Specifically Atkins. Has anyone or is anyone presently doing this? I am nursing my infant and toddler, and slightly concerned this could effect my milk production. Was your milk effected? If so, in what way?

Thank you all for the replies. I actually nurse my toddler and pump for my infant, who is unable to latch. So I will be aware of any change in out put (why I'm willing to "risk" it). I have plenty of milk frozen if my supply suddenly tanks, to last while I rebuild. I'm going to give it a go, thank you for the articles.

I meant, why are you willing to risks the baby's health? I am not talking about milk production, I am talking about how that type of diet may have an effect on the milk in general. How does that affect the baby's health? There is a story of this vegan family that had a baby. They fed the baby vegan food, it died.

What effect does maternal nutritional status in turn have on lactation? Prentice and Prentice (6) point out that, unlike in other mammals, there is no dose response relationship between diet and human lactation. Diet, the mother’s nutritional stores, reductions in physical activity, and metabolic adaptation all combine to provide a buffer (7). Over the years investigators have found increasing evidence that milk production itself is extremely efficient (8). The International Dietary Energy Consultancy Group’s 1993 Annual Report to the ACC/SCN states: “Human lactation appears to be very robust, and BMI does not provide a useful indicator of function at the levels studied so far. Lactation performance must become compromised when undernutrition is sufficiently severe, but it appears that this must be in famine or near famine conditions.”

In general, reductions in the quality of breast milk, in breast milk production levels, and reductions in infant growth have been difficult to find even among malnourished women who breast feed for long periods...

Once again, why even take a chance? Why even risk it if you're not 100% sure of the effects?

Once again, why even take a chance? Why even risk it if you're not 100% sure of the effects?

It's called "parenthood" - there is no entry exam or mandatory training, you get this life form to care for and do your best.

There are documented cases of successful breast feeding LCHF mothers just as there are of mothers eating the SAD diet. Clinical trials on babies tend to be frowned upon.

"The principal sugar of human milk is lactose but 30 or more oligosaccharides, all containing terminal Gal-(beta 1,4)-Glc and ranging from 3--14 saccharide units per molecule are also present.". Concentration of carbs is ~7% and volume ~800 ml a day so we're looking at ~50 grams/day of lactose which is primarily made from blood glucose when in the fed state.


http://www.peds.umn.edu/prod/groups/med/@pub/@med/@peds/@neonat/documents/content/med_content_249650.ppt
cites "Hexoneogenesis in the human breast during lactation" - Sunehag et al http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11788663

Yes. It's called parenting.
I take my children's lives into my own hands everytime I strap them in the car. Cars ARE 2 ton killing machines. I sometimes feed them processed foods and expose them to chemicals in the air and from the containers in which their foods are contained. I must be a terrible parent.

The issue is obviously not quality of the milk. It is quanitity. As I have already established. The part of the world in which we live is considered privileged. After all we are discussing something on the internet. Some of us on laptops, tablets, or phones. First world problems. And in this first-world, a child isn't likely to starve from breastfeeding. The OP has already mentioned that she has a good supply of frozen breastmilk. She obviously produces enough to feed a toddler AND an infant. Should her supply decrease AND she runs out of frozen milk, it's a short drive (in the killing machine) to a store to buy formula. The baby won't starve.

Mothers burn approximately 500 more calories daily just producing their milk. This can pose a problem with supply if the mother regularly does not get enough calories, especially when tandem nursing. OP doesn't sound like she is daft enough to not notice if her baby isn't getting enough milk. She even said she would monitor her supply. The baby will clearly demonstrate it is not getting enough by squalling like a siren! The vegan family mentioned probably were a rare exception in which the parents were not doing adequate parenting, the basics of which of course are making sure the child is fed enough. You can't fix crazy. It was a tragedy, but has zero relevance to the discussion. Some people are just bad parents. Quality of food or quantity of food won't change crazy.

We 100% know the effects! Either the mother will go on Atkins and do fine, continuing to produce enough milk to feed both, or will not produce enough and have to either a)stop the diet, b)stop nursing the other child, or c)supplement with formula.
Simple. Starvation isn't in the equation. The mother would have to be crazy enough to starve herself or starve her child without noticing any increase in the child's appetite. Breastfeeding is not only a method of feeding your child. It is a relationship that thrives on cues from both the mother and the infant. Breastfeeding mothers are already in tune with their babies' cues. To not notice changes in the relationship would be a special level of "lost in space." You'd have to be trying very hard NOT to notice. That would then be neglect. That isn't what is going on here.

Okay the effects are if she runs out because she CHOOSES to run out because of her diet, she goes to the store to buy high sugar baby formula. Makes sense. My friend is a medical researcher, he did research on baby formula, he was telling me how terrible they are for babies. He couldn't tell me the brand. So NO you're not 100% sure of the effects. What's going on is questionable, that's why she's asking about it, she's questioning it, she knows there might be some risks involved.

Although the contaminants found in Inuit foods (especially those from the aquatic food chain) may pose a public-health risk, dietary studies conducted recently have shown that these traditional foods are important sources of nutrients such as protein, vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) (Blanchet et al., 2000)

Risks aren't all equal. Parents have to do cost-benefit analysis pretty darn frequently. Were I to make the decision, I would wait. The child should at least be 6 months old if you wanted to experiment. At that point, supply should be well established. The machine well-oiled and humming along, as it were. Any wobbles in supply could be easily remedied at that point, should it happen.

I think supply establishment is moot in this situation. The odds are very good that the toddler wasn't weaned off then allowed to nurse when the baby was born. Therefore, the supply has been established for several years. One could argue that the increase in supply has changed, but the body adapts to that within a couple of weeks.

I do agree, though, that in the usual *only started breastfeeding with this child" situation, the 6 months is a good guideline.

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.

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.

Pu_239 wrote: »

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.

Pu_239 wrote: »

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.

Pu_239 wrote: »

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.

Pu_239 wrote: »

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.

frob23 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.