Low-Carb Kids?

tidmutt

Actually, the phytates, trypsins, etc. that you find in unprocessed beans and grain husks are removed by processing, ironically. Soaking the beans also helps. Whole grain foods contain the germ which is very high in nutrients and only removes the outer casing which would contain the fibers that might reduce digestibility. You don't necessarily need to eat highly processed grains. I eat oatmeal and I'm quite insulin-sensitive.

This is why many following the primal/paleo lifestyle will talk about soaking grains to reduce antinutrients.

Huh, interesting! I don't know the specifics of that WOE. But that's how people in developing countries do it, apparently.

Yep, that's often mentioned when discussing soaking grains/beans.

Oh, Primal/Paleo = Eat Whole Foods, primarily stuff that could have been consumed prior to agriculture. The end result is lots of meats (preferably grass fed), vegetables, fruit and nuts. Dairy is optional depending on the individual and the variant of Primal/Paleo. Same applies to Saturated Fat consumption.

songbyrdsweet

I would never condone putting a child on a diet or even a 'way of life' that limits an entire food group for anything other than a medical reason. Yes, limit fast food and foods with low nutrient-density. But realize that their bodies are developing, their nutrient requirements differ from an adult's, and they are highly impressionable. They will take what you say as gospel, and (sorry, this is offensive) many people don't actually know what they're talking about. I'm sure you mean well, but unless you are formally educated in pediatric nutrition, don't put your child on a diet without the supervision of a pediatrician. If you really want a healthy child, get them off the couch and away from the TV. Exercise is the magic bullet in metabolic regulation and health, not carbohydrate avoidance.

I'm not sure who you're addressing here, but a couple of points in response. Just because someone is formally educated doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. I find many medical professionals tend to be closed minded and dogmatic. That of course is a gross generalization and there are many medical professionals who are open minded and stay current but they aren't always easy to find.

Personally, I would always talk to my child's pediatrician, that doesn't mean I'll blindly follow his advice. Our pediatrician recommended we add rice cereal to breast milk when our young daughter was having issues with some minor reflux. We read all the papers on the topic we could find and felt that there was some risk associated with introducing essentially solid food quite early. Given she didn't suffer extreme GERD and was eating and gaining weight, we choose not to follow his advice. Shortly after her symptoms improved without any intervention other than some slight tweaks to my wife's diet.

Lastly, getting them off the couch is a worthy goal, but I think avoiding twinkies, donuts, mac and cheese etc. is actually far more important. Avoiding all carbs is of course unnecessary. I honestly don't know what I'll do when my daughter is older but I'd like to think I'll encourage her to avoid refined carbs, eat whole foods and enjoy the occasional treat.

Professionals are going to be dogmatic, because the central dogma of any science is based on principles that have held strong over the years of research. Yes details change, but there is a reason why people don't take great liberties with radical approaches to pediatric nutrition. It's dangerous. Many people garner their information from .com's, few of which are unbiased and purely informational. I think it's important to be educated when manipulating the diet of a child...if it's your own, not really a big deal, because you're not developing any longer.

In terms of exercise vs. junk food, there are arguments for either side, but the literature shows that changes in physical activity have a greater impact on metabolic function (not necessarily body composition). That being said, when I say limiting a food group, I mean the grains/dairy/meats etc., not including all the junk food. Those I consider to be calorie-dense and nutrient-poor and should be moderated. But there's no literature to support that limiting fibrous whole grains improves your health. On the contrary, fiber greatly improves the health and function of your intestinal tract and the bacteria present.

tidmutt

Professionals are going to be dogmatic, because the central dogma of any science is based on principles that have held strong over the years of research. Yes details change, but there is a reason why people don't take great liberties with radical approaches to pediatric nutrition. It's dangerous. Many people garner their information from .com's, few of which are unbiased and purely informational. I think it's important to be educated when manipulating the diet of a child...if it's your own, not really a big deal, because you're not developing any longer.

In terms of exercise vs. junk food, there are arguments for either side, but the literature shows that changes in physical activity have a greater impact on metabolic function (not necessarily body composition). That being said, when I say limiting a food group, I mean the grains/dairy/meats etc., not including all the junk food. Those I consider to be calorie-dense and nutrient-poor and should be moderated. But there's no literature to support that limiting fibrous whole grains improves your health. On the contrary, fiber greatly improves the health and function of your intestinal tract and the bacteria present.

