traineo community
Member of traineo? Sign in here
traineo Community / Diet & Nutrition Tips / carbs.
Author Message
Katie Reigner
traineo Newbie
Posts: 14
Post History
 # Posted: 2 Feb 2008 04:24


how many carbs should be consumed in one day?

aand... is a 1200 calorie diet good/bad for someone who is trying to lose weight. i've heard that it shouldn't be any less that that but does 1200 work?
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 2 Feb 2008 18:31 - Edited by: fauxvirgo


I eat about 1200 per day, and I'm losing weight. Currently about 0.4 lbs per day.

I consume about 120 g of carbs, 91 g of protein, and 39 g of fat per day, give or take.

Of course there will be someone right behind me telling you that's insane. (Waiting for it.....)

I did the exact same thing back in college... here are my results:
http://www.traineo.com/14_4872_0.html
Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 3 Feb 2008 17:30 - Edited by: nicholman


That's insane!

j/k

Angie knows a LOT about nutrition and weight loss, and has proven that what she does gets great results.

Everyone needs a different amount of calories, and try to determine what you need instead of just coming up with a number. It's easy:

1. Calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), the amount of calories your body burns at rest (keeping you alive and nothing else). Use your target weight.

2. Use the Harris Benedict equation to determine how many calories you will need to eat daily to maintain that goal weight, based on your activity level.
multiply by:
(little or no exercise) : BMR x 1.2
(light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : BMR x 1.375
(moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : BMR x 1.55
(hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : BMR x 1.725
(very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : BMR x 1.9

Start there and use exercise to create an additional calorie deficit to lose weight. Monitor your results for 4-6 weeks, and adjust accordingly.

For the carbs, stick to the 40/30/30 plan to start. If you plan on doing much weight training, I would have a little more protein in that mix.
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 3 Feb 2008 23:26 - Edited by: fauxvirgo


I should add that the BMR calculations aren't always correct. Here's an excerpt from a book I have that explains why:

BURNING CALORIES VERSUS PRODUCING ATP

One of the more difficult concepts to get across to athletes, coaches, dietitians, and physicians is the differences between burning calories and producing ATP from calories. ATP is the chemical that is required not only for muscle contraction, but also for virtually all of our metabolism. ATP is made on an as-needed basis from either glucose or fat. Your production of ATP is far greater from a calorie of fat than from a calorie of glucose. In the [diet that I'm on], you are primarily burning fat for ATP production as opposed to glucose. This means you are also making all the ATP you need, even though fewer calories are being expended. This is why diabetics, world-class athletes, or just plain normal people require far fewer calories on the [diet I'm on] than calculated from the usual metabolic equations. It is because they are producing more ATP from less calories.


In other words, your diet can play a huge role in how many calories you actually need. This is why people scream at me that I'm not eating enough calories, but nothing could be further from the truth.
THE NEW ME
The Master
Posts: 2856
Post History
 # Posted: 3 Feb 2008 23:41


angie-are you working out now? how tall are you?
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 3 Feb 2008 23:49


I am 5'8" without shoes. I walk 40 minutes 5X weekly, and have just started 3X per week weight training - very light at the moment. If I weren't doing those things, I would only eat 1000-1100 calories.
THE NEW ME
The Master
Posts: 2856
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 01:10


you arent starving??
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 02:08


Not at all!

The meals are small and frequent, at least 5 @ 200 calories or more. The volume of food I eat is quite large at times due to the low GI vegetables. I try to have no more than 4 hours between meals, and honestly that's been hard to do since I don't normally get hungry until around 6 hours after a meal.

Like today, I ate lunch and my hubby and I were working outside until 4:30-ish, and I meant to grab a snack then but just put it off while doing housework. The next thing I know the Super Bowl has started and I hadn't eaten yet! I was getting hungry by then so I had to make sure not to start snacking on the cheese dip my hubby made. Eating BEFORE you get hungry is the key.

