Why? Are you saying that low-carb is not a natural way of eating. My family is not eating low-carb, but it is not because I don't think it would be healthly for them.



Did the girl gain weight when breatfeeding? If so, what kind of mother stops brestfeeding and then watchs her child waste away and does not seek help maintaining a failing diet? If not, what kind of mother does not seek help for a baby that is not gaining weight? A monster any way you look at it. Some people should not have children.

It's not necessarily that it's unhealthy, but the fact is a baby cannot be expected to eat like an adult. (My daughter is less than two years old). We do make sure she gets plenty of veggies, some of which are quite carby, and she gets milk, etc.

I don't doubt that for adults or even children who are older, low carb would be fine. I would also say that it's an as-needed situation. If she got older and needed it, I'd certainly guide her that way. As it is, we're pretty strict on sugar...she eats very little in the way of sugary stuff.

Kyrasdad-- I think you and your wife are smart. Kids DO have different nutritional needs than adults, and trying to make them "Low-carb" might not be right for them. Following a toddler around all day, it's not hard to see they need more fuel to get through their day! Not to mention growth.<I get tired just watching my friend's 2-yr-old for half a day!

I saw a few sick babies when low-fat was all the craze. Misguided parents giving babies and toddlers low-fat or skim milk so they could be "healthier"... ignoring the fact they weren't gaining and growing.

Parenting should require a liscense.

I think a lot of people think "induction levels" when someone says low carb, but the fact is that 125 grams of carb per day could be considered at least 'carb controlled' depending on the person.
As an example, my 2 daughters (age 9 and 10) both follow a controlled carb WOE for most of their meals, but their intake is probably a lot closer to 125 grams of carb per day on most days even though I don't monitor it strictly. They are allowed the occasional high carb treat, but in general I try to steer them towards fruit, veggies (baby carrots and dip for example), cheese and nuts for snacks instead of sugar and transfat filled junk. Breakfast is often old-fashioned oatmeal or whole wheat toast with cheese or scrambled eggs, lunch contains whole wheat bread, peanut butter, yogurt, cheese, fruit and often veggies with dip. They eat school lunch (pizza day) once a week. Dinner is meat and veggies like DH and I eat.
They both just had their yearly physicals are the doctor pronounced them fit, healthy and growing just as they should and gave mom a for a good job.
BTW...they're both honor roll students as well.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I'm hopeful that by controlling their carb intake now, they can avoid many of the problems that I have in the future.

My young children drink whole milk and we avoid buying anything with transfats in it which is getting easier.

I think we are all forgetting the decades old successful use of the ketogenic diet with epileptic kids - very high fat, moderate protein and very low carb. The low fat crowd have been trying to pick holes in the good health implications (and results) of it for years without any luck. I'm not a parent yet, but I'll have no problem keeping my kids regular carb intake around 70 after they are weaned, as long as they are getting plenty of fat for energy. I doubt wether they'll ever be in measurable ketosis though. They'll be able to eat as much sucralose or erythritol (not aspartame) sweetened stuff and low carb veggies/berries as they want. In my own experience, the craving for sweet continues to diminish the longer I spend avoiding any carbs with a GI over 20. I think it's fairly important to keep kids away from grain - any grain. , but I won't mind if they eat it at friends houses. Occasional grain consumption probably doesn't do much harm to kids who are normally on a low carb diet anyway.


These unfortunate parents are obviously well meaning, but nevertheless ignorant nutcases. How tragic. It can't be easy killing one of your kids and losing the others. They probably aren't getting much sympathy inside either.
The poor woman wouldn't probably wouldn't have got cracked nipples in the first place if she had eaten a bit more saturated fat.

fatburner-- no, we aren't all forgetting it, it's an entirely different situation. Those kids are constantly monitored, for one thing. For another, the risks to growth and development are WAY offset by the benefit in being able to control the seizures that even big doses of drugs can't keep in check.

That's totally different than taking a "normal" kid and keeping them extremely restricted...

Um... and what would those 'risks to growth and development' be that 'extremely restricted' low carb diets ( I'm actually pretty sure that even induction carb levels would do no harm, but around 70 g/ day would probably be ideal) incur ? . My reading of the literature about ketogenic diets in young children never mentions actual impaired growth or development although (almost as a courtesy to the low fat dietary paradigm the physicians involved usually payed lip service to these purported risks ). In fact the universal feature seems to be that the kids not only didn't suffer as many epileptic seizures as before, and exhibited perfectly normal growth and development, but surprise surprise they also seemed remarkably free of the 'normal' coughs and colds suffered by children.
That this effect of very low carb diets in very young children is echoed in adults of any age seems still to be too much of a shock to the medical establishment's system.
But we live in hope.
Nevertheless, that even low carbers, who have all noticed at least some of the health benefits of low carbing, should still preach 'caution' with young children despite the abundant evidence to the contrary is pretty instructive about how soon we all might expect the 'experts' to eat humble (low carb) pie and admit that it all has been 'a big fat lie'.

Perhaps we need to face the possibility that the health of children is far more at risk from regular bread consumption than high fat/ low carb diets, despite the lifetime of conditioning we have all endured that 'wholegrains' are healthy, and modify what we encourage our kids to eat accordingly.

I don't view low carb as an "extremely restricted" WOE, I view it as a sensible WOE that provides all the necessities for a body to thrive. I don't have children but when I do I will make sure they get the best nourishment there is. I would restrict junk food and sugar just as I would restrict crack: I know it's bad for them and they could develop an addiction or a preference for it. A child won't miss out on sugar or feel deprived if he doesn't know what he is being denied. A crack addict would feel deprived and restricted if he were denied his fix, while a person who never took drugs wouldn't care one bit if there isn't any crack for desert.
With sugar there's a high chance children will prefer it to the good stuff, they may start refusing bitter tasting vegetables like spinach or broccoli. Many a sugar lover I know is a fervent veggie hater so I think there's a connection there.
As far as the enjoyment factor goes, there's plenty of fruit out there that could satisfy the palate.

Of course, my whole reasoning may fall on its arse once I do actually have kids.

fatburner-- according to my child's doctor, who has done extensive research himself and who treats my child FOR seizures, there are indeed some developmental issues that can arise from keeping a child in ketosis. The ketogenic diet is NOT 70 grams of carbs, but even more restrictive than Atkins induction. I'm sorry I don't have immediate access to the resources he used, but I trust him completely. He decided the risks weren't worth the benefit for my son, so I have to believe he felt there WERE risks.

If you could provide some links to support your point of view, I'd be happy to write the doctor and ask what he based his conclusion on.

Dietska- a lot of my theories went right out the window when I had kids! I'm pretty laid-back about food anymore. If they get a variety of healthy choices, they'll eventually balance it out.

My nieces and nephew have "food nazi" Moms.. the ex-SIL's scarcely let a crumb of "junk" past the front door, and preach constantly about nutrition. What do you suppose they DO once they get out of Mom's sight? They cram every bit of sugary crap they can get their hands on into their mouths!!!!

My kids get regular treats, within reason. They will, more often than not, pass up junk food because the forbidden fruit factor is gone.

My shining moment of revenge was in a restaurant at a family gathering... my son orders a SALAD with his dinner, milk to drink, baked potato with his meat, yes... but he ate the tomato off the plate before anything else.

Meanwhile, my "perfect" ex-SIL is throwing up her hands in disgust because all her "perfectly fed" child will eat is french fries, chicken strips and soda!!!

More than likely unless you plan to keep them in your sight 24/7. If it were up to me, my kids still wouldn't know what McDonald's tastes like but one of my day care providers started taking them there a couple of times a week when they were 2 and 3 and did it for months before I found out about it. The teachers in my girls' school allow the kids to pick a piece of candy from the 'treasure chest' as a reward and school children are well known for swapping what's in their lunch for something they want from another kids' lunch. Then there's cookie day, popcorn day, pizza day, birthday parties, birthday treats, candy sales, etc... The fact is, there are times when your kids are going to eat things that you really would rather that they didn't, especially once they get to school age, but as long as they are eating healthy 90% of the time and are active, it probably won't do much damage. The best way to teach them is to lead by example.
What really blew my mind is when my girls came home from school this Monday saying, "The teacher says it's okay for us to have candy for snacks for the next two weeks while we're taking the MEAP tests and says sucking on a sucker while we're taking the test will help us think better". Say what??????

I wonder if the issue with kids and junkfood is that they know it does taste wonderful and this pesky parental issue with nutritional value is reasonably irrelevant to a young mind with pretty serious peer group pressures to conform to the advertising driven dietary madness. I would personally make sure their lunchboxes always contained an inexhaustible supply of maltitol and aspartame free super low carb bars, erythritol/sucralose candy by the bucketload, and plenty of actually nutritious tasty low carb/high fat food as well for when they did really get naturally hungry. At which time they wouldn't be cranky and hyper from all the glycemic carbs in junk food so their bodies would be appreciative of real nourishment. As mine is!. The fridge/freezer at home would always have low carb cheesecake and other cakes, jellies , (genuinely) low carb chocolate in inexhaustible supply. The wheat protein isolate cookie jar would always be kept full and unlocked, maybe with a big 'Eat me now' sign hanging on it. The food issue would just not have any fertile ground to grow in. And of course they would occasionally eat actual crap at school and at play. But we would have a family game while they were watching T.V. to poke fun at the child targeted food advertising. And the kudos they would earn from their visiting friends being able to eat low carb sweet fatty food whenever and in whatever quantities they wanted I hope would make up in some degree for MacDonalds just not being on the parental map. I'd have no problem equating MacDonalds and any other junk food with all the other drug pushers we constantly counsel ourselves and our children about. Why not use the same clever tactics they use? Of course once there was even a hint of resentment or conflict in the application of these food principles, I'd know I was losing the battle and that I needed to lift my inspirational game a bit.
Or maybe just change the jelly flavour more often. Geez, parenting must be hard enough without complicating it even more with the mood, energy, immune system, not to mention weight control issues that glycemic carbs introduce!
Do you think this sounds too optimistic?
Btw. I just finished reading 'Fast Food Nation'. Even if you aren't into Low Carbing it is pretty sobering stuff.

