Edgy
Registered User
- Nov 30, 2009
- 3,848
- 3,719
I'm on 3200 and it's very healthy.I don't think any of those guys are trying to be healthy.
Heck, Im at 3500-4000 calories and I know its not healthy.
I'm on 3200 and it's very healthy.I don't think any of those guys are trying to be healthy.
Heck, Im at 3500-4000 calories and I know its not healthy.
That 2nd point never happened but don’t let facts get in your way chiefMeat company investing in study: Conflict of interest bunker results!
Pea company investing in study: Philantropist promoting the good cause!
Well, maybe if you are 6'5 or something, but if you are of average height, I doubt it would be healthy.I'm on 3200 and it's very healthy.
6'3 but I also burn around 500-700 calories at the gym every day.Well, maybe if you are 6'5 or something, but if you are of average height, I doubt it would be healthy.
And I'm the lost cause...Meat company investing in study: Conflict of interest bunker results!
Pea company investing in study: Philantropist promoting the good cause!
Not sure what happened in your life for you to have such militancy attitude, but I hope you get better.Brah you’re such a lost cause lol
You sure about that? Burning 700cal in the gym is no easy feat.6'3 but I also burn around 500-700 calories at the gym every day.
With HIIT/cardio it isnt ?You sure about that? Burning 700cal in the gym is no easy feat.
That really depends, just how intense is someone going. Intensity also is very adaptable, so you need to push more and more in order to get that same burn.With HIIT/cardio it isnt ?
He's 6'3, so you gotta think hes also heavier.
Pretty sure I burn 700 calories just sitting around for a hour right now I can totally see a 6'3 dude burn 700 calories during a hour and a half workout with some cardio in there.That really depends, just how intense is someone going. Intensity also is very adaptable, so you need to push more and more in order to get that same burn.
Really depends, but spending 700cal at a gym, not easy.
People overestimate how much calories they burn, that's the main reason people struggle with weight loss. Not saying that's Edgy's case though.
Anyone doing intermittent fasting ?
You're probably not though That's my point.Pretty sure I burn 700 calories just sitting around for a hour right now I can totally see a 6'3 dude burn 700 calories during a hour and a half workout with some cardio in there.
That 2nd point never happened but don’t let facts get in your way chief
Those counters aren't really precise. They estimate they overshoot calories by 20% already, but then they dont consider level of fitness, or how proficient you are at an exercise. My buddy and I can hop on the treadmill, same age, same height/weight, put it on the same speed and we will end up having burnt the same number of calories. Difference is he barely knows how to put one foot in front of the other and he confuses running with stomping. After 10 minutes, he can barely breath, while I can still hold a perfect conversation without grasping for air.I used to be able to do ~1,100 calories in an hour on the treadmill, but I've since lost the joints and cardio capacity to do that. I can do ~700 calories/hour on the elliptical now, but that gets boring, and if I did it every day I'd break my remaining joints.
You realize James Cameron is a film maker first and foremost, right? And that he wasn't the one who funded ANY of the studies they used in the film, right?So if a major investor in the meat industry sponsored a documentary, you would have no qualms about it?
You realize James Cameron is a film maker first and foremost, right? And that he wasn't the one who funded ANY of the studies they used in the film, right?
If you want to believe James Cameron helped produce Game Changers in an effort to get people to eat more peas from his Saskatchewan company, you do you. I don't believe that. I think it's quite clear that we have a famous filmmaker who attached his name to a doc in order to help the doc secure funding and distribution. He supports the doc, because the doc supports plant based eating which he supports as an environmentalist. That's all there is to it.So you see absolutely no conflict of interest in having a producer who invested more than a hundred million in the vegan industry producing a film about the superiority of veganism?
If you want to believe James Cameron helped produce Game Changers in an effort to get people to eat more peas from his Saskatchewan company, you do you. I don't believe that. I think it's quite clear that we have a famous filmmaker who attached his name to a doc in order to help the doc secure funding and distribution. He supports the doc, because the doc supports plant based eating which he supports as an environmentalist. That's all there is to it.
But I guess when you can't attack the actual substance of the doc, you have to go after the motivations of it's producers, right?
It's a big deal because they are misleading the public. How exactly has James Cameron mislead the public?So what you are saying is that meat industry sponsoring studies about meat shouldn't be as big a deal as you make it because they are just promoting what they believe in? Got it.
It's a big deal because they are misleading the public. How exactly has James Cameron mislead the public?
give a wrong impression
Nut butters are an easy way to get calories in, the one I use in my smoothies has 100 calories per tablespoon.
Lots of people. I do it on and off. What's up?
I like to read this thread once in a while, not that I'm knowledgeable or an expert on stuff being discussed here...
but seriously, this veganism cult is something else, it's killing the thread.