Low-Carb Kids?

CharlieLopez2005

A quick Google search yields a lot of websites advising against the use of low-carb diets for children and teens, unless a child is severely overweight. Haven't really seen any in favor. The tenor of these against-arguments seems to be that carbohydrates are somehow essential to normal child development, but from what I understand, unlike proteins and fats, there are no "essential' carbohydrates. A lot of these websites also talk about other nutrients associated with carbs, but none of these nutrients seem to be unique to carbs themselves.

Of the 40 or 50 nutrition and diet books I've read, haven't seen or read too many specific studies on low-carb diets for kids, except that it's one alternative for overweight and obese kids. I'm not a parent myself, but my wife and I discuss how to think about children's nutrition as we do some family planning. So I was wondering your thoughts, for and against?

If low-carb is advisable when a kid is overweight or obese, why couldn't such an approach be adapted to prevent a child from becoming overweight or obese in the first place?

In full disclosure, I'm obviously biased toward a low-carb approach. I've done pretty well with a low-carb diet (-120 lbs & -30% body fat in 12 months so far) and it's been life-changing to the say the least.

ChrisWag

I too live low carb and to a degree I have my son eat this way. I just try to limit the "bad carbs" that I feed him. He is very aware of healthy food. Raising him healthy is what is most important.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Kids do not need their macros monitored. As stated earlier today they need a balanced diet filled with love.

lor007

Maybe you should consult a doctor or nutritionist about your imaginary child's diet.

MrsCon40

Children should be raised to eat a variety of healthy, whole foods. It's about creating a positive relationship with food. Raising them to think carbs should be limited (because they are "bad") is not a good foundation.

There is a reason why you can't find sources to support this.

cmiles23

Maybe you should consult a doctor or nutritionist about your imaginary child's diet.

YES!!!! maybe you should wait until after you actually have children, provide them with healthy foods but counting their macros is ridiculous unless they already have a weight problem!

LabRat529

Please don't. Children are still developing. Their brains are still forming synapses, making connections, processing info. I don't have time to dig up info on this, but I'm pretty sure that a low-carb diet would be detrimental to children trying to learn. It's going to hinder their ability to focus.

An obese child has fat reserves that can be used to provide the glucose needed by the brain. A healthy-weight child does not have those reserves.

Now... a diet low in refined carbs would probably be fine, beneficial even. Just don't cut them all out.

Brains love glucose. They will function most optimally when there's a nice supply of it.

auctoritas

Check out paleo for kids, rather than low carb. There are several blogs about it.

Edit: here's an interesting one: http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/paleo-baby.html

mltdown

People should be a little nicer about this. With that said, I raise my children to eat exactly what I do, and I eat low carb. They are 2 and 3, they eat low carb but I never say food is bad in any way. We don't talk about weight, I don't tell them to eat their vegetables, they just do because they don't know anything else. Yes, my children are at a normal weight I am not depriving them of any nutrition. Since I count what I eat I can kind of monitor their intake more or less. If more people ate clean with their children and didn't act like it was a chore to eat vegetables and fish maybe less children would be obese.

Elisirmon

Planning for the future is always good but the best thing for children is to eat healthy low processed foods and be encourage to play outside which will benefit your child and you. Spend time together besides going out to eat! I have four kids and they are all very active and very slim kids but I try to raise them how I was raised with home cooked meals and lots of veggies and fruits. Then we spend time outside everyday playing or hiking or doing yard work TOGETHER.

Gigi_licious

Have you & your wife consideredteaching your child that everything is ok in moderation so they don't get all rebellious and binge on the "not allowed" foods behind your back leading to a possible E.D.?

joejccva71

I am unable to give an honest and informative response to this thread because I have to follow Terms of Service on this site and forum.

LabRat529

Here... I took a few minutes to do some digging even though I really should be doing other things.

Metabolism. 2009 Sep;58(9):1356-65. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
Glucose metabolism in children: influence of age, fasting, and infectious diseases.
Zijlmans WC, van Kempen AA, Serlie MJ, Sauerwein HP.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19501855

And because I'm guessing you can't get the whole article, I'll quote from it.

