I personally believe that to be true, a minor negative calorie imbalance or a complete cancelation of calories also coined the G-flux is a great enviorment for fat burning... but make sure that 1900 cals is enough for you to at least maintain weight
I wanted to ask my cousin about this but I guess I'll just ask here, because I'm confused.
Does this question make sense:
To lose weight you have to cut the amount of calories you take in, ...
but with working out, don't you cut the amount of calories you take in as well...
like if I was on the treadmill and lost 300 calories, that's like not eating 300 calories right?
But could you like try to spend so much time losing weight that you go in the negatives, like I only ate 1,800 calories (to sustain my weight); and I burned like 1,900 calories (don't ask me how just accept it for a second)...
is that what I am aiming to do with losing weight, or is it more about changing my eating habits and letting the rest kick in?
I'm not trying to burn all the calories I eat but is that what I want to do?
I personally believe that to be true, a minor negative calorie imbalance or a complete cancelation of calories also coined the G-flux is a great enviorment for fat burning... but make sure that 1900 cals is enough for you to at least maintain weight
isn't that called BMR or something or MBR?
something metabolic rate? know any places to get that calculation done @?
DISCLAIMER: