Zero-carb diets and pregnancy–crazy or what a healthy baby needs?
Sometimes the most interesting topics of discussion for me to blog about just sorta happen. Such is the case with what I am about to share with you today. It all started when one of my moderators at my “Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Discussion” forum named Charles Washington, an avid zero-carb advocate and personal follower, posted his thoughts based on the research he has conducted in response to another member who had recently become pregnant.
The pregnant forum member wrote:
I’ve read everything I can find about lowcarbing during pregnancy, including the standard medical advice (eat according to the Food Pyramid). Practically all the studies that found negative effects of ketosis were done either in diabetics (in ketoacidosis), or women who were burning ketones due to starvation. Obviously, neither of those is equivalent to a woman on a low-carb diet.
The general opinion is there isn’t enough research done to know if ketones are safe for the baby so it’s best to avoid them. Which is all well and good unless you are one of the many women who needs to stay at a very low-carb level to avoid gestational diabetes and the sugar high/crash rollercoaster. Given a choice between the known negative consequences of gestational diabetes (on mother and baby) and the theoretical consequences of ketones on the baby (since ketones obviously don’t harm the mom), I would take my chances with the latter.
The pregnant forum member detailed that she realized the alleged risks involved with continuing on a ketogenic diet during her pregnancy and was willing to take her chances based on her own decision. In fact, she has been pregnant consuming a low-carb diet in the past, so the presence of ketones while she was pregnant before didn’t negatively impact her. This is when Charles chimed in and agreed that a zero-carb diet during her pregnancy should not negatively impact the health of her baby. In other words, he was reassuring the pregnant forum member of her decision regardless of what she ultimately decided to do.
She responded to Charles’ comments with the following:
The way I’m eating now is still very low-carb; it’s still very much based on fatty meat. I just let myself have some veggies, cheese, cream and the occasional berry or small piece of fruit on the side. It’s not because I think zero-carb is unhealthy; it’s because I think this is a carb level I can sustain throughout the pregnancy. I think if I ate zero-carb for a few months during my pregnancy but was unable to stick with it (because I couldn’t tolerate red meat, say, which happened for a while during my last pregnancy), the consequences would be worse than just starting off at a slightly higher carb level to begin with. I do hope to go back to zero-carb after this baby is born and hopefully get adjusted enough to it that my next one can be a zero-carb baby, but I just think it’s too drastic a change to implement in the middle of a pregnancy.
Unfortunately, this didn’t sit too well with someone who read this thread in my forum and decided to sign up at my forum as a pretend character named “Ogg.” This person claimed to be on the “Yak and Water Diet” because it was the healthiest way to eat. From the very beginning, I realized this person was trying to make some kind of a point, although it was never clear what the root issue really was. After a few days of ridiculous and nonsensical posts about this miracle diet of just yak and water, the truth came out: “Ogg” didn’t like that Charles was recommending a zero-carb diet for pregnant women.
Of course, the person behind “Ogg” never came to me to express these concerns beforehand, so I had no way of addressing them. Finally, I did hear directly from this person who was concerned I was promoting the killing of babies by allowing such advice to be shared on my forum. She castigated me and my Christianity for allowing my moderator Charles to provide medical advice without a medical license. I assured her he was not offering any medical advice, but simply sharing from his own research, experiences, and what respected low-carb doctors such as Dr. Barry Groves and Dr. James Carlson have both said previously regarding low-carb diets and pregnancies.
She said she didn’t have a problem with “low-carb and pregnancy,” but rather a ZERO-carb diet and pregnancy. Since I have the ability to contact Dr. Groves and Dr. Carlson directly, the woman formerly known as “Ogg” requested that I ask them the following question:
“Is it safe for unborn and newborn babies if their Moms to eat nothing but store bought meat, animal fat and water — and nothing else — for the entire duration of the pregnancy?”
Sounded like a fair enough question to see what the good doctors thought. So I first posed the question to Dr. Groves, author of the upcoming book release Trick And Treat: How ‘Healthy’ Eating Is Making Us Ill (I’ll be sharing a two-part podcast interview with him in November discussing this book), because he dedicates an entire chapter to the subject of ketogenic diets for pregnant women.
Here’s what Dr. Groves wrote in response to my e-mail query:
Why would being pregnant change anything? Do you see a pregnant lioness eating grass during prenancy rather than antelope? Of course not. Do rabbits decide that grass is a bit restrictive for a growing rabbit fetus and eat mice instead when they are pregnant? The amount a pregnant woman eats may increase–she really is eating for two, after all, and it may be necessary for her to pay more attention to the quality of the food she eats. But the idea that her diet should change radically during pregnancy is absurd. All of us, whether pregnant or not, should eat good quality food all the time. And every nutrient we need for a long healthy life is to be found in a diet of fatty meats. How else would peoples such as the Inuit and Maasai have survived and been so successful?
From his well-worded response, you could say that Dr. Groves believes a zero-carb diet for a pregnant woman is perfectly fine. But what about Dr. Carlson, author of the book Genocide!: How Your Doctor’s Dietary Ignorance Will Kill You!!!? Does he agree with Dr. Groves that a zero-carb diet that has “Ogg” so concerned about the babies is worth bellyaching over since the longest chapter in his book is how a pregnant woman should absolutely be eating a low-carb diet for the best health for themselves and their baby?
Here’s what Dr. Carlson said in his response:
Yes, doing low-carb during pregnancy is safe, as long as you are working with a doctor who is familiar with it. I have had the privilege of working with hundreds of pregnant women who began or continued their low-carb lifestyle throughout their pregnancy. If a woman had gestational diabetes, pregnancy induced hypertension (commonly referred to as PIH), preeclampsia, had prior macrosomic deliveries, or was obese; these women must start a low-carb regimen. The babies delivered to the women consuming low-carb diets were healthy, appropriately sized newborns. I have worked with obese women who were told they were going to have the same complications by their OB/GYN doc, only to see no complications and again healthy babies born at appropriate weights, all due to a low carb lifestyle. The OB/GYN docs are utterly amazed at the progress and success of the pregnancy, but their amazement is due to the fact they do not understand low-carb.
I am a little confused at the “store bought meat, animal fat, and water” statement. I would never suggest one only consume cattle and water. But if we go back to when we lived in an ice age, for tens of thousands of years, the only thing around to eat were fat animals. We also need to understand that our ancestors did not just eat the meat. Not to gross anyone out, but we also consumed all the organs as well. Yes, the heart, liver, kidneys, stomach–well, you get my point. A low-carb lifestyle is more than just cattle, fat and water. It also includes too many other food sources to list, but a few more would be fish, chicken, green leafy veggies, small servings of berries. One can avoid red meat altogether and still consume enough protein. Remember, a developing embryo needs protein, fat and cholesterol for proper growth. Even in an adult, the percentage of carbohydrate represents only 2% of our biological makeup. Two percent. But the vast majority of people out there consume very little protein and fat, with the majority of their food consisting of carbohydrates.
I hear Dr. Carlson saying that a low-carb diet is indeed recommended for pregnancy, but perhaps going zero-carb isn’t necessarily the answer since there are other food sources for pregnant women to eat for variety and healthy nutrition for their baby. He doesn’t come out and say that a zero-carb diet is bad, per se, but it does not appear he promotes such a diet for childbearing. Is this becoming clear as mud for you right about now?