Glucose is one of the major fuels to meet the energy requirements of the human body. In the healthy individual, the amount of glucose produced is regulated to the need of the body and more in particular to the need of its major user, the brain. Although the brain can also use lactate, ketone bodies, and certain amino acids, its primary fuel is glucose [1]. During fasting, more than 90% of its energy is provided by glucose, making the brain highly vulnerable to alterations in the plasma glucose level [2]. The child's developing brain is more susceptible to hypoglycemia compared with the adult brain [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Recurrent hypoglycemia may result in permanent neurologic damage [4], [5] and [6]. It is therefore imperative to prevent the occurrence of hypoglycemia in children.

CharlieLopez2005

Please don't. Children are still developing. Their brains are still forming synapses, making connections, processing info. I don't have time to dig up info on this, but I'm pretty sure that a low-carb diet would be detrimental to children trying to learn. It's going to hinder their ability to focus.

An obese child has fat reserves that can be used to provide the glucose needed by the brain. A healthy-weight child does not have those reserves.

Now... a diet low in refined carbs would probably be fine, beneficial even. Just don't cut them all out.

Brains love glucose. They will function most optimally when there's a nice supply of it.

Clinical studies concluding that low-carb "would be detrimental to children trying to learn" or "hinder their ability to focus" would definitely be something I'd be interested in reading.

gp79

I let my kids tell me when they've had enough. Seems to work just fine.

LabRat529

Clinical studies concluding that low-carb "would be detrimental to children trying to learn" or "hinder their ability to focus" would definitely be something I'd be interested in reading.

You know what? I can't find any specifically about that, so my guesses could be wrong. BUT I also can't find any studies demonstrating it's okay. The only studies I found that showed a low-carb diet was beneficial in children were studies on childhood obesity, childhood diabetes, with children who are epileptic, or with children who have a GLUT1 (Glucose 1) transporter defect.

Do you want to chance it? If you don't know that it's okay, why would you risk it? Especially when it's WELL ESTABLISHED that glucose is the optimal fuel for neurons.

Edited to add: I study Alzheimer's disease in the adult brain. I don't know a ton about the child's brain. So my guesses are 'educated guesses' but I they are still guesses. This is not my area of expertise.

killerqueen17

Please don't. Children are still developing. Their brains are still forming synapses, making connections, processing info. I don't have time to dig up info on this, but I'm pretty sure that a low-carb diet would be detrimental to children trying to learn. It's going to hinder their ability to focus.

An obese child has fat reserves that can be used to provide the glucose needed by the brain. A healthy-weight child does not have those reserves.

Now... a diet low in refined carbs would probably be fine, beneficial even. Just don't cut them all out.

Brains love glucose. They will function most optimally when there's a nice supply of it.

Clinical studies concluding that low-carb "would be detrimental to children trying to learn" or "hinder their ability to focus" would definitely be something I'd be interested in reading.

This is not specifically about children, but it's possible that findings may be generalizable to populations other than adult women (the study participants):

To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n = 9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n = 10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior.

Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets. Effects on cognition and mood

Kristen E. D’Ancia, b, Kara L. Wattsa, Robin B. Kanareka, Holly A. Taylora,
a Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02148, United States
b Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, United States
Received 8 January 2008; revised 31 July 2008; Accepted 25 August 2008. Available online 29 August 2008.

CharlieLopez2005

Clinical studies concluding that low-carb "would be detrimental to children trying to learn" or "hinder their ability to focus" would definitely be something I'd be interested in reading.

You know what? I can't find any specifically about that, so my guesses could be wrong. BUT I also can't find any studies demonstrating it's okay. The only studies I found that showed a low-carb diet was beneficial in children were studies on childhood obesity, childhood diabetes, with children who are epileptic, or with children who have a GLUT1 (Glucose 1) transporter defect.

Do you want to chance it? If you don't know that it's okay, why would you risk it? Especially when it's WELL ESTABLISHED that glucose is the optimal fuel for neurons.

Edited to add: I study Alzheimer's disease in the adult brain. I don't know a ton about the child's brain. So my guesses are 'educated guesses' but I they are still guesses. This is not my area of expertise.

There was an article by Emily Deans, MD, from Psychology Today that I bookmarked awhile ago that seemed to suggest that the brain and body might actually function better on ketones (i.e. in the absence or restriction of carbs) instead of glucose: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201104/your-brain-ketones

... Doesn't sound to me like glucose really is the preferred fuel for the brain after all....Ketosis for the body means fat-burning (hip hip hooray!). For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.

mltdown

Clinical studies concluding that low-carb "would be detrimental to children trying to learn" or "hinder their ability to focus" would definitely be something I'd be interested in reading.

