drbenroth

to lose fat, everyone knows that you need to consume less calories than your active metabolic rate.
this can be achieved by eating less , by exercising more, or a combination of the two.

If you are dieting, with a 500 calorie deficit, what good would a fat burner on top of that do?
surely adding a fat burner has the same effect as eating even less food?
pushing your intake closer to, or beyond your resting metabolic rate? which is not good.
The aim is not simply to make the biggest deficit possible. That is very easily achieved by starving.

my guess is then, that fat burners are for lazy people?
i know they can work, but why not simply eat a bit less?

Flakko

burn fat?

fufu

I wouldn't say they are for lazy people. When cutting I'll use one mainly to decrease my appetite and give myself some more energy because carbs are usually lower.

fufu's 1337 Journal

Your diet will set you free.

BigPapaPump68

Listen fucker, the boards say no posting sources! IM welcomes another shit head. Your source is fake retart.

drbenroth

but why not simply not eat that extra hot dog.

whats the difference?

drbenroth

why increases your expenditure, when you can decrease you intake for free?

Robboe

Different fat burners work on different pathways, but the general gist is:

- Promote fat for fuel by evelating metabolism and priming lipolytic enzymes and hormones
- Suppress appetite
- stimulating fat as substrate in fat burning pathways.

Being held down by The Man

brentls49

Because if you reduce your calories too much you lose energy where by your workouts suck and you end up losing too much muscle along with the fat. Most fat burners ramp up your energy along with your metabolic rate and so you get killer workouts while burning off fat. With the fat burners you end up getting ripped twice as fast and end up gaining muscle from your super workouts while you shed fat.

Since it sound like you don't even bench a full plate, you may not have much musle to lose. Go ahead and starve yourself - you aint got much muscle to lose

www.supplementsoutlet.com
Lowest priced muscle milk and bsn nitrix on the web.

drbenroth

i agree, if you eat too little, you will have little energy and feel lethargic. this is because your calorie intake is too far below your active metabolic rate.

whether you "lose energy" by increasing your active metabolic rate (via a fat burner), or by decreasing your intake, feeling lethargic is a result of a lack of energy. Your body does not know the diference.


reducing calories "too much" is a relative term. (relative to your active metabolic rate.) adding a fat burner increases the resting metabolic rate, and thereore the active metabolic rate, and you can just as easily feel lethargic and lose muscle this way.

fat burners increase the calories needed for maintanence, and so i cannot see how using a fat burner is any different from eating less.

If you are eating 1500 less than you need to maintain, you will lose muscle.
If you increase the amount of calories that you need to maintain (this is what fat burners do) by 1500 calories, you will lose muscle.
JUST AN EXAMPLE, but my point is, whenever you have a calorie deficit, it is the same difference, whether it comes from eating less, exercising more, or using a fat burner.


the rate is determined by the deficit, as is your lack of energy. you cannot simply double the rate, by adding a fat burner, any more than you can simply eat even less. There is a safe reasonable rate of fat loss, with minimal muscle loss.
Besides, i thought everyone knew that you cannot gain muscle on a calorie deficit?

chronicelite

Then how would you cut without losing muscle smart guy?

pengers84

I agree, fatburners are a waste of money.

drbenroth

thats completely irrelevant. it is very hard, perhaps impossible to maintain every bit of muscle, when cutting, and certainly , you will not GAIN any more, as somebody previously suggested.

the point is that you will lose a significant amount of muscle when you have a significant calorie deficit.
this deficit, can come from eating too little, exercising too much, or using a fat burner, or any combination of the three.
As far as your body is concerned, it is all the same. a deficit is a deficit.

BigPapaPump68

Wrong. On my last cycle, I gained 20lbs and actually dropped 4% bodyfat in 10 weeks. If your diet is on tact its not hard to accomplish.

musclepump

Fat burners serve various purposes as mentioned; I used one on my last pre-contest diet, and will probably use one during this diet at some point.

Let's all join together and SPEAK ENGLISH IN AMERICA.

nsimmons

being on a cycle invalidates most of this discussion

BigPapaPump68

And who stated that?

nsimmons

Im calling your statement "WRONG!..." As not being applicable to the conversation because you were on gear. If the original poster is asking about fat burners its safe to assume hes not already into aas

Because it is possible to cut and gain muscle on a cycle. I should state it possible to do this off drugs, but extremley slowly.

It is near impossible to maintain all strength while in a deficit without drugs.

BigPapaPump68

Obviously you dont know how to cut then. If your losing a significant amount of muscle when cutting your doing it wrong.

nsimmons

Who mentioned anything about loosing a significant amount of muscle? Quit putting words in my mouth

Define slowly. 10 weeks on cycle is fast.

How long would it take to gain 20lbs and dropped 4% bodyfat off cycle. A lot longer than 10 weeks

Lets just do a quick scratch using the rule of gaining/loosing 2lbs per week

gain 30 lbs = 15 weeks, drop 10 lbs=5 weeks, net = up 20lbs, lower bf%

Thats 4 months, a lot slower than 10 weeks.

Again no one but you is talking about fat burners on cycle, so just drop it.

BigPapaPump68

Listen Moron, when the hell did I ever say anything about using a fat burner? Exactly, I didnt.

nsimmons

Whats the topic of the thread? Youre off on a tangent thats not applicable.

You seem to think i disagree with out, youve missed the point that the topic is different than your line of thought.

Reading compresion up to the usual standards in the good ol US.

Everyone here is talking about gaining, loss, in general and you get all huffy, "wrong i did bla bla, but i was on drugs"

Being on drugs make your point not applicable. Is that so hard to understand?

BigPapaPump68

You seem to think that just because me being on AAS is the only reason for that accomplishment. Eating a calorie deficit diet does not always mean that your going to lose muscle. Eating more of protein rich foods and less of say carbs and fats is going to help you maintain your muscle mass. I know I was on drugs then, but what about all of the other times that I wasn't. Many times I have dropped body fat and have still gained muscle when not on AAS. Its not impossible, or even close to it.

nsimmons

No I dont think drugs are the only reason, quite inferring things.

In the same time frame it is impossible

blueboy75

can I say that you both have valid points but ive read the posts of bigpapa and he knows his shit. I would listen to him regardless of aas usage.

nsimmons

He thinks i disagree with him, i dont.

He generalized his experience and made it seem as if it the norm rather than the exception. I pointed out his experience was due to being on a cycle and is most likely not applicable to the original poster.

He then got all huffy, which i now understand is because he thinks i put credit for his gains on the gear not his hard work in the gym.

blueboy75

I see where your coming from. I have to say when I 1st read the thread I kinda interpreted it that way also. We all know that gains like that cant be made without know how and freakin hard work.

I would probably get all huffy if I thought someone was saying my gains were not because I worked hard for them.

There are not many people that have the balls to challenge like that in a thread regardless - good stuff.

nsimmons

After some more thought my point was that its near impossible to loose body fat and gain muscle at the same time. This is stated over an over by many people here.

He said he gained 20 lbs, and lost 4%bf. Most likely he didnt loose anything or very litte fat, he just change composition.

If he provides before and after weight and bf% we can do the math and verify.

BigPapaPump68

Before weight was 219 at15%bf, After weight was roughly 240 at 10.5%bf.

Action-Jackson

I seriously disagree. I was on a weight loss plateau for about 4-5 weeks, then when I started taking a fat burner, my fat loss was back into full swing.

Currently cutting (Bulk soon): Lost 43 kilos (94.6 lb) since March of 2005. Current BF%: ~12.5 - 14%

musclepump

Caaaannnn you feel, the looovvveeee tonight...

Let's all join together and SPEAK ENGLISH IN AMERICA.