When I posed this question to popular low-carb blogger and friend Regina Wilshire from “Weight of the Evidence,” she said it’s probably “not a good idea” because it can be “risky.” And she’s not alone. Judith E. Brown, RD, MPH, PhD, Professor Emerita of the Division of Epidemiology and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Minnesota, responded to this “crazy” notion of a zero-carb, carnivorous diet with great concern. You’ll notice much of what she states is rooted in the traditional dietary approach, but that’s to be expected.
The short answer to the question about consumption of a meat and water diet during pregnancy is don’t do it. A balanced and adequate diet, such as that recommended at MyPyramid.gov, is the nutritional path to a healthy mother and newborn. Both women and their growing fetuses need a wide variety of nutrients, and these are not supplied by diets limited to a few foods like meat and water. It is recommended that women consume at least 175 grams (700 Calories) daily of carbohydrate to provide the fetus with a continuous supply of glucose, and to avoid ketosis. Although it is true that the fetus can use ketone bodies to some extent, it is not their body’s preferred source of energy. Excess use of ketones is harmful to fetal growth and development.
This wasn’t a surprising answer from a mainstream prenatal care expert, but it does give you the kind of response you’d expect to hear from a trained professional in this arena of medicine. But is she right to recommend such a high-carb diet? Or is Dr. Groves right stating zero-carb is perfectly fine during pregnancy? Or does Dr. Carlson have a point staking claim somewhere in between leaning towards a low-carb, not zero-carb approach? The question still looms as a big fat question mark.
Well, what does Charles think about “Ogg” and her question–“Is it safe for expectant Moms, unborn babies, and newborn babies to eat nothing except store bought cattle, cattle fat and water –please read that again–nothing except store bought cattle, cattle fat, and water–and nothing else for the entire duration of the Moms’ pregnancy?” I decided to ask him directly.
And here’s what Charles had to say:
Yes, as long as the woman is ketoadapted and successfully adapted to the zero-carb regimen for at least six months. I don’t think it would feel particularly good for the woman if she began a zero-carb diet mid-pregnancy; however, if she was already on a low-carb diet of 30 grams or less, then she could transition to zero-carb even during pregnancy if she chose to. This seems controversial because the conventional wisdom is that a meat-rich, plant-poor diet will result in nutritional deficiencies.
The nutritionists of the 1920s and 30s didn’t know that animal foods contain all of the essential amino acids and they do so in the ratios that maximize their utility to humans. They also contain twelve of the thirteen essential vitamins in large quantities. Meat is a particularly concentrated source of vitamins A, E, and the entire complex of B vitamins. Vitamins D and B12 are found only in animal products and we can get sufficient vitamin D from sunlight on our skin. Because those on zero-carbohydrate diets do not suffer deficiency diseases nor suffer from chronic dissease, this indicates that they are consuming what is by definition a healthy diet.
A zero-carb diet of beef, beef fat and water will produce no fat storage and all of the available energy will be utilized by the body. There will be no nutrient deficiencies because refined and easily digestible sugars and starches will not be consumed. Therefore, I argue that such a diet would be safe for any nursing or expectant woman. The Native American of the Great Plains, the Inuit, the Masai, etc.–cultures that consisted of primarily zero-carb, high-fat diets–all have babies and they are completely healthy without food from vegetation. Myself and many others consume an all-meat diet which results in great health. If a woman is healthy while she consumes such a diet, why would anything change once she became pregnant?
And thus we have come full circle on this question again. Charles is convinced based on the evidence he has presented many times in this forum thread about a Zero-Carb Meat And Water Only diet that a zero-carb diet is the way to go for pregnant women. Do you buy his theory or do you have evidence that disproves anything he has shared? Are you as concerned about this kind of dietary advice being given to pregnant women as “Ogg” is? Is a zero-carb or even a low-carb diet healthy for a pregnant woman to consume? Share your comments below…this one should be a real doozy of a discussion!
10-1-08 UPDATE: While the comments here at my blog about this issue have been mostly neutral or supportive of low-carb and even zero-carb diets for pregnant women, take a look at the vitriolic comments coming in over at Examiner.com where I simultaneously posted this column. So far, it’s being dominated by people who are claiming I am suggesting and promoting zero-carb for women who are pregnant. Not once did I provide any “advice” that a zero-carb diet is “advisable” for a pregnant woman to be on as is being claimed. It’s laughable that these people would get all worked up about an article that simply asks a question that is on the hearts and minds of people living the low-carb life. They’re even calling for Examiner.com to force me to remove the column and cease writing for them. And these people call me “unstable?” LOL!
Wow. This is why we really need the medical community to get up to speed. Regarding Dr. Brown’s assertion that “It is recommended that women consume at least 175 grams (700 Calories) daily of carbohydrate to provide the fetus with a continuous supply of glucose, and to avoid ketosis. Although it is true that the fetus can use ketone bodies to some extent, it is not their body’s preferred source of energy. Excess use of ketones is harmful to fetal growth and development,” I’d like to know the basis for this claim. How does she know that ketones are harmful? I really don’t think so, given the history of many cultures that wouldn’t see 175 grams of carbohydrates in a year, let alone a day. And what of mothers who had no access to vegetation or berries, due to a winter pregnancy? Many doctors recommend that women not implement any drastic changes during pregnancy, so I’m with Dr. Groves. If the woman is already adjusted to low carb, why add them? And if blood sugar issues are present, I’d do whatever it takes to rectify that, even zero carb.
Way, way back in time (in the 1980’s) the government publlished a food pyramid recommending that we all stop eating meat and fat and start eating vegetation.
I recall reading news stories about babies who were diagnosed with “failure to thrive” when their parents fed them low-fat diets in early infancy. Babies died before doctors determined that fat is essential to life in the first 2 yers after birth. Fat is involved in the growth and formation of the brain and the nervous system.
More recently, I am reading new recommendations to cut back to low-fat milk when babies turn one-year old. I personally think low-fat diets during pregnancy may be the cause of the increasing numbers of autistic children.
Wow. I don’t think I’d ever eat low carb when pregnant. Although I will note* that eating the healthy daily recommendation of carbs is probably lower than what the typical American eats in a day.
I think I would prefer eating some carbs like leafy green vegetables and berries just for variety.
This is an interesting post by Robb Wolf on Gestational Diabetes.
“The placenta directs a huge amount of control over both fetus and mom..it can sieve omega-3’s out of the moms body for the fetal brain development ( this is the cause of post partum depression BTW) and it exerts some powerful hormonal control over the mom’s physiology. One of these controls is a transitory state of insulin resistance. Why would biology want to do this? If the mom is a bit LESS insulin sensitive than the baby, the baby will be insured a steady supply of glucose and other nutrients. If the mom becomes MORE insulin sensitive than the baby it may be difficult for the little-whipper-snapper to receive adequate nutrients. Normally this situation is not a problem but add modern refined foods and this weird notion among many women that “I’m pregnant…I can EAT ANYTHING AND GET AS FAT AS I WANT!!”…well, the combo of a really bad modern diet coupled with an ancient biological mechanism results in diabetic moms and HUGE, over weight babies.”
http://robbwolf.com/?p=102
I’m new to the low-carb lifestyle after it was recommended to my by my ob/gyn. I have P.C.O.S. — a condition that usually involves insulin resistance. Eating low carb is changing my life and my health. For many women with my condition, eating LC and losing weight helps increase their fertility and can often lead to pregnancy. Why would they go back to old eating habits? Eating habits that will cause excessive weight gain and further hind future conception?
Low-fat dogma dies a slow and painful death. I’m constantly surprised by the number of friends and family members who concede that increased protein consumption is healthy, but they just can’t buy the increased fat — especially animal fats. Living is believing!
My wife was on a typical “healthy” diet at the beginning of her recent pregnancy, but went lower and lower carb, basically because I was bringing home higher and higher fat items and she felt good when eating them.
She aced all of the physical examinations throughout the pregnancy and looked very trim at nine months, having gained 22lbs. She delivered our first child, a healthy baby girl of normal weight (actually on the 50% midline), five days after her due date. After the birth, she lost most of the excess weight within the first two weeks and the excess skin on her belly is slowly returning to pre-pregnancy shape.
My wife does take dietary supplements in addition to her high-fat low-carb diet: a dry prenatal vitamin, 6000 IU vit D3 in gelcap, 1600mg Ca and Mg in gelcap. She did become slightly anemic, which required iron and Vit C for the last six months of the pregnancy.
The kid continues to do great during breastfeeding, despite mom’s flagrant disregard for the advice of the food pyramid.
Hi Jimmy,
Dr Eades has addressed this important subject a couple of times and said that a keytogenic diet may not be ideal for a developing fetus. Go to this blog entry and scan down about half way to the response to Karishma:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/
I like Barry Groves a lot but for the sake of clarity be aware that he is not a medical doctor. He has a PhD is a nutrition related subject if I recall correctly.
Charles is right on in this regard. Saying that zero carb (or some even say low-carb in general) is dangerous to a developing baby is complete ignorance as is saying that low-carb or zero carb is dangerous to an adult. It’s idiotic. Societies of the past have produced super healthy babies as a result of low (or even zero carb).
All the “Proof” research to call this way of eating dangerous is based on studies with out of control blood sugar (diabetes) or other metabolic disorders, NOT a healthy well fed way of eating.
If I were to be pregnant, you could bet your sweet buttons that I would eat as low (to zero) carb as I could manage.
There is NO WAY IN HELL I would eat 175g of carbs a day when pregnant. I am with Gary Taubes on this one when he pointed out the increasing number of bigger babies born to women who were carbo loading during pregnancy. Their kids then start off life with a much higher risk of diabetes and all the other diseases of civilisation.
The human race has eaten low to zero carb for millions of years and we still survived. It is the natural way to eat.
I will always eat low carb. I am not a zero carber so can’t speak to that. However if anything I will probably eat lower carb during pregnancy. I just don’t want my child to have the health problems I have. No way.
P.S. I was gonna point out that Barry Groves is not an M.D. also for clarity’s sake.
I agree with the train of thought that if a woman has been eating low to zero carb for a while then it should be perfectly safe. I eat almost no carbs and do not show to be in ketosis. I am totally fat adapted. I recently had extensive bloodwork done and it showed NO nutritional deficiencies. I dont think she should worry especially if she is taking prenatal vitamins
Thanks Jimmy…you always provide us with the tools to make an informed and intelligent decision. We know that you believe in low carb…but you are fair enough to want to research alternatives if it seems necessary. That’s why we can trust in you and your experts (I’m thinking of Charles as one…). I feel sorry for Ogg…all that person had to do was to express their concerns in a forthright manner…and it would be have been discussed maturely…no need for the sarcasm at all!
Thanks Jimmy, Charles, and all of the people who stand up for healthy eating!
We also should consider that the usual advice against “dieting” during pregnancy stems from the concern that there will be too little food to sustain the mother and support the growth of the baby, i.e. low calorie/low fat diets. As we know, a low carb diet can certainly supply adequate calories as well as nutrients. Temporary starvation diet, no. Low carb healthy eating program, yes.
I lowcarbed with my last 2 pregancies, consuming approx 90 to 120 grams of carb a day, sometimes less. Both babies were healthy, and fine. I had gestational diabetes with all my pregancies (4 total) and no obese babies. My second did have a small complication with his blood having too much hemoglobin after birth and needed a blood reduction.
Jimmy…unstable?
ask Christine…HAR HAR
my 2 cents worth on the zero carb during pregnancy debate is as follows…
My initial reaction is that low carb, or even very low carb would be fine. This is based on nothing but self study, and is not backed up by any scientific study or data I can point to….but…if its good when not pregnant….why would it not be good during?
Maybe take a folic acid supplement along with eating low carb…but that seems to me to be the extent of it.
As to Zero carb whilst preggers….if that is how you eat when not preggers…then most likely it will be fine while being “with child.” Again…maybe supplement with folic acid or other supplement if worried, but why put your body through an insulin roller coaster ride daily? How is THAT healthy.
I do think that more, and more, and more…(and Moore)…studies should be done regarding low carb in general…I firmly believe that when the FACTS are truly revealed from long term studies…including pregnant women….that finally low carb living will become the norm…and not the exception.
its all about insulin…NOT calories!
Sincerely,
Ab
I appreciate reading all the comments and I love the rational way that your commentors are approaching this topic. It does seem controversial but when you stop and think about it, it’s not that crazy a notion.
I just wanted to comment on Dr. Carlson’s assertion that meat-eaters ate the whole animal. He would need to provide proof for this comment.
On our forum, we are currently involved in a book study on Viljamur Stefansson’s 1946 epic, The Fat of the Land: Not by Bread Alone. I invite all of you to join us as well. If you e-mail me on the site, I can provide you with a free PDF copy of this book to read along with us.
Dr. Stefansson is an anthropologist and in his book he describes from first hand experience, the life of the Mackenzie River Inuit Eskimos whom he lived with.
He described the way the caribou was divided amongst the family and the dog teams. Dr. Carlson would be surprised to know that the organ meats were always given to the dogs. In Chapter 2, we find this quote:
“Among the Mackenzie, the head was considered the best part of the caribou, not just the tongue and brain but the head as a whole. The fat behind the eyes and the meat, a blend of lean and fat inside the angle of the lower jaw were considered the best. The Eskimo and Native American of the Great Plain all had this preference. In New England, chowder from fresh heads is preferred over chowder made from other parts.
After the head, come the brisket, ribs, pelvis and backbone. If there are four in a family, with a team of eight dogs, they divide the caribou nearly half and half. Two dogs eat what a man does who lives in the house. The dogs get the tenderloin, lungs, liver, sweetbreads, and everything else from within the body except the kidney fat and intestinal fat. The kidney, intestines and heart go to the dogs. ”
This would directly contradict his assertion of the need for organ meats.
My point is that it’s not so much that we should be concerned about getting the nutrients from our food. Rather, we should be concerned if the food we eat causes us to lose vitamins and nutrients that we would ordinarily get from meat in its proper amounts.
I don’t care what they say about beef in a bomb calorimeter. It has everything that we need as long as we don’t consume carbohydrates or overcook the meat.
Theodore Van Itallie testified at the 1973 Senate Select Hearings that carbohydrates increase our need for vitamin supplementation. This has been known by nutritionists since the 1930s.
Regards,
Charles
THANKS Charles! You should go to my Examiner.com posting of this column and you’ll see some much more biting comments about this. Several had questions for you there, so check it out!
–Jimmy
I’d like to know the basis for this claim. How does she know that ketones are harmful?
If I’d known I was being quoted from my email to Jimmy, I’d have given a more thorough answer…..and not simply it’s too risky. So…..
A review of the literature, searching for ketosis and pregnancy will yield a large number of studies to read through, both human and animal model.
Context matters, but overall, both human and animal data suggest that a state of continuous ketosis may be at minimum a disadvantage, at worst harmful, in pregnancy.
