You're making a choice, that has "possible risks." More than likely it's okay(which you guys are saying). Which I believe, the diet is more than likely okay. But there is no solid hard core evidence that states it's okay.
Why take that risk? For the OP there is "NO REASON AT ALL" to even do that. There isn't any research that says it's perfectly safe for child and MOTHER.
Like your methyl mercury red herring earlier, crystal meth is an inherently dangerous substance. We don't need special studies on the effects of crystal meth on a baby, because we already have a laundry list of effects on the person using it. Pseudoephedrine, one of the key ingredients in meth, and the active ingredient in the now-behind-the-counter formula for Sudafed, have been found to have a defect rate roughly three times that of acetominophen and ibuprofen, and has been shown to cross into the milk. The fact that even hard drugs like meth don't always result in harm to the baby is testament to level of efficiency by which the body can filter such substances. http://www.drugs.com/pregnancy/pseudoephedrine.html
Again, you're comparing apples to bowling balls, here. A low carb diet is not the same as taking a controlled or illegal substance. We're eating low carb, high fat, here, not drinking bleach.
Try again.0 -
You're still missing my point. her "CHOICE" isn't the best decision. She can go and starve her self and be fasting. According to most people's logic on this discussion, "HEY ITS OKAY, OTHER PEOPLE DO IT, THE BABY WILL BE FINE" as i said, the issue is not only about the child also about the mother. Once again what i originally said is, "Why risk it?"
This is the main question, "WHY?" is she doing this? Completely unnecessary under the current circumstances. She "CAN"(not saying she will) put herself at risk if not the child as well. This should address yarwells comment as well, there is more to it than healthy blood sugars levels.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports the idea that there is any more risk continuing to eat low carb while breast feeding than there would be to try and change the macronutrient balance to a lower fat and higher carb macronutrient balance. If you'd care to present some actual risks, that would be nice. There have been several studies posted where low-carb high-fat was shown to be nutritionally adequate for mother and child. You haven't posted any studies to the contrary.
There is probably a greater risk for production issues if the mother tries to make a major change in how she's eating, as her body has to cope with the changes and readjust everything. Assuming there's no nutrient deficiencies in her current diet, the best thing to do would be to make no changes. If there are, the best thing to do would be to try and address those while changing as little as possible. Major changes would be the most risky thing a breast feeding mother could do.0 -
Sorry to have started a debate! So far so good. In fact, I have been pumping more milk than I was previously (though that could also be contributed to better hydration), and the milk is fattier. Although I am able to directly nurse my toddler, my infant has a few issues that make her breast feeding unsuccessful at the moment, so I have to pump for her. As far as risk goes IMO this is minimal. I am physically removing, measuring and feeding the milk. I am not left to wonder if she is getting enough. I didn't undertake this lightly, or without thought. I had an ample supply in the freezer should things not work out. I know exactly how much she is consuming, and I am attentive enough to know if something isn't right. So to me, the risk of LC was minimal compared to the many risks of being morbidly obese. The risk of my children not having a mother if I continued down the same path.
Anyway, thank you to the intelligent well researched folks who gave knowledgeable (non-fear mongering) advice and information. It was very appreciated.0 -
Okay I see, the statement "The risk of my children not having a mother if I continued down the same path." is about weight loss. You're more concerned about weight loss. As already said in the above post, you might just end up with an obese baby due to the higher fat content. But hey, the risks are minimal, no worries, and there is no evidence to support the long terms effects of what you're doing on babies. The study was 8 days long.
Weight loss can also be about health, especially for women. Obesity can severely screw with our hormones to the point that it causes syndromes that lead to increases in other risk factors, including cardiovascular disease and more than one type of cancer. Additionally, the actual, documented risks of diet to mother and baby almost always point back to elevated insulin levels. That is what is known to cause long-term problems.I am not comparing apples to bowling balls. It boils down about making a decision. If I was a mother nursing a child, I would do "Everything I CAN" to ensure things are well for the child. Not be doing things that are questionable. That's the bottom line of all this.
Meth isn't even in the realm of "questionable." It's unequivocally bad. There's no point in even bringing it up, let alone comparing it to changing one's diet while breastfeeding.
Also, you have yet to point out exactly what toxins are inherently in a LCHF diet that aren't in a standard Western diet. Or, for that matter, any concrete, testable ways that a LCHF diet is in any way worse, nutritionally speaking, than said Western diet.Thanks for the link it's very informative in terms of supporting what I originally said, but dragonwolf(forgot her user name i think that's right) kind of convinced me, after reading that article made me think back my original statement.
My original thought was diet does affect the milk. Which that article states clearly. What you eat does effect the milk. This was my original view. The higher fat diet produced milk with higher fat content. Milk is a mixture of macro nutrients. I messed up there thinking about a single compound(comparing it to water) which milk is not. This why I got convinced.
So obviously diet does effect the milk. The milk is now higher energy(has more fat). What are the effects on infants on high fat diets? Who knows I would like to see some research on this. Since everyone "thinks" it's okay.
It also appears the infant can become over weight, that's just common sense. I do support keto, but in terms of liquids? Questionable, a lot easier to consume more calories in liquid form than solid form.
So, which is it? Is the baby going to starve or be obese? You're clearly grasping at straws. Provide something concrete, instead of just running around like Chicken Little, spreading FUD, and ignoring the extensive studies we've posted here (hint, there are more than just anything that was "8 days long"). Entire societies have thrived off LCHF diets, for countless generations.
Also, did you actually look at that study that you criticized for going on for only 8 days, then used to claim that the infant would get obese? I doubt it. Otherwise you would have seen that the difference is about 35 calories per feeding (about 3 grams of fat). A growing infant is not going to get obese off of that. That will go to body and brain growth (the brain, after all, is made of fat and cholesterol). Another point of interest? The carbohydrate content of the milk was the same between the low carb and the high carb maternal diets (ie - while the percentage of energy from carbs technically goes down, the infant actually gets the same amount of carbs).
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/6/1821/T2.expansion.html
Even comparing the mother on a high fat diet vs a low fat diet is specious, because young children need fat to grow properly, and humans in general need fat to absorb nutrients and regulate hormones, among a myriad of other things. Even conventional pediatrics knows this (hence the recommendation for whole milk before age 2). This is in part due to the fact that a low-fat diet deprives any person of the ability to absorb and properly utilize several vitamins and minerals, not to mention that it screws with hormone regulation.
Here's another paper, with a couple dozen citations (which in turn have a few dozen citations each) about the benefits of properly nourishing both mom and baby -- http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/nourishing-a-growing-baby/
The important part is getting enough nutrients in general. A low-fat diet doesn't work, because as I said, it inherently deprives the body of its ability to absorb fat-soluble nutrients. A LCHF diet, however, provides ample energy substrate and the fats needed to get adequate energy and be able to absorb the nutrients in the food. You can fit a lot of vegetables into 20-50g of carbs (even total, let alone net), so micronutrients are also a non-issue.0 -
Mom’s diet? The research tells us that mom’s diet does not affect the average amount of fat or calories in her milk. However, mom can change the types of fat in her milk by altering the types of fats that she eats (Lawrence 1999, p. 106-113, 300-305; Hamosh 1996, Hamosh 1991, p. 123-124). An increase of one fatty acid could generally be expected to occur concurrently with a decrease in another...
The degree of emptiness of the breast is what research has shown to drive breastmilk fat content, and thus calorie content. The fuller the breast, the lower the fat content of the milk; The emptier the breast, the higher the fat content of the milk (Daly 1993)...
The research tells us that baby’s milk intake (the volume of milk – not the amount of fat in that milk) is the only thing that has been correlated with infant growth in exclusively breastfed babies. As noted earlier, average fat content of human milk is highly variable, but has not proven to be significant when calculating baby’s total energy intake or weight gain. (Aksit 2002, Butte 1984, Cregan 1999, Mitoulas 2003, Mitoulas 2002.)...
http://kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/change-milkfat/
The bottom of the page lists the studies that she cites. This site in itself has a wealth of information on all aspects on breastmilk and feeding.
So to recap. The fat percentage is variable per feed. Diet changes the kinds of fat, not the amounts, and it is the volume of milk that correlates positively with infant growth.
And I shall also add this, because it is something important to realize:If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.--Bertrand Russell
Pu, you've been given ample evidence. Perhaps you remain unconvinced, not because ample evidence hasn't been supplied, but because your personal myth is being challenged. Just a thought.
0 -
An OBESE BABY BECAUSE OF HIGHER FAT CONTENT OF BREASTMILK?! Seriously?Sorry to have started a debate! So far so good. In fact, I have been pumping more milk than I was previously (though that could also be contributed to better hydration), and the milk is fattier. Although I am able to directly nurse my toddler, my infant has a few issues that make her breast feeding unsuccessful at the moment, so I have to pump for her. As far as risk goes IMO this is minimal. I am physically removing, measuring and feeding the milk. I am not left to wonder if she is getting enough. I didn't undertake this lightly, or without thought. I had an ample supply in the freezer should things not work out. I know exactly how much she is consuming, and I am attentive enough to know if something isn't right. So to me, the risk of LC was minimal compared to the many risks of being morbidly obese. The risk of my children not having a mother if I continued down the same path.
Anyway, thank you to the intelligent well researched folks who gave knowledgeable (non-fear mongering) advice and information. It was very appreciated.
Okay I see, the statement "The risk of my children not having a mother if I continued down the same path." is about weight loss. You're more concerned about weight loss. As already said in the above post, you might just end up with an obese baby due to the higher fat content. But hey, the risks are minimal, no worries, and there is no evidence to support the long terms effects of what you're doing on babies. The study was 8 days long.
Do you realize babies NEED fat...which is exactly why its recommended if you give your child cows milk to give them whole milk until they're 2?!
0 -
While the forums were down, I had a detailed reply typed up for Pu. Part of it was in response to a post which has vanished (not sure where it went). I've realized that it's just not worth the effort. If someone is determined to avoid changing their mind, there's little point in trying to change it for them.0
-
While the forums were down, I had a detailed reply typed up for Pu. Part of it was in response to a post which has vanished (not sure where it went). I've realized that it's just not worth the effort. If someone is determined to avoid changing their mind, there's little point in trying to change it for them.
http://xkcd.com/386/
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »While the forums were down, I had a detailed reply typed up for Pu. Part of it was in response to a post which has vanished (not sure where it went). I've realized that it's just not worth the effort. If someone is determined to avoid changing their mind, there's little point in trying to change it for them.
http://xkcd.com/386/
LOL!
0