You know what? I can't find any specifically about that, so my guesses could be wrong. BUT I also can't find any studies demonstrating it's okay. The only studies I found that showed a low-carb diet was beneficial in children were studies on childhood obesity, childhood diabetes, with children who are epileptic, or with children who have a GLUT1 (Glucose 1) transporter defect.

Do you want to chance it? If you don't know that it's okay, why would you risk it? Especially when it's WELL ESTABLISHED that glucose is the optimal fuel for neurons.

Edited to add: I study Alzheimer's disease in the adult brain. I don't know a ton about the child's brain. So my guesses are 'educated guesses' but I they are still guesses. This is not my area of expertise.

There was an article by Emily Deans, MD, from Psychology Today that I bookmarked awhile ago that seemed to suggest that the brain and body might actually function better on ketones (i.e. in the absence or restriction of carbs) instead of glucose: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201104/your-brain-ketones

... Doesn't sound to me like glucose really is the preferred fuel for the brain after all....Ketosis for the body means fat-burning (hip hip hooray!). For the brain, it means a lower seizure risk and a better environment for neuronal recovery and repair.

Thats because glucose and sodium are have short term effects for the brain where as low carb eating is long term and has many health benefits and I believe from all my research that it benefits children.

questionablemethods

I know there are many paleo/primal people in the blogosphere whose kids eat paleo/primal. I don't think they restrict macronutrients, per se (paleo eating isn't necessarily low carb), but they don't feed them grains and legumes, so I'm guessing the kids end up consuming fewer carbohydrates than a kid eating the Standard American Diet (or even the recommendations of the food pyramid). Everyone reports vibrant, strong, healthy kids. And some parents have seen drastic behavioral changes (for the better).

Some blogs that come to mind are: Growing Up Paleo, Everyday Paleo, and The Primal Parent. The big behavioral changes I was talking about were referenced by this family: http://freetheanimal.com/2011/09/real-results-video-interview-paleo-parents-over-200-pounds-lost-part-1.html

questionablemethods

Edited to add: I study Alzheimer's disease in the adult brain. I don't know a ton about the child's brain. So my guesses are 'educated guesses' but I they are still guesses. This is not my area of expertise.

Unrelated, but I am curious because both my grandmothers diet of Alzheimer's. Have you looked into the effects of ketone bodies on the brain of those suffering from the disease?

inlander

I'm sorry people are being 888 about what seems to be a perfectly legitimate question. I am a low carber, but I don't think strictly following a low-carb diet is necessary for children as they are not metabolically resistant and do not need to benefit from a strictly low carb diet

However, people are probably assuming you mean "can i feed my kids meat and cheese and have them turn out okay?" when what I really think you're asking is - how necessary are carbohydrates in the form of white pasta, white bread, tortillas, and high-starch vegetables to a child's development?

I would venture a guess to say that things like white pasta and bread aren't going to be very good for anyone REGARDLESS OF AGE. Stick with fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins and the kid should be receiving plenty of nutrition.

Honestly? I don't want my future kid eating highly processed food. It's going to be a struggle, because I have a very pro-sugar/candy/snack food significant other. Do I think you should deprive your kid from eating certain things in moderation? Absolutely not. But I don't think things like white bread are necessary to any individual's daily dietary composition.

Unlike the other responses you've gotten, I actually COMMEND you for thinking about how to raise your child prior to conceiving. More people should do that.

questionablemethods

I'm sorry people are being 8888 about what seems to be a perfectly legitimate question. I am a low carber, but I don't think strictly following a low-carb diet is necessary for children as they are not metabolically resistant and do not need to benefit from a strictly low carb diet

However, people are probably assuming you mean "can i feed my kids meat and cheese and have them turn out okay?" when what I really think you're asking is - how necessary are carbohydrates in the form of white pasta, white bread, tortillas, and high-starch vegetables to a child's development?

I would venture a guess to say that things like white pasta and bread aren't going to be very good for anyone REGARDLESS OF AGE. Stick with fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins and the kid should be receiving plenty of nutrition.

Honestly? I don't want my future kid eating highly processed food. It's going to be a struggle, because I have a very pro-sugar/candy/snack food significant other. Do I think you should deprive your kid from eating certain things in moderation? Absolutely not. But I don't think things like white bread are necessary to any individual's daily dietary composition.

Unlike the other responses you've gotten, I actually COMMEND you for thinking about how to raise your child prior to conceiving. More people should do that.

Nice response and I agree. I don't plan on tracking calories or any macro whatsoever for my kids, but rather concentrating on nutritionally-dense, whole foods. Growing kids need nutrition and that means that if you fill them up on a bunch of nutritionally devoid pasta or bread, they might not be hungry (or want) the good stuff that will give them the micronutrients they need to grow and learn. (Sorry but a lot of the whole grain pastas and breads are still pretty pitiful from a micronutrient standpoint when compared with a great number of foods.) I plan on prioritizing unprocessed meats and vegetables and fats but not demonizing any food (of course "not demonizing" =/= "stock my pantry with").

Edit to add: You know, it's also funny because I bet if the OP's question were slightly different, no one would bat an eye. For example, what if I came here and said "My child just doesn't like bread and pasta and rice but eats a lot of eggs, chicken, salmon, and giant heaping plates of leafy green vegetables in every meal and fruit for dessert. She is hardly ever sick, growing like a weed, and one of the highest performing kids in her class. Should I be worried?"

I'm guessing no one would say "Yes! Take her to a doctor because she might have a carbohydrate deficiency!"

LabRat529

Edited to add: I study Alzheimer's disease in the adult brain. I don't know a ton about the child's brain. So my guesses are 'educated guesses' but I they are still guesses. This is not my area of expertise.

Unrelated, but I am curious because both my grandmothers diet of Alzheimer's. Have you looked into the effects of ketone bodies on the brain of those suffering from the disease?

I have not personally looked at this, however I've read some articles that suggest a low-carb diet is beneficial for people with Alzheimer's disease. I think it's still too early to know for sure. Also, Alzheimer's is a pretty complicated condition, with multiple variables influencing the disease, so it might be that low-carb is good for some and not for others- not unlike the way it is with us adults.

LabRat529

I know there are many paleo/primal people in the blogosphere whose kids eat paleo/primal. I don't think they restrict macronutrients, per se (paleo eating isn't necessarily low carb), but they don't feed them grains and legumes, so I'm guessing the kids end up consuming fewer carbohydrates than a kid eating the Standard American Diet (or even the recommendations of the food pyramid). Everyone reports vibrant, strong, healthy kids. And some parents have seen drastic behavioral changes (for the better).

Some blogs that come to mind are: Growing Up Paleo, Everyday Paleo, and The Primal Parent. The big behavioral changes I was talking about were referenced by this family: http://freetheanimal.com/2011/09/real-results-video-interview-paleo-parents-over-200-pounds-lost-part-1.html

I actually don't have a problem with the paleo/primal diet. If I understand that diet correctly, it's rich in berries and nuts, correct? Is it even ketogenic?

When I think 'low carb', I think Atkins, which IS ketogenic. The idea of putting children into ketosis makes me squirm. Maybe 20 years from now, I'll change my mind, provided enough data accumulates to make me think ketosis is safe for everyone, but until then... I will continue to think of ketosis as a stress response and not the ideal state for your body.

The real issue for me is that we don't know.

questionablemethods

I know there are many paleo/primal people in the blogosphere whose kids eat paleo/primal. I don't think they restrict macronutrients, per se (paleo eating isn't necessarily low carb), but they don't feed them grains and legumes, so I'm guessing the kids end up consuming fewer carbohydrates than a kid eating the Standard American Diet (or even the recommendations of the food pyramid). Everyone reports vibrant, strong, healthy kids. And some parents have seen drastic behavioral changes (for the better).

Some blogs that come to mind are: Growing Up Paleo, Everyday Paleo, and The Primal Parent. The big behavioral changes I was talking about were referenced by this family: http://freetheanimal.com/2011/09/real-results-video-interview-paleo-parents-over-200-pounds-lost-part-1.html

I actually don't have a problem with the paleo/primal diet. If I understand that diet correctly, it's rich in berries and nuts, correct? Is it even ketogenic?

When I think 'low carb', I think Atkins, which IS ketogenic. The idea of putting children into ketosis makes me squirm. Maybe 20 years from now, I'll change my mind, provided enough data accumulates to make me think ketosis is safe for everyone, but until then... I will continue to think of ketosis as a stress response and not the ideal state for your body.

The real issue for me is that we don't know.