Before I conceived with my son, I did a review of the literature and animal models are clear – a state of continuous ketosis is harmful to an embryo, a fetus and a breastfed baby animal receiving milk from its mother in ketosis. The list of “unfavorable outcomes” in animal studies range from birth defects to failure to grow properly in utero, from liver problems to lower milk production and poor energy utilization, from inadequate nutrient supply to low bone density in the baby animal, from higher rates of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) to pre-term labor resulting in low birth weight animals.
These are serious issues and if the animal model even begins to touch on the risks to a human pregnancy, it’s clear that one does not want to be in continuous ketosis while trying to get pregnant, when pregnant or when breastfeeding….as I said in my email to you, it’s too risky, and that’s based on the large amount of data known in the animal model.
But what about human studies? To date there has never been (to my knowledge) a human trial that willfully and purposely takes an otherwise healthy pregnant woman (ie. not diabetic, not hypertensive, etc.) or group of women and feeds her in a way to induce a state of continuous ketosis; therefore, there is no human data available to say with certainty that it’s beneficial or harmful…..but we do have data that is available from human women that were in ketosis for a number of different reasons, including diabetes, gestational diabetes, starvation, etc. and that’s what we have to use since no one in their right mind is going to subject a pregnant woman to a trial given the fact that animal data and other human data strongly suggests unfavorable outcomes.
A bunch of folks like to bring up the Masai, Inuit and other potential populations that consume a lower carbohydrate content diet….to that I can only say, please do more reading – in every tribal culture I’ve read about, including the Masai, they have specific ritual traditions for women attempting to get pregnant, who are pregnant and who are breastfeeding – and those traditions are feeding these women higher loads of carbohydrate, be it from stored honey, tubers, cornmeal/honeycakes, etc., women in traditional cultures are fed a higher carbohydrate diet for reasons not fully understood – is it that they’ve realized as a tribe that more carbohydrate means more healthy babies or is it just voodoo traditions? Who knows – but don’t assume because overall a population consumes what qualifies as a lower carbohydrate diet, that this extends to their pregnant or lactating women too!
All that said, ketosis in and of itself isn’t necessarily something you have to work to avoid….IMO it’s the state of continuous ketosis which may be harmful, not teetering in and out of ketosis as you’d do if you were consuming 72g or more per day…..from everything I have read, the advice of various physicians, including Dr. Atkins, to consume a level of carbohydrate consistent with maintenance should be okay – not only does this give you a greater variety of foods to eat to get in essential nutrients, it also gives you the necessary increase in insulin resistance that is expected and necessary during pregnancy…..it’s a balancing act – not too few carbohydrates, but not too many – and those you do eat should be of high quality and high nutrient-density.
When I was pregnant, my OB was clear – he reviewed my menus and said, ‘that’s how we’re supposed to eat, so continue eating that way’…..and the way I was eating at the time was CONTROLLED-CARB, not low-carb, not ketogenic low-carb, not zero-carb…..I kept my carbohydrate intake between 72g and 150g a day and tracked my nutrient intake to make sure I was consuming adequate levels of essential nutrients (vitmains, minerals, fatty acids, trace elements, and amino acids)…..it is very possible and doable to eat controlled-carb and be well nourished……the lower you take carbohydrate however, the higher the risk you’ll miss critical nutrients and the more you’ll be in ketosis, which if continuous the data suggests that is potentially harmful and is related to a higher number of unfavorable outcomes.
Sorry Regina. I should have known you would have liked a more thorough quote about this and I’m glad you provided it. THANKS!
–Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
I just commented over at The Examiner but wanted to put my comment over here too in case anyone had any light to shed, particularly on the Charles Washington query – hope that’s okay. By the way, as a woman who wants to start having children soon I do appreciate you covering these topics, and I think you do so without bias.
Anyway, here’s what I wrote in the Examiner comments…
“The way I read this post was that someone had a question, and the writer went to a series of medical professionals to answer it. I think that is responsible.
We cannot get to a point where one cannot ask a controversial question because the answer might be perceived as ‘dangerous’ or ‘encouraging to impressionable individuals’. There was a time when low-carb diets were responded to (and in some cases still are) in much the same way as these comments.
Do I agree that it is healthy to maintain a zero-carb diet during pregnancy? No, it’s not something I’m comfortable with. But how do we continue to grow and learn if we do not explore possibilities and ask controversial questions? We might not like all the answers we get – but that’s just the way it goes if we wish to advance our knowledge.
There is one issue that I feel is a little gray, however. I know nothing about Charles Washington, and I haven’t listened to the podcast linked to his name. I wonder; is he speaking from anything other than personal experience? Does he have a background in diet, health or medical issues? I have no idea. If he has no experience other than his own then I would argue that comparing his opinion with 3 seasoned medical professionals without qualification could be quite misleading to the casual reader.
This to me is something to be considered, but to attack a writer for asking a series of people a controversial question then documenting their answer? I think you’d be attacking a lot of writers if you had a beef with that style of writing.
My personal opinion is that it is somewhat simplistic to compare the ‘all-meat’ diet of our ancestors to any we would be able to have today. Maybe if we caught our own wild meat and ate every part of it we might be coming close, but even then the diets of most wild animals has changed due to man-made changes in their environment. I just don’t think diets of our ancestors could be compared to an all meat diet now. Besides, just because people were able to survive on an all-meat diet does not mean that it is the optimum way for them to be eating. I’m not pretending to have done enough research to be able to definitively say either way or to offer advice, but that is my opinion on the issue.
When I have children I will certainly keep my carbs lower than the FDA recommended norm – but even more importantly I will focus on organic vegetables, grass-fed free range meats, some organic fruits, nuts, lots of coconut and raw dairy. Lots of fats, very satisfying and in my opinion great for mother and child!”
THANKS C.C.! I appreciate you sharing this here and at Examiner.com.
–Jimmy
but why put your body through an insulin roller coaster ride daily? How is THAT healthy.
There is, at least in my mind, a difference between controlling carbohydrate intake and going hog-wild with carbs…..there is no good reason, unless one has specific metabolic issues and their doctor says otherwise, to consume a level of carbohydrate that induces continuous ketosis when you’re pregnant…..for one thing your nutrient requirements increase substantially, thus ketosis can inhibit your appetite to limit calorie intake below what you need in the pregnancy.
Second, the level of essential nutrients required increases and no matter how you slice it and dice it, it’s harder to get in adequate levels of nutrients that are ESSENTIAL without including a higher level of carbohyydrate and/or specifically including organ meats (but then you have to watch vitamin A and worry about contamination issues with conventional meat products that aren’t organic and grass-fed, but that’s another issue).
Third, pregnancy = insulin resistance, without it you’re inhibiting the growth of the fetus since you’re limiting the ability of nutrients, including glucose, to pass to the fetus…..and limiting fat being laid down for lacation…..we gain weight for a reason, some of it for additional blood volume, some for the baby, some for fat needed to breastfeed after delivery. If you’re in continuous ketosis, you’re burning fat, not laying it down and you’re “fighting” insulin resistance on top of that by keeping insulin low.
None of this means you should abandon good sense – of course you don’t have to eat 300g+ carbs a day, you certainly don’t have to consume sugar or HFCS, you don’t have to consume grain products, heck, you don’t have to eat beans or whatever —- but I do not think it’s unreasonable to suggest and recommend an increase in carbohydrate given the reams of data out there that suggest ketogenic dietary habits that leave you in a continuous state of ketosis are potentially harmful……just use common sense and make good choices…..eating at least 72g of carbs a day or 120g or even 150g is NOT going to lead to an insulin rollercoaster in the vast majority of women…….in some, like those with PCOS or diabetes, they should work with their OB to come to a level of carbohydate that is adeuqate for them and not get advice on eating here on a blog!
