Gym and fitness (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter HelterSkelter
- Start date
Those zero carb diets for six pack abs are unhealthy. Even low carb is insane. You're depriving yourself of so many healthy foods.
3500 calories = 1 pound is independent of your BMR, which just tells you how many calories you body burn's from doing nothing (ie: to sustain bodily function), and therefore how many you need to gain, maintain or lose weight.
It doesn't matter if a person eats 2000, 3000 or 7000 calories a day, they would still have to eat an additional 3500 calories to gain 1 lb.
3500 calories = 1 pound is independent of your BMR, which just tells you how many calories you body burn's from doing nothing (ie: to sustain bodily function), and therefore how many you need to gain, maintain or lose weight.
It doesn't matter if a person eats 2000, 3000 or 7000 calories a day, they would still have to eat an additional 3500 calories to gain 1 lb.
It's not a diet per se, just a meal plan of healthy and tasty food for building muscle in general. It's just called the abs diet, I never said it was a zero carb of zero fat diet and it does indeed work.
Are you contending that If I cut 500 calories from my diet with a lower than average BMR you're telling we that there won't be adverse affects? I.e. if I have a BMR of 3500 and I take the guidline 2000 instead and ingest now 1500 calories then I'm in for some nutritional trouble. The second part I'm not sure what you're saying are you saying, it seems as though you're saying the same thing is a reversed manner. My main point was that cutting calories is not the best way to lose weight it's the dual approach of exercise and diet and to contend otherwise is insane.
It's not a diet per se, just a meal plan of healthy and tasty food for building muscle in general. It's just called the abs diet, I never said it was a zero carb of zero fat diet and it does indeed work.
Are you contending that If I cut 500 calories from my diet with a lower than average BMR you're telling we that there won't be adverse affects? I.e. if I have a BMR of 3500 and I take the guidline 2000 instead and ingest now 1500 calories then I'm in for some nutritional trouble. The second part I'm not sure what you're saying are you saying, it seems as though you're saying the same thing is a reversed manner. My main point was that cutting calories is not the best way to lose weight it's the dual approach of exercise and diet and to contend otherwise is insane.
That numbers game of calories don't concern me, that's for Dooz.
It's not a diet per se, just a meal plan of healthy and tasty food for building muscle in general. It's just called the abs diet, I never said it was a zero carb of zero fat diet and it does indeed work.
Are you contending that If I cut 500 calories from my diet with a lower than average BMR you're telling we that there won't be adverse affects? I.e. if I have a BMR of 3500 and I take the guidline 2000 instead and ingest now 1500 calories then I'm in for some nutritional trouble. The second part I'm not sure what you're saying are you saying, it seems as though you're saying the same thing is a reversed manner. My main point was that cutting calories is not the best way to lose weight it's the dual approach of exercise and diet and to contend otherwise is insane.
As for BMR calculation, I have found the Harris Benedict formula to be pretty accurate, where you multiply your BMR by your activity level.
Try this link:
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/
...then this link:
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/
The above is a rough estimate since it doesn't include body fat % or lean mass, but it is good reference point since it factors in activity level, and then from there you use trial and error to find your sweet spot in terms of gaining or losing weight. Personally, it has worked for me. It was off by a few hundred calories, but I narrowed down my sweet spot from the number it gave me.
That's what I'm interested in, please upload.
That numbers game of calories don't concern me, that's for Dooz.
That numbers game of calories don't concern me, that's for Dooz.
