Diet

Hello,

What is your opinion on the book "Super Food for Super Kids"? To me, these concepts are quite revolutionary and I'm not sure how to approach them. Until now, I believed that a diet should be based on grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits, with a smaller amount of fish and meat, especially when it comes to children. It's never good to try overly restrictive diets with children. That's why I’m surprised that this book, on the contrary, advocates prioritizing meat and fats and limiting grains. I'm about to start introducing solid foods to my second son, and I don't know which approach to choose. Both arguments sound logical and convincing to me (both for a high-carbohydrate diet and for a low-carb diet).

With my first son, I began mainly with grains, vegetables, and fruits, and the experience was that he suffered a lot from bloating, and now at the age of five, he constantly demands treats (in some form of sugar, whether it's bread, fruit, porridge, etc.), and he's basically addicted to these things. It's what I wanted to avoid, and now I'm trying to fix it. However, I don't want to swing to the other extreme.

Thank you very much for your advice.

The idea presented in the book is logical and meaningful because one of the biggest problems in modern nutrition is the ever-increasing share of industrially processed carbohydrates in the diet. It is therefore natural to seek ways to reverse this trend, and low carb seems like an optimal solution. In principle, it is a good approach in the sense of avoiding unnatural foods, which can often seem like an attempt to return to the diet of hunters and gatherers, about which, on the other hand, we can discuss to what extent it makes sense today. However, the truth is that in the diet of young children, there is an excess of carbohydrates that should be corrected. Currently, we know that the body has certain requirements for the intake of basic nutrients, which must be followed. This means always first checking the amount of protein in the diet, for which both a deficit and an excess can be hazardous. Only then should the balance between energy substrates, namely carbohydrates and fats, be sought. The key is the quality of the ingredients, meaning the elimination of industrially processed fats and monitoring the sugar content, which should come only from fruits and vegetables. Based on the ratio of macronutrients, you set the energy balance and meet the basics of the theory. When putting it into practice, you'll find that you encounter natural reactions from children in the form of gaining life experiences (finding what they like, or what their body currently needs more), which shape their personality and approach to food. The nutritional outcome will be somewhat different from the original plan, and that's okay; you shouldn't let it throw you off.

The best you can do for a young child is to provide high-quality (natural) foods in as wide a range of options as possible and give the child the freedom to choose. Given the fact that we naturally gravitate towards sweet tastes, I am not convinced that a child of such age will automatically switch to a strict low-carb diet on their own, nor, in the absence of unhealthy sweets, will they lack the opportunity to predominantly prefer sweet foods and thus create desperately incorrect habits for the future. Make sure that the diet includes sources of protein, calcium, iron, and omega-3s, meaning that a certain portion of animal products should be present. If you follow the nutritional characteristics of the child's diet within this approach, you will find that while the wisdom presented in the book may appear low carb (compared to a conventional diet, definitely yes), the ratio of carbohydrates to fats will still favor carbohydrates, meaning it will essentially remain a high-carbohydrate concept.

Hello,

I still can't find any sources for the mentioned carbohydrate intake of 120-150g. I am a nutrition advisor, and in school, we were taught that the brain requires approximately 120-130g, naturally, this amount is average and indicative. However, if we are to base our meal plans on some figures, then the mentioned amount of 120-150g does not fall into the low-carb zone but merely represents a reduction in daily carbohydrate intake in favor of another macronutrient, without necessarily leading to a shift from energy usage from carbohydrates to fats. Conversely, I have read that the body "switches" to using fats as the main energy source at about 100g. This issue is not elaborated on in the study materials, only the number is mentioned.

Thank you very much for your response, and have a nice day.

All the figures presented regarding the ratios of macronutrients in any diet are always indicative and primarily averaged, never reflecting the true needs of individuality, which need to be determined through practical testing. This also applies to the attempt to define general carbohydrate intake limits for a low-carb regime, where there are several perspectives and approaches derived from them:

1. It is possible to present a general range of values (i.e., 120 - 150 g, sometimes up to 180 g) - this carries a significant disadvantage in that it does not take into account the individual's body weight and level of physical activity, where these mentioned factors most influence carbohydrate needs.

2. We can calculate carbohydrate amounts relative to body weight - here, the most commonly presented range is 1.5-2.5 g/1 kg of body weight.

3. It is based on figures indicating the actual consumption of carbohydrates required to support brain function - here, the range of 120 - 150 g per day is presented, although this too does not account for the intensity of brain activity, which ultimately can result in differences in needs of up to double.

4. To determine specific carbohydrate intake values, a model can be used where foods that are reportedly not part of the diet of hunters and gatherers, such as grains, legumes, and some fruits, are excluded from the diet. Based on such a model, similar figures again emerge, although this approach is as inaccurate as the ones mentioned above (archaeological research proves that a certain proportion of grains and legumes appeared in the diet of our ancestors before the advent of agriculture...).

When reducing carbohydrate intake in this way, it is necessary to increase the proportion of fats as an energy source to the level required by the individual (weight reduction vs. balanced energy balance vs. weight gain), always maintaining a reasonable range of protein amounts. Metabolism, within adaptive processes, will have no choice but to adapt to this change, and due to differences in the metabolic profile of each person, the result will always be different. The carbohydrate intake threshold necessary for "switching" to the keto mode is not and cannot be fixed, as ketone bodies are produced in the body under many circumstances, and carbohydrate intake is not the only determining criterion, as is often stated. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between a classic keto diet and a low-carb way of eating, where in keto mode, the carbohydrate intake is much more stringent.