What's more effective? >consume 3,000 calories or >consume

>>42868823
consuming 2500 calories. better yet, 2000 calories

ur stupid

formulate a better question and try again.

3200.
Reason being:
>Eat more food, feel more full
>Exercise more, be healthier, feel better
>More muscle, more endurance due to more exercise
Only down side is if you forget to burn 200kcal

>>42868823
Burning those 200 calories will increase your base metabolic rate and VO2 max, so do that.

>>42868840
This is not about losing weight, it's about efficiently meeting a target caloric intake. The target in this case is 3,000

you really need to learn to think things through before you ask retarded questions. this question is too stupid for the stupid questions thread.

>>42868903
>posting a reply with no critical substance
And I suppose it's far less likely that you're the retard despite being the only person who had no valuable response so far?

>>42868823
3200 calories lets you consume more, so a better possibility of getting all your essential micronutrients for the day.

Physically speaking 3200. Mentally though that is dangerously close to exercise bulimia, wherein you attempt to burn off all or most of the calories consumed as quickly as possible.

>>42869192
exercise bulimia has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. the conversation is about calorie management. there is nothing wrong with the concept of calorie management, and exercise bulimia is caused in part by bad calorie management.

the question is aimed at whether you can skew your macro ratio/intake/outtake by eating a chocolate bar and burn calories off to the same benefit as just not being a pig in the first place