Low GI fruits and vegetables go a long way to curb hunger, so it's easy to subsist on fewer calories. Always balance it out with a bit of fat and protein, and the meal will last even longer.
THE NEW ME
The Master
Posts: 2856
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 02:27


thats great! id be starving on that!!!

im glad it works for you!!
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 02:36


If I were eating 1200 calories of Twinkies and HoHos I'd no doubt be starving. It's the ratio of C-P-F and low GI carbs that make it work.

For the record, I'm not accusing you of eating Twinkies and HoHos.


THE NEW ME
The Master
Posts: 2856
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 02:37




Katie Reigner
traineo Newbie
Posts: 14
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 03:00


thanks for the help guys. i'll look into those calculations Dave!

i've been eating a ton less calories since i started this thing but i feel great =]
Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 04:57


Angie, do you have any more info on the science behind the ATP production based on fatty acids vs. glucose?

This is an interesting proposal, and I'm wondering if it is really based on calories or grams. I'm curious how it effects energy production as a calorie is a measure of energy, so regardless of where it's from it must produce the same amount of energy (assuming Newton was right!). Could it be that this is also slowing your metabolism? That would be the only reason I can think of that your body could then maintain/survive on less calories (energy)... I guess a slowed metabolism isn't a big deal if you still lose fat and gain muscle (and might save money on your grocery bill over time!).

I didn't have a ton of time, and pulling out the old biology texts didn't give me any more info - I think they were before a lot of the newer nutritional research sparked by the analysis of Dr's Sears and Atkins. While I don't follow their diets, I think the work they did was instrumental in helping the general populace better understand how what they eat affects them, and especially those of us that really strive to understand the underlying science behind it.
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 15:56


Dave, I'm a little shaky on the Kreb cycle and the production of ATP. It has been nearly 10 years since I've learned about it in college. If I remember correctly my college biology book only demonstrates the production of ATP from glucose, not from fat as I mentioned previously.

I wouldn't think of it as slowing my metabolism, but making it more efficient. Perhaps the same amount of energy (calorie) is being burned, but due to being a more efficient process, more usable energy (ATP) is created. I think of it as gas mileage on a vehicle. Your body (engine) is more fuel efficient.
Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 20:51


Yeah, it was a challenge to find some good information on this. Glycolisys is the basis for the Kreb cycle, so it wouldn't necessarily give examples of Lipolisys. I've had to spend some time writing out these equations and finding out a lot more than I would have liked to just to be able to explain it

The issue is definitely with the usage of the word 'calorie.' In truth, you cannot put the same amount of 'energy' into one end and get more from the other. One gram of fat does, however, have the potential to produce more energy than one gram of carb, which is why it is 9 calories vs. 4.

One molecule of fat does also have the potential for producing more ATP than one molecule of glucose as well (though not nearly at the rate that some websites might have you believe - try 2-5x as much, not 20x), because of the cycle of breaking the chains produces molecules that can help sustain ATP production. So, it is possible to produce more ATP from breaking down fatty acids than it is from carbs (glucose).

The problem with this process is that using fat to produce ATP is very inneficient and takes a long time. Also, your body won't be able to do this without oxygen. So, this is primarily for fueling your body during the day and for endurance athletes (though your brain requires glucose, not fat, for fuel). Any exercise at moderate to high intensity requires the speed and efficiency of creating ATP from your glycogen stores or blood glucose.

Unfortunately, since your body cannot store ATP (for more than VERY short periods of time - seconds), you still need to use all available methods for ATP production and will suffer from trying to rely on one alone. Unless you basically remove carbs from your diet, your body is simply going to prefer (and for good reason), using glycogen stores to quickly and efficiently produce ATP. Why reducing carbs is a bad idea was researched by Uconn, who found that..

