BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > My products > Stubborn Fat Solution
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 02-05-2016, 11:15 PM
Hectic's Avatar
Hectic Hectic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 380
Default spot fat reduction article

I recently read what I thought was a reasonably well presented case for spot fat reduction via increasing blood flow to the area. its a reasonably well known site in the bodybuilding community so i'm guessing a few people might have seen it. The studies referenced were old news though.

The mechanisms included:

-using the muscle adjacent to the stubborn fat to increase blood flow to the stubborn fat
-keeping the stubborn fat warm to increase blood flow
-doing these at the right time in your diet/ workout sequence and allowing for activity to utilize the fatty acids

It made sense to me because it addressed many of the same concepts as SFS, and i generally take lyles word as gospel...

... Now I've always subscribed to the ab exercise is not particularly worthwhile or time efficient because it mainly depends on BF% and abs will be worked inadvertently doing other excises...

Consequently in