It is established that to lose weight/fat one must consume less calories than the body needs to maintain current bodyweight. It would stand to reason then that doing cardio and eating more food could be equivalent to eating sub-maintenance calories without cardio (give or take).
Recently I came across this explanation of how the ECA stack works:
"Ephedra, derived from the plant Ma Huang, is a central nervous system stimulant. It induces tachycardia, or increased heart rate, and a resultant rise in systolic blood pressure, among a variety of other physiological effects that result in a rise in core body temperature. This occurs as the body works harder to keep up with the increased workload created by a higher volume of blood moving through the circulatory system. This increased workload causes more calories to be burned than the body would at rest."
If the above is accurate, couldn't it be said that simply eating sub-maintenance calories could substitute for the effect ECA provides just like the cardio example?
I was under the impression that fat burners had the ability to mobilize fat stores exclusive of caloric restriction. This isn't to say that I thought one could lose weight while eating a surplus, but I thought these fat burners had an additional 'ability'. If all they do is basically make your heart/body burn more calories, then ultimately can't one just eat less and skip the supps.?