"Gary Leighton" > wrote in message
...

> My target weight is about 10 stone, ..
Sez who?? Are not 'target weights' determined by averages over severely
obese populations??
Since you are transitioning to veg*n diet, I assume you want to lose the
excess weight inevitably collected on cooked, animal-centric, cultural
diets. Abandoning the excessive pro and fat of an animal-centric diet
generally results in -some- weight loss. However, a cooked-glop veg*n diet
will also cause consumption of excesses, too, from the concentrated pro
(beans, legumes, nuts/seeds, ...) and concentrated starch (grains, roots,
....) inherent in those diets.
Our real ideal weight, as determined by Nature, will be realized -only-
when one returns to our species' natural, uncooked diet: mostly fruits,
leaves, and few nuts. You might think of the chimp's diet as a guide.
http://ecologos.org/pix/Health/chimpdiet.xls

> ... and according to an online BMI calculator ...
BMI, averages over severely obese populations, is a false metric that
means nothing and is not related to health.
http://ecologos.org/bmi.htm

> ... means I need about 2000 calories per day to maintain ...
The physical entity, calorie, as used in contemporary nutribabble is
false. Forget them.
http://ecologos.org/pcf.htm

> ... says I should get 70% of these calories from carbohydrates (and 15%
> from fat and 15% from protein).
The "percent calories as xxx" concept is also totally fallacious.
http://ecologos.org/pcf.htm

> Looking at my carbohydrate counter book, ...
Better yet, use Jerry Story's free nutritional database pgm:
http://home.edmc.net/%7Ejstory/DMAK.ZIP Windoze
http://home.edmc.net/%7Ejstory/dmak.tar.gz Linux

> as though vegetables contain maybe one sixth carbohydrate by mass (using
> potatoes as an example).
Potatoes are really not a 'vegetable', i.e. vegetation, they are tubers
used
for storage of nutrients for the host plant, so they contain concentrated
starches which probably should be avoided in the long run if one is
interested in optimum health. Also, they must be cooked to be eaten, and
cooking breaks
open the cell walls making ~10 times as much nutrients available than if the
"food" were eaten raw. This is the reason for the obesity commonly
associated with starch-centric diets. Chewing is highly inefficient at
breaking open tough cell walls.

> So I think my maths must have gone wrong somewhere. Can anyone tell me
> where I've gone wrong?
Believing the false concepts built around calories, BMI, and 'target
weights' as propagated in contemporary nutribabble??

Laurie