I low-carbed with my last 2 pregnancies, consuming approx 90 to 120 grams of carb a day, sometimes less. Both babies were healthy, and fine. I had gestational diabetes with all my pregnancies (4 total) and no obese babies.
Tanya – that’s not ketogenic low-carb or zero-carb…I too ate controlled-carb during my pregnancy without any complications and that was 72g to 150g a day with an average somewhere around 90-100g. No way was it just meat and water as the post is talking about….no way I could recommend that without some compelling reason and/or strong data to suggest it’s safe…..data right now that we have suggests otherwise……but carb-restricted, say less than 150g a day, should be fine if you’re eating a nutrient-dense selection of carbohydrate foods and other foods.
I would say to Regina Wilshire that your speculations are interesting but I can tell you that people on zero-carb regimens are NOT in a continual state of ketosis. I do not turn testing strips any shade of purple. The “state of ketosis” as you describe it is indeed something that one should enter only on a transient basis.
During this state, the body wastes ketones as it begins to adapt to using ketones instead of glucose. Once a person is ketoadapted, then they no longer waste ketones as their bodies become adapted. We have many on our forum who would tell you the same thing. I nor anyone else who is ketoadapted is in a “state of ketosis” so this is not a fear.
None of those studies you read show ketoadapted indivuduals and speculations about what some primitives might have eaten do not pass muster. We’re currently studying Stefansson’s work on the Inuit and many groups ate different things. Among the meat-eaters, there was no supplementation or change during lactation or pregnancy. I invite you and any others over to our discussion so you can learn from Stefansson’s own words on the subject.
It’s one thing to read studies and speculate but it’s quite another to actually try it for yourself.
As far as your comments on primitive cultures and what they do during pregnancy, you would do well to review Dr. Weston Price’s book that he wrote after touring the sub-Sahara. An article from that book is on their website.
In that article Dr. Price states the following:
“It is significant that the vegetarian groups practiced the feeding of special foods during gestation and lactation. Apparently carnivorous groups found no need to supplement the diet, as it was already rich in the factors needed for reproduction and optimum growth.”
Moreover:
“Price noted that all healthy African groups had good sources of animal fat, and that the healthiest groups consumed less, not more, of plant foods.”
There is no need to point to these primitive groups as the Bellevue experiment of 1920 with Stefansson and Anderson already adressed these nutrient deficiency notions and disposed of them. How quickly the medical profession forgets.
Regards,
Charles
Jimmy:
I read the comments on the other sites and yes, there is a lot of vitriol but I don’t see any questions addressed to me other than can I prove that it’s safe. They seem to want to just debate the difference between an editorial and an account.
Everyone wants to comment on the Inuit, but I have Stefansson’s books and his words are very clear. There were many groups of Inuit who ate different things; however, the overwhelming majority were meat eaters before the European influence spread. Once they introduced their foods into their diets they became sick just as we do today.
The article already discusses the nutrients and vitamins that meat contains. All other vitamins and minerals are only necessary due to carbohydrate consumption.
People don’t seem to realize that any vegetation that these people might have eaten would be seasonal and limited to those which were edible right away. However, we have an anthropologist’s first-hand accounts and we also know of what he did in his personal life years later when he returned to America.
He ate two pounds of sirloin and 1/2 pound of fat per day. This was identical to what was served at Bellevue. He and Karsten Anderson had no nutritional deficiencies just as I have none today.
He began to eat a higher carb diet later in life and developed rhumatoid arthritis in his knee. He returned to the all-meat diet and water and his health returned. This talk of a balanced diet or what was heretofore known as a mixed diet came from the 1920’s notion of deficiency diseases.
Nutritionists don’t want to admit that history shows that fresh meat and animals products cure scurvy 100% of the time whereas lime juice was only marginally effective.
Regards,
Charles
Ketosis may not be the evil that many people believe it to be. In fact, here is a paper from Veech (the expert on ketosis). Some ketosis occurs during sleep and is actually somewhat normal in pregnant and lactating women. Ketosis seems to supplement normal glucose metabolism.
I’m not saying that *prolonged* or deep ketosis is a good idea in pregnancy, but I do think that these papers may bring some balance to the idea of ketosis.
Cahill, G.F. and Veech, R.L. (2003) Ketoacids? Good medicine? Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 114, 149-163.
Obesity is often a real problem for women trying to get pregnant. It interferes with ovulation and can make you too unhealthy to sustain a full-term pregnancy. If you are trying to conceive, losing weight often helps – and the Atkins Diet is a good, safe way to lose weight relatively quickly without taking diet pills that could have potential side effects.
Hey Jimmy, it appears your column re zero carb and pregnancy at the Examiner has been pulled. I can’t access the column or the comments. Maybe you should reprint them here where we can read them. Kay
Hey Kay, THANKS for sharing your concerns that my column has been pulled, but it hasn’t. Here’s the link and it’s getting close to 30 comments there now. In fact, the editor at Examiner.com enjoyed the discussion so much that she’s getting two other Examiner columnists to write posts about it and they’re gonna feature it on the front page.
–Jimmy
I also wanted to respond to Regina Wilshire’s suggestion that animal models do not support the zero-carb regimen.
Unfortunately, Jimmy ommitted most of the proof work I provided when he wrote his blog.
Reproductive biologists have known since the 1970s, that the availability of food is the most important environmental factor in fertility and reproduction. However, George Wade and Jill Schneider produced research which shows that the immediate availability of metabolic fuels is the most important factor. These experiements were remarkably consistent across every species from hamsters, rats, and monkeys to name a few.
They found that if their fatty-acid and glucose oxidation are inhibited and the animal is not allowed to increase their food intake in response, their estrous cycles stop. As Wade and Schneider explained regarding humans, “it would be expected that ovulatory cycles would be inhibited by treatments that direct circulating metabolic fuels away from oxidation and into storage in adipose tissue.”
Of course, this is what insulin does and infusing insulin into animals will shut down their reproductive cycles. If an excessive portion of available calories is locked away in fat tissue then the animal will act as if it’s starving.”
This is precisely what hapens with obesity. The zero-carb meat and water provides a maximum availability of metabolic fuel and therefore is the best for the human condition. It does not result in continuous ketosis and provides all of the essential nutrients and vitamins necessary and is the perfect cure for hyperinsulinemia which plagues the overweight and obese.
This is not merely a “weight-reducing” scheme. This is all about health. A woman who was ketoadapted and chose to remain eating by this regimen while pregnant would still gain the required weight as needed for pregnancy.
It seems our esteemed “low-carb” experts didn’t read Taubes very well. If they had, they would have seen that he spends a great deal of time talking about the decoupling of food intake and weight which was consistently shown in animal models.
Since the 1960s we’ve known that hibernating ground squirrels will double their body weight in late summer in preparation for the winter-long hibernation. These squirrels will get just as fat even when kept in the laboratory and not allowed to eat any more in August and September than they did in April. They will accomplish their task regardless of food is abundant or not. If this were not possible, the entire species would be wipied out in one season of famine. The Zucker rat is also demonstrative of this concept. They will lay down fat regardless of the number of calories.
In 1946, Chandler Brooks of Johns Hopkins found that his albino mice become definitely obese after inducing VMH lesions and they gained six times as much weight per calorie of food consumed as normal mice. It wasn’t how much they ate; rather, it was how their bodies utilized the calories.