Hi Potatofree,
I'm sorry your child is epileptic. It must be stressful for everyone in your family. I wish you success with whatever treatment you choose.

I wonder why you thought I said the Ketogenic diet was 70 grams of carbs. I thought it was a proportion of total calories. Which for a child would make it about (or very slightly higher) than Atkins induction.
Anyway, I think we can agree that it has the express purpose of keeping the child's metabolism in benign dietary ketosis, which seems to produce the neurological benefits it has become famous for in epileptic seizure frequency treatment.
As I said I have never read about any adverse developmental implications of this treatment. Btw. I think its wonderful that you trust your doctor. But since he has told you of such evidence, perhaps you could ask him to provide you with the sources, as I am unaware of it. I'm happy to be proved wrong. But forgive my sckepticism, the medical profession has not been very wise so far in their attitude to the physiology of low carbing. I would not be at all surprised if this evidence was not more of the same distortions and lies. As I said before the Ketogenic diet has been around for many decades. If there were actually convincing studies of its developmental risks in young children, do you really think so many conservative medical institutions would so enthusiastically endorse it?
So go for it! Write the guy/lady. I'd love to get to the bottom of this!

I was curious about it myself, and just in what I've come across googling from John's Hopkins and various other sources a recurring theme seems to be growth retardation and kidney stones, with different articles listing different variation on a list of several other problems that are relatively minor.

I typed in: seizures ketogenic diet and got a lot of hits from sources that seem to cover the pros and cons fairly well. Interesting reading.

Now I'm really mystified. I too googled Ketogenic Diet/ Epilepsy, and came up with a myriad of links. I looked at about the first four pages of them. One mentioned that THREE OR FOUR cases of kidney stones in children following the diet had been reported in the last EIGHTY years!. Since the early versions of this diet actually restricted fluids in some misguided attempt to intensify the ketosis, I'm hardly surprised! Apparently this fluid restriction has not been recommended for about TWENTY years. NONE of them mentioned growth or development risks. In fact the three main centres recommending the diet for intractable epilepsy - Johns Hopkins, Stanford University and the Mayo clinic ALL claimed it was a remarkably safe diet! Could you actually post a link which even mentions growth or developmental issues with the Ketogenic diet. ALL the links I looked at did admit that it was a difficult diet to follow. I looked at some of the menu plans. Nowhere were sucralose or erythritol included as a desirable factor to alleviate the boredom and increase compliance. Small wonder they think it's difficult! Also, for the last fifteen years, the most popular version of this diet has substituted MCT's for the vast bulk of saturated fats, probably because of the medical professions woeful attitude about their purported cardiovascular risks. If there were indeed growth or developmental risks, which I still am at a complete loss to substantiate, it's probably more to do with this artificial elevation of the dietary status of MCT's at the expense (IMHO) of the growth and development essential saturated fats.

Hardly surprisingly , none of the links I saw were suggesting the consumption of raw fat or meat , but none too were recognizing the concomitant importance of green leafy vegetables as an important ingredient in the health of this diet if the high levels of fat and moderate levels of protein are cooked. They don't seem to have a clue. But don't be misled. It's not the fault of the 'extreme' levels of carbohydrate. Or indeed the very high fat levels. But the piecemeal application of fairly primitive ideas about the nutritional needs of young children (or adults for that matter) in the context of a well observed ability of this macronutrient ratio to help treat some cases of intractable epilepsy. Nobody has any idea why BDK seems to help prevent seizures. All the theories are completely speculative. For heaven's sake, the medical profession still doesn't understand that low carb diets are generally a much healthier diet for the human animal, of any age. If they could get that far they'd probably be much closer to understanding why BDK is a perfectly healthy state for the body to be in, and hardly surprisingly the brain as well, rather than seeing it( the success of the Ketogenic diet specifically, and low carb diets generally) as a peculiar benefit of an otherwise unnessessary and 'risky' state. So much of the reported success of the Ketogenic diet seems counterintuitive in the context of the current medical paradigm. No wonder they grasp at the few reported (and unstudied, I might add) side effects as incontrovertible and (predictable) evidence of it's risky nature. And I know it's a very negative attitude to this hallowed bastion of civilization, but I suspect they (more accurately the drug companies who ply them with freebies) would probably rather sell bucketloads of the new 'miracle' anticonvulsants than fund decent research into effective dietary protocols - hardly a profitable side of the business?

So we're left with a few reported cases of kidney stones (which may or not have been connected with BDK, but are probably just because the poor kids weren't allowed or encouraged to drink enough) over eighty years, and ( I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, though I'm still wondering what your or your Doctor's sources are) some conservative speculation about POSSIBLE growth or development risks.

With all due respect, Potatofree, I'd grill your Doctor about his reservations about the health implications of the Ketogenic diet a bit more carefully. He seems to be missing the wood for the trees.