Diamond labs ECA 30+ Stack?

Whats your BMR?

1.8k is a standard I would advise for most guys, then exercise a lot.

You will lose fat. You will also lose muscle mass, feel like crap, be dehydrated, deficient in fats, vitamins and minerals and be lucky not to completely **** yourself up. But you're obviously not willing to listen so have fun!

BMR of 1871.48 ah right cool, ill take that on board

That's what you need to eat to stay alive. If you're weight training three times a week you need to consume 2,900, to lose weight doing this 2,400Kcal. So you're under-eating by 10,500Kcal a week.

BMR of 1871.48 ah right cool, ill take that on board

That's what you need to eat to stay alive. If you're weight training three times a week you need to consume 2,900, to lose weight doing this 2,400Kcal. So you're under-eating by 10,500Kcal a week.

Assuming you're quite sedentary outside of gyming it, you mutiple your BMR by 1.2, that's about 2245. Take 500 from that for a decent diet intake for fat loss, so 1745, ideally. Add at least 500 calories burnt off with exercise each day minimum, and you'll lose 2 lbs a week. Ephedrine might help you lose more, I think its effectiveness varies from person to person.

I myself right now am burning about 600-800 calories a day, and eating about 1.8k calories, lost about 5 pounds in 3 weeks, plateaued in this last week, I have a feeling I'll drop 2 more pounds by this time next week though.

Ah right cool, thanks.

You seem to be doing well. keep it up! You using ECA?

I been using sida cordifolia fron CNP and caffeine tabs from MP, don't bother with the Aspirin. Not sure if it's been helping all that much. I tend to run about 35-40km a week, row about 20km and cycle about 10km, on top of weights 3-4 x / week, so I'm sure most of my weight loss in the last 2 weeks has been a result of that.

********. 3 weights sessions, averaging 1 hr for most people, doesn't equate to 655 more calories a day required vs a sedentary person. Just ********.

Erm, no, you're wrong. The general figure you use for someone moderately active is 1.5-1.6, from the man Harris-Benedict himself.

You're telling me 3 hrs of none-cardio activity a week counts as moderately active? Hah!

He's trying to lose weight, he's going to be doing some sort of cardio a few times a week, not to mention he's unlikely to be laid on the sofa all day. It adds up. You should always start at a baseline and adjust accordingly. There are a number of things influencing metabolic individuality, no one can say exactly what someone requires.

And forgetting all of that, 1.55 is the figure everyone uses and advises to use (I'm talking about the experts here, not you) for someone working out three to five times a week. It's a range. Like everything you must adjust to your own needs based upon observation.

If you'd read my previous posts, you'd realise I equated it to a sedentary lifestyle while excluding the gym work he'll be putting in.

Everyone uses it...uhh...who, and regardless, so what? The figures I'm pointing out to you are yet to be refuted. It's ridiculous to suggest his BMR is 2.9k on the basis of weights workout, and that is what you said, till this recent post. You say it's a range, even at 1.5, it's ridiculous.

Why would you be equating it to a sedentary lifestyle? He's trying to lose weight. 1.2 would be a figure you would use for a sedentary person doing NO exercise.

Who? How about the guys that created the formula that you're using maybe? And the bodybuilders, nutritionists and fitness coaches whose routines you are probably using perhaps? Everyone with an ounce of sense?

A BMR of 2,900 as a starting point for someone active and working out at least three times a week seems reasonable to me. It's always better to use established base lines and then adjust as per results.

Not that I care for RDAs, but the government one is set at 2,500 for the average person doing very little. 1,745 is way too low for someone of his weight and that should be obvious. And then you're advising burning off another 500 calories making his BMR even higher than the original figure you're using.

But you obviously know more than all these people so we should take your word as gospel.

You're missing the point, and if you're still not able to see where i'm pulling these numbers from, maybe you need to look back at your beloved equations. Lets agree to disagree.