When George Wade removed the ovaries from his rats he found that they became obese on the same amount of food that they ate before the surgery. Even if they restricted their calories, the rats only became a little thinner and more voracious. They were never satisfied.
The same is true in humans. After illness of fasting, we rapidly regain weight regardless of how many calories we consume. Pregnant women will also gain weight regardless of the number of calories they consume. There is no need to “eat for two” as weight is regulated by the body, not by the mind of the individual.
This is the part that we are all slow to accept. Weight gain does not depend on our ability to calculate how many calories we need because we have no way of truly knowing what our energy requirements will be.
Therefore, it is important for us to eat according to a dietary regimen that controls insulin and allows us to eat to satisfy our hunger. This will provide the energy we need and allow our bodies to regulate our weight properly.
If this is the case, then there is no reason why a pregnant woman cannot thrive on such a diet, even if it is just fresh meat from the grocery store and water.
The critical idea is that survival of a species depends on successful reproduction but that first depends on the availability of proper metabolic fuel. Fat accumulation, energy balance and reproduction are all intimately linked and all regulated by the hypothalmus.
As George Wade sums up, “these functions are controlled by tight orchestration of both sex hormones and those hormones that control the partitioning and utilization of metabolic fuels and this is accomplished in ways that are reciprocal, redundant, and ubiquitous.”
Regards,
Charles
Bottom line(s) –
1. Charles has no medical qualifications in the field of prenatal nutrition and therefore should not be allowed to dispense medical advice to expectant Moms
2. Charles, Jimmy, and those who support them are risking the health and possibly even the lives of unborn babies
Period.
Quote (Jimmy’s reply to Kay) “Hey Kay, THANKS for sharing your concerns that my column has been pulled, but it hasn’t. Here’s the link and it’s getting close to 30 comments there now. In fact, the editor at Examiner.com enjoyed the discussion so much that she’s getting two other Examiner columnists to write posts about it and they’re gonna feature it on the front page.
”
It’s all about the publicity for you, isn’t it, Jimmy. You don’t give a damn about the possible danger to babies.
Karma, Jimmy. You might want to think about that.
To Ogg a.k.a. Yucky: There is no “advice” being dispensed here! “Advice” means a recommendation or “a proposal for an appropriate course of action.” Questions, discussions, opinions, etc., are not recommendations or proposals. Your suppositions are silly. I would posit that the typical American diet is more of a threat to unborn babies than a low carb, adequate protein, adequate fat diet. And this isn’t about publicity for Jimmy, but for information that too often, and sadly, gets buried by the mainstream medical establishment. Do they really give a damn about the health of any of us?
Original Article:http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy-nutrition/PR00110
——————————————————————————–
Pregnancy nutrition: Essential nutrients when you’re eating for two
There’s no magical formula for pregnancy nutrition. In fact, during pregnancy the basic principles of healthy eating remain the same — plenty of fruits, vegetables and whole grains and lean sources of protein.
However, a few nutrients do deserve special attention. Here’s what tops the list.
Folate and folic acid
Folate is a B vitamin that helps prevent neural tube defects, serious abnormalities of the brain and spinal cord. Lack of folate also may increase the risk of preterm delivery, low birth weight and poor fetal growth. The synthetic form of folate found in supplements and fortified foods is known as folic acid.
How much you need: 1 milligram (1,000 micrograms) of folate or folic acid a day before conception and during pregnancy.
Good sources: Fortified cereals are great sources of folic acid. Leafy green vegetables, citrus fruits, and dried beans and peas are good sources of naturally occurring folate.
Food Serving size Folic acid content
Cereal 3/4 cup 100 percent fortified ready-to-eat cereal 400 micrograms
Meat 3 ounces beef liver 185 micrograms
Spinach 1/2 cup boiled spinach 100 micrograms
Beans 1/2 cup boiled Great Northern beans 90 micrograms
Asparagus 4 spears boiled asparagus 85 micrograms
Oranges 1 small orange 30 micrograms
Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference
In addition to healthy food choices, a daily prenatal vitamin — ideally starting three months before you get pregnant — can help ensure you’re getting enough of this essential nutrient.
Calcium
You and your baby need calcium for strong bones and teeth. Calcium also helps your circulatory, muscular and nervous systems run normally. If there’s not enough calcium in your diet, the calcium your baby needs will be taken from your bones.
How much you need: 1,000 milligrams a day.
Good sources: Dairy products are the richest sources of calcium. Many fruit juices and breakfast cereals are fortified with calcium.
Food Serving size Calcium content
Yogurt 8 ounces plain, low-fat yogurt 415 milligrams
Milk 1 cup skim milk 306 milligrams
Cheese 1 1/2 ounces part-skim mozzarella cheese 275 milligrams
Juice 6 ounces calcium-fortified orange juice 200-260 milligrams
Salmon 3 ounces canned pink salmon with bones 181 milligrams
Spinach 1/2 cup cooked spinach 120 milligrams
Cereal 1 cup calcium-fortified ready-to-eat cereal 100-1,000 milligrams
Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference
Protein
Protein is crucial for your baby’s growth, especially during the second and third trimesters. Protein also repairs your cells as your body changes.
How much you need: 71 grams a day.
Good sources: Lean meat, poultry, fish and eggs are great sources of protein. Other options include dried beans and peas, tofu, dairy products and peanut butter.
Food Serving size Protein content
Poultry 3 ounces chicken breast 27.57 grams
Fish 3 ounces salmon 21.62 grams
Cottage cheese 1 cup low-fat cottage cheese 28 grams
Milk 1 cup skim milk 8.26 grams
Peanut butter 2 tablespoons creamy peanut butter 8.03 grams
Eggs 1 large hard-boiled egg 6.29 grams
Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference
Iron
Your body uses iron to make hemoglobin, a protein in the red blood cells that carries oxygen to your tissues. During pregnancy — when your blood volume expands to accommodate changes in your body and your baby must make his or her entire blood supply — your need for iron nearly doubles.
If you don’t get enough iron, you may become fatigued and more susceptible to infections. The risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight also may be higher.
How much you need: 27 milligrams of iron a day.
Good sources: Lean red meat, poultry and fish are good sources of iron. Iron-fortified breakfast cereals, nuts and dried fruit are other options.
Food Serving size Iron content
Cereal 3/4 cup 100 percent fortified ready-to-eat cereal 18 milligrams
Beans 1 cup boiled kidney beans 5.2 milligrams
Spinach 1/2 cup boiled spinach 3.2 milligrams
Meat 3 ounces beef tenderloin 3 milligrams
Poultry 3 1/2 ounces dark turkey 2.3 milligrams
Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference
Prenatal vitamins typically contain iron. In some cases, your health care provider may recommend a separate iron supplement.
The iron from animal products, such as meat, is most easily absorbed. To enhance the absorption of iron from plant sources and supplements, eat the food or take the supplement with a food or beverage high in vitamin C — such as orange juice, tomato juice, cantaloupe, strawberries, tomatoes or bell peppers.
Ask about supplements
Even women who eat healthfully every day may miss out on key nutrients. A daily prenatal vitamin — ideally starting three months before conception — can help fill any gaps. Your health care provider may recommend special supplements if you follow a strict vegetarian diet or have any chronic health conditions. If you’re considering an herbal supplement, make sure you have your health care provider’s OK to take the supplement during pregnancy.
To Katy: This isn’t some esoteric squabble over semantics. We are talking about real human beings here — specificially, helpless, powerless human beings. Real babies. What about that do you — and Charles and Jimmy — not get.
The utter lack of basic human compassion here is stunning.
Marci’s comment reminded me of this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1028854/How-strict-vegan-diet-children-ill.html
http://www.motleyhealth.com/articles/2008/06/raw-vegan-diet-is-bad-for-your-health.html
I believe the BBC did an article as well – although, I’m not positive.
It doesn’t have to do with pregnancy. Rather children and vegan diets.
I remember her commenting on how her child was chewing on butter, which she was purchasing for non-vegans in her household.
Ogg states, “What gets me is, the utter disregard for the fact that the real health and the real lives of REAL BABIES are at stake here.”
If you are truly concerned about the “real health” of babies, I would suggest that you direct your concerns and energies toward improving the diets of the millions of pregnant women who are blindly following the government endorsed food pyramid, which only subjects millions of babies to substandard nutrition and diabetes, instead of worrying about women suddenly jumping on the zero carb bandwagon. May I suggest Nina Planck’s website and book, Real Food? Perhaps you could devote your time to make it a crime for pregnant women to buy or consume Coke or Mountain Dew? Or Twinkies? Or cigarettes and alchohol?
Also, Ogg, do you have the same intense concerns about women who follow vegan diets while they’re pregnant? And, to repeat, no one here has ADVISED anybody to follow a zero-carb diet while pregnant. It was a QUESTION for DISCUSSION. Many in mainstream medicine would claim that just going low carb while pregnant is crazy, but that’s just what the doctor orders if a woman has gestational diabetes. A modern zero carb diet may not be ideal for growing fetuses, but I think it’d be far better than the vegan or junk food diets that many are subjected to.
All of my children has conditions that held them back from being academic achievers. Two children were held back in school one was diagnosed with ADHD although I believe that they all had this. They were all born jaundice. One child has asthma. My point? I believe that my high carb diet contributed highly to this.
Due to the fact that all of my kids were “healthy”, things like jaundice, asthma and intellectual underachievment is looked upon as being normal. In my opinion, if I ate then, like I do now I would not be typing this. AND, my children would have lived very different lives. I am writing this as a low carber-not a no carber. As a low carber, I eat plenty of meat/ fish/ poultry, fats. I eat vegetables that I avoided while pregnant simply because I didn’t like them. I felt that as long as I ate green beans I was fine. I ate whatever was there as long as I considered it healthy that included bread, cake, cookies and juice. Hey, I was eating for two right?No way can you prove to me that my diet today cannot sustain life. I mean, if pickles and ice cream can do it why not sirloin and avocados or shrimp salad?
Surely no one here will dispute the integrity, education, experience and qualfications of Ms. Sally Fallon of The Weston A. Price Organization.
From Ms. Fallon herself in response to my email to her about this outrageous situation:
fromSAFallon@aol.com
toyust.yucky@gmail.com
ccinfo@westonaprice.org
dateFri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
subjectRe: [Fwd: question re meat only during pregnancy]
mailed-byaol.com
5:50 PM (1 hour ago) Reply
“This is a recipe for problems. Please direct them to our diet for pregnant and nursing women at:
http://westonaprice.org/children/dietformothers.html
Best, Sally”
Here’s a copy of that webpage:
Diet for Pregnant and Nursing Mothers
Cod Liver Oil to supply 20,000 IU vitamin A and 2000 IU vitamin D per day
1 quart (or 32 ounces) whole milk daily, preferably raw and from pasture-fed cows (learn more about raw milk on our website, A Campaign for Real Milk, http://www.realmilk.com)
4 tablespoons butter daily, preferably from pasture-fed cows
2 or more eggs daily, preferably from pastured chickens
Additional egg yolks daily, added to smoothies, salad dressings, scrambled eggs, etc.
3-4 ounces fresh liver, once or twice per week (If you have been told to avoid liver for fear of getting “too much Vitamin A,” be sure to read Vitamin A Saga)
Fresh seafood, 2-4 times per week, particularly wild salmon, shellfish and fish eggs
Fresh beef or lamb daily, always consumed with the fat
Oily fish or lard daily, for vitamin D
2 tablespoons coconut oil daily, used in cooking or smoothies, etc.
Lacto-fermented condiments and beverages
Bone broths used in soups, stews and sauces
Soaked whole grains
Fresh vegetables and fruits
AVOID:
Trans fatty acids (e.g., hydrogenated oils)
Junk foods
Commercial fried foods
Sugar
White flour
Soft drinks
Caffeine
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Drugs (even prescription drugs)
—————————————–
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, FALL 2001.
To “BlackPhase” (from conversation at The Examiner)
Please consider the fact that you are ignoring what Charles HIMSELF posted here at Jimmy’s board. And which is here quoted to you by 2Big:
“BlackPhase see this is where the tangents come in. Jimmy ask all the experts about a specific food zero carb plan storebought cattle, cattle fat and water, not the healthier variety of food sources you mention.
Even in Charle’s proof he says “A zero-carb diet of beef, beef fat and water will produce no fat storage and all of the available energy will be utilized by the body. There will be no nutrient deficiencies because refined and easily digestible sugars and starches will not be consumed. Therefore, I argue that such a diet would be safe for any nursing or expectant woman.”
Read that again, BlackPhase — Charles HIMSELF is talking about a diet of beef, beef fat, and water” — NOT the variety of healthy animal parts you mention in your comments at The Examiner.
Blogging about this situation is the utterly brilliant antiKimkins blogger Mariasol:
http://mariasol-mariasol.blogspot.com/
Note to BlackPhase and anybody else who refuses to comment further publicly: feel free to email me yust.yucky@gmail.com or drop by http://fascinated.yuku.com and participate in the Zero Carb Controversy forum there.
Unlike The Board Formerly Known As Jimmy’s, we are proud to be an uncensored and ad-free, non-commercial discussion board.
Ogg, are YOU handing out dietary ADVICE? What if a woman was allergic to milk or eggs? Or grains? Or seafood? Or fish oil? Same difference.
I was low-carb for 3 years prior ro becoming pregnant. I was in maintenance, and consuming between 30-60 carbs a day. The higher numbers were from legumes and fruit. I felt my best at under 45gm/day. Upon becoming pregnant, I decided that as I was at a comfortable weight, I didn’t want to have to be concerned with the possibility of any deletrious effects of ketosis on the baby. I also didn’t want to sacrifice my health. So, I ate between 45-80gm of carbs daily, mostly by adding a wider variety of fruit as representative of the additional caloric intake needed for pregnancy. But, my adherance to low-carbing didn’t waver and I found it comfortable to move back to a ketosis level (<30gm/day for me) post-partum. My child was born unassisted at home at full term, perfectly healthy in all respects. I wouldn’t have considered sacrificing my blood sugar, comfort, overall health, or risking gestational diabetes during pregnancy just to comform to the popular and presented model that doctors encourage for an “ideal” pregnancy.
To repeat — this is not about low carb. This is about something called “zero carb” which Charles has specifically described in his own words on the forums of this website — and what he said is “beef, beef fat and water will produce no fat storage and all of the available energy will be utilized by the body. There will be no nutrient deficiencies because refined and easily digestible sugars and starches will not be consumed. Therefore, I argue that such a diet would be safe for any nursing or expectant woman.”
THAT is what this discussion is about. NOT low carb. We are not talking about low carb. We are talking about Charles’s version of a “beef, beef fat, and water” diet “for any nursing or expectant woman.”
And in reply to Katy — read for yourself what I posted — prenatal nutritional advice from respected sources specifically regarding — surprise — prenatal nutrition. You seem to have the same attitude here that Jimmy, Charles, BlackPhase have — that this is all just a game of words.
