The Reason Kids Get Fat

mello1-650x435-1

This is the entry to my grocery store. It’s time for one of many Song Festival Competition nights, selecting Sweden’s entry to the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, and this means going face down in sugar. It’s only once a year!

Or wait, it’s not just once a year we’re binging on bad carbs. It’s every day we can find an excuse, that is, most days.

This is the real cause of children’s obesity. It’s not that they were born with stomachs that needed to be surgically removed, no matter what some think.

And no, children with a weight problem don’t need to eat candy and drink soda. Not even a little. Not at all. No more than a person with pulmonary disease needs to smoke a cigarette. No more than an alcoholic needs a drink.

What children with weight problems need is a home free of temptations, and to eat themselves satisfied on real food. Weight loss without hunger. Parents can provide the children that opportunity.

More

Obese Kids Going Under the Knife – for Weight Loss

The Health Cake is Catching On

McDonald’s: Don’t Eat Our Food – It’s Not Good for Your Health

Despite Promises, Kids Still Bombarded With Junk Food Ads

What the Food Industry Didn’t Want to See

39 Comments

Top Comments

  1. François
    It took me a while to figure this out: are you doing this on purpose and playing moron or are you really one? After reading your successive posts, I have to conclude that you are only playing moron but you have an agenda. I think you are an intelligent person that, like many intelligent people, has great difficulties in accepting that what you believed has been proven wrong - not once in an obscure study but consistently over the last 10 years in every maintream medical journal. . So rather than accept that you were wrong and move on, (as I did: I once believed before doing a Masters in Public Health that the Food Industry was honest, just like the Pharmaceutical Industry was and I could believe their statements without any need for critical thinking) you will attack and attempt to ridicule people who have come to conclude something different from what you absolutely want to be true. A few centuries ago, some people believed that the sun turned around the earth and attacked violently those who stated the contrary. It changed nothing to facts but it made life miserable for a few scientists...

    So for the interest of new readers - certainly not for yours as you don't seem to care, here is my take on LCHF.
    1. It is not a religion and certainly not a "one size fits all"
    2. This being said, there are general principles to be respected and they have to do with human physiology and biochemistry
    3. In general, children can tolerate carbs easier than adults, but there is a ceiling over which any supplemental carb will end up in switching on inflammation at the epigenome level. That level is 40% carbs as percent of total caiorles.
    4. If something does not kill you or make you sick immediately does not make that "something" good for your health
    5. We have evolved as a species to eat a significant amount of carbs only during certain periods of the year: when fruits were ripe, during fall, so that the body could store energy as fat in prevision for the winter starvation that always came.
    6. When comparing "whole grains" and vegetables, "whole grains" are a very poor source of nutrients and a significant source of antinutrients. There is absolutely no need for anyone to eat any grains. Does this mean they cannot or, in case you would ask, does this mean they'll die from it immediately? Of course not. But because they can do it does not mean they should.
    7. There is a growing body of evidence that any added sugar increases cardiovascular risk. See one of the most recent posts on this blog.
    8. My personal experience as a physician in Hawaii where diabetes is a way of life is that even in a number of thin people (there are still a few here) seemingly healthy who have normal fasting blood glucose, the HbA1C is either in the pre-diabetic or the diabetic zone. The youngest one I have seen (and probably only because I work with adults) was a thin 21 years old caucasian. And since their fasting glucose is normal, their physicians who know no better think they are fine, But high insulin levels also mean high general glycation of essential proteins, making them stiff and increasing inflammation. It also means changing big harmless fluffy LDL to a small, dense LDL that will rip through the arterial walls of the blood vessels in a futile effort to repair them.
    9. The more sick you are, the less carbs you should eat. The healthier you are, the more you can eat. And again, everyone should go for low glycemic index sugars (eaten with fiber) and avoid as much as possible the acelllular sugar. And always avoid getting over 40% of total calories.
    10. If you want to know what a child on LCHF diet looks like, take a look at the pictures Andreas posted of his daughter. You'll see how "unhappy" and "deprived" she seems to be.

    Please, stop nit picking and asking for absolute numbers that apply to everyone. There is no such thing. I for one can tolerate more carbs than FrankG - up to a certain limit. I used to be significantly overweight with sleep apnea and would be in a lot of trouble now if it was not for LCHF.

    Our role here is to present facts, based on science and personal experience, not biased personal ideas because we have an agenda. When a diet has been proven to have evolved over one million years and improves every measurable health parameter in every patient with no exception, when the very same diet can cure type 2 diabetes, reverse cardiovascular disease, "treat" epilepsy, reverse Alzheimer's and many neurological degenerative diseases, then maybe it is something to be considered.

    So please, please stop playing moron: you are much more intelligent than that. But please make it obvious to others.

    Reply: #23
    Read more →
  2. François
    There is a difference between asking a genuine question like you just did and making sarcastic comments suggesting one does not care about the answer. I'll side with you in that even though I have access to a medical library, I somehow could not access the full article, which frustrated me. This being said, some posts above suggest others were more lucky in their search and they have given rather interesting info about the article.

    Will oatmeal harm your kids? Most probably not. Oatmeal provides "cell encased" carbs, much less harmfull than acellular sugar. Unless the said oatmeal is the "instant" kind - just add water since Big Food already added tons of acellular sugar, regular oatmeal is probably harmless for most kids. So are many fruits, except for tropical fruits (candies on a stem). But fruit juices should be avoided: they are essentially flat sodas with vitamins. Kids should go for the real thing.

    In my opinion, that you CAN feed them oatmeal without any harm does not mean you SHOULD. Once again, this is no religion. There are some delicious alternatives to oatmeal, fully LCHF (I for one eat one of these alternatives nearly every morning). Quick and easy, satisfying and delicious.

    I have studied grains. Sure, they saved humanity with the explosion of demography 10000 years ago. So did potatoes in Ireland and Scotland. But at a significant cost. I look at grains as an emergency food, in case everything else fails. Otherwise, kids can easily adapt to a LCHF diet. How much carbs? The healthier they are, the more they can tolerate. Up to 40% is OK in most.

    Maybe Andreas will in the near future write about his daughter's diet. The question about children's nutrition is certainly genuine. We eat food, not principles, and sometimes, "principles" may be difficult to translate into real meals. From what you said, you are probably doing quite a good job with your kids. We are all doing our best. Most of the time. Sure, we may all improve. We're all humans after all.

    Read more →

All Comments

  1. Wade Henderson
    "Or wait, it’s not just once a year we’re binging on bad carbs. It’s every day we can find an excuse, that is, most days."

    Good article, but are you suggesting that these kids should also be eating LCHF diets from age 3 onward.

    I mean is it OK for them to be eating oatmeal for breakfast and a sandwich on bread for lunch?
    Just how low-carb does a healthy kid need to be?

    Or should breakfast be bacon, eggs, butter and cream with only a touch of any type of grains.

    Is that what healthy Swedish children should start their day with?

    Perhaps that same sugar display we see in that store could be replaced with a similar display, only piled high with bacon, cheese, cream, and other fats, but with hardly a carb to be seen.

    So what is healthy for a child from 5 to 15 ?
    What should their promotional store display look like?

    Replies: #2, #21
  2. FrankG
    Wow.. so you made it all the way from "...children with a weight problem don’t need to eat candy and drink soda.", to suggesting that Dr Andreas is advocating "...a similar display, only piled high with bacon, cheese, cream, and other fats, but with hardly a carb to be seen" with barely a pause for breath in between!

    Reductio ad absurdum much?

    Weren't you admonishing the rest of us for over-reacting: in your recent comments on a blog post regarding the "dangers" of modern wheat?

  3. Suzanne D.
    Troll?! Go find something else to denigrate!
  4. Wade Henderson
    " to suggesting that Dr Andreas is advocating "...a similar display, only piled high with bacon, cheese, cream, and other fats, but with hardly a carb to be seen"

    I was only asking. I never suggested he would favor in-store displays piled high with bacon.

    However, HFLC might suggest some similar display with high fat products emphasized.
    Yet I can't imagine a doctor suggesting that a more balanced diet for a growing child might not be more beneficial than HFLC in the forms we often see mentioned here.

    Perhaps such forms are only for those with problems such as those documented by many here.

    Of course we can all agree that the piles of sugar laden products are simply bad for everyone when taken in excess.
    A portion (not a full can) of Coke once or twice a week is probably OK for most children, though certainly not needed or beneficial.

    Replies: #6, #11, #28
  5. robert
    I'd go a bit further than "...children with a weight problem don't need to eat candy and drink soda".

    As a matter of fact, NOBODY needs soda. Drink water with a bit of lime juice instead.

    I'm not totally against so called treats (ice cream, cookies, fruit...), if they are consumed rarely (once every blue moon), but soda is a completely different matter.

    Soda is quite often consumed regularly and mindlessly and in large quantities, instead of water, to quench thirst. Been there, done that. Due to its liquid-ness and lack of fat, it doesn't give any satiety whatsoever. The body doesn't really notice the calories it got. Amongst a long list of things you also get fat.

    IMO soda is one of the most useless things on this planet. And that includes all of the diet-sodas as well.

  6. FrankG
    "I was only asking." what a predictable response.. that you think you are fooling anyone, simply underlines the disdain you have for others on this blog.

    It was question that did not even need asking. Dr Andreas had already provided his answer in the original post... "What children with weight problems need is a home free of temptations, and to eat themselves satisfied on real food. Weight loss without hunger. Parents can provide the children that opportunity."

