News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsGwyneth Paltrow’s kids eat low carb, dietitians predictably panic
Gwyneth Paltrow says that her kids are on a low-carb diet – no bread, pasta or rice – as she thinks that is good for them. Predictably a few old-school dietitians immediately panicked.
The kids risk “nutrient deficiencies” warns one dietitian and another says that they “won’t be able to think straight as their brain won’t be functioning”. There is no end to the hysteria or the old myths that are dusted off. It’s even noted that Paltrow’s kids are thin (!) as if that must be bad. Apparently overweight kids are so common today that people are worried when they see a child without weight issues.
Fortunately more and more people are seeing through the nonsense. Nobody needs bread or pasta as long as they eat real food until satisfied (when on low carb this means more fat). And no, the brain does not quit working. It has never happened in reality, only in some book that dietitians are taught to memorize in school.
Here’s a great article about the Paltrow debate:
Guardian.co.uk: Why Gwyneth Paltrow’s no-carb diet for children makes perfect sense
They also take out the "Dr. Atkins died of an heart attack" argument again.
If you look at Google Trends, "vegan" gets so much more media mentions than "paleo" or "low carb." Paleo is trending pretty heavily though, despite the lack of media attention.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=paleo%2C%20low%20carb%2C%20veg...
I think one of the key reasons veganism is so popular today is all the celebrities that are doing it. Oprah did it, Natalie Portman, Ellen Degeneres, now Bill Clinton and many, many more..
Oh, and I've lost weight, and my hair has started growing back - so no need to get me out in thyroid medication or anti-stress pills (like my doc was going to prescribe for me, because he thought the reason I was losing so much hair was one or the other).
I should also mention that my husband's doctor is of the "low fat, no bacon, only 2 eggs a week" ilk. 6 weeks after my husband started following low carb with me, he had bloodwork done, and his good cholesterol was high, and his bad cholesterol had dropped like crazy. My husband told him he'd stopped taking the medication he was given, and the doctor told him "whatever you're doing, keep doing it!" The doc still doesn't know why, because if he did, he'd blow a gasket.
Anyone who says that this is bad for you needs to pull giant pharm out of their butts and look at the real picture. There is NO WAY that this is bad for you.
The same if your child is not taking any medications. I had to convince my children's school that my kids really are healthy and they don't take any medications. They thought it was the strangest thing that my kids don't need medications and they thought we were weird..I can't believe people think you're strange if you don't take medicine..I tried to tell them that's because of our diet but that was like talking to a wall..
Time to re-evaluate?
"[T] ake a close look at the studies in which the low-carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric low-carb diets – but no difference in fat loss … . Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low-carb diets – but again, no difference in fat loss… . The participants in these free-living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high- and low-carbs isocaloric. If insulin, and not calories, was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower-carb group every single time. There wasn’t. The reason for this is that the insulin-makes-you-fat theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat."
Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein). The funny part is, the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the 'metabolic advantage' folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists.
SAN ANTONIO — An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.
Intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior in lowering blood levels of insulin, which can lead to cancer.
Low-carbohydrate diet two days per week resulted in greater weight loss than standard daily dieting.
So, in this study a calorie restricted standard diet failed to meet the weight loss of an intermittent low carb diet. I can eat ad lib on a low carb and lose fat more so than a standard calorie restricted diet?
Here's another one:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.short
What about cardiovascular risk factors? Seems like low carb high fat diets consistently improve HDL, LDL particle size and low triglycerides. Does that matter? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905670
I think she's talking about that real hunger that I know I feel when I'm really hungry for food and not that craving , constant "hunger" for something sweet or starchy you get when you eat a lot of carbs.
That quote was just unfortunate because no one that hasn't tried a LCHF diet will be likely understand what she means.
That's just what I think. ^^
I am a LCarber, but my other family members are just junk-food-free.
BTW, Doc. Did you see the new study? I know you dislike epidemiology but love (Atkins funded) RCTs.
Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – a randomized trial
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-12-29.pdf#.UT95TjxCIs...
From that study: "...with no difference between the groups..."
What's your point? Are you saying this is why we shouldn't 'deprive' children
from eating starch?
If you want to eat starch, go ahead and eat starch. More power
to you.
Yeesh.
And he is not the only one. For example, Dr. Davis has successfully treated THOUSANDS OF PATIENTS and the late Dr. Wolfang Lutz (author of Life Without Bread), who died at 97, successfully treated patients OVER SEVEN DECADES.
And you want us to believe your "studies?" Give me a break!
Gosh.. isnt it better to have a GBP directly at birth so those kids can eat what ever there parents give them.. or?
Then we dont need to read a dicussion like this!!
Is there anyone.. beside dieticans, that think she is giving her kids a bad diet????
Oh and P.S. ADHD is now another thing I can add to my list of things that LCHF helped with... Thanks Andres!
Food for Thought: Have We Been Giving the Wrong Dietary Advice? Free full text paper downloadable as PDF from link.
Background:
Since 1984 UK citizens have been advised to reduce total dietary fat intake to 30% of total energy and saturated fat intake to 10%.
The National Institute of Clinical Excellence [NICE] suggests a further benefit for Coronary Heart Disease [CHD] prevention by reducing saturated fat [SFA] intake to 6% - 7% of total energy and that 30,000 lives could be saved by replacing SFAs with Polyunsaturated fats [PUFAs].
Methods:
20 volumes of the Seven Countries Study, the seminal work behind the 1984 nutritional guidelines, were assessed.
The evidence upon which the NICE guidance was based was reviewed. Nutritional facts about fat and the UK intake of fat are presented and the impact of macronutrient confusion on public health dietary advice is discussed.
[ Findings:
The Seven Countries study classified processed foods, primarily carbohydrates, as saturated fats.
The UK government and NICE do the same, listing biscuits, cakes, pastries and savoury snacks as saturated fats.
Processed foods should be the target of public health advice but not natural fats, in which the UK diet is deficient.
With reference to the macro and micro nutrient composition of meat, fish, eggs, and dairy foods the article demonstrates that dietary trials cannot change one type of fat for another in a controlled study.
Interpretation:
The evidence suggests that processed food is strongly associated with the increase in obesity, diabetes, CHD, and other modern illness in our society.
The macro and micro nutrients found in meat, fish, eggs and dairy products, are vital for human health and consumption of these nutritious foods should be encouraged.
We made the simple choice of eating whole natural foods, and omitted any food that came in a packet - of course I don't deny them the odd treat. Its that simple really, and none of my kids have a weight problem.
My advise is to give up sugar and flour is the number 1 step. These are nothing but nutritionally devoid stodgy fillers. Give your children real food, do small changes or your kids and your husband will probably go nuts at you. It takes time, but so worth it.
http://www.ditchthecarbs.com/2014/05/13/low-carb-kids
I have just looked at your 'DITCH THE CARBS' Website, there are some brilliant recipes on there, which I can't wait to try out !! Many thanks