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
Options
Replies
-
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). "2 -
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"
8 -
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"
Except that's not a jazzy headline that gets them lots of clicks.
This is the problem with science reporting right now. They hook people with the headline knowing full well 90% will not read much past that, and if they do will read with that headline now coloring everything else.
I'm sorry, but if you read the actual paper, NOT any of the articles, it's clear that they link the results to folic acid deficiency. The entire Discussion paragraph towards the bottom is about folic acid, the possibility that a folic acid supplement isn't high enough to counteract a deficiency in a low carb diet, and the possibility that if it's NOT folic acid, it could be that these women are low-carb because they are obese and/or diabetic and those are also risk factors for the discussed birth defects. And their Conclusion paragraph says the next step is to examine the relationship between carb intake and folic acid levels, and they advise doctors to be aware that their patients on low-carb may be extremely deficient in folic acid. I'm not sure how you can say it isn't about folic acid?
They keep saying it's a low-carb, but then explaining the likely causes linked to low-carb are either 1. folic acid deficiency or 2. obese or diabetic women who would have been higher risk anyway.
Again, if women doing low-carb are more likely to be extremely deficient in folic acid and may need more than the typical supplement to counteract that, I think it's great they did this study and that will be called attention to.7 -
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.2 -
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."4 -
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).2 -
-
2 -
I'm sorry, but if you read the actual paper, NOT any of the articles, it's clear that they link the results to folic acid deficiency.
Well I gather that you absolutely want it that way, but that is absolutely not their finding.
5 CONCLUSION
In summary, we found that restricted carbohydrate intake in the year before conception is associated with a moderate increase in the odds of anencephaly and spina bifida. Neither BMI nor folic acid supplement use modified the observed association, but a stronger association was noted for unplanned pregnancies and for infants with multiple birth defects. Our next steps include an examination of the relation between carbohydrate intake and RBC folate concentrations in a national sample. Given the sustained popularity of low carbohydrate diets, we advise maternal health care providers to be aware of their patients' dietary practices and the potential for folate insufficiency among women practicing carbohydrate restriction.
Lemurcat covered this. Prepared grain products are enriched with folic acid *for this very reason* Low carbing cuts those products out, and by default, the extra folic acid one would normally get from them.lemurcat12 wrote: »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."
6 -
In for click bait and not connecting the dots...5
-
Let's update.
1. They found that most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects. That's terrible, still the bottom line and can not be understated.
2. This can be associated with low folic acid, a long time known issue and can not be compensated with supplements.
3. This is likely to be mitigated or resolved (***we don't know***) if those women would eat more low carb food, high in folic acid.
Are we in agreement now?
9 -
I don't know about all of that. I had to be low carb when I was pregnant due to gestational diabetes. Both pregnancies. My babies were kicking and screaming when they were born, perfectly healthy, and they are still kicking and screaming and at 10 and 15, perfectly healthy.3
-
This is why I believe in balance low carb is good for a season but I would never do it for years like some people seem to do5
-
Edited 0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »In for click bait and not connecting the dots...
And not knowing how to vet sources. And biting on clickbait headlines rather than reading the actual studies referenced in their entirety.3 -
Let's update.
1. They found that most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects. That's terrible, still the bottom line and can not be understated.
2. This can be associated with low folic acid, a long time known issue and can not be compensated with supplements.
3. This is likely to be mitigated or resolved (***we don't know***) if those women would eat more low carb food, high in folic acid.
Are we in agreement now?
No, sorry, we are not in agreement.
They did not find that "most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects". This was one study and they used a lot of "may" "might" "seems" etc
They did not say that supplements cannot compensate for the low folic acid. They said the group of women covered in this one study did not seem to benefit from taking a supplement, perhaps because a higher dosage was needed or perhaps because these women were obese and/or diabetic and THAT is why their babies were affected. Or perhaps there were weaknesses in the study design that aren't apparent yet.
It's important to remember this is ONE study, and it relied on food frequency questionnaires to determine diet classifications. Also, from your OP they said women who eat low carb MAY have a 30% higher risk of these birth defects. I don't know what the average risk is, but let's use round numbers. If an average woman has a 10% risk of having a baby with these birth defects (I doubt it's that high), that would mean a woman eating low carb would have a 13% risk. Doesn't sound quite as dramatic when you put it that way, does it? They did the same thing with the bacon causes colon cancer data. It raises your risk 10% OMG! (It raises your risk from 7% to 7.7%)
Look, I don't have a horse in this race. I don't eat low carb, not even close. I just honestly don't think this means what you're saying it does. If I was eating low carb and was thinking I might want to get pregnant, I would probably make sure my folic acid was tested the next time I got bloodwork and discuss it with my doctor, just to be extra cautious.8 -
No, sorry, we are not in agreement.
They did not find that "most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects". This was one study and they used a lot of "may" "might" "seems" etc
Wrong.
In summary, we found that restricted carbohydrate intake in the year before conception is associated with a moderate increase in the odds of anencephaly and spina bifida.
13 -
No, sorry, we are not in agreement.
They did not find that "most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects". This was one study and they used a lot of "may" "might" "seems" etc
Wrong.
In summary, we found that restricted carbohydrate intake in the year before conception is associated with a moderate increase in the odds of anencephaly and spina bifida.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you lack the ability to accurately parse correlative studies.
For example, there's an 80% correlation between the winner of the super bowl and the direction the stock market/economy moves in any given year.7 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Not even going to click on a daily fail link, sorry OP...
I've made that mistake before, it's taken me years of therapy but I've almost completely recovered.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
No, sorry, we are not in agreement.
They did not find that "most low carb is associated with those nasty birth defects". This was one study and they used a lot of "may" "might" "seems" etc
Wrong.
In summary, we found that restricted carbohydrate intake in the year before conception is associated with a moderate increase in the odds of anencephaly and spina bifida.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you lack the ability to accurately parse correlative studies.
For example, there's an 80% correlation between the winner of the super bowl and the direction the stock market/economy moves in any given year.
You can keep your little attacks for yourself.
This is about a serious & credible study from University of North Carolina, not a frivolous one as you'd want it to be, for whatever reason.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions