A forum friend of mine did a calorie experiment. He deliberately overate for
30 days, according to calorie calculators and the traditional "3,500
calories = one pound" theory to see what would happen. Fat was about 80%,
carbs were close to zero. He didn't exercise.

"During the past 30 days I have overconsumed 48659 calories.  At 2200
calories per day times 30 days, that's 66,000 calories that my body would
have required.  I actually consumed 114,659 calories.  That's a difference
of 48,659 calories.  48,659 divided by 3,500 is 13.9.  So, I should have
gained 13.9 pounds, or thereabouts."

His weight stayed the same throughout. A woman I know from the same forum
tried it as well, with the same result - no weight gain (no loss either,
which is important to note - but no gain).

Tracy

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: May 14, 2008 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: diet update

Paula > I think Taubes goes into this quite a bit in his book about how
calories in are only part of the equation.  Calorie composition seems more
important.

I made the argument on here a few years back that the reigning caloric
calculus doesn't hold water.  But I didn't expect that it would be THIS easy
to disprove.  Wow.

Jim