The Diet Selection Method
Claims have been made that diet can be manipulated to determine the sex of offspring. These claims, in fact, were the subject of a 1982 book called The Preconception Gender Diet by Sally Langendoen, R.N., and William Proctor. Of course, there is nothing new about such claims; the idea that diet can influence gender has been around for centuries. What is new is that this diet theory appears at least to have some scientific underpinning. In short, there may be something to it. But read on before you get too excited.
The new work is based on the research of Dr. Joseph Stolkowski of Paris and Dr. Jacques Lorrain of Montreal. Dr. Stolkowski noted that, in the 1930s, Dr. Curt Herbst of Germany had discovered that the sex of marine worms could be influenced by mineral manipulations. He decided to see if the same thing might be true in higher animal forms, and reported that it was. Diets high in salt, he claimed, resulted in significantly more bulls than heifers. Dr. Lorrain subsequently entered into a collaboration with Dr. Stolkowski, to see if diet could similarly influence human sex ratios.
The first results of this collaboration were reported in the International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in 1980. The two doctors put 281 women who wanted children of specific sexes on two different diets. The “girl diet” is high in calcium and low in salt and potassium. The “boy diet” is high in salt and potassium and low in calcium and magnesium. Husbands were told to go on the same diets as their wives—mainly in order to lend psychological support and help ensure that the wives didn’t “fall off” the diets. The couples were instructed to stay on the diets for a month to six weeks before attempting to conceive. If they had not conceived within six months, they were told to discontinue the diets. Some 21 women dropped out of the study because they couldn’t tolerate the diets or had negative reactions to them or because they lapsed and became pregnant before they had given the diets an adequate chance. The doctors reported that of the 260 women who stuck with the diets, approximately 80 percent conceived children of the desired sex.
No convincing hypothesis has yet been put forward to explain why this method works, if in fact it does. Researchers have speculated on a number of possible modes of action. Possibly the diets affect the secretions within the female reproductive tract in such a way that, depending on which diet is used, either X or Y sperm are better able to move through those secretions. Or perhaps the manipulation of the minerals in the diets affects the membrane of the egg, making it easier for one or the other type of sperm to penetrate. Perhaps the diets affect the female immune system, selectively favoring one type of sperm over the other, again depending on which diet is used. And possibly the diets affect the sperm cells, too, since the husbands also adhere to the diets.
Before you jump to the conclusion that you can eat your way to the baby of your dreams, be aware that there are some potential problems with the sex-selection method based on these diets. First of all, at this point, the method rests entirely on the work of Stolkowski and Lorrain, who have conducted but one clinical trial, and that trial involved a relatively small number of women. Independent confirmations have yet to materialize. Second, following these diets for even a few months may turn out to be unpleasant and highly inconvenient. Third, there is the possibility of health risk.
All who read The Preconception Gender Diet will note the multiple warnings it contains, cautioning readers to consult their doctors before going on these diets and then, once on them, to continue consulting their doctors. The reasons for this are apparent when you get into the specifics of the diets. The boy diet, in particular, may be risky for some people because it requires a higher salt intake than many doctors think is healthy. The authors also acknowledge that the amounts of calcium permitted by the boy diet “are significantly below what is regarded by most nutritionists to be the minimum daily requirement.” The amount of magnesium permitted is similarly well below generally recommended levels.
The authors of the book argue, however, that those who stay on these diets for no longer than six months “probably” won’t experience any difficulty. The trouble with this kind of reasoning is that it will take only a few isolated instances of illness attributed to these diets to bring the whole approach into disrepute. What worries us is that people who are already endangering their health with too much salt (a problem that is acute in the United States) will go overboard on this diet. It has too high a salt content to begin with. Some, thinking “if this much is a good thing if you want a boy, then more might even be better,” may be tempted to add still more salt to an already salty diet. And some others, who do not become pregnant within six months, will inevitably be tempted to stay on the diet and “keep on trying.” The authors point out that there are some people who shouldn’t use the diets for even a month, given preexisting health problems; but will all those people heed these warnings or recognize that they fall into these at-risk categories?
Among the obvious “contraindications” to the boy diet is hypertension (high blood pressure or even a predisposition to hypertension). Drs. Stolkowski and Lorrain reported that four women who were trying for boys had to drop out of their study because the high salt intake resulted in edema, or water retention, a sign of potentially dangerous circulatory problems. Women on the girl diet have been warned to be on the lookout for kidney problems, too much calcium in their blood, excessive nervousness, and so forth.
Langendoen and Proctor concede that the Shettles method may have validity but argue that it is too complicated and takes too much of the spontaneity out of the sex act. We are willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people who try both methods will decide the Shettles method is, by far, the easier to follow and is encumbered by neither the health risks nor the day-in-and-day-out hassle of a diet that is bound to become obnoxious to many people.
At the same time, we do not want to criticize this research too harshly. Unlike the Whelan method, which we discussed earlier, this one appears to be based on sound, scientific methodology. It is our hope that with further study the promising work of Drs. Stolkowski and Lorrain will not only be confirmed but will yield information that will allow for the development of dietary alterations less taxing and risky than those currently recommended by Langendoen and Proctor. If those things happen, it will be interesting to see what results might be obtained by combining all or various aspects of the Shettles method with those of a revised dietary method. Some Japanese researchers, in fact, are investigating these possibilities.
For now, however, we cannot recommend the dietary regimens proposed in The Preconception Gender Diet. And we must point out that the Shettles method yields the same results that have been reported for the diet method—and without the risks and inconvenience of the diets. Moreover, as previously documented, the Shettles method has been confirmed by numerous independent researchers throughout the world. The diet method hasn’t been.