I think that is the big misconception whenever anyone even hints at not filling themselves or their children with the 6-11 servings of grains recommended by the USDA (or whatever the current recommendation is) people instantly assume that the only other alternative is a ketogenic diet. There is quite a lot of room between the huge number of carbohydrates recommended by the USDA ("half of which should be whole grains" -- so they are basically saying "grains are so important that you should be sure to eat them even if half of them are refined") and ketosis.

That said, I also question the idea that ketosis is a terrible state to be in. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint. I can only assume that food was not always plentiful for our paleolithic ancestors and, given that fasting induces ketosis, I can't see how early humans weren't primarily in ketosis for much of their lives. And, when they did get food, it wasn't always tubers or fruit. If it is so terrible for us, how did our species even survive?

I don't necessarily think that we should all be in ketosis most of the time (though some people do) but I also don't think that we need to run on sugar all of the time like we do now. I know that I feel MUCH better being "fat adapted."

TrishJimenez

My opinion for myself and my children is 95% of all carbs must be complex carbs and whole grains and fruits and veggies (at least when I can afford it, you have to admit the cheap generic white bread and pasta and white rice is always cheaper then the brown and 100% whole wheat sometimes money gets tight and I buy the white rice)

My kids have ONLY ever eaten 100 whole wheat since they started eating bread. And if the cereal bags didnt have the WIC label under them then I didnt buy it. I tell them that I am not giving them a candy bar on a spoon for breakfast. I dont regulate what they eat at school though. I dont buy chips, soda, cookies, crackers and candy. For one thing it is empty calories and basically I am throwing my money away, and those are luxuries that I cant afford. They get soda if we go out to eat which since we dont have a lot of money isnt often.

What I do buy is all you can eat baby carrots, apples bananas, cucumbers, squash, celery and what ever fruit is in season. My kids go CRAZY over peaches, nectarines, mango, asparagus, artichokes. They can eat a peice of fruit or baby carrots or raw broccoli as a snack WHEN ever they want. With out even having to ask. Even if it is an hour before dinner. And I buy the stuff to make homemade cookies, and cakes. Now I dont have the time to bake all the time but the kids are allowed to whip up a cake or a batch of cookies or lemon bars a couple of times a month. So they are not deprived. And their favorite cereal is frosted mini spooners. Go figure. This is the way it has always been since the beginning. They know nothing different. Now I dont go crazy and all organic and stuff. Maybe I should but well that is another level of money that I dont have to I try to do the best I can with what I have.

So I agree that kids need carbs, everyone needs carbs but they should be the right carbs. Thats just my opinion.

LabRat529

I think that is the big misconception whenever anyone even hints at not filling themselves or their children with the 6-11 servings of grains recommended by the USDA (or whatever the current recommendation is) people instantly assume that the only other alternative is a ketogenic diet. There is quite a lot of room between the huge number of carbohydrates recommended by the USDA ("half of which should be whole grains" -- so they are basically saying "grains are so important that you should be sure to eat them even if half of them are refined") and ketosis.

That said, I also question the idea that ketosis is a stress response and not an ideal state. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint. I can only assume that food was not always plentiful for our paleolithic ancestors and, given that fasting induces ketosis, I can't see how early humans weren't primarily in ketosis for much of their lives. If it is so terrible for us, how did our species even survive?

Yes... good points. I should have asked the OP what he meant by "low carb".

I do agree that Americans eat too many carbs in general. I don't think anyone really needs 50% of there calories from carbs. But I also don't feel comfy with ketogenic diets for the average person.

I tend to think of ketosis as a 'stress response' because it's induced by fasting which is a stressor. Whether it's bad for the average person or not is unclear and I admit I'm biased like many in the medical/health community. Evidence is emerging that indicates ketosis is not as bad as we originally thought and in some situations, it's even good. There's no question that ketogenic diets are effective for those who can stick with them. And...there's something to be said about a low carb, low glycemic index type diet for diabetics and other who have problems with balancing their blood glucose levels. Also, as I've already mentioned, ketogenic diets could be helpful for some people with Alzheimer's disease. So you know, in 20 years, we might all be eating ketogenic diets because science will show definitively that they're the way to go. I personally doubt it, but I'm willing to accept the possibility.