Well, I wasn't just referring to pediatric nutrition I was talking about those in the medical profession in general. I understand how they become dogmatic, the system is setup to encourage just that. It helps mitigate risk in what is a high stakes game. And science itself can be quite dogmatic. Personally I use google scholar and pubmed to read the papers cited in various newspapers and blogs but yes, many people read the blog of some "guru" and run around spouting what they read like it's gospel. When it comes to my daughter's health I personally set the standard much higher, I conduct experiments on myself using different approaches, everything from HCLF to LCHF to Intermittent Fasting. In the absence of medicine being able to tell me what is most appropriate for my individual biochemistry I use this to figure out what works for me. For my daughter we'll just have to be much more careful.

On the topic of activity vs diet for children, I would love to see the research you cited. Being a software engineer and just a wanna be scientist it takes me some time to parse many papers but I can usually get my head around the general gist. It's interesting if that's the case because my own experience is that exercise is largely ineffective without diet, at least for weight loss. On the whole grain thing, I'm curious if the literature you mention uses the SAD as a baseline when judging the efficacy of fiber for improving colon health. Could it be that other macro ratios would mean that fiber isn't as necessary as it seems?

I would also love to hear more about your research on the impact of a high fat diet on muscle. What sort of fat intake are you studying, saturated, poly, mono etc. Also, how does that fit into an evolutionary framework? Given that I largely follow Primal principles I tend to view things in the context of evolution although often it's a distorted picture it's interesting nonetheless. Our understanding of the macro nutrient makeup of our diet throughout our evolution is not perfect but in some cases it was probably very high in fat. I love hearing and reading about all of this.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

songbyrdsweet

Professionals are going to be dogmatic, because the central dogma of any science is based on principles that have held strong over the years of research. Yes details change, but there is a reason why people don't take great liberties with radical approaches to pediatric nutrition. It's dangerous. Many people garner their information from .com's, few of which are unbiased and purely informational. I think it's important to be educated when manipulating the diet of a child...if it's your own, not really a big deal, because you're not developing any longer.

In terms of exercise vs. junk food, there are arguments for either side, but the literature shows that changes in physical activity have a greater impact on metabolic function (not necessarily body composition). That being said, when I say limiting a food group, I mean the grains/dairy/meats etc., not including all the junk food. Those I consider to be calorie-dense and nutrient-poor and should be moderated. But there's no literature to support that limiting fibrous whole grains improves your health. On the contrary, fiber greatly improves the health and function of your intestinal tract and the bacteria present.

Well, I wasn't just referring to pediatric nutrition I was talking about those in the medical profession in general. I understand how they become dogmatic, the system is setup to encourage just that. It helps mitigate risk in what is a high stakes game. And science itself can be quite dogmatic. Personally I use google scholar and pubmed to read the papers cited in various newspapers and blogs but yes, many people read the blog of some "guru" and run around spouting what they read like it's gospel. When it comes to my daughter's health I personally set the standard much higher, I conduct experiments on myself using different approaches, everything from HCLF to LCHF to Intermittent Fasting. In the absence of medicine being able to tell me what is most appropriate for my individual biochemistry I use this to figure out what works for me. For my daughter we'll just have to be much more careful.

On the topic of activity vs diet for children, I would love to see the research you cited. Being a software engineer and just a wanna be scientist it takes me some time to parse many papers but I can usually get my head around the general gist. It's interesting if that's the case because my own experience is that exercise is largely ineffective without diet, at least for weight loss. On the whole grain thing, I'm curious if the literature you mention uses the SAD as a baseline when judging the efficacy of fiber for improving colon health. Could it be that other macro ratios would mean that fiber isn't as necessary as it seems?

