Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

? he said calories, that is a kilocalorie or kcal.

Calories are confusing but there is a difference between calories and kilocalories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

You're right though, most things that refer to calories in the dietary sense are kcal.

Either way kasko, 1758kcal would be your BMR. Which is the amount of energy your body requires to carry out all the necessary basic functions to ensure survival without getting out of bed.

So you will definently need more energy each day than that or you will be a skinny man in no time.

Edited by Mitcho_7

Calories are confusing but there is a difference between calories and kilocalories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

You're right though, most things that refer to calories in the dietary sense are kcal.

Either way kasko, 1758kcal would be your BMR. Which is the amount of energy your body requires to carry out all the necessary basic functions to ensure survival without getting out of bed.

So you will definently need more energy each day than that or you will be a skinny man in no time.

I hope you realise that 1000 calories (food related) = 1 kilocalorie....

Basically you've just said his caloric maintenance level is that of a small african nation's monthly food intake lol

Dani Boi - Not quite sure what point you were trying to make with that quote you posted?

Kasko - For every 30-45 min of weights, you should be doing another 20-30 mins of cardio to cut body fat, and cut down your intake of carbs per day. Fat burning supps won't do shit for you to an extent, and what they do achieve doesn't come without side effects. Energy in < Energy out = fat loss... simple as that. If you want to add muscle, there is no quick way.

Some people complicate the hell out of easy concepts.

Birds - Strong lime green underwear... would buy some

Dani Boi - Not quite sure what point you were trying to make with that quote you posted?

Kasko - For every 30-45 min of weights, you should be doing another 20-30 mins of cardio to cut body fat, and cut down your intake of carbs per day. Fat burning supps won't do shit for you to an extent, and what they do achieve doesn't come without side effects. Energy in < Energy out = fat loss... simple as that. If you want to add muscle, there is no quick way.

Some people complicate the hell out of easy concepts.

Birds - Strong lime green underwear... would buy some

He asked how to increase metabolic rate, eat food. I have those same underwear except mine have the blue elastic instead of green lmao.

1785 calories per day doesnt seem unreasonable to me for a BMR...

But i dont study nutrition or know much about it

1785 is pretty small. Across 3 meals a day its only 595 calories. Fairly easy if you ask me.

Clearly you guys didn't read what I wrote properly :no: 1785 calories is very minimal yes, but I was referring to how you wrote 1785 kcal. 1785 kcal would be the equivalent of 1,785,000 calories seeing as 1kcal = 1000 calories

He asked how to increase metabolic rate, eat food. I have those same underwear except mine have the blue elastic instead of green lmao.

Ahh fair enough. Hahaha if we're talking about Bonds here I have fluro blue and pink... real men can pull off fluro pink...

Why do you take a pic of yourself in the car window, it makes you look 2x bigger than you actually are.

Pic isn't to show how big I am, I mentioned in my post how it distorts angles. Pic was to show muscle tone and lack of fat from supplementing using BN. There's no hiding how big I am with photos...most people here know I'm 80kg @ 6'3. Not huge, but not tiny either considering the BF. If it satisfies the people my next pic will be in front of a mirror :)

So if I work out a meal plan of 1700 calories and adjust as I shed fat and gain muscle

You will shed fat, but you won't gain much muscle or as quickly/effectively because you aren't fueling yourself properly with such a low intake. Your goals are countering each other. Pick one or sit at a happy medium...

...or you could eat whatever you want and run some HIIT.

You will shed fat, but you won't gain much muscle or as quickly/effectively because you aren't fueling yourself properly with such a low intake. Your goals are countering each other. Pick one or sit at a happy medium...

...or you could eat whatever you want and run some HIIT.

Getting big is the not a priority

Losing loose flab is the goal

Once this is achieved then I can work on gain of muscle. What would you recommend with intake to shed the weight. We can talk about gain once I finish with the shed

Getting big is the not a priority

Losing loose flab is the goal

Once this is achieved then I can work on gain of muscle. What would you recommend with intake to shed the weight. We can talk about gain once I finish with the shed

Why don't you do it the other way round?

Just cut for summer...

I have those same underwear except mine have the blue elastic instead of green lmao.

They are awesome underwear, very comfy. I have them in blue, red, pink, green, white. Shame they dont make completely white ones though!

Why don't you do it the other way round?

Just cut for summer...

Because I need to know what my limits are etc.

Don't want to fark it up and find im some medium buff tubby dude.

As I mentioned my main goal is to see what I can shed and then work up from a base that I am happy with

Is this stupid?

Getting big is the not a priority

Losing loose flab is the goal

Once this is achieved then I can work on gain of muscle. What would you recommend with intake to shed the weight. We can talk about gain once I finish with the shed

Then live off only water, high protein / low fat foods like chicken/ham, steamed vegetables, next to nothing in the way of sugar / junk food...and start running. Don't bother with calorie counting and calculators, it's overcomplicating things. Eat only when you're hungry and keep it healthy. Drink water until your piss looks like you could drink it. Run (fast) 3-5km three times a week. If you stick to that I promise you will lose all the weight you want to. Once you've cut down to what you want, you can stabilize i.e. eat basically whatever you want and just counter it with exercise, like I do. Get to know your stomach flab; learn how to pinch it with your fingers in the same spot...easy test for gaining/losing fat.

Be aware though, that you might be happy with your muscle gains now or how you look with T shirts on...but your muscle size will appear to diminish as you cut, because you don't get to choose where that fat comes off and there's a whole heap of it making your muscles look bigger than they actually are. At 80kg I look great with no top on, but put me in a T shirt and most of it is gone. At 89kg I lost visibility of my abs (untensed), but I was bigger under clothes and people told me so. Still, I much prefer "cut" me...

Thanks birds

So I'll just keep doing what I been doing the past couple of weeks. Chicken breast and broccoli for lunch, Fruits as snacks and oats etc for breakfast.

Dinner what ever I feel like but make sure it's healthy with brown rice, brown pasta or mashed sweet potato.

And instead of running can I just keep pumping phat weight sessions because my ankle is farked from jumping off a cliff so can't run far

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...