Overweight

Hypothetically:
I take in 3500 calories a day, I use 2000.
I drop my intake to 2000 calories.

Do I lose any weight? No, I just don't put any more on. To lose weight I would need to increase my calorie usage. So almost halving my calorie intake would still not see me lose weight.

As stated in my previous example, it is easier and healthier to increase calories used than it is to reduce calories, though obviously both need to be done. Plus, increasing calories used means that the simple pleasures don't need to be cut out entirely for the whole process to be effective. Slipped and had a few pints? Just work a bit harder on your workout to balance it.


You think it is easier to increase calories used? So if someone is eating 3500 calories per day, and they need to burn in excess of that to lose weight, how long do you think they will spend in the gym or doing sport trying to burn the calories in 1 DAY??
 
It means they weigh exactly the same amount!

1Kg of fat weighs exactly the same as 1Kg of Muscle. Muscle isn't heavier than fat its more dense.


I knew that :o I misunderstood what he was saying. Two identical sized masses (one of fat, one of muscle) would weigh different amounts. I misread what he said, sorry.
 
You think it is easier to increase calories used? So if someone is eating 3500 calories per day, and they need to burn in excess of that to lose weight, how long do you think they will spend in the gym or doing sport trying to burn the calories in 1 DAY??

Obviously not, as I said, both calorie reduction and calorie burning need to happen. What I am saying is that the calorie burning is more important than the reduction, as it also has fringe benefits. I'd say it's a 60/40 split on burn/consumes importance to weight loss.
 
I knew that :o I misunderstood what he was saying. Two identical sized masses (one of fat, one of muscle) would weigh different amounts. I misread what he said, sorry.

Yep, which is why BMI is skewed, it solely looks at 'volume' by means of size measurements.

A 32" waist of 95% muscle would weigh more than 32" waist of 95% fat.
 
Yep, which is why BMI is skewed, it solely looks at 'volume' by means of size measurements.

A 32" waist of 95% muscle would weigh more than 32" waist of 95% fat.

Which would look slightly better than 32" of fat.

You should be able to tell if you are underweight, 'normal', overweight or obese just by looking in the mirror.

That is unless you wear rose tinted glasses like people who are 25 stone and continue to eat 10,000 calories a day and drinking 10 beers a day too
 
So you think that he cannot eat his RDA because he is not active?

I wasn't joking, but then I wasn't referring to my own personal RDA, I was talking about the RDA you find on food in supermarkets etc, with 23% sugar in 250ml serving etc.

I don't know my own RDA, because I haven't seen a dietician to have one tailored for me, because I'm not uphappy with any part of my diet or body. Wonder how many people can say that truthfully :rolleyes:
 
i always see people saying drink lots of water etc. While im at home i only ever drink orange and pinapple no added sugar squash. Is this just as good as drinking water apart from the tiny amount of calories, sugar etc? i would guess so but was curious.
 
6 pack because of muscle or because of lack of bodyfat (skinny)
i would guess the latter :p
 
Not really, I'm the same height and weigh 60kg. I can't imagine a 58% increase above that being nothing to worry about.

well, im all of 1" taller (on a good day!) and 120kg!
i guess i should be ordering my coffin?
 
6 pack because of muscle or because of lack of bodyfat (skinny)
i would guess the latter :p

Well, when I goto the gym I crunch 30 reps of 60kg, about 3 or 4 sets, so you tell me :rolleyes:

It's probably the strongest muscle on my body, mind, well, excluding that one, can lift a can of paint with the right "inspiration" :p :D
 
you are all of 9 stone and 6'3, i dont think you are going to have a lot of muscle mass.
 
Back
Top Bottom