I am, however, inclined to be cautious. Our ancestors might have evolved so that they could survive long winters without grains/fruits/veggies/nuts/yams but that doesn't mean that was the ideal state for them to be in.

sleepytexan

A quick Google search yields a lot of websites advising against the use of low-carb diets for children and teens, unless a child is severely overweight. Haven't really seen any in favor. The tenor of these against-arguments seems to be that carbohydrates are somehow essential to normal child development, but from what I understand, unlike proteins and fats, there are no "essential' carbohydrates. A lot of these websites also talk about other nutrients associated with carbs, but none of these nutrients seem to be unique to carbs themselves.

Of the 40 or 50 nutrition and diet books I've read, haven't seen or read too many specific studies on low-carb diets for kids, except that it's one alternative for overweight and obese kids. I'm not a parent myself, but my wife and I discuss how to think about children's nutrition as we do some family planning. So I was wondering your thoughts, for and against?

If low-carb is advisable when a kid is overweight or obese, why couldn't such an approach be adapted to prevent a child from becoming overweight or obese in the first place?

In full disclosure, I'm obviously biased toward a low-carb approach. I've done pretty well with a low-carb diet (-120 lbs & -30% body fat in 12 months so far) and it's been life-changing to the say the least.

Low-carbing kids is utterly ridiculous. Feed your (future) kids proper whole foods and teach them how to be fit, be an example.

Good Lord, I would not deprive my children of pasta/rice/breads before an athletic event, nor do I deprive myself. Let kids be kids, for goodness sake! Do not feed them crap sugar cereals and chicken nuggets, but sheesh, let them have a cupcake.

What is pathetic is the amount of people who never give their kids fruits and veggies, "bc she won't eat them". really? Who is the parent? Today my 3-yr-old and I shared a lunch of homemade pasta (CARB!!) salad with tuna, cannelini beans, black olives, and fresh roasted asparagus. We also shared a pear and raspberries. I sent the older ones to school with ham, avocado, tomato and pickle SANDWICHES made with BREAD!! I will even pack peanut butter and jelly for the one who likes it.

For dinner tonight, my 4 kids (and we, the parents) ate more asparagus, onions, yam, green grapes, more raspberries and rotisserie chicken.

I just came home from a 2.5 hour dance rehearsal and ate my last 200 calories of ice cream.

Stop, just stop with the anti-carb nazi ridiculousness.

taso42

Indoor plumbing, flush toilets, and refrigerators are also things that are non-essential.

questionablemethods

I think that is the big misconception whenever anyone even hints at not filling themselves or their children with the 6-11 servings of grains recommended by the USDA (or whatever the current recommendation is) people instantly assume that the only other alternative is a ketogenic diet. There is quite a lot of room between the huge number of carbohydrates recommended by the USDA ("half of which should be whole grains" -- so they are basically saying "grains are so important that you should be sure to eat them even if half of them are refined") and ketosis.

That said, I also question the idea that ketosis is a stress response and not an ideal state. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint. I can only assume that food was not always plentiful for our paleolithic ancestors and, given that fasting induces ketosis, I can't see how early humans weren't primarily in ketosis for much of their lives. If it is so terrible for us, how did our species even survive?

Yes... good points. I should have asked the OP what he meant by "low carb".

I do agree that Americans eat too many carbs in general. I don't think anyone really needs 50% of there calories from carbs. But I also don't feel comfy with ketogenic diets for the average person.

I tend to think of ketosis as a 'stress response' because it's induced by fasting which is a stressor. Whether it's bad for the average person or not is unclear and I admit I'm biased like many in the medical/health community. Evidence is emerging that indicates ketosis is not as bad as we originally thought and in some situations, it's even good. There's no question that ketogenic diets are effective for those who can stick with them. And...there's something to be said about a low carb, low glycemic index type diet for diabetics and other who have problems with balancing their blood glucose levels. Also, as I've already mentioned, ketogenic diets could be helpful for some people with Alzheimer's disease. So you know, in 20 years, we might all be eating ketogenic diets because science will show definitively that they're the way to go. I personally doubt it, but I'm willing to accept the possibility.

I am, however, inclined to be cautious. Our ancestors might have evolved so that they could survive long winters without grains/fruits/veggies/nuts/yams but that doesn't mean that was the ideal state for them to be in.

You're right. It might not be optimal for human performance and health to be in a ketogenic state a lot of the time. We seem to be remarkably equipped for handling a wide variety of diets (except the most modern "processed" incarnation, I would argue).

And, FWIW, nuts and fruit are also part of an Atkins diet, as are squash and oatmeal and rice.....