Regarding "spot reducing"
07-21-2010, 04:23 AM
#11
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 25
If you read my earlier posts you would see that I also said that I have done it with my arms also. Please stop using genetics as a deus ex machina.
I did not say that you do curls and burn arm fat and then do leg extensions and you start burning leg fat. I said you target the legs and burn leg fat.
I don't think you understand the meaning of toning. It refers to removing fat, say around your biceps, to make your biceps more defined.
Again I ask, who are these 1000's of experts? I have yet to see one. And to use google......hardly experts, peer reviewed journals, not google.
I did not say that you do curls and burn arm fat and then do leg extensions and you start burning leg fat. I said you target the legs and burn leg fat.
I don't think you understand the meaning of toning. It refers to removing fat, say around your biceps, to make your biceps more defined.
Again I ask, who are these 1000's of experts? I have yet to see one. And to use google......hardly experts, peer reviewed journals, not google.
The only study I've ever seen that somewhat makes spot reducing seem possible says that lipolysis in the muscle is higher when you contract the muscle but it does not conclude where those lipids came from. The list that they measured "plasma free fatty acids" and it showed an increase in lipolysis. The problem with that is that that plasma FFAs could have come from anywhere since it's a FFAs acid in the blood.
So, yes, you may "burn" more fat in that muscle but those FFAs may not have come from the surrounding tissue.
Not only that but the study was a 2 hour exercise session, testing before, testing after. The only way to prove those FFAs came from surrounding tissue is to do a study on subjects who train specific body parts over an extended period of time. Also have a control group that exercise but do not focus on any particular body part. Measure fat mass of the body part in both groups pre study and post study and see what happens.
07-21-2010, 09:10 AM
#12
FitDay Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 576
Yes, when I said your genetics, I meant as in yours exclusively. However, I just assumed since you said you experienced fat loss in your arms after curling. I could be wrong.
As I said before, skeletal muscle burns through a "fuse" of creatine phosphate ATP production before switching to glycolysis. During mild exercise, insulin release is inhibited (i.e. walking/jogging), so fat is the primary fuel. Like stocky said, and as I have stated on other threads, fat is released from adipose tissue and hydrolyzed into glycerol and free fatty acids, which are then oxidized to acetyl-CoA and enter the Krebs cycle. Genetics will determine which adipose tissue will give up its fat first, not proximity to the working muscle.
However, the Krebs cycle is a long cycle, and although it produces more ATP than glycolysis it isn't very efficient for short-duration, weight-bearing exercises. During this type of exercise the muscle will burn glucose exclusively, and after it has used up intramuscular glucose will draw extra glucose from everywhere, including the liver as well as muscles you're not using at the moment. In order to catalyze this extensive glycogenolysis, the body releases comparatively large amounts of insulin into the bloodstream. This, in turn, severely suppresses lypolysis. Thus, lifting heavier just makes it that much harder to burn fat as fuel during the actual act of lifting.
1. "Lipolysis in skeletal muscle is rapidly regulated by low physiological doses of insulin"
2. "Intense Exercise Has Unique Effects on Both Insulin Release and Its Roles in Glucoregulation"
As I said before, skeletal muscle burns through a "fuse" of creatine phosphate ATP production before switching to glycolysis. During mild exercise, insulin release is inhibited (i.e. walking/jogging), so fat is the primary fuel. Like stocky said, and as I have stated on other threads, fat is released from adipose tissue and hydrolyzed into glycerol and free fatty acids, which are then oxidized to acetyl-CoA and enter the Krebs cycle. Genetics will determine which adipose tissue will give up its fat first, not proximity to the working muscle.
However, the Krebs cycle is a long cycle, and although it produces more ATP than glycolysis it isn't very efficient for short-duration, weight-bearing exercises. During this type of exercise the muscle will burn glucose exclusively, and after it has used up intramuscular glucose will draw extra glucose from everywhere, including the liver as well as muscles you're not using at the moment. In order to catalyze this extensive glycogenolysis, the body releases comparatively large amounts of insulin into the bloodstream. This, in turn, severely suppresses lypolysis. Thus, lifting heavier just makes it that much harder to burn fat as fuel during the actual act of lifting.
1. "Lipolysis in skeletal muscle is rapidly regulated by low physiological doses of insulin"
2. "Intense Exercise Has Unique Effects on Both Insulin Release and Its Roles in Glucoregulation"
07-21-2010, 09:26 AM
#13
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 232
But If i'm not mistaken the whole reasoning behind lifting weights is to build lean mass to improve body composition, and secondly to burn calories. There are a ton of other activities you can do that will burn more calories than a vigorous free weight routine, like mowing the lawn for 45 mins with a walking lawn mower. But there is nothing else out there that builds muscle like weight training which directly improves body composition.
And if you are really looking to lose body fat I would NOT recommend trying to isolate muscles, instead I would be focusing on compound lifts (squats, dead lifts, rows, presses etc.) that work multiple muscle groups at a time, therefore burning more total calories and developing total body strength.
And if you are really looking to lose body fat I would NOT recommend trying to isolate muscles, instead I would be focusing on compound lifts (squats, dead lifts, rows, presses etc.) that work multiple muscle groups at a time, therefore burning more total calories and developing total body strength.
07-21-2010, 02:07 PM
#14
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 25
But If i'm not mistaken the whole reasoning behind lifting weights is to build lean mass to improve body composition, and secondly to burn calories. There are a ton of other activities you can do that will burn more calories than a vigorous free weight routine, like mowing the lawn for 45 mins with a walking lawn mower. But there is nothing else out there that builds muscle like weight training which directly improves body composition.
And if you are really looking to lose body fat I would NOT recommend trying to isolate muscles, instead I would be focusing on compound lifts (squats, dead lifts, rows, presses etc.) that work multiple muscle groups at a time, therefore burning more total calories and developing total body strength.
And if you are really looking to lose body fat I would NOT recommend trying to isolate muscles, instead I would be focusing on compound lifts (squats, dead lifts, rows, presses etc.) that work multiple muscle groups at a time, therefore burning more total calories and developing total body strength.
You are dead on with the compound lifts. Not only will you burn more calories with these lifts but you will become much stronger as whole with those lifts.
07-23-2010, 12:49 AM
#16
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10
No you can't spot reduce unless a doctor is jamming a cannula into your fat and sucking it out. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. People who are in the business of weight loss, not marketing useless products, will tell you it isn't possible. Body builders who compete based on being shredded will tell you the same thing.
Liposuction is the ONLY spot reduction method and I am not a fan of that either.
Liposuction is the ONLY spot reduction method and I am not a fan of that either.
07-23-2010, 04:33 AM
#17
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
I agree with you on this issue I have heard it for years that you can spot reduce thats why there are different exercise and weight lifting routines for every part off the body frankly I am surprised that so many believe that this isn't possible its been proven
08-11-2010, 09:08 AM
#19
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Posts: 8,232
wow
I love this thread. I love nothing more than a good debate, IMO a good debate brings out some very good information. There are obviously 2 very different opinions here and both sides make some points, but that doesn't mean that I agree with some points. But what do I know? I haven't done much research on this subject.
I believe that fat comes off in "sheets". The areas with heavier fat deposits will be the same areas that are the last to loose it. I think that most people believe or want to believe in spot reduction b/c there is a problem area that they think they can target. My problem area was my big fat fvcking gut and it was also the place that I saw the biggest change.... BUT I noticed everything else getting leaner first. My shoulders and arms got leaner before anything (my legs were always "naturally" lean). My diet cleaned up and I continued to bust my a$$ eventually my gut started to shrink. But you know where I STILL have the most fat??? In my gut! I know that I need to lower my overall body fat percentage before I'll get my stomach totally flat and ripped.
OP- most people want a 6 or 8 pack, would you agree? There is a lot of money to be made by targeting people that want nice abs (just turn on your TV and start flipping through the channels). Let me ask you this, when was the last time you saw someone with a 6 pack and man boobs? How about a 6 pack and fat arms? Why is it that when someone finally gets a 6 or 8 pack, it's always the lower 2 muscles that will show last? Could this be because this is the area with the greater fat deposits and it isn't until the total BF% drops that it'll show? One last question for you... how long have you been doing your "spot reducing", how many areas do you actually check BF% and what were the results of each area?
I believe that fat comes off in "sheets". The areas with heavier fat deposits will be the same areas that are the last to loose it. I think that most people believe or want to believe in spot reduction b/c there is a problem area that they think they can target. My problem area was my big fat fvcking gut and it was also the place that I saw the biggest change.... BUT I noticed everything else getting leaner first. My shoulders and arms got leaner before anything (my legs were always "naturally" lean). My diet cleaned up and I continued to bust my a$$ eventually my gut started to shrink. But you know where I STILL have the most fat??? In my gut! I know that I need to lower my overall body fat percentage before I'll get my stomach totally flat and ripped.
OP- most people want a 6 or 8 pack, would you agree? There is a lot of money to be made by targeting people that want nice abs (just turn on your TV and start flipping through the channels). Let me ask you this, when was the last time you saw someone with a 6 pack and man boobs? How about a 6 pack and fat arms? Why is it that when someone finally gets a 6 or 8 pack, it's always the lower 2 muscles that will show last? Could this be because this is the area with the greater fat deposits and it isn't until the total BF% drops that it'll show? One last question for you... how long have you been doing your "spot reducing", how many areas do you actually check BF% and what were the results of each area?
