I just wanted to share that i have found immense success with reverse dieting/1% daily reductions in calories or food volume/weight. After years of struggling with different diets with varying levels of success, I just decided to get autistic and establish a baseline:>start with maintaining a certain caloric standard that doesn't feel restrictive, say 3k calories a day>reduce by 1% dailyBecause the changes were so small and incremental I never really felt like I was truly restricting myself, within in a month my daily calories were down to 2200, in two months down to 1600. I'm losing weight rapidly and for the first time in my life its felt completely natural and easy. I still eat many of the things I like, just in much smaller amounts.If you're overweight and think this is too autistic of a regime to follow, id ask yourself "out of all my attempts of enforcing strict self discipline, failing, and going in this constant circle, do I not have the miniscule self disciple to maintain a small, daily, 1% change in any habit at all?" And if you really cant maintain small changes, how can you ever maintain big ones? My only thesis is "people try to change too much too quickly and it causes changes to rarely end up happening at all"
>>7758737820000 rats
Dude with the long gun and a gaggle of harambes.
>>77587414
>>77587378I'll take the rat
>>7758737850 eagles and 10,000 rats. All other answers are stupid.
i'd choose the rats and the hawk. spam attack kind of attack. also it would be disturbing to get eaten by rats
Hunter and rats. Rats nip at all the land critters, hunter shoots the big ones while they're distracted by my rats. I stand under a tree with a big stick and just start knocking birds out of the air and stomping on them.
>>775873783 bears and 10 crocsFuck are rats gon do to them?
>>77587414Eagles solo
>>775873781. Thats not what reverse dieting is2. This is fake because a 1% reduction in calories is well within the limitation for daily adaptive thermogenesis. If you reduced your calories by 1%, you would lose no weight. Because your body would simply burn 1% less calories. It's less than 100 calories
>>77588748Yeah but in 10 days you'd burn 10% less dumbass. Your body isnt gonna "adjust" to lose no fat on 500 calories a day fat fatty.
>>77588883Thats not what he said so no idea what you're talking about
>>77587378iam strong independent person and can defend myself on my own
>>77588629Cover them and bite the shit out of them, distracting them while the eagles claw out their eyes and then the other animals kill them.
Gotta be eagles and rats. Eagles are the only thing that has a chance against 10,000 rats, therefore you must have both.
>>775873782 dudes with guns, what are animals gonna do?
>>7758737810,000 is quite a lot of rats. But against the crocs' armour or the eagles flying they are sort of a nonentity, and the bulls could just trample through them unhindered. I think the wolves are pretty underrated here. A pack of 15 would make very short work of everyone here except the stupid rats.The hunter guy's value in the fight depends entirely on his weaponry. We have to assume its the rifle shown in the picture which appears to be bolt action, so he's greatly hindered by chambering and reloading. Basically useless against the eagles and he could shoot at most 1 or 2 wolves before the rest running at full speed completely clobber him.I think i have to go wolves and rats - the sheer biomass of the rats would be enough to immobilize/distract the large land animals while the wolves work as a team to dispatch everything one at a time. The eagles would give them some trouble - 50 is a lot and theyre big - but wolves are smart fast and have crazy stamina
>>77587378Are we talking like feral nyc sewer rats?That’d be pretty devastating and a must-pick. They’d probably eventually kill any of the enemies if they’re actually trying to kill them/defend you.The eagles are an issue. 50 eagles coming at you is going to SUCK and the rats can’t help you. Really none do the choices can help you except the guy with the gun, if he has a shotgun. Even then he could get overwhelmed.
Assuming that all of options you don't pick attack in an ambush instead of one on one, I'd take the eagles and rats. That works out to around 1 eagle + 200 rats on every animal and the hunter - probably not enough to kill any of them, but enough to hold them back long enough so that you can escape.
>>77587378Crocs and sniper. Then you chill in the croc water
