Giganotosaurus vs. T. rex

[Spinosaur King]

PaudieN1 wrote:

<quoted text> What are you saying? Spinosaur King isn't biased and for the second time length of a skull isn't an advantage as in both cases some teeth hit fresh air.

thanks paudieN1.your right,the legnth of the skull isn't always an advantage however both rex and giga had jaws that were around 4 feet long.

[aaa]

Of course, as you said, most animals will fill themselves to the brim when presented with an opportunity, but the fat that is accumulated is lost rather quickly, due to the rough and tumble nature of the wild

Dinosaurs may not have faced the same climatic problems as most mammals do today. In fact you will notice that mammals are usually the only animals that shed weight quickly. Other organisms, snakes/crocodilians, pack on the pounds and retain them. Why does a snake's dinner bulge last so long? Slow metabolism. Slow metabolism equates to a higher tendency to retain as much fat as possible. Dinosaurs may have had faster metabolic rates than the avg reptile of today but it may have been nowhere near as fast as mammals.

Animals in the wild are very lean, and don't have a tendency to gain much fat to the point where they can be called "fat". Of course, there are animals with specific adaptations to substantially gain fat in a relatively short amount of time, such as whales, bears, and squirrels.

Animals in the wild are not lean. Only pets that are well conditioned become lean. Look at a healthy elephant. It is VERY muscular and powerful. BUT its also very fatty. Same with other large mammals like rhinos/hippos.

The ability to be lean is usually reserved for organisms that have to force themselves out of a natural balance. Why do bodybuilders look liek that? They have to eat a specific, highly unnatural way to gain a shredded physique. A typical "prehistoric man" diet (which is as natural as it will come) will STILL not reveal a lean/fit body. Those cavemen may be very healthy indeed, but they are not lean. Why? Because we liek most animals are engineered to retain fat.

Healthy and lean is a difference.

[Stygimoloch]

aaa wrote:

<quoted text>
Dinosaurs may not have faced the same climatic problems as most mammals do today. In fact you will notice that mammals are usually the only animals that shed weight quickly. Other organisms, snakes/crocodilians, pack on the pounds and retain them. Why does a snake's dinner bulge last so long? Slow metabolism. Slow metabolism equates to a higher tendency to retain as much fat as possible. Dinosaurs may have had faster metabolic rates than the avg reptile of today but it may have been nowhere near as fast as mammals.
<quoted text>
Animals in the wild are not lean. Only pets that are well conditioned become lean. Look at a healthy elephant. It is VERY muscular and powerful. BUT its also very fatty. Same with other large mammals like rhinos/hippos.
The ability to be lean is usually reserved for organisms that have to force themselves out of a natural balance. Why do bodybuilders look liek that? They have to eat a specific, highly unnatural way to gain a shredded physique. A typical "prehistoric man" diet (which is as natural as it will come) will STILL not reveal a lean/fit body. Those cavemen may be very healthy indeed, but they are not lean. Why? Because we liek most animals are engineered to retain fat.
Healthy and lean is a difference.

Most medium sized dinosaurs 4-11 tons probably had a metabolism 4-6 times higher than that of a lizard.(Remember, bird style metabolism decreases w/ body w/ a slope of -.25, or something like that)

I think we should look at birds. Birds don't put on many lbs, even if they are large and land dwelling like the ostrich. Regardless, all animals have fat, but they are typically lean. Not body builder muscular, but they don't hold it that long.

[aaa]

Most medium sized dinosaurs 4-11 tons probably had a metabolism 4-6 times higher than that of a lizard.(Remember, bird style metabolism decreases w/ body w/ a slope of -.25, or something like that)

Regardless of metabolic rate, i just wanted to point out that dinosaurs are not naturally lean.

I think we should look at birds. Birds don't put on many lbs, even if they are large and land dwelling like the ostrich. Regardless, all animals have fat, but they are typically lean. Not body builder muscular, but they don't hold it that long.

Ok you can look at a bird if you want. Next time you go to a grocery store, see if you can find an "organic chicken". Before you eat it, cut it open and look at its fat reserves. Although it is MUCH MUCH less than farm raised chickens, organic chicks still retain a bunch of fat.

Also you cannot say that org. chickens are a bad ex. because they are not overfed to feed the public. They are allowed to eat as much as they please and stop whenever they want to imitate the natural chicken shape/dimensions.

As far as the definition of lean goes. Most animals are definately NOT lean. The word "lean" is used to describe an organism with a low fat-muscle tissue ratio. Hence bodybuilders. A normal organism has no need to lose fat, as it is extremely beneficial to it(to a certain limit). Animals do not have low fat and high muscle tissue ratios. Even the "leanest" of animals such as crickets, still have a good amount of fat (up to 10% if im correct).

[Stygimoloch]

aaa wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of metabolic rate, i just wanted to point out that dinosaurs are not naturally lean.
<quoted text>
Ok you can look at a bird if you want. Next time you go to a grocery store, see if you can find an "organic chicken". Before you eat it, cut it open and look at its fat reserves. Although it is MUCH MUCH less than farm raised chickens, organic chicks still retain a bunch of fat.
Also you cannot say that org. chickens are a bad ex. because they are not overfed to feed the public. They are allowed to eat as much as they please and stop whenever they want to imitate the natural chicken shape/dimensions.
As far as the definition of lean goes. Most animals are definately NOT lean. The word "lean" is used to describe an organism with a low fat-muscle tissue ratio. Hence bodybuilders. A normal organism has no need to lose fat, as it is extremely beneficial to it(to a certain limit). Animals do not have low fat and high muscle tissue ratios. Even the "leanest" of animals such as crickets, still have a good amount of fat (up to 10% if im correct).

I agree.

...In fact, I agree with everything you said. I forgot what I was arguing, and actually HAD an argument to make.

Teh Stoopid burnz.

[NK Dart]

PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.

[PaudieN1]

NK Dart wrote:

PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.

Look, if you're going to make a comment make one that makes sense.

[Spinosaur king]

NK Dart wrote:

PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.

i have

[aaa]

NK Dart wrote:
PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.
i have

PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.

NK Dart wrote:
PaudieN1, I never said Spinosaur King was biased, I said I was biased towards Rex. Spinosaur King, rubut by arguments rather than repeting yourself.
Look, if you're going to make a comment make one that makes sense.

LoL

[NK Dart]

PaudieN1, you don't understand my arguments for two resons, one is my typo; I said by insted of my. Also, I don't know how to spell rebut.

What's so funny aaa?

[aaa]

Whats so funny?

The arguement.

[NK Dart]

Will you not be so vague?

[aaa]

Really theres no specificness to it.

The bickering is just funny to me.

Anyways ignore me and continue.

[Spinosaur King]

aaa wrote:

Really theres no specificness to it.
The bickering is just funny to me.
Anyways ignore me and continue.

its not pointless.

and don't worry we will continue,

[aaa]

Whoever said it was pointless?

[Stygimoloch]

ME. That's who.

[NK Dart]

2100 posts!

[muhammad]

2100 posts

[saad]

uhh why is anyone posting?

[Sakib]

Stygimoloch wrote:

Its body clearly says so. Having a wide ribcage is no indication of a speed. Indeed, the fact that it s body has compressed to give it more agility would also help in speed. Plus, Rex has several adaptation s for speed, while Giga does not.

Im talking about speed when turning, not running.