Welcome to today’s daily kōrero!
Anyone can make the thread, first in first served. If you are here on a day and there’s no daily thread, feel free to create it!
Anyway, it’s just a chance to talk about your day, what you have planned, what you have done, etc.
So, how’s it going?
I’ve read articles about the diet etc of top athletes, they’re often consuming 7,000 calories at the peak of their training regime, and clearly not getting fat.
The idea that a sedentary office worker is burning as much energy as an athlete is just nonsense.
That is interesting; what is their energy balance over an extended period?
I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end; I realize the idea seems nonsense at first glance; which is why I posited the question, how do you take new information that conflicts with an existing view point?
That’s exactly what they’re doing. Michael Phelps, for example, would eat multiple whole pizzas a day.
For a proposal like this, which contradicts a lot of knowledge I already have about exercise and nutrition, my response would be to reject it unless either multiple sources confirmed it, or the source was extremely credible.
Assume the source is very credible; do you actively search for why it contradicts or do you just accept the new view point?
Do you try to find common ground between the new information and the old?
I try to get to the bottom of the difference and see how the new info relates to the old. I’ll look for corroborating sources if it still doesn’t seem correct / the explanation is not satisfying.