Regarding "spot reducing"
 

To all those saying that you cannot spot reduce......this is not true. Spot reducing IS completely possible. I see many posts saying it is not. It is just much more difficult to target a specific area for fat loss.
The body tends to work in muscle groups, not single muscles acting on their own. This is why it is harder, however; you can do exercises that will cause a specific muscle to work harder than those around it. This can cause fat to be lost from that area a little more readily. For example, when you tone your biceps and triceps with weight lifting exercises you are burning off fat around that muscle grouping, therefore performing target specific weight loss.
It is inefficient for the body to burn fat from, for example, your legs to fuel muscles in your arms. The body will burn fat closer to the area being used so that the energy released from the fat molecules is readily available to those muscles. Also, if the energy had to travel long distances, relatively, then other muscle groups and organs and such would use the energy, thereby leaving less for the muscle that needs it most.
The body usually operates in the most efficient way possible. In this case to provide maximum amount of energy in the least amount of time to body parts that need it most, thereby causing target specific fat loss.

Muscle doesn't burn fat as fuel. The first 15-20 seconds of an isometric contraction or a series of isotonic contractions is fueled by the very powerful creatine phosphate system, which is why the first few reps feel the easiest. After this system depletes the muscle switches to glycolysis, which burns glycogen stored within the muscle cell itself.

The "pump," or localized inflammation in the muscle tissue, leading to increased blood circulation in the area, as well as increased cell membrane permeability causing expanded muscle volume, lasts for up to six hours after training and can create the false perception of enhanced muscle tone, and thus, less fat, in the area, but muscle metabolism simply cannot use fat as fuel and thus targeting specific muscle groups does not result in actual localized fat loss.

So, unfortunately, spot-reducing is biochemically not feasible, but working out in the afternoon before a hot dinner date can make you appear a little beefier, in a good way. :)

Fortunately that is untrue. Muscle can use fat as energy. Nothing in your body can use "fat" in its true form for energy though. First the fat must be broken down. In its most basic form it becomes ATP, which is universal energy for the body, anything requiring energy in your body uses ATP, henceforth muscles.
And, no, I am not talking about your muscles becoming engorged after a workout. After time you can trim fat from your muscles to make them more defined. I have done it before, and have a friend constantly doing it.

The fat loss you're experiencing does happen over time — but not because of muscle metabolism. Your genetics dictate that you lose fat from your arms first. If you worked out your legs, you would likely continue to lose fat from your arms. Also, this fat burned isn't going towards fueling your muscular contractions. It is shuttled to the liver post-workout to undergo gluconeogenesis to feed the inflamed muscle tissue fresh glucose for its glycogen stores. So in reality, what you're seeing is a conversion of your arm fat to glucose to refuel, post-training, any muscle group that you happened to train on that day, say, arms. It's not a direct usage of fat around the muscle to fuel your sets and reps in real time.

ATP is only generated within cells through cellular respiration. It cannot "float" between cells. Furthermore, muscle tissue does not internalize fat. It does have insulin receptors on its cellular surfaces which allow it to replenish glycogen reserves, the main source of muscular fuel. However, during a weight training set, the only fuel a muscle has is whatever creatine and glycogen exists within the cell. After the set, insulin sensitivity is transiently heightened so that the muscle can immediately begin replenishing its burned-off glycogen reserves in preparation for the next period of activity.

Finally, enhancing the resting tone of a muscle, or building new muscle tissue, can give the appearance of better definition and less fat in any bodily area. I'm not referring to the "pump" here. Increase the proportion of muscle in your arm and you automatically decrease the proportion of fat — making you appear leaner even if no fat loss actually occurred.

You are contradicting yourself here. Before you have said that YOUR, meaning specific, genetics dictate where fat loss occurs. Now you generalize and say that genetics always dictate arms first. Which is it? If you are referring to me specifically then no, you are wrong. Ive targeted my legs and had the same toning effect done to my legs without arm fat affected. And its not proportions. When I had a 1\2 inch of fat around my legs, just getting my muscle bigger wont disguise the fat.

Ok, josh, if you are so correct why does virtually every study and every expert on the subject say you are wrong?

