StubsOnAsura the Wise wrote:
Blacktuesday wrote:
Well on a serious note muscle burns more calories per pound (I think an extra 20-30 calories per day) from just sitting around doing nothing, if you can build it.
Just a thought.
Fair enough, but I'm a big guy, always have been.. I've got a fair amount of muscle underneath all the flab, so I'd rather tone my body first, then build muscle if necessary. It's just a different order of approach, for me.
A lot of guys I've known have had to do both (both weights and aerobics that is) in order to lose a goodly amount of weight, but correcting the diet really is the bigger part. If you can't manage to eat like....1500-2000 calories a day (Eventually, don't drop down to this low all at once) then it really doesn't matter how much exercise of any sort you do, your not going to lose weight.
Especially if you eat over 3000 calories a day, if you slowly restrict (250 less calories a week down to 1500) you'll lose a lot of weight just from doing that.
3.5k calories=a pound. Doesn't matter whether you cut them eating or working out. Simple math till you get down to 15% body fat or less. Then its a bit more complicated.
Sorry, I just lectured you
I'm done now!