I would also love to hear more about your research on the impact of a high fat diet on muscle. What sort of fat intake are you studying, saturated, poly, mono etc. Also, how does that fit into an evolutionary framework? Given that I largely follow Primal principles I tend to view things in the context of evolution although often it's a distorted picture it's interesting nonetheless. Our understanding of the macro nutrient makeup of our diet throughout our evolution is not perfect but in some cases it was probably very high in fat. I love hearing and reading about all of this.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

I am specifically studying the impact of a high-saturated fat diet (60% or 45% of fat is saturated) on skeletal muscle insulin signaling and hypertrophy with and without the presence of a clinical probiotic. I am looking at how the presence of dietary fat influences intestinal leakiness, and how toxins from unhealthy bacteria leak into circulation (or are carried); from there I am examining their role in metabolic dysfunction in skeletal muscle--mostly via insulin resistance, metabolic inflexibility, and changes in oxidative capacity of the muscle as well as growth signaling. I don't look much into evolutionary biology...we know Westernized diets cause problems, and we know that the gut has a huge role in it, and so I'm working to elucidate the area. Saturated fat is a definite culprit in promoting inflammation via the innate immune system, and obese people contain higher numbers of the receptor to which it associates. In terms of fiber's effect on intestinal bacteria--they ferment the fiber to short-chain fatty acids which intestinal cells use for energy to stay healthy and keep tight junctions to prevent leakiness. They also use the fiber to make energy.

In terms of literature, I didn't cite one paper. That's why I said 'the literature'...just means a wide array of articles have stated something in agreement. I can't keep just one paper in my head, haha I did mention that while the exercise may not change the body composition (it most often doesn't without caloric manipulation) it changes metabolic health. That's insulin sensitivity, oxidative capacity, triglyceride levels, etc. There is a disconnect between body composition and metabolic health (fitness v. fatness).

On the whole, the general public and most medical professionals don't think in terms of inflammation and metabolic health, just cholesterol/trig levels and body composition. But there's much more to the picture!

tidmutt

I am specifically studying the impact of a high-saturated fat diet (60% or 45% of fat is saturated) on skeletal muscle insulin signaling and hypertrophy with and without the presence of a clinical probiotic. I am looking at how the presence of dietary fat influences intestinal leakiness, and how toxins from unhealthy bacteria leak into circulation (or are carried); from there I am examining their role in metabolic dysfunction in skeletal muscle--mostly via insulin resistance, metabolic inflexibility, and changes in oxidative capacity of the muscle as well as growth signaling. I don't look much into evolutionary biology...we know Westernized diets cause problems, and we know that the gut has a huge role in it, and so I'm working to elucidate the area. Saturated fat is a definite culprit in promoting inflammation via the innate immune system, and obese people contain higher numbers of the receptor to which it associates. In terms of fiber's effect on intestinal bacteria--they ferment the fiber to short-chain fatty acids which intestinal cells use for energy to stay healthy and keep tight junctions to prevent leakiness. They also use the fiber to make energy.

In terms of literature, I didn't cite one paper. That's why I said 'the literature'...just means a wide array of articles have stated something in agreement. I can't keep just one paper in my head, haha I did mention that while the exercise may not change the body composition (it most often doesn't without caloric manipulation) it changes metabolic health. That's insulin sensitivity, oxidative capacity, triglyceride levels, etc. There is a disconnect between body composition and metabolic health (fitness v. fatness).

On the whole, the general public and most medical professionals don't think in terms of inflammation and metabolic health, just cholesterol/trig levels and body composition. But there's much more to the picture!

Interesting, the leaky guy concept seems to be quite controversial, often I see it referenced but I've never seen Saturated Fat blamed. I've seen a lot of references to inflammation as well although much of this I've seem commonly blamed on PUFAs although perhaps that is in relation to the adaptive immune system.

I assume the fiber you mentioned in relation to leaky gut is insoluble fiber. I can understand this from an evolutionary perspective if we evolved eating a lot of plants, jury is out on that one, but if we assume we did for the most part then I can see how we may need insoluble fiber in our diet thinking about it from the view point of evolutionary biology.

I see your point about fatness vs fitness, no doubt exercise is important, provided the diet is reasonable and devoid of the bad things we've previously mentioned.

