For young women dedicated to low carb

saintor1 wrote: »

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.

saintor1 wrote: »

kimny72 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.

At this point I'm just repeating what others have said, but sigh:

saintor1 wrote: »

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.

No most low carb is not.

They found that the rate of such birth defects is 30% higher for women who were low carb. That's significant, but if the rate is quite low to start with (which it is, I believe) it's also probably a misleading way to put it (like claiming something increases the extremely low rate of breast cancer among women in their 30s some percentage). It does not mean that most low carbers had babies with birth defects (obviously) or that 30% did or whatever. Maybe you didn't mean that, I found your statement here unclear.

Bigger point, this does NOT mean that "most low carb is associated" with such birth defects.

2. This can be associated with low folic acid, a long time known issue and can not be compensated with supplements.

Partial credit. Yes, it is associated with low folic acid, a long time known issue. No, they did not find is CANNOT BE compensated with supplements. They looked at past birth defects (of course, that's the only way to do a study of this kind) and found that low carbing had the association. That was not changed among women who supplemented. BUT -- important point -- the problem with supplements is that women take them usually only after they know they are pregnant or if they are trying to get pregnant, and these types of birth defects tend to happen early in pregnancy. Women who don't start the supplements before (many) or have an unplanned pregnancy (many) don't benefit from supplements, except -- and this is the point -- we know this is a problem so put supplements in certain foods (like grains) that low carbers are not going to eat.

So this doesn't say supplements don't work.

It does say that female low carbers of child-bearing years should consider supplementing or if there's a way to better supplement existing foods (my memory is that iodine is in salt because it wasn't getting to enough people in bread -- this was not low carb related) we should consider that.

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.

I would agree that someone low carbing should look at increasing foods with folic acid, sure.

Not to make this discussion even more complicated, but dietary recall questionnaires are notoriously poor ways to actually determine what people have been eating. First, there's the issue of "recall," i.e. can you actually remember what the heck you ate last week or--as is fairly common for these studies--over the last year? Because most people are just guessing. Then there's the issue that most people (including dietitians, according to research) are genuinely terrible at estimating serving sizes.

So, I think it's fair to say that people on a low-carb diet are probably not eating a lot of bread (which, in the U.S., is by law required to be supplemented with folic acid, so bread is many people's primary source of it). But other than that... there's not a lot to be said for a study like this.

A study like this can be used to generate testable hypotheses to be followed up with research that actually measures cause and effect. Questionnaires and checking people's medical records is a cheap way to see if an idea is worth looking into more deeply. The problem is when journalists don't make any distinctions in their reporting between these kinds of speculative studies and more definitive research.

I think this study failed to do anything but point out that women who aren't eating a lot of bread are doubly in need of folic acid supplementation if they are or want to become pregnant.

hotskytrotsky wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the title of this thread. A young woman is not just a potential pregnancy. Many young women are not planning pregnancies and do not make diet choices based on some unlikely hypothetical pregnancy.

Exactly what I was going to say.

jesslla wrote: »

And many young women not planning pregnancy still end up pregnant, even if they are on birth control. I believe every young heterosexually active (or potentially heterosexually active) female should supplement with folic acid just in case of an accident.

First, it is rude to refer to young women in general as if they are all just pregnanies waiting to happen, and to expect that they should plan their diets around that possibility, which for some, is actually an impossibility. Plenty of young women can't physically have children. Plenty of young women aren't sexually active. Plenty of young women use two different types of birth control. It is nonsensical to suggest they plan their diet around remote possibilities or actual impossibilities.
Second, the OP was commenting about young women's diets, not their suppliments.