Female celebrities – diets & pregnancy announcements

Nutrition BulletinVolume 27, Issue 3 p. 161-163 Free Access Female celebrities – diets & pregnancy announcements First published: 28 October 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-3010.2002.00258.x Brigid McKevith, Nutrition Scientist, British Nutrition Foundation, High Holborn House, 52–54 High Holborn, London WC1V 6RQ, UK. E-mail: b.mckevith@nutrition.org.uk AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Recent newspaper articles have highlighted a certain celebrity's pert posterior and have drawn attention to the Montignac diet she supposedly follows. This regimen, developed in France, is based on low glycaemic index (GI), low fat and high protein foods. Although there are no restrictions on the amount of food that can be eaten, foods with a GI of greater than 55 are excluded and fats are only allowed to be consumed with carbohydrate foods with a GI below 20. The GI concept is not new, with papers on the topic dating from the 1980s (e.g. Jenkins et al. 1982; Jenkins et al. 1983). GI is the glycaemic response to individual foods in relation to a reference (usually glucose). The GI value of a food is influenced by a number of factors including the amount of fibre present, the form of the food, the way it is cooked or processed, the temperature and water content of the food and the effect of mixed meals. Research has shown that low GI foods can improve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (Jarvi et al. 1999) and low GI foods are used by some people with diabetes to give better control of their blood glucose levels. More recently, work has investigated the role of low GI foods in weight reduction and risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD) (Frost & Dornhorst 2000). A short study by Ludwig et al. (1999) found that in a small group of obese teenage boys, voluntary energy intake after a high GI meal was 81% greater than after a low GI meal. The high GI meal also resulted in higher serum insulin levels, lower plasma glucagon levels, lower post-absorptive plasma glucose and serum fatty acid levels, compared to the low GI meal. In another study, obese children receiving a low GI diet for over 4 months had larger decreases in body mass index (BMI) and body weight compared to those who followed a reduced-fat diet (Spieth et al. 2000). A more recent study in Canada (Dumesnil et al. 2001) also found benefits of a low GI diet over a low fat diet. It investigated the short-term effects (6 days) of an ad libitium low fat, high carbohydrate, moderate protein diet [the American Heart Association step 1 diet (diet A) and the Montigac diet described above (diet B)] in 12 overweight men, with an average BMI of 33. A 25% decrease in energy intake was observed on diet B with no changes in hunger or the desire to eat. No anthropometric changes were noted with diet A but after 6 days on diet B, subjects lost an average of 2.3 kg, with decreases in waist and hip circumferences. Diet A led to several unfavourable changes in blood lipids – a 28% increase in fasting triglyceride (TG) levels and a decrease in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), while with diet B a 35% reduction was seen in fasting TG and no effect on HDL-C. The authors suggested that the Montigac diet may be especially suitable for insulin-resistant patients as it encouraged a decrease in energy intake without causing hunger in subjects. No scientific studies have been published on free living people following the Montigac diet for longer periods. Although information exists on the GI of individual foods, this information is not accessible to the general public. Much needs to be learnt about the GI of meals i.e. when foods are combined. Therefore, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the benefits of the Montigac diet for the general public. Many of the female celebrities who feature in magazines and newspapers have slim figures. Several have recently been photographed looking as slim and glamorous as ever, with their pregnancy almost not showing. Some of these celebrities workout ‘every day’ (an activity many people with full-time jobs and/or families struggle to fit in) and have chefs, nutritionists, personal trainers and consultants to help them stay slim and trim. For the majority of women, looking like some of these female stars is unachievable, but it may be even more disheartening for other pregnant women to see pregnant celebrities who appear to put on little weight during their pregnancy, or if they do gain some weight, shed it very quickly after giving birth. Is it healthy to be this slim when pregnant? and how do they manage to get their figure back so quickly after giving birth? Once pregnant, most women put on weight, although, in the first three months, this weight gain may be small. The weight gain is due to the development of the foetus, placenta and amniotic fluid, the associated increase in blood volume and an increase of the uterus and breasts. The addition of fat stores and fluid retention also contribute to the weight gained. Although the amount and composition of weight gained will vary, on average women gain 12.5 kg with a 1 kg increase of protein