Again, much of what you say regarding inflammation and intestinal leakiness actually is very similar to what many in the Ancestral Health movement claim. You should take a look a some time.

songbyrdsweet

I am specifically studying the impact of a high-saturated fat diet (60% or 45% of fat is saturated) on skeletal muscle insulin signaling and hypertrophy with and without the presence of a clinical probiotic. I am looking at how the presence of dietary fat influences intestinal leakiness, and how toxins from unhealthy bacteria leak into circulation (or are carried); from there I am examining their role in metabolic dysfunction in skeletal muscle--mostly via insulin resistance, metabolic inflexibility, and changes in oxidative capacity of the muscle as well as growth signaling. I don't look much into evolutionary biology...we know Westernized diets cause problems, and we know that the gut has a huge role in it, and so I'm working to elucidate the area. Saturated fat is a definite culprit in promoting inflammation via the innate immune system, and obese people contain higher numbers of the receptor to which it associates. In terms of fiber's effect on intestinal bacteria--they ferment the fiber to short-chain fatty acids which intestinal cells use for energy to stay healthy and keep tight junctions to prevent leakiness. They also use the fiber to make energy.

In terms of literature, I didn't cite one paper. That's why I said 'the literature'...just means a wide array of articles have stated something in agreement. I can't keep just one paper in my head, haha I did mention that while the exercise may not change the body composition (it most often doesn't without caloric manipulation) it changes metabolic health. That's insulin sensitivity, oxidative capacity, triglyceride levels, etc. There is a disconnect between body composition and metabolic health (fitness v. fatness).

On the whole, the general public and most medical professionals don't think in terms of inflammation and metabolic health, just cholesterol/trig levels and body composition. But there's much more to the picture!

Interesting, the leaky guy concept seems to be quite controversial, often I see it referenced but I've never seen Saturated Fat blamed. I've seen a lot of references to inflammation as well although much of this I've seem commonly blamed on PUFAs although perhaps that is in relation to the adaptive immune system.

I assume the fiber you mentioned in relation to leaky gut is insoluble fiber. I can understand this from an evolutionary perspective if we evolved eating a lot of plants, jury is out on that one, but if we assume we did for the most part then I can see how we may need insoluble fiber in our diet thinking about it from the view point of evolutionary biology.

I see your point about fatness vs fitness, no doubt exercise is important, provided the diet is reasonable and devoid of the bad things we've previously mentioned.

Again, much of what you say regarding inflammation and intestinal leakiness actually is very similar to what many in the Ancestral Health movement claim. You should take a look a some time.

Eh, it's not really that controversial. It's widely accepted that gut bacteria produce endotoxin and high-fat diets promote the formation of the fat-carriers chylomicrons, which have a high affinity for that endotoxin, and that inflammation and obesity are correlated with decreased tight junction proteins. However, we don't know why saturated fat exacerbates inflammation; some groups think it's a ligand for the TLR4 receptor which regulates inflammation as part of the innate immune system, while others think that it influences gut permeability, but we don't really know how. We also know that implanting the gut bacteria from a fat mouse to a lean mouse makes the lean mouse fat, and certain bacteria are linked to obesity.

Too many PUFA's, especially in the wrong ratios, are also inflammatory. MUFA's seem to be the most protective. The fiber can be soluble or insoluble. Any type can be fermented to short chain fatty acids. We need both soluble and insoluble--soluble scavenges excess cholesterol and insoluble adds bulk. The only way fiber is related to gut leakage is that it improves the vitality of the intestinal cells, but it doesn't cause differences in regulation of the tight junction proteins.

In terms of evolutionary biology, if you examine the number of genetic abnormalities and metabolic dysfunctions related to protein-handling, they far outweigh that of carbohydrate and fatty acid handling. We have no storage pool for amino acids like we do for carbohydrates or fats. We are able to make all but 3 amino acids through transamination. These facts, along with the archaeological data that illustrates the difficulty of catching and killing a wild animal for neanderthals/homosapiens, would dictate that we actually evolved eating little protein. We have not evolved efficient ways of handling it like we have for carbohydrates and fats. More likely we subsisted largely on non-animal sources of protein in smaller amounts. Just a thought.

tidmutt

Eh, it's not really that controversial. It's widely accepted that gut bacteria produce endotoxin and high-fat diets promote the formation of the fat-carriers chylomicrons, which have a high affinity for that endotoxin, and that inflammation and obesity are correlated with decreased tight junction proteins. However, we don't know why saturated fat exacerbates inflammation; some groups think it's a ligand for the TLR4 receptor which regulates inflammation as part of the innate immune system, while others think that it influences gut permeability, but we don't really know how. We also know that implanting the gut bacteria from a fat mouse to a lean mouse makes the lean mouse fat, and certain bacteria are linked to obesity.