"...exercisers who switched from a balanced diet (proteins, carbohydrates and fats) to a low carb diet experience the following drop's in athletic performance. There was a 7 - 9 percent drop in muscle power and 6 percent drop in VO2 max of cardiovascular performance. "


If it can't be explained scientifically there has to be something amiss... Marketing materials often have this problem!

Some basic info - good primer and will help find actual terms to use to search the chemical reactions if you're so inclined!
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 21:54 - Edited by: fauxvirgo


Hmmm, will have to look into it when I get home tonight.

I did read that breaking down fat is a slow process, which can only supply enough energy to sustain you as long as you are working out at less than 50% VO2 max.

I also found several sites with conflicting information. One site actually said you created more ATP from glucose than from fat.... seems fishy.

Aerobic metabolism occurs during the majority of your day - while sitting at your desk, for example. You are primarily burning fat while being sedentary, just not a whole lot of it.
Jeff Bristow
Fitness Guru
Posts: 280
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 21:57


This discussion is so technical that my head is spinning.....


Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 22:06


yeah, people seem to take a little of the information and quote that, and end up with something that isn't accurate at all. In a given time period, glucose can create more ATP than fat, as the process is quicker, and each cycle creates close to the same amount of ATP and can be 5X more efficient. Over the long run, though, lipids will create more.
Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 4 Feb 2008 22:08


@Jeff - this is how people can sell just about anything! The take half truths that sound great and plausible, and it's so much damn work to figure out what the real truth is no one actually bothers. It's also why weight loss can be so challenging and confusing... You don't have to have a phd, but if you do your homework to understand the basics you can call 'BS' on those fads or gimmicks that sound a little too good to be true.
Mikaela K
Fitness Guru
Posts: 274
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 02:11


I personally can tolerate more carbs than many (most likely due to my age-that'll change as I get older).

It varies from person to person, but 40-50% is normally what's reccomended.
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 02:45


Dave, I don't know where you get off trying to insinuate what I'm quoting is inaccurate.

Look again at the ATP cycle, net ATP being produced, and amount of energy being consumed to actually convert the fatty acids and glucose into ATP.

You are focusing on how quickly ATP can be made with your glucose vs. fat comparison. There is no doubt that glucose can produce ATP more quickly. My quote says a calorie of fat generates more ATP calorie than a calorie of glucose, and therefore fewer total calories are needed. I have my own personal experience to back that up, since I was maintaining 135 lbs on 1200 calories, working out 3X per week. What I quoted above demonstrates why.

A calorie is a unit of energy, as we all know. But energy in does NOT equal energy out. There is an efficiency rating associated with that. Just like gas mileage. Some cars can go farther on a gallon of gas than others. Well, a calorie of fat produces more net ATP than glucose does.

A gram of fat has more calories, true, but that's a mute point. It is the most efficient way to store energy. But that calorie of fat can be transformed more efficiently into usable energy. Just because the process takes longer doesn't mean it's inefficient.


Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 03:22 - Edited by: nicholman


Actually, energy in does equal energy out. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

What makes a process inefficient, compared to another, is not just that it takes longer, but it takes more steps and more work. And since this is the case, the process is indeed inefficient.

I will concede that a gram of Fat produces more energy than a gram of Carbohydrates, that is true. But when someone writes that one calorie produces more energy than another, I have to dispute that. To bring your analogy to cars into light, I might go so far as to say that some cars are more efficient at turning gasoline into energy - much like the process that turns glucose into energy is more efficient than that which turns fat into energy.

Quoting: fauxvirgo
ou are also making all the ATP you need, even though fewer calories are being expended


You cannot make all the ATP that you need if you cannot make it in a timely manner.

I'm sure what you are quoting is largely accurate, but the context that it is used in is not. They don't go into detail, because the detail refutes what they're saying.



Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 17:01


If you're not working out, you're making all the energy you need. That is what that quote is saying. It has nothing to do with working out. Muscles prefer using fat for ATP since the brain consumes so much glucose. It only uses glucose in times of stress - primarily when you're working out at greater than 50% VO2 max.

Usable, net energy does NOT equal energy in. There are losses involved in making energy, just as we will never be able to extract 100% of the energy in gasoline and turn it into power that drives a vehicle. There are lots of losses - heat out of the engine, friction, etc, etc, etc.

I'm talking about NET, NET, NET, NET!!!!

I see it is useless trying to make you understand. I should have known though, since it seems you have enough problems understanding how calories themselves work. You are just talking yourself into nonsense circles.

I'm done with this subject.
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 17:04


Quoting: nicholman
They don't go into detail, because the detail refutes what they're saying.


They don't go into detail because it's not a book about working out. There is no reason to go into depth with the Krebs cycle and mitochondrion, ADP, and ATP when the book is primarily focused on nutrition.
Dave Nicholson
The Master
Posts: 2094
Post History
 # Posted: 5 Feb 2008 17:38


Your brain uses glucose all day long! For the record, the differences between energy in and energy out are related to the efficiency of a system. Repeating something (or making it all in capital letters, or using exclamation points) does not make it true.

All-in-all, I think the recommendations of the Zone diet are pretty good - they're consistent with the 40/30/30 plan/recommendation that was around long before Dr. Sears suggested it, and the basics work well for people and make sense... However, I am in agreement with this particular user, who is actually on the diet (taken from reviews on diet-blog.com):

...I am not trying to sell anything, it does not matter to me if you get in shape or not.

Read mastering the zone, forgot everything else you have heard about the diet, read the book and try it for 1 week. You can get it at your local library or on eBay.

I have been following the Zone guidelines for 2 years with outstanding results, you do not have to follow a rigid regiment to get the real results with this diet. The Zone blocks are easy to follow once you do it by the book for a few weeks. Try it a week and find out. It boils down to slight calorie restriction, small portions, frequent eating, healthly foods and exercise. That's right, put down the fork, throw out the potato chips, eat right, eat less and exercise. The concepts of the Zone diet with the Zone blocks are very easy to follow and I never really feel hungry and if I do, I just eat a very small "Zone type" snack (2 zone blocks). The food block format is particularly easy to apply to every day life. Once you get the hang of it, the diet becomes super easy and you feel amazing.

You do not have to kill yourself to follow the diet. I eat anything I want and still do it. If I am at somebodys house and they order a pizza I have 1 slice not the whole friggin pizza. I do not go out of my way to eay pizza but I will eat if in a absolute pickle.

You do not need to buy the online program to follow the Zone diet, it is a sham. Also do not believe any of the crazy crap that the Sears character says about eiconisoids or insulin diseases or the medical proof. The science he uses to prove his theories are anecdotal and pure B.S. However he created an excellent program for guiding you to eat well portioned meals and losing weight. He is just trying to sell you merchandise. There are no definative medical studies (at this time) that prove the Zone diet works. It flies in the face of conventional diets and wisdom. I was working with a trainer/nutritionist before I decided to go off on my own try the Zone and change my workout regimen. I recently had a pull-up contest with my trainer (a natural bodybuilding champ) he did 37 pullups I did 56.

I am 34 I went from 255 lbs @ 25% body fat to 200 lbs with 8% bodyfat on the Zone Diet in 8 months. I know this is not supposed to be possible according to what conventional nutritionists and trainers say but it happened to me.

I do Crossfit, Lift weights and follow the Zone diet. I was a collegiate athlete (Football) I can tell you that now at 34 I am in the absolute best shape of my life. The stamina and strength I have are just unbelievable. Just weightlifting and cardio is a total waste of time.
Angie H
Fitness Guru
Posts: 718
Post History
 # Posted: 6 Feb 2008 01:40


Quoting: nicholman
For the record, the differences between energy in and energy out are related to the efficiency of a system.

Duh! Haven't I said that, like, 48 times already?
Please sign up to traineo or log in if you wish to post.
 
© traineo 2007