and 3.5 kg increase of fat (Mann & Truswell 2002). There are risks associated with being an underweight or overweight expectant mother. Those who are underweight are more likely to produce low birth weight (LBW) babies (Mann & Truswell 2002). Obese pregnant women have an increased risk of developing pre-eclampsia, having a caesarean section and developing gestational diabetes and hypertension (Morin 1998; Sebire et al. 2001) while, for the baby, there is an increased risk of neonatal intensive care, large-for-gestational-age birth weight and pre-term birth (Ray et al. 2001). Therefore, ideally women considering pregnancy should modify their diet to reach a healthy weight before conception. Pregnancy is not an appropriate time for dieting as adequate weight gain helps ensure adequate foetal growth. The optimal amount a woman should gain depends on her pre-pregnant weight (Lederman 2001) (see Table 1). Weight gains above the current recommendation are associated with increases in maternal fat gain, pregnancy complications and delivery problems (Lederman 2001). Conversely, women with low pregnancy weight gain have an increased risk of a pre-term delivery (Schieve et al. 2000), so appropriate weight gain should be encouraged for these women. For young women (< 16 years) who are still growing, it may be necessary for them to achieve a greater pregnancy weight gain in order to achieve a satisfactory birth weight (Buschman et al. 2001). Table 1. Recommendations for weight increases during pregnancy Weight for height category Recommended weight gain (kg) Low BMI (< 19.8) 12.5–18.0 Normal (19.8–26) 11.5–16.0 High (> 26.0–29.0) 7.0–11.5 Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine (1990) An expectant mother requires a healthy and varied diet to provide her and her foetus with a range of nutrients. The FSA website encourages women to include plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, plenty of starchy foods, protein foods, plenty of fibre and dairy foods. However, contrary to the popular phrase ‘eating for two’, most pregnant women do not need to double their food intake. During pregnancy the requirement for energy and some nutrients, such as protein, is increased. These increased needs may be met by increased intakes and/or by maternal adaptation. For example with calcium, increased requirements may be met by an increase in the proportion absorbed from the diet. There is no increase in the reference nutrient intake (RNI) for calcium while pregnant (800 mg for women aged 15–18 years and 700 mg for women aged 19–50 years) (Department of Health, 1991). However as some groups of women may not be achieving the RNI before conception, they would benefit from dietary advice. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Young People (Gregory et al. 2000) found 19% of girls aged 15–18 years had intakes of calcium below the lower reference nutrient intake (LRNI). A similar situation exists for iron as, although needs increase during pregnancy (due to the iron transferred to the foetus, placenta and cord and postpartum blood loss), these are counterbalanced by the absence of menstruation. Some groups of women are not achieving the RNI for iron before becoming pregnant (e.g. among girls aged 15–18 years 50% have iron intakes below the LRNI (Gregory et al. 2000)) which is cause for concern. Pregnant women are recommended to consume plenty of foods containing iron such as red meat, fortified breakfast cereals, pulses, breads and green vegetables and this advice is of particular relevance to those with low iron intakes such as young pregnant women. Pregnant women who exercise may enjoy several benefits including a reduced fat gain, a lower risk of gestational diabetes and a shorter labour with fewer surgical interventions (Mann & Truswell 2002). Physiological and morphological changes during pregnancy may prevent pregnant women from participating safely in some forms of physical activity. However, in the absence of medical or obstetric complications, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommend 30 min or more of moderate exercise a day on most, if not all, days of the week for pregnant women. In the UK the National Childcare Trust suggests that women who exercise should check their pulse regularly during exercise and slow down if it reaches 140 bpm. There is evidence to suggest that moderate to high levels of sustained maternal exercise can affect foetal development and are associated with reduced birth weight (Committee on Obstetric Practice 2002; Mann & Truswell 2002). After the birth, women should aim for a healthy weight for their height to avoid the risks associated with excess body fat. There is evidence to suggest that postpartum weight loss can be influenced by the mother's desire to loose weight (Dugdale & Eaton-Evans 1989). Breast feeding mothers should not aim to lose weight, as generally more energy and nutrients are required during this period than with pregnancy. They can, however, restrict the amount of fat and sugar in their diet and keep physically active (FSA 2002). In summary, appropriate weight gain is important during pregnancy with recommendations to women with lower BMIs to gain more weight than overweight/obese women, for both their health and the health of their child. A varied, balanced diet is needed to obtain the necessary nutrients during pregnancy and some groups of women (e.g. young women) may benefit from increasing intakes of foods containing calcium and iron. Moderate physical activity while pregnant may be beneficial if no medical or obstetric risks exist but medical advice should be sought before embarking on any exercise programme. Many celebrities who shed their pregnancy pounds quickly after birth dedicate time and money to reshaping their bodies with the help of nannies, personal trainers, chefs and dieticians. For most women, however, postpartum weight loss will be a gradual process achieved over a period of months rather than weeks. References Buschman NA , Foster G & Vickers P (2001) Adolescent girls and their babies: achieving optimal birthweight. Gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcome in terms of gestation at delivery and infant birth weight: a comparison between adolescents under 16 and adult women. Child: Care, Health and Development 27: 163– 71. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Committee on Obstetric Practice (2002) ACOG committee opinion. Exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Number 267, January 2002. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 77: 79– 81. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Department of Health (1991) Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom. HMSO: London. Google Scholar Dugdale AE & Eaton-Evans J (1989) The effect of lactation and other factors on post-partum changes in body-weight and triceps skinfold thickness. British Journal of Nutrition 61: 149– 53. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Dumesnil JG , Turgeon J , Tremblay A et al. (2001) Effect of a low-glycaemic index-low-fat-high protein diet on the atherogenic metabolic risk profile of abdominally obese men. British Journal of Nutrition 86: 557– 68. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine (1990) Nutrition During Pregnancy and Lactation. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Food Standards Agency (2002) Eating for Breastfeeding. London: FSA. Web of Science®Google Scholar Frost G & Dornhorst A (2000) The relevance of the glycaemic index to our understanding of dietary carbohydrates. Diabetes Medicine 17: 336– 45. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Gregory J et al. (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Young People Aged 4–18 Years. London: The Stationery Office. Google Scholar Jarvi AE , Karlstrom BE , Granfeldt YE , Björck IE , Asp N-GL & Vessby BOH (1999) Improved Glycaemic Control and Lipid Profile and Normalized Fibrinolytic Activity on a Low-Glycemic Index Diet in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Diabetes Care 22: 10– 8. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Jenkins DJ , Ghafari H , Wolever TM et al. (1982) Relationship between rate of digestion of foods and post-prandial glycaemia. Diabetologia 22: 450– 5. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Jenkins DJ , Wolever TM , Jenkins AL et al. (1983) The glycaemic index of foods tested in diabetic patients: a new basis for carbohydrate exchange favouring the use of legumes. Diabetologia 24: 257– 64. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Lederman SA (2001) Pregnancy weight gain and postpartum loss: avoiding obesity while optimizing the growth and development of the fetus. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association 56: 53– 8. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar Ludwig DS , Majzoub JA , Al-Zahrani A , Dallal GE , Blanco I & Roberts SB (1999) High glycaemic index foods, overeating, and obesity. Pediatrics 103: E26. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Mann J & Truswell AS (2002) Essentials of Human Nutrition. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Google Scholar Morin KH (1998) Perinatal outcomes of obese women; a review of the literature. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 27: 431– 40. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedGoogle Scholar Ray JG , Vermeulen MJ , Shapiro JL & Kenshole AB (2001) Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus and the influence of maternal obesity and weight gain: the DEPOSIT study. Diabetes Endocrine Pregnancy Outcome Study in Toronto. QJM: Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians 94: 347– 56. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Schieve LA , Cogswell ME , Scanlon KS et al. (2000) Prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain: associations with preterm delivery. The NJHS Collaborative Study Group. Obstetrics and Gynecology 96: 194– 200. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sebire NJ , Jolly M , Harris JP et al. (2001) Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 25: 1175– 82. Google Scholar Spieth LE , Harnish JD , Lenders CM et al. (2000) A low – glycemic index diet in the treatment if pediatric obesity. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 154: 947– 51. Google Scholar Volume27, Issue3September 2002Pages 161-163 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.