Too many PUFA's, especially in the wrong ratios, are also inflammatory. MUFA's seem to be the most protective. The fiber can be soluble or insoluble. Any type can be fermented to short chain fatty acids. We need both soluble and insoluble--soluble scavenges excess cholesterol and insoluble adds bulk. The only way fiber is related to gut leakage is that it improves the vitality of the intestinal cells, but it doesn't cause differences in regulation of the tight junction proteins.

In terms of evolutionary biology, if you examine the number of genetic abnormalities and metabolic dysfunctions related to protein-handling, they far outweigh that of carbohydrate and fatty acid handling. We have no storage pool for amino acids like we do for carbohydrates or fats. We are able to make all but 3 amino acids through transamination. These facts, along with the archaeological data that illustrates the difficulty of catching and killing a wild animal for neanderthals/homosapiens, would dictate that we actually evolved eating little protein. We have not evolved efficient ways of handling it like we have for carbohydrates and fats. More likely we subsisted largely on non-animal sources of protein in smaller amounts. Just a thought.

It's good to hear that it's widely accepted, oddly enough I often see it listed as unproven and not accepted by mainstream science. Ah yes, the mouse gut bacteria, I heard about that. Speaking of gut bacteria, something I found fascinating when reading about the process of giving birth (since my wife and I just had a child) is that apparently a baby's gut bacteria is initially established during passage down the birth canal. Nasty, but really interesting. lol

Interesting take on the paleolithic nutrition, although there is much controversy over the point about the difficulty in obtaining wild prey. A lot of mistakes and bad assumptions have been made such as calculating the total nutritional content of an animal but forgetting to include the entire organism (brains, tongue, kidneys etc.) and the mistaken belief that wild game existed in the same populations as they do now. Most likely it was far more abundant before us destructive humans came along (in large numbers) and wiped them out. It's very difficult to say for sure what we ate more than 10,000 years ago (before agriculture) but an analysis of modern hunter gathers indicates protein as the major source of energy.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/Meeting2/CommentAttachments/Hahn-178DOC.pdf

Mentioned in this paper is the more favorable O3/O6 ratio, which is a common theme in modern Paleo/Primal diets. They also mention high fiber intake and low sodium.

bcattoes

When the body has no free carbohydrates available (glycogen stores in the muscles and liver have been used and there is none available anywhere), fat must be broken down into acetyl-CoA in order to get energy for fueling the body. Your body starts breaking down body fat as acetyl-CoA. This starts fat synthesis in the body. Fat synthesis is when the body breaks down stored body fat in order to fuel its cells. The by product of fat synthesis during this process called Ketogenesis are ketone bodies.

Unless you are anorexic or go into a diabetic ketoacidosis, ketogenesis is perfectly safe and normal. It is the safest way for the body to process fuel and burn fuel. Ketogenesis will not produce ketoacidosis unless you are in extreme starvation mode and have no fat or muscle to convert! Or have some kind of serious metabolic disease. Most people can safely go into ketogenesis (fat burning mode).

A low carb diet is a proven and effective way to burn body fat, reduce or eliminate illness and aliments, reduce stress on the cells and is a natural way to live. There is nothing wrong with a low carb way of living or a low carb diet. Now, I do have a huge problem with low fat or no carb diets.... But that is not what the OP is about at all. The OP is about the benefits of low carbs, considering children.

Is a low carb diet proven safe for children? Not overweight or diseased children, just healthy children. Has there really been enough research on that to deem it "safe"? And moreover, is it needed or even advantageous in a healthy child?

How can controlling carbs in children possibly be unsafe?????????????? :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

A low (controlled carb) way of life consists of PROTEIN, FATS, VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS, SEEDS AND DAIRY......... What is possibly unhealthy about eating the aforementioned foods?

When these things become unhealthy, then I will switch from a controlled carb plan back to eating cake, cookies, bread, ice cream and boxed / packaged foods.

You don't have to add sugar, bread or packaged foods to your diet to add carbohydrates.