Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
wow try to have some composure here, adding facts supported by your sources is not vandalism. |
||
Line 17:
----
20-30 minutes of HIIT expends half as much energy ''during exercise'' as 30-45 minutes of aerobic exercise, but results in 3 times the total energy drawdown on the human body. The only conclusion to be drawn from the utter silliness of your argument is that you are a vandal who is attempting to start a fight. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 18:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Ok you may think that is true, but your source disagrees. It compares 30 minutes of each (Well increasing to 45 for ET, but the page doesn't explain what is meant by that), and shows the total energy expenditure being double for the ET. ''Your'' source doesn't claim 6 times the energy drawdown, it finds greater subcutaneus fat loss, and the page you posted does not posit on the reason or mechanism. I don't have access to the full study at the moment, but the abstract reads: "Despite its '''lower energy cost''', the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program." (Emphasis mine) Very interesting indeed, but entirely consistent with the fact I added. Again, as noted earlier, you can note that one study found greater fat loss with HIIT. In fact that would even support further the idea that if the HIIT is more ''efficient'' on a per calorie basis if subcu fat loss is the primary goal, but it doesn't change the greater caloric expenditure of the ET. Are you sure you understand the issue here or the meaning of the words I added to the article? And don't forget we are looking at high intensity weight training and moderate intensity ET. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Calling me a vandal when your data supports my added fact? All I can say is you should stop your posturing, calm down, and look at the facts. I notice you have ignored the fact that your other source also supports my point. Convenient when it doesn't help your case. If you have more facts that support your POV fine, bring them, I'm more than willing to adjust my take if reliable sources support that, but again, the sources you provided support the fact I have added. So basically I am adding a fact supported by the sources and you are removing it because it doesn't fit with your preferred POV. I can't see anything in that that would lead me to believe you are editing in good faith. At a minimum it is an improper revert and not helpful. If you are so sure of your point, again, find some reliable sources that back it up. The current ones support mine, so removing the material is the improper action. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 20:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
| |||