In his own posts, Charles has told nursing and expectant women it’s safe to eat nothing but supermarket beef (specifically, hamburger meat and steak), beef fat, and water — and nothing else — for the duration of the pregnancy.
Those are his own words. He’s not talking about low carb. So please shall we discontinue the comments and personal accounts, interesting thought they may be, regarding low carb, because we are not talking about low carb. Ok? Let me repeat — we are not talking about low carb.
Now, back to the central core of this situation — the babies. The little ones, who have no power, whose Moms are being (insert whatever word you wish to play with here, as this seems to be some sort of game to you) whose Moms are being advised, told, counseled, recommended, assured, etc., by a person who is in Jimmy’s own words “regurgitating” the stuff he has read in some popular diet books.
Let’s talk about those babies, whose health and possibly even whose lives might be affected by Charles’s regurgitations.
I have asked repeatedly, why take that risk? What could possibly be worth taking that risk?
Would it be possible to get an answer to that question?
Tell us, Jimmy, Charles, BlackPhase, Katy, what could possibly be worth risking the health and possibly even the life, of a baby?
Ogg: In light of last night’s news it seems clear now that Charles has indeed gone into the website business, and Jimmy has been laying the groundwork for months now, plastering pro-Charles “articles” all over the internet, which quite effectively serve as promotional material for this new business venture.
One must assume they’ve got all the financial details sorted out with their respective legal counsels and are eagerly looking forward to making money regardless of the possible risks to their victims — and their victims’ babies.
In one of Charles’s posts at Jimmy’s forums (which, by the way, are already being scrubbed, thereby destroying evidence) Charles made the following statement:
“Ol’ Weston A. Price group gets all fired up about soy. I just avoid it in case they’re right.”
Please read that again — Charles avoids soy “just in case” the Weston A. Price group “might” be right.
Well what if the Weston A. Price group might be right about the guidelines for a healthy diet for expectant Moms?
Remember Sally Fallon’s reply to my email, which I quoted in a comment below, along with a copy of her recommended dietary guidelines for expectant Mom’s?
Sally Fallon — one of the leaders of the Weston A. Price group.
Charles abides by the Weston A. Price warnings about soy “just in case they “might” be right.
He’s not willing to take a chance with HIS health.
But he IS willing to take a chance with the health of expectant Moms and unborn babies.
He doesn’t tell them to abide by the Weston A. Price warnings about a healthy prenatal diet “just in case” they “might” be right.
Why?
I want to know, why is Charles willing to risk the health and possibly even the lives of unborn babies and their Moms — when he’s NOT willing to risk his OWN health?
This goes to the heart of what I said earlier about Jimmy and Charles — they have no respect for women or babies.
Look at this other post, written by Charles himself, just yesterday:
“I just need one of you ladies to look great enough so that your husbands will impregnate you and I can end this zero-carb and pregnancy nonsense. In fact, I wish I were a woman and I could just take one for the team…. sigh”
Okay so #1. these ladies don’t already look great enough for their own husbands to desire them?
Way to go acknowledging the innate natural beauty of all people regardless of their weight.
Way to bolster the self esteem of women whose self-esteem has already taken a beating due to their struggles with weight in a society which constantly bombards them with the message that they aren’t desirable enough.
Read Charles’s own words again. It’s obvious that he views these women as test subjects and wants them to conduct his experiment to test his ridiculous theory.
Talk about objectifying women.
Talk about callous disregard for the fact that these are real people, with real feelings.
Callous disregard for the fact that there are REAL BABIES who might just possibly suffer real harm or even real death if Charles’s test subjects will only follow his instructions so they can qualify for his experiment.
What a cold hearted, egotistical little freak.
Excuse me — what a COUPLE of cold hearted egotistical little freaks, plural. Jimmy has been working his fingers off for months now, promoting this man, spreading his crap all over the internet, laying the foundation for their new business venture.
Ogg if your are SO concerned with the health of babies what are you personally doing about abortions? You seem so OVERLY concerned with an intellectual debate of zero carb for pregnant women. REAL LIVE BABIES are being killed every day in this country. Your credibility leaves a lot to be desired miss yak. Yes Ogg (mimi) I know about the high school prank you pulled on Jimmy’s forum touting a YAK and water diet. Had to play games rather than honestly stateand debate your OPINIONS. You are so without any basis for your arguments other than I say it therefore I MUST be right because that is what I believe in my heart of hearts. Are you a medical professional mimi? What right do you have to give medical advice as you accuse others of doing? Jimmy has not censored one of you endless comments rehashing the same details OVER and OVER again. Get a life mimi and change the fact that there are REAL BABIES being aborted every day in this country. Then someone may pay attention to your drivel.
As an agnostic/atheist, Mom and Grandmother, I’m active in the antiabortion movement, pleading with our elected officials as well as the current presidential candidates to emphasize birth control and ethics education across the whole spectrum of society, and the compassionate support of adoption.
Not that that has any bearing whatsoever in the matter of Charles being allowed to dispense medical advice to expectant Moms.
And I’m not really sure what to do in this situation. Obviously my lame attempt at parody didn’t work. And just as obviously, my equally lame attempt at seriousness isn’t working.
But I have tried, and I need to make peace with the fact that that’s all I can do.
If you were concerned about a situation, and just sat silently by without even trying to help, would that be a wise or sane option for you?
Probably not, but then again, we all have our own ways of dealing with what we feel are problems.
My apologies to those of you who feel I’ve been repetitious and am overstating the case.
And to JD, I’m sorry that you feel that it’s “drivel” to try and make the case for considering respected sources of prenatal nutrition information such as Ms. Fallon rather than relying on Charles and his Captain Barbell books.
Though I am foolish indeed, my conscience in clear in this matter, and I hereby will refrain from further ranting.
I have a few questions for Charles. I ask them on the examiner post 5 days ago and never hears a reply so I thought I’d bring them to this discussion.
I’ve read the zero carb linked topic from the forum up to OCt 2 and thern all of this comment section and have never seen any where Charles actually posts a sample zero carb menu of just grocery store beef and water which he has stated in his reply to Jimmy and again in his commnets here provide the nutriants a pregnat woman and developing baby need to make eating zero carb safe.
I can agree with him zero carb store bought beef beef fat and water willl provide all the fat, protein, and energy needed but not the vits and minerals.
Those additional vits and minerals needed for the developing baby are not going to already be present in the female and “saved” because there is a lack of carbs. They must come from the food she eats and I’m at a loss to discover any grocery store beef cut that will come close to supplying the folate needed to avoid neural tube defects, the magnesium, copper, manganes, sodium, vitamin A ,and a few other vits should organ meat be disallowed as Charles has said it wasn’t part of the inuits zero carb diet.
We know the Maassai drink the milk and blood of the cattle something zero carbers don’t and supplement the diet of pregnant females which leads one to believe that zero carb culture knows zero carbs and pregnancy don’t mix well for survival of the child and mother.
So Charles would you please provide a sample zero carb grocery store beef and water menu that meets the new vitamin and mineral needs of the pregnant female?
Dear fellow antiKKers, I am writing to ask you to please contact Jimmy Moore livinlowcarbman@charter.net and insist that he and Charles post and abide by the following disclaimer:
“The zero carb diet has not been proven safe for babies, therefore we cannot and will not endorse it for expectant or nursing Moms. Please consult a licensed medical professional for all questions regarding prenatal and neonatal nutrition.”