EnviroLink Forum

Depends on what you're citing then, I suppose. Without actually having seen the article, I'd argue that the general premise is some optimized caloric intake, which could be a reduction or increase.

It is more than clearly a reduction which you would have read in my post without even having to read the article Fosgate.

I don't get the game.

1200 when not exercising to 16-1800 when exercising isn't a reduction. Hence, my point.

_________________
TANG SOO!

" Without actually having seen the article, I'd argue that the general premise is some optimized caloric intake, which could be a reduction or increase. 1200 when not exercising to 16-1800 when exercising isn't a reduction. Hence, my point."

Obviously one needs more calories if one is engaged in exercise, heavy work, or slaying dragons. However, the article is about the general decrease in calories in all categories.
Why 'argue' anything about an article you've not read?

Again, I don't get the game ..... but then, I don't understand most games.

I don't have a choice. You're here talking about it, yet you won't cite it.



Then you shouldn't position yourself as dungeon master.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I did cite from the article ... a little teaser to give some indication of what the article is about. I posted the artcle as an invitation for those who might like to read it. If you would like to read the article, it is available for you to do so. If you would not like to read the article, don't.
Isn't it great living in the free world?

Hey, you could even listen to this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2CzXG2UdVI

but it's entirely your choice of course!

At first I thought you were lying, but you sure did provide a link. I didn't see it. My bad. I've read the article and as for it, my point doesn't really change. They say calorie restriction, I say balanced diet. Why make assumptions? Just call it what it is. Getting specific just raises the risk of one misleading another. I know that obesity and excess calories are a very real and visible problem in our society. I also realize that those who aren't overweight generally don't have the first clue as to what proper nutrition is either. They're over-indulging in one regard, lacking in another, suffering from a calorie restrictive diet, not benefitting. Lastly, I love how they interject raw food/veganism, only to debunk it near the end. What a waste of space.



Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Explorations need space. The article both considers and debunks positions. One would need to experiment in order to know, for sure, what works for them.

You were slaying dragons at 4,000 calories per day. I've never tried that. I have fasted and, quite unexpectadly, experienced incredible surges of energy. Who would have thought?

Me, for one. What are you eating that leads you to feel so much better when you fast?

One must absolutely slay dragons, or perform some physically active equivalent, when putting down 4,000 a day. I've read somewhere that professional swimmer Michael Phelps tops 10,000 a day when training--easily. I didn't intentionally restrict at the time, but there were instances where food was lighter than the usual before my training. The result of that was, quite literally, tunnel vision and dizziness later on. Again, point being, when one balances what they're eating to what they're doing, however much or little that may be, they tend to feel better.

_________________
TANG SOO!