Content deleted Content added
wow try to have some composure here, adding facts supported by your sources is not vandalism. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20:
: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)
The two sources I gave you do not support your calculation, and it's a lie to say they do. Further, your added paragraph is directly refuted by the fat-loss results in the exrx.net table. The 51-127 kcal energy attributed to EPOC in your current version is not related to amount of exercise done and therefore means nothing. The only study comparing the two regimes showed that short, high-intensity exercise plus EPOC has a much greater effect on total energy use (as measured by fat loss) than does longer endurance-type exercise. Just posting citations without understanding them does not constitute supporting your position. I am--again--removing the falsehood. [[User:Blair P. Houghton|Blair P. Houghton]] 19:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
| |||