Several studies have been done that show this does not work. Do you really think that when you do a curl you body says "Ok, now lets burn arm fat" and then when you do leg extentions two minutes later "Ok, switch it up boys, now leg fat".

You are so completely wrong and don't know it that I chuckled to myself a bit.

Also, here's a clue that you don't know what you are talking about: "Toning". Sorry, there really is no such thing as toning. You either reduce bodyfat or you don't.

What you are experiencing with you legs is totally normal. Generally speaking, exercise burns calories which helps create a deficit, that in turn causes fat to be burned. The fat is most likely to be spread throughout the body (including your legs). Most people are genetically predetermined to lose weight a little more in the upper body or lower body. You clearly are the lower body type. Add to that, that when you build muscle underneath fat it increases the surface area that the fat is spread across making you appear to be more lean eventhough they are not.

Use google my friend, read up on the studies and what the real fitness and nutritional experts say.

Sorry, if I come off a little rude here but you seem very bullheaded on this without providing any proof that what you say is true or why 1000's of experts are wrong.

You're picking apart tandoorichicken's reply to you and you haven't even provided any proof to your original statement. If you are in fact correct and everything else that I have read is wrong please enlighten me in this aspect of spot reducing, however I do need more proof than I did it and so has my friend. Some academic studies would be nice.

If you could spot reduce (what a wonderful world that would be) then all you would have to do to lose your belly is situps, your hips jogging, etc... While I think my legs look better because of my running (I have been neglecting the weights recently) the fat loss is not (noticeably) proportionally more in my legs. Actually I believe most of my loss has been from my belly and I don't do situps/crunches. I guess I am just lucky that way.

Not picking apart, pointing out contradictions. If an argument is correct it should have no contradictions unto itself. While I dredge up studies I ask conversely the same.....since the common notion is that it is impossible why have I not seen one link to a study proving it is not possible to target burn?

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.

Still awaiting your proof.

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.

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"

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.

Yes, you are correct. Though, the reason lifting is better in some ways than cardio is that you metabolism can be raised for as much as 48 hours after the exercise, while residual burn from cardio lasts just a couple of hours. Not to mention, as you stated, more muscle means more calories burned. Not that I'm saying not to do cardio but I think lifting is very underrated in fat loss.

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.

Activities
 

How much cardio and how much weight training do you recommend to achieve optimum weight loss.---Also is heavy weight better than lighter weights with more reps.

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.

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

Boaterpat regarding your question I think you should repost it in the exercise forum or in the mens forum as a new post, this one is pretty cluttered and you'd get more responses.

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 think the OP ran off with his tail between his legs a long time ago.

This is an interesting thread. I've been lifting weights a looong time and I've tried a hundred different workouts and every machine under the sun. I love lifting weights, unfortunately I love eating and drinking beer when I get done, which is why I'm here:o
But anyway, I don't really think spot reducing is possible either. The only place that it seems to be possible is the arms. But I think it's just an illusion because my arms don't typically have a lot of fat on them anyway, but it does seem like I can melt away virtually all of the fat on my arms by sticking to an intense arm workout for just a few weeks.

Spot reduction is a myth to sell more products to remove those spots.

Can anyone say Ab machine?

From what I can remember from my BioChem classes, only the liver can breakdown fat stores and that releases fatty acids into the blood stream where they can be absorbed by muscle cells. The point of lifting is to increase your muscle mass which then increases the amount of fat they will burn while your at resting heart rate (when fat is the preferred form of energy).

Seriously, Who needs scientific proof to prove that spot reducing doesn't work. What happened to Nutrition? What happened to Cardiovascular training? I hate to burst your ego. But Spot reducing is a myth. You body burns calories from everywhere in the body all at the same time. Haven't you ever noticed. When some one starts to loose weight for the first time you see it in their face first. Everyone stores body fat differently and in different places. It may come off faster or slower in some area's. The last place most people will loose it is around their waist line and glutes. Look my Wife and I are both bodybuilders, Trainers and Nutritionist. I'm here to tell you spot reducing does not exist.
But if you want to go along and believe it does, by all means you have that right to believe what you want. Oh did here that the World is actually flat? right! that's how silly you sound by believing this nonsense.

Lets see your proof. Send us some references, articles something that says you can spot reduce. It can't be a Product line or piece of equiptment. It has to be scientific proof.