On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:28:04 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> It's a good point and I wouldn't in practice choose the breast meat.  So  
> let's use thighs instead for our example.  Roasted chicken thighs  
> actually give you about 40 grams of fat per 100 grams of protein rather  
> than the 90 you quote above, but we'll go with your super high fatty  
> source of thigh meat.

My source was nutritiondata.com, but I had looked up raw chicken.  Roasted  
gives 63 grams of fat per 100 grams of protein  
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20Bp.html).  So the calorie  
count would be 100 times 4 plus 63 times 9, or 967 calories, which is  
pretty low.

> Daily calories from that source would be 100 times 4 plus 90 times 9 or  
> 1210 calories.  You can't have any more protein as you're maxed out.   
> And you can't have any carbs of course.

I didn't think low carb meant zero carb.  I've heard "low carb" defined as  
being under 100g a day, with under 30g a day being extremely low carb (to  
induce ketosis).  If you had 100g of carbs that's another 400 calories.   
With 30g, you'd only pick up another 120.  Either way, it's still only  
1087 to 1367 calories, and you'd still need more.  So your example of  
needing 1700 calories additional is still on target.

However, 1200 + 1700 is 2900 calories.  If you need that many calories,  
you're very active.  If you're that active you should probably be eating  
more protein and/or more carbs, so the fat requirements will be reduced  
further.  Increasing the chicken by 50% would give you another 50g protein  
and 31g fat (479 calories), so even if you still kept to extreme low  
carbs, you're down to half a cup of extra fat (8 tablespoons).  Which is  
still a lot.

> So you have to find a way to choke down 1700 calories offat -- almost a  
> full cup.  That would not be easy.

You're right.

That's one of the reasons I personally don't follow an extreme low carb  
(or minimal protein) regimen.  :-)

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]