    That you choose to caricature LCHF the way you do underlines your ignorance.. take a look at Dr Andreas "For Beginners" page... the advice starts with...
    "Eat: Meat, fish, eggs, vegetables growing above ground and natural fats (like butter).
    Avoid: Sugar and starchy foods (like bread, pasta, rice and potatoes)."

    And sure, an "occasional" soda might not be the downfall of a child but that is the whole point of this post, surely... it is rarely just an "occasional" soda.... store owners recognise this, hence the display seen above

    Reply: #8
  7. tz
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9nE2spOw_o
    Note it was a 1969 children's cartoon. I think I watched it as I remember it.

    (FYI, the booth lady is "Sabrina, the teenage witch" if you don't understand the transformations in the video. Also note no one gets morbidly obese)

    All in all an unhealthy relationship. Lyrics follow...

    Sugar, ah, honey, honey
    You are my candy girl
    And you got me wanting you
    Honey, ah, sugar, sugar
    You are my candy girl
    And you got me wanting you

    I just can't believe the loveliness of loving you
    (I just can't believe it's true)
    I just can't believe the wonder of this feeling, too
    (I just can't believe it's true)

    Ah, sugar, ah, honey, honey
    You are my candy girl
    And you got me wanting you
    Oh, honey, ah, sugar, sugar
    You are my candy girl
    And you got me wanting you

    When I kissed you girl I knew how sweet a kiss could be
    (I know how sweet a kiss can be)
    Like the summer sunshine pour you sweetness over me
    (Pour your sweetness over me)

    (Oh, sugar)
    Pour your sugar on me, honey
    Pour your sugar on me, baby
    I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah, yeah, yeah

    Pour your sugar on me, oh, yeah
    Pour your sugar on me, honey
    Pour your sugar on me, baby
    I'm gonna make your life so sweet, yeah, yeah, yeah
    Pour your sugar on me, honey

    Ah sugar, ah, honey, honey
    You are my candy girl
    And you got me wanting you
    Oh, honey, honey, sugar, sugar
    Honey, honey, sugar, sugar
    You are my candy girl

  8. Wade Henderson
    Not so sure my initial comment was so far off.

    I look at the beginner page you mention

    As you indicated it says

    "Avoid if you can--
    Starch: Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, French fries, potato chips, porridge, muesli and so on. “Wholegrain products” are just less bad. Moderate amounts of root vegetables may be OK (unless you’re eating extremely low carb)."

    So to my original question.

    You have a healthy 5 to 15 year old child who has no weight or health issues.

    I asked
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "I mean is it OK for them to be eating oatmeal for breakfast and a sandwich on bread for lunch?
    Just how low-carb does a healthy kid need to be?

    Or should breakfast be bacon, eggs, butter and cream with only a touch of any type of grains."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You seem to indicate that a healthy Swedish child should essentially never eat oatmeal for breakfast or a sandwich made with bread for lunch.

    Then you wonder why I used as my example for a promotional display, store aisle stacked with bacon, butter, cream, pork, and beef.
    To a great degree it doesn't appear all that different than the display piled high in the example as far as its "excess".

    Replies: #9, #10, #17
  9. FrankG
    You didn't ask anything reasonable, no matter how you try to spin it now.. your original comment was dripping with sarcasm and your usual negative attitude towards LCHF.. why do you still bother to read and comment here? You clearly disagree with the principles.. I suggest you get a life and allow the rest of us to get on with ours.

    Show me where "avoid" certain foods suddenly becomes "never" eat them... other of course, than in your further attempt at reducing LCHF to a caricature, because that is all you can argue against.

  10. robert
    None of the stuff shown in the image at the beginning of this post is real food. Edible, yes. Food, no. It serves no purpose other than perpetuating an addiction.

    A display of the same kind with meats might be excessive as well, but at least it would no promote the consumption of nutritionally completely useless, highly addictive and sadly completely unregulated items with proven strong adverse effects on health.

    Soda in particular is still not perceived as what it really is. Most people probably consider it as quite harmless.

  11. Lori Miller
    "However, HFLC might suggest some similar display with high fat products emphasized.
    Yet I can't imagine a doctor suggesting that a more balanced diet for a growing child might not be more beneficial than HFLC in the forms we often see mentioned here."

    Take a look at some doctors. Most of them are at least 50 pounds overweight.

    The idea of a "balanced diet" came about in the 20s and 30s when people were getting seriously ill from grain-based diets. Parts of grains are indigestible by humans; the parts that are digestible can raise blood glucose higher than table sugar. Grains and some other plants contain phytates that block the absorption of iron, calcium, magnesium and zinc. Wheat is so low in nutrients that here in the US, it is required to be fortified.

    Given that, there's no reason to feed anyone, especially an overweight child, oatmeal or regular bread. But sausage and eggs on a piece of low-carb buttered toast or a mushroom and cheese omelette? If I were feeding an overweight child, those would be standard breakfasts.

