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.

[–] absGeekNZ 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end

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.

[–] absGeekNZ 1 points 1 year ago

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.