While most of arguments made alot of sense and there was some excellent data on both sides. ONE little phrase has rung an alarm bell in my head. The thing was: When the scientists in england (i think) calculated the energy needed to move T-rex, they made one not so small mistake. What they said in the show is they made energy consumption and expandeture model by plugging in REPTILIAN characteristics (they said so themselves).

If you have T-Rex energy chart and you think of it as reptile, then yes, by all means it would not even be a scavenger, it would be waste-processing refinery.

Problems with giving T-Rex reptilian energy bio-mechanics are these:

Reptiles, all of them, use 4 legs for primary locomotion. There are some lizards and small crocs that run on 2 legs, but they certainly don't weight more than a ton.

The locomotion of T-rex was always bipedal. You have to admitt it would be a humorous sight to see T-rex crawling on all four's with those flimsy arms of his.

The creatures who have bipedal locomotion need higher energy levels. They need energy to support neural tissue, thats developed for balance and perception and all other aspects of bipedalism. Energy to support much bigger stress on muscles and bones.

T-Rex simply could not have been moving around on two's with reptilian metabolism. Having a 6 ton bulk on 2 legs requires the creature to be endothermic.

So, to make long story short, I think those 'energy numbers' should be plugged in using bird metabolism.

After that, I am pretty sure that T-Rex would NOT be able to survive on human sized chunk of meat, every 5 days.

oops, sorry guys, wrong forum, my mistake