How many calories on a low carb diet?

[GraceK]

Oh Dear God ... please save me from having to eat dry chicken breast in order to become slim. It stuck in my throat when I was a kid and I'm now 59 years of age and still haven't got my head round why anyone would want to eat chicken breast unless it's covered in crispy skin, smothered in gravy or a rich sauce. I really don't believe chicken breast was created to be eaten without any of those things. So please forgive me for preferring the nice juicy thighs complete with skin.

No more Filet Steak in my house. I go for the fattiest bit of Ribeye I can find. Fatty meat tastes good as a result of 200million years of evolution. Skinless chicken breasts are an aberration.

Yaaaaaaaaaay! A fellow fatty ribeye lover! I just love my ribeye steak simply grilled or fried and just seasoned with salt and pepper. I don't adulterate it with any other herbs or spices because it really doesn't need them, I love to see it just sitting there on my plate in all it's well deserved glory, complemented only slightly by a few fried mushrooms in a little cream and French mustard sauce and a side salad of thinly sliced tomato and cucumber with a dash of sour cream. Bliss.

Not something I would have or even want every day but once a week is quite enough because it's THAT satisfying.

[borofergie]

The first law just tells us that we will put on weight if we eat more than we burn.

The FIrst Law of Thermodynamics is about energy and says nothing about weight. It says that if you add more energy to a system than you remove then that system will contain more energy. The conclusion about adding weight is your own - and you have yet to justify it.

Andrew

Your body stores excess energy as fat. The calorific value of fat is 9kcal/g

Therefore ΔW=ΔE/9=(Ein-Eout)/9

The Second Law says that there will be some system losses, and obviously you have to account for waste matter in Eout.

Unless you are arguing that there is an significant alternative storage mechanism or that the calorific value of fat is not a constant, then ΔW∝ΔE.

[GraceK]

There you go, Sue - a nice, concise answer!

My opinion is - don't count the calories. Eat until you're full. When you're not eating loads of carbs, you'll know when you're full.

Maybe we should all get together and devise a Carboholics Anonymous 12 Step Programme ... and we should all announce ourselves by saying ...

"Hello Everyone, my name is ... and I'm a Carboholic."

I think by virtue of being human and having a brain, we can become addicted to ANYTHING at all. Life itself is an addiction in a way. Anything habit, good or bad, that we find hard to break, is an addiction. We can be addicted to heroin or addicted to exercise. We can be addicted to alcohol or addicted to carbs. The substance or activity doesn't really matter, it's how it makes us feel that we're really addicted to. Some people are even addicted to feeling yukky, because they can't envisage feeling any other way, their way of eating brings the same yukky results yet still they keep eating that way out of habit.

I didn't realise how addicted I was to carbs. I knew that once I had been addicted to sweets and cigarettes and I had one hell of a job getting myself off both those nasties. But I didn't consider myself addicted to bread or cakes or pastries, until my stomach started yelling at me to STOP!

But once I DECIDED to stop eating sweets by the bagful and stop smoking, I mean REALLY DECIDED, I was able to stop and I've never wanted either of those things again. I have the occasional sweet but don't enjoy them and realised I really never did. Cigarettes, since the day I smoked my last one 18 May 2002, I can honestly say I've just never even noticed them again. I never seem to meet any smokers, and the thought of me with a cigarette in my mouth now seems like it was all happening to another person. We can never TRY to give up or stop doing anything, because trying doesn't cut it. We have to DECIDE because it all happens in the mind first. The body just follows the leader.

[andrewk]

Your body stores excess energy as fat. The calorific value of fat is 9kcal/g
Therefore ΔW=ΔE/9=(Ein-Eout)/9

That is just school-boy maths - and should perhaps be prefaced by "all other things being equal". Can you cite any real published studies that substantiate that human bodies actually behave in such an idealistic fashion? There are references in the Gary Taubes book to several studies that give inconsistent results, such as folk gaining weight when eating less and the converse. Unless you can explain the reason for such inconsistent results then you are simply kite flying.

The Second Law says that there will be some system losses, and obviously you have to account for waste matter in Eout.

I don't see that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has any relevance to "system losses", whatever you mean by that. For those who don't know, the Second Law states - "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium"

As you correctly say, "obviously you have to account for waste matter". I have yet to see any serious study that has measured changes in metabolic rate and also the energy in urine, faeces, perspiration, breathing and so on whilst trialing changes in diet composition and calory content. Isn't it true that the lack of such solid science is precisely the reason why there is still disagreement about the effectiveness or otherwise of different diets??

[Indy51]

Jenny Ruhl has a very good nutrition calculator for number of calories and macronutrients for weight loss and/or weight maintenance based on carbohydrate intake at her Truth About Low Carb Diets site:

http://www.phlaunt.com/lowcarb/DietMakeupCalc.php

(Hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting the link)

[borofergie]

Your body stores excess energy as fat. The calorific value of fat is 9kcal/g
Therefore ΔW=ΔE/9=(Ein-Eout)/9

That is just school-boy maths - and should perhaps be prefaced by "all other things being equal". Can you cite any real published studies that substantiate that human bodies actually behave in such an idealistic fashion? There are references in the Gary Taubes book to several studies that give inconsistent results, such as folk gaining weight when eating less and the converse. Unless you can explain the reason for such inconsistent results then you are simply kite flying.

You want be to provide references that "the first law of thermodynamics" applies and that the principal mode of energy storage in humans is fat? I'm stating the conventional position. If you have some alternative theory you should probably write it down...

The First Law of Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. How is that "kite flying"?

Give me one example of ANY system for which the first law doesn't apply and I'll take you seriously (and also applaud the Nobel prize that you'll pick soon afterwards).

The FIrst Law of Thermodynamics is about energy and says nothing about weight.

Fat is just is the storage of chemical energy. An increase in stored chemical energy is associated with an increase in weight of the system. So of course the First Law of Thermodynamics applies.

The Second Law says that there will be some system losses, and obviously you have to account for waste matter in Eout.

I don't see that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has any relevance to "system losses", whatever you mean by that.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that it is impossibe conversion from one form of energy to another with 100% efficiency. When you convert chemical energy "fat" or "glucose" to kinetic energy and thermal energy during exercise, energy is lost through heat rejection. To fuel 3500kcal of exercise you need to burn more than a pound of fat.

If you're going to have a dig at the First and Second laws, it would be a pity not to take on the Zeroth law while you're at it.

As you correctly say, "obviously you have to account for waste matter". I have yet to see any serious study that has measured changes in metabolic rate and also the energy in urine, faeces, perspiration, breathing and so on whilst trialing changes in diet composition and calory content. Isn't it true that the lack of such solid science is precisely the reason why there is still disagreement about the effectiveness or otherwise of different diets??

You haven't looked then. It's standard practice to measure the losses included in urine, feces, heat rejection and even sweat, at facilites like this one: http://www.uow.edu.au/health/healthscie ... index.html

Here is one example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3604965
But obviously there are hundreds.

In fact Atwater used bomb calorimeters to manage the energy content of feces and urine in order to calculate the effective calorific values of macronutrients.

[borofergie]

I'm in the middle of trying to read Gary Taubes's enormous tome "The Diet Delusion" and have just read through the section where he talks about researchers using statements about the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics as a means of avoiding a scientific investigation of the notion that low fat diets might not be the best way to lose weight. To be honest, what he says about the First Law is a little confusing - and I don't think it is very well written.

That's strange. In my opinion Taubes is among the very best science writers.

We should all remember that the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics is about conservation of energy - not about gaining or losing weight. The FIrst Law, in its simplest form says that the change in energy in a system is equal to the energy added to the system minus the energy lost by the system. It simply is not true that this mandates an increase in weight for a system that gains energy.

Gary Taubes is not denying that First Law is relevant to weight gain or loss. His point is that it only deals with WHAT happens (energy is accumulated as stored fat) but not with WHY it happens (what is regulating the inputs and outputs to the system).

In his own words:

This is what happens when the laws of physics (thermodynamics) are used to defend the belief that overeating makes us fat. Thermodynamics tells us that if we get fatter and heavier, more energy enters our body than leaves it. Overeating means we’re consuming more energy than we’re expending. It’s saying the same thing in a different way. (In 1954, the soon-to-be-famous — and often misguided, although not in this case — nutritionist Jean Mayer said that to explain obesity by overeating was about as meaningful as explaining alcoholism by overdrinking, and merely reaffirmed, quite unnecessarily, the fact that the person saying it believed in the laws of thermodynamics.) Neither happens to answer the question why. Why do we take in more energy than we expend? Why do we get fatter?

http://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

I believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics
Taubes believes in the First Law of Thermodynamics
You should believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics too...

[Defren]

I do count calories. The reason being, it has taken until pretty recently to find a way for me to eat enough +/- to make sure I have steady weight loss. When first diagnosed, many will remember Metformin decimated my appetite and a lot of days I was struggling to eat 400 calories. After the Newcastle Diet, I had shrunken tummy, and still struggled to eat enough. So, bit by bit, I fiddled around with my calories until I found a figure that worked for me. I worked out 1,500 calories a day gave me a pretty steady weight loss, I was never hungry, so stuck to that.

I finished week four of the 5:2 fast yesterday, with very low calories, and I often struggle to make the 1,500. But, I try very hard to reach that as it does help.

With diabetes I strongly think it's all personal choice. There is no right or wrong way. By Monday I will have reached normal BMI - I hope, and want to get to around the middle of the normal range. Once I do and I am maintaining, my calories will have to rise, but for now, it's working fine for me the way I am doing it. I still put carbs above calories and always will.

[andrewk]

Your body stores excess energy as fat. The calorific value of fat is 9kcal/g
Therefore ΔW=ΔE/9=(Ein-Eout)/9

Let's try again ......... apologies for not replying earlier, I've been more than a tad busy.

You say that losing weight is straightforward, just eat less. You then cite the First Law of Thermodynamics as justification for the assertion. I hope that I do not misrepresent your position on this.

My position is simple:

* I have no issues with the First Law of Thermodynamics. All it says is that (Wikipedia definition): The change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. It is simply a restatement of the law of conservation of energy.

* It does follow from the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics that if the (chemical) energy in food ingested is different from the sum of "heat given off by the body" + "mechanical work undertaken by the body" + "the heat content of breath expired, perspiration, unrine, faeces (and anything else I've forgotten)" then there will have been a change in the energy content of the body.

* I have issues with assertions that are claimed to follow from the First Law of Thermodynamics where steps in the logic are asserted rather than proven.

* I know of no controlled study into calorie controlled dieting that has captured the breath expired, perspiration, urine and faeces of subjects to identify the change in their energy content. If you do, please let me know which one did that and I'll investigate it. If you do not, then you cannot possibly know what proportion of the energy in any additional food ingested is stored as fat (or muscle tissue or bone or .......... ).

* There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that some folks do not lose weight if they eat less and others do not gain weight if they eat more. If memory serves, there are also controlled studies referenced in the Gary Taubes book showing that the results of calorie controlled diets are inconsistent at best. This would not be so if your assertions did logically follow from thermodynamic laws.


Andrew

[shazzie1963]

I really want to have a go at a Low Carb diet since I have tried everything else to no avail. I asked my dr the other day and she was ok me giving it a go but was not optomistic because she said you need carbs when you are diabetic which I am aware of but I need to try and know that it is safe to do.

[GraceK]

I really want to have a go at a Low Carb diet since I have tried everything else to no avail. I asked my dr the other day and she was ok me giving it a go but was not optomistic because she said you need carbs when you are diabetic which I am aware of but I need to try and know that it is safe to do.

This is my favourite website about LCHF diet because it's visual, it's simple and you can find what you need to eat within about 2 minutes of reading. If you want to learn more about LCHF and your body you can read further down, there's lots of info there.

[JMM]

I am desperately trying to lose weight with low carbs and exercise, but it isn't coming off quickly. I read an article in yesterday's Daily Mail about exercise. Roughlky speaking it is ........ Do 30 secs of exercise, (making yourself out of breath) rest for l minute and then repeat three times. This should be carried out 2 or three times a week followed by Green Tea, and stomach and visceral fat is much reduced. I am trying it. Is anyone else?

[GraceK]

I started low carbing in August and was waiting for the weight to drop off me as it has with other people, but no, 3 months after virtually NO carbing I'd still only lost half a stone where everyone else had lost 2 stone! However, everyone assured me that I should just keep going with the low carbing and the weight would start shifting again and lo and behold it did and I began losing about 1-2lb a week steadily and am still losing. I don't do much exercise at all because I have asthma which gets worse on exertion so I was really pleased to see the weight start to come off again.

I've heard of the method of short burst of exercise as you describe, it seems to be popular now rather than long, arduous bouts of exercise, which makes perfect sense to me. Good luck with it and let's know how you're doing.