Fri, Oct-22-10, 11:47
|
 |
|
|
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
|
|
Lower-carb diet found to be better than a lower-fat one in pregnancy
Quote:
From Dr Briffa's blog:
Lower-carb diet found to be better than a lower-fat one in pregnancy
Posted on 22 October 2010
Pregnancy is a time when many women become a bit more focused on what they are eating. I recently had a conversation with a newly-pregnant women who was also a type 1 diabetic (a condition in which natural production of insulin is inadequate, necessitating the injection of insulin). She has found her way to a doctor who had advised her to eat a low carbohydrate diet which had been very successful in terms of controlling her condition and in reducing her need for insulin. Now she was pregnant, one of her questions was if it was safe to eat such a diet.
I, at the time, was not aware of any specific science on this. I did, however, point out that a low-carbohydrate diet was, essentially, no different from the sort of diet we as a species ate for the vast majority of our time on this planet. Plus, we do know of indigenous populations who eat relatively low amounts of carbohydrate who do not appear to have specific issues with regard to pregnancy or the subsequent health of their newborn.
This week saw the publication of a study in which a low-carbohydrate diet was tested in overweight or obese pregnant women [1]. Half of the group were randomised to eat a ‘low glycaemic load’ diet (45 percent of calories in this diet came from carbohydrate, with 35 and 20 per cent coming from fat and protein respectively). The other half was assigned to a ‘low fat diet’ (55 percent of calories in this diet came from carbohydrate, with 25 and 20 per cent coming from fat and protein respectively).
The chief outcome measured in this study was birth weight, and there was no difference here. However, the women who ate the lower carb diet had babies with larger head circumferences and had longer pregnancies too (both generally taken to be good things). Risk of pregnancy lasting less than 38 weeks was much lower in this group too.
In addition to this, the women eating the lower carb diet experienced, compared to the low-fat group, improvements in several markers of disease including levels of unhealthy blood fats known as triglycerides and an inflammatory substance known as C reactive protein. These changes would be expected to translate into a reduced risk of disease, particularly cardiovascular diseases such as heart disease and stroke.
The results of this study suggest that, overall, lower carbohydrate diets have benefits during pregnancy for both the mother and her child.
References:
1. Rhodes ET, at al. Effects of a low–glycemic load diet in overweight and obese pregnant women: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr (October 20, 2010)
|
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/10/22/...e-in-pregnancy/
Quote:
From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
Effects of a low–glycemic load diet in overweight and obese pregnant women: a pilot randomized controlled trial
ABSTRACT
Background: The optimal diet for pregnancy that is complicated by excessive weight is unknown.
Objective: We aimed to examine the effects of a low–glycemic load (low-GL) diet in overweight and obese pregnant women.
Design: We randomly assigned 46 overweight or obese pregnant women to receive a low-GL or a low-fat diet. Participants received carbohydrate-rich foods, fats, and snack foods through home delivery or study visits. The primary outcome was birth weight z score. Other endpoints included infant anthropometric measurements, gestational duration, maternal weight gain, and maternal metabolic parameters.
Results: There were no significant differences in birth weight z score or other measures of infant adiposity between groups. However, in the low-GL compared with the low-fat group, gestational duration was longer (mean ± SD: 39.3 ± 1.1 compared with 37.9 ± 3.1 wk; P = 0.05) and fewer deliveries occurred at 38.0 wk (13% compared with 48%, P = 0.02; with exclusion of planned cesarean deliveries: 5% compared with 53%; P = 0.002). Adjusted head circumference was greater in the low-GL group (35.0 ± 0.8 compared with 34.2 ± 1.3 cm, P = 0.01). Women in the low-GL group had smaller increases in triglycerides [median (interquartile range): 49 (19, 70) compared with 93 (34, 129) mg/dL; P = 0.03] and total cholesterol [13 (0, 36) compared with 33 (22, 56) mg/dL, P = 0.04] and a greater decrease in C-reactive protein [–2.5 (–5.5, –0.7) compared with –0.4 (–1.4, 1.5) mg/dL, P = 0.007].
Conclusions: A low-GL diet resulted in longer pregnancy duration, greater infant head circumference, and improved maternal cardiovascular risk factors. Large-scale studies are warranted to evaluate whether dietary intervention during pregnancy aimed at lowering GL may be useful in the prevention of prematurity and other adverse maternal and infant outcomes. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00364403.
|
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abs...cn.2010.30130v1 |
My son was big - 8 lbs, 14 oz, 22 inches long - with a nice big head! (though I was not low carbing when I had him) but luckily I had a big pelvis too so he came out pretty easily.
Linear Mode
