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?
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?