    Reply: #12
  12. Joey B
    Don't forget avocados they go great with anything especially with salads and a steak!
  13. bill
    If I may post about our conference here yet again:

    The Central Coast Nutrition Conference
    here in San Luis Obispo, California on March 1st, 2014 is
    starting to fill up.

    This event features:

    Eric Westman, MD:
    The Latest Science on the Low Carb, High Fat Diet
    Jay Wortman, MD:
    The Ketogenic Diet for Diabetes and Other Chronic Conditions
    Steve Phinney, MD. PhD:
    Inflammation and the Low Carb, High Fat Diet
    Jeff Volek, PhD, RD:
    How your Blood Panel Values Respond to a Ketogenic Diet

    The conference is next Saturday.

    Here's the link to our website:

    http://www.ccnutritionconference.com/Home.html

    Thanks Dr. Eenfeldt for letting us post this here.

  14. MJ
    Ok, ok, calm down people.
    I'm with Wade in that I'd love to hear the non-existing rest of the article. WHAT are reasonable low-carb diet expectations for a 3-18 year old (roughly)?
    I've gone full on LCHF myself, but still let my kids eat oatmeal and gf homemade waffles now and then. Should I phase those out? Open to suggestions, thanks!
    Reply: #18
  15. Sarah
    @MJ

    Dr Andreas has in past posts discussed that his own daughter is on a HCLF just a Mom and Dad are. One example is his no sugar added kids birthday, another example is how to get straight teeth, which discusses our bad diet causing even children who are NOT overweight issues with development, sepcifically their teeth. Since reading over all comments I would say pretty confidently that if it is not good for you it is not good for your children. And while I can agree that ocasionaly "indulgences" will not hurt they are not really going to help either. So in summary a healthy diet for your (all?) child is LCHF no grains.

    For more information do a quick search in upper right for "kids" there are quite a few helpful articles there.

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/kids-birthday-party-added-sugar
    http://www.dietdoctor.com/how-to-get-straight-teeth

  16. MJ
    Thanks Sarah! Makes sense of course. I would like to move my kiddos away from all grains eventually, but I don't think the husband is quite convinced.
    Regardless, I think I'm going to slowly start tweaking their diets. We don't keep juice, soda, wheat or candy in the house, so I guess we're on our way. (Although I should say with "we" I don't mean the hubs; he's the only one still on wheat and Coke. Sigh. He'll be joining me for all of March, so I suppose he's a good sport. ;)

    Wahh, excuse my stream of consciousness post. Thanks again for elaborating!

  17. François
    It took me a while to figure this out: are you doing this on purpose and playing moron or are you really one? After reading your successive posts, I have to conclude that you are only playing moron but you have an agenda. I think you are an intelligent person that, like many intelligent people, has great difficulties in accepting that what you believed has been proven wrong - not once in an obscure study but consistently over the last 10 years in every maintream medical journal. . So rather than accept that you were wrong and move on, (as I did: I once believed before doing a Masters in Public Health that the Food Industry was honest, just like the Pharmaceutical Industry was and I could believe their statements without any need for critical thinking) you will attack and attempt to ridicule people who have come to conclude something different from what you absolutely want to be true. A few centuries ago, some people believed that the sun turned around the earth and attacked violently those who stated the contrary. It changed nothing to facts but it made life miserable for a few scientists...

    So for the interest of new readers - certainly not for yours as you don't seem to care, here is my take on LCHF.
    1. It is not a religion and certainly not a "one size fits all"
    2. This being said, there are general principles to be respected and they have to do with human physiology and biochemistry
    3. In general, children can tolerate carbs easier than adults, but there is a ceiling over which any supplemental carb will end up in switching on inflammation at the epigenome level. That level is 40% carbs as percent of total caiorles.
    4. If something does not kill you or make you sick immediately does not make that "something" good for your health
    5. We have evolved as a species to eat a significant amount of carbs only during certain periods of the year: when fruits were ripe, during fall, so that the body could store energy as fat in prevision for the winter starvation that always came.
    6. When comparing "whole grains" and vegetables, "whole grains" are a very poor source of nutrients and a significant source of antinutrients. There is absolutely no need for anyone to eat any grains. Does this mean they cannot or, in case you would ask, does this mean they'll die from it immediately? Of course not. But because they can do it does not mean they should.
    7. There is a growing body of evidence that any added sugar increases cardiovascular risk. See one of the most recent posts on this blog.
    8. My personal experience as a physician in Hawaii where diabetes is a way of life is that even in a number of thin people (there are still a few here) seemingly healthy who have normal fasting blood glucose, the HbA1C is either in the pre-diabetic or the diabetic zone. The youngest one I have seen (and probably only because I work with adults) was a thin 21 years old caucasian. And since their fasting glucose is normal, their physicians who know no better think they are fine, But high insulin levels also mean high general glycation of essential proteins, making them stiff and increasing inflammation. It also means changing big harmless fluffy LDL to a small, dense LDL that will rip through the arterial walls of the blood vessels in a futile effort to repair them.
    9. The more sick you are, the less carbs you should eat. The healthier you are, the more you can eat. And again, everyone should go for low glycemic index sugars (eaten with fiber) and avoid as much as possible the acelllular sugar. And always avoid getting over 40% of total calories.
    10. If you want to know what a child on LCHF diet looks like, take a look at the pictures Andreas posted of his daughter. You'll see how "unhappy" and "deprived" she seems to be.

    Please, stop nit picking and asking for absolute numbers that apply to everyone. There is no such thing. I for one can tolerate more carbs than FrankG - up to a certain limit. I used to be significantly overweight with sleep apnea and would be in a lot of trouble now if it was not for LCHF.

    Our role here is to present facts, based on science and personal experience, not biased personal ideas because we have an agenda. When a diet has been proven to have evolved over one million years and improves every measurable health parameter in every patient with no exception, when the very same diet can cure type 2 diabetes, reverse cardiovascular disease, "treat" epilepsy, reverse Alzheimer's and many neurological degenerative diseases, then maybe it is something to be considered.

    So please, please stop playing moron: you are much more intelligent than that. But please make it obvious to others.

    Reply: #23
  18. François
    There is a difference between asking a genuine question like you just did and making sarcastic comments suggesting one does not care about the answer. I'll side with you in that even though I have access to a medical library, I somehow could not access the full article, which frustrated me. This being said, some posts above suggest others were more lucky in their search and they have given rather interesting info about the article.

    Will oatmeal harm your kids? Most probably not. Oatmeal provides "cell encased" carbs, much less harmfull than acellular sugar. Unless the said oatmeal is the "instant" kind - just add water since Big Food already added tons of acellular sugar, regular oatmeal is probably harmless for most kids. So are many fruits, except for tropical fruits (candies on a stem). But fruit juices should be avoided: they are essentially flat sodas with vitamins. Kids should go for the real thing.

    In my opinion, that you CAN feed them oatmeal without any harm does not mean you SHOULD. Once again, this is no religion. There are some delicious alternatives to oatmeal, fully LCHF (I for one eat one of these alternatives nearly every morning). Quick and easy, satisfying and delicious.

    I have studied grains. Sure, they saved humanity with the explosion of demography 10000 years ago. So did potatoes in Ireland and Scotland. But at a significant cost. I look at grains as an emergency food, in case everything else fails. Otherwise, kids can easily adapt to a LCHF diet. How much carbs? The healthier they are, the more they can tolerate. Up to 40% is OK in most.

    Maybe Andreas will in the near future write about his daughter's diet. The question about children's nutrition is certainly genuine. We eat food, not principles, and sometimes, "principles" may be difficult to translate into real meals. From what you said, you are probably doing quite a good job with your kids. We are all doing our best. Most of the time. Sure, we may all improve. We're all humans after all.

  19. Sheryah
    According to Prof Tim Noakes, it all start in the womb. A pregnant woman should also eat LCHF so that the unborn child gets the benefit. Fat is GOOD for brain development. Here are a few of the interviewed he had on a South African Radio station.
    http://helgavan.com/?page_id=7345
    - So to add my two cents to the discussion. I think if you want your children to excel, let them eat LCHF. - and especially cut out all sugar!!!!
  20. Sheryah
    Also see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/sugar-heart-attack_b_4746...

    "A rigorously done new study shows that those with the highest sugar intake had a four-fold increase in their risk of heart attacks compared to those with the lowest intakes. That's 400 percent! Just one 20-ounce soda increases your risk of a heart attack by about 30 percent."

    Reply: #29
  21. murray
    From what I have seen, kids are fine on LCHF. Our kids were breastfed the first two years, so zero fructose. Zero. No fructose in mammal milk--nature's only food bio-designed specifically for mammal consumption and optimal healthy growth has zero fructose. Breast milk is high fat. There is lactose, of course, which is glucose and galactose, but I expect the gut absorption amount and gut absorption rate is limited or regulated by the rate of lactase production and the activity of beneficial lactobacilli gut flora. So 0-2 years is HFLC.

    I have not seen any evidence of problems for kids HFLC after that. The ones I have seen are physically and especially emotionally mature for their age. One charming daughter of a friend at three skied better than my wife (on a men's downhill black diamond run on a challenging mountain), so no lack of stamina, coordination or resolve. Interestingly, she was given access to berries and such and would eat a few, but she would prefer a nice cheesy, bacon-y frittata with some tomato and bell pepper, or creamed spinach, to something like strawberries. Whipped cream flavoured with cocoa powder and stevia with strawberries was eaten up, so it is not a zero fruit diet, but the ratio of sugar to fat is very low. She was not food fussy and naturally gravitated to a "balanced" diet of real food presented to her, just one that did not include much fruit or starchy vegetables. No grains offered.

  22. Paul the rat
    It is a nasty bug. Most people harbor it without showing symptoms, but the bacteria do their nasty deeds. The good news for us is that LCHF restricts their growth and just one tablespoon of coconut oil per day eliminates it.

    Enjoy your oatmeal trolls !

    http://pdf.medrang.co.kr/ekjg/ekjg008-01-01.pdf

  23. Alan
    François,

    Could you tell me where you get the number 40% carbs (of the total diet) as being a tipping point towards inflammation etc. I would like to read something (paper, book) that deals with this.

    Thank you for your excellent posts and work in Hawaii and online.

    Replies: #25, #31
  24. GP
    The reason most people get fat.
  25. Francois
    Researchers Ingerid Arbo and Hans-Richard Brattbakk at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) fed different diets to slightly overweight people. They then studied the effect of this on gene expression.
    The study’s findings: a diet with 65 per cent carbohydrates, something common in the SAD diet, causes a number of classes of genes to overwork. The genes affected are not only those that cause inflammation, but also genes associated with development of the major lifestyle-related diseases: cardiovascular disease, some cancers, Alzheimer’s dementia and type 2 Diabetes. The carbohydrate content of a healthy diet should not exceed more than one-third in terms of volume on a plate (or make up to 40 per cent of calories) in each meal. Anything over this will stimulate genes to initiate the activity that creates inflammation and obesity in the body (Arbo I, Brattbakk HR, 2011) .

    This is extremely important. Though Vegan high carb low fat diets may be better than the Standard American Diet (anything is), it still promotes inflammation the very moment the carbohydrate content rises above 40% of the total caloric intake

    Balanced caloric macronutrient composition downregulates immunological gene expression in human blood cells-adipose tissue diverges.
    Brattbakk HR, Arbo I, Aagaard S, Lindseth I, de Soysa AK, Langaas M, Kulseng B, Lindberg F, Johansen B.
    OMICS. 2013 Jan;17(1):41-52. doi: 10.1089/omi.2010.0124. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

    Reply: #35
  26. NS
    Francois,

    Yes, I would also like to know your source for that information. Like you, I believe inflammation is an extremely critical and unappreciated player in the obesity discussion. You may already be aware of the Cooling Inflammation blog. It is really good:

    http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.kr/

    Here is a very interesting post on the huge potential benefits of resistant starch, the seemingly latest food source in inflammation reduction capabilties:

    http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.kr/2014/02/paleo-gut-flora-repair...

    We know that chronic inflammation can be tempered to varying degrees through use of omega 3s, probiotics, vitamin D, fasting, fermented foods, and fecal transplants. Perhaps this is the reason so many people feel significant health benefits on a raw food diet - the presence of resistant starch and the consequent repair of gut health through intestinal flora restoration (and of course the absence of processed food). Relatedly, Denise Minger, a paleo proponent herself, eats a highly raw diet. You might be interested in these:

    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/01/20/my-current-diet/

    http://www.amazon.com/Death-Food-Pyramid-Politics-Interests/dp/098475...

  27. NS
    Haha...you beat me to it. Thanks for posting!
  28. ppersson
    Are you for real? Do you think drinking coke EVERY WEEK is OK for children?
  29. Wade Henderson
    One would hope you don't always check your mind at the door.

    Here from the actual abstract of that study

    During a median follow-up period of 14.6 years, we documented 831 CVD deaths during 163 039 person-years. Age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity–adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of CVD mortality across quintiles of the percentage of daily calories consumed from added sugar were 1.00 (reference), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13), 1.23 (1.12-1.34), 1.49 (1.24-1.78), and 2.43 (1.63-3.62; P < .001), respectively. After additional adjustment for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics, HRs were 1.00 (reference), 1.07 (1.02-1.12), 1.18 (1.06-1.31), 1.38 (1.11-1.70), and 2.03 (1.26-3.27; P = .004), respectively. Adjusted HRs were 1.30 (95% CI, 1.09-1.55) and 2.75 (1.40-5.42; P = .004), respectively, comparing participants who consumed 10.0% to 24.9% or 25.0% or more calories from added sugar with those who consumed less than 10.0% of calories from added sugar.

    Please find me the person dying from "Just one 20 ounce soda"

    If you'll read my post, it said the following

    "A portion (not a full can) of Coke once or twice a week is probably OK for most children, though certainly not needed or beneficial."

    Thats right, a Coke is not needed or beneficial, but if a child has one serving (not a full can or 20 ounce bottle) "once or twice a week"..... meaning one or two 8 ounce servings in a entire week, to also include the other similar sugar drinks, then that total consumption of 8 ounces to 16 ounces in a week, will not bring about the calamity that you speak about.

    Your example which was not in the study, but only thrown in by Dr. Hyman, was referring to a child who would get a 20 ounce bottle every single day.
    Ten or more times the level that I was mentioning.

    In fact.... had you bothered to read the study or abstract, you'd have seen that such a child having the portion offering I was saying was acceptable, would have fallen into the lowest quintile. The quintile with a HR of 1.00.

    But you seem to prefer scary quotes from the Huffington Post columns.

    Now, as anyone who grew up in the 50's and early 60's will tell you, the type of consumption I refer to was common at that time. I would get perhaps one 6 ounce serving of 7-Up as a treat each week.
    You may not know this, but a full bottle at that time was only 7 or 8 ounces.

    Back in the 50's and early 60's the children were not fat. The ate some sugar, they ate cereal and bread, and the ran around outside. In a classroom with 30 to 34 children, there were perhaps 2 children whom you could say were overweight. Everyone else was normal weight.
    Weight was not a national obsession back then. People were eating normal diets, very similar to what had been standard for the prior 50 years.

    So compare back then, the average kid drank far less than one 20 ounce soda in a entire week, with today where the average kid drinks one 20 ounce soda a day.
    SEVEN times the ratio.

    Aside from, back then, a sugar cereal was a treat. Sugar Pops, Sugar Smacks. We never got those unless came in one of the variety packs. Instead we got oatmeal, or Wheat Hearts, or plain old corn flakes or Rice Krispies .
    Not the typical cereals you see today wherein 35% to 55% of the calories come from sugars.

    So, you seem to have no reference point from which to understand what was going on 50 to 60 years ago when obesity was not the problem it is today. Certainly not the problem it is today in children.

    In those times, every class room had the "fat kid"...... NOT the "fat kids"....
    Do you understand the difference?

    Reply: #30
  30. FrankG
    I can also relate to those times Wade so I do have this frame of reference...

    I know that my Mother was well aware that to "lose weight" one would cut out bread, potatoes, pasta and the like. There was in the UK (at that time) an active movement to limit sugar.. primarily promoted by dental health concerns but somehow this has been lost along the way.

    All this seemed me to be common knowledge, right up until we (as a society) stopped listening to our Mothers (human culture and tradition) and instead switched to "nutritional experts".

    But all of this begs the question why are you so adamant that the LCHF approach (which I see as broadly a return to those simpler times) is flawed? Why always so negative?

    Reply: #32
  31. Wade Henderson
    FrankG,

    "But all of this begs the question why are you so adamant that the LCHF approach (which I see as broadly a return to those simpler times) is flawed? Why always so negative?"

    Oh, I think there are sensible elements of the LCHF approach that help lots of people who find it a effective way to lose weight.
    There are also certain people who for whatever reason, have bodies that operate better on LCHF, just as there are some who do great on LFHC.

    But what seems to happen is the extremes abandon common sense and prescribe LCHF as ideal for the vast society.

    They ignore our own recent history and the numerous examples around the world where people have lived and continue to live relatively healthy lives on diets with lots of carbs.

    Again, go back to children in the schools in the 50's and 60's. No one was doing low carb.
    No normal healthy children (most of us) were avoiding cereal, or toast, or sandwiches made with bread. No one was avoiding potatoes or pasta.
    Yet the rates of obesity and/or overweight were only a fraction of what they are today.
    Type 2 diabetes was so rare it was called "adult onset diabetes"

    But here, including the advice of the DietDoctor, would have you, including children, avoiding ": Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, French fries, potato chips, porridge, muesli and so on. “Wholegrain products” are just less bad."

    If you had told this to mothers in 1957, they would have said you were a insane doctor.
    Their common sense told them otherwise. They knew that cereal for breakfast was not bad.
    That a bread sandwich packed for their child's meal was OK and healthy.

    But now, everyone will come back and say that you have to understand that everyone today is "damaged" and that you can't just eat like you did back then. Either because once damaged you have to eat differently or because today's wheat is tainted, or because you can't avoid sugar.

    How about a mother today, giving her child the same basic foods they were eating in 1957, and allowing the child the same level of activity they had back in 1957.
    How come that option is never mentioned as beneficial compared to switching the kids to very low carbs, avoiding cereals, oatmeal, toast, sandwiches on bread and not even 1 serving of soda a week.

    Why must some extreme HFLC diet be substituted for what worked quite well in 1957 for vast numbers of children?

    I think those with medical and weight problems think their solution must be what is best for everyone.
    Well not everyone is sick. There are huge numbers of children who aren't sick.
    They could do just fine eating as children did in 1957.

    Or do people posting here insist that the new LCHF is superior to what children were eating in 1957?
    I get the impression that is exactly what they think.

    No need to use low-fat as a straw man, just tell me why LCHF is superior to what kids were eating in 1957 and easily remaining slender and fit.

    For people that have medical problems, weight problems, and other maladies, sure, go ahead and find what works for you. But why suggest children who are otherwise healthy need to follow such a diet.

    Replies: #33, #34, #36
  32. FrankG
    Good grief Wade... you're gonna a blow a blood vessel!

    Sure there may be some who take it to extremes but on the whole I don't see that here on this blog. How much of it is just your perception?

    No-one is trying to force anything on anyone... this blog however, is devoted to LCHF, so if you choose to read here, why act all upset and surprised when you see that approach advocated here!?!

    As for "avoiding" certain foods... It is all a matter of degree. I ate chips/fries back in the 60's but not every day.. maybe every other week, as they were home-cooked (in lard). Again "avoid" does not mean the same as "never eat!"

    Yes I have chronic metabolic damage after years of eating SAD so I have to be stricter LCHF than many others.. like my son who is in his early 20's. Going through University and living with his peers, of course he went out OCCASIONALLY for beer and pizza.. no worries for me... as I would just remind him (when he asked my advice) that it is what he eats MOST of the time which has the major impact. He is incidentally a great cook and loves to share gourmet food with his friends... real whole food, locally sourced, seasonal and home cooked.

    As to what children should eat: Dr Andreas's family seems to be doing just fine with an LCHF approach... you may not agree that it is necessary for all children (again there is no-one coercing anyone) but are you prepared to argue that it is harmful and not advised for any children?

  33. FrankG
    Perhaps you are stuck in the mindset that LCHF (or VLC as you like to keep trying to push it to extremes for effect) requires sitting in the couch with a big tub o' lard and a spoon :-)

    Do the math... the terms "low-carb" or "high-fat" (as examples) simply refer to the relative percentage of energy from each of the three [main] macro-nutrients. Given that fat has over twice the estimated energy per gram, when compared to carbohydrate or protein, you might see how substituting just 43 grams of fat instead of 100 grams of carbs could be all it takes to convert an adult diet from HCLF to LCHF. Small changes like reducing or cutting out soda and fruit juices, eating chicken with the skin on, full-fat yoghurt and milk, bacon and eggs for breakfast a couple of times a week... it doesn't have to be some extreme major change...

    I wonder just what the profile of my meals growing up 50+ years ago was, in terms of relative percentages of energy? I can guarantee you that it was LOWER carb than the SAD or what many "health experts" are still pushing (even for diabetics) to this day.

  34. Alan
    Thank you Francois, and Paul. I had not read that paper.
  35. Lori Miller
    You say in one breath that you want to go back to 1957, but you say in another breath that we should limit fat (see comment 1). Was anyone but Keys, Eisenhower and food faddists limiting fat back then? I give you evidence to the contrary from the Gallery of Regrettable Food.

    http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/meat/3.html

  36. François
    Paul, thank you,

    Listen: I understand we all post under some pseudonym (though I get your is Paul the lab rat). This is the situation: I am negotiating for the publication of a book on nutrition (rather LCHF as you may guess) with a British Publisher. Ideally to be published in the UK, Australia and the US (different versions, as reality is not exactly the same). This being said, I found extremely stimulating the various posts and discussions I had with yourself, with Murray and FrankG. You all (especially you) brought some remarkable articles to my attention and helped me improve my book. Discussing with you guys helped me improve my text and you don't realize how important these discussions and exchanges have been to me.

    I would like to thank all three of you in this book but I feel to thank "Murray", "FrankG" and "Paul the rat" for stimulating exchanges would somewhat lack seriousness. Is there any way I can get a few details (name, what is your job) so I can thank real persons and not pseudonyms.

    You may email me at melanconf@gmail.com for details.

    Thanks in advance to all three of you.

  37. Galina L.
    I think normal weight children do not require a LC diet, but it is better to go easy on grains at home. Porridge for a breakfast is just a poor choice of food. The environment in outside world provides enough junk to keep any child from being on a LC diet, but giving your child enough of fatty foods at home will be health protective.
  38. Liz
    Regarding eating in the 50s and 60s...at least where I grew up, we all ate WHOLE food. I never had soda or chips. I lived in a rural area, and our family ate what my mom cooked, got our milk from a local dairy, and meat that I'm pretty sure didn't come from some industrial complex in Iowa. Our food was not riddled with soy and corn. So sure, we didn't "subscribe" to LC eating...we didn't have to. Food was a lot different then. That was before Big Food, Big Corn, etc.

    If I could put the genie back in the bottle and change the way I fed my kids when they were little, I most definitely would. I see nothing at all wrong with trying to completely eliminate added sugar and other chemicals from a child's diet. It's hard as hell but it certainly can be done. They would most definitely survive and I can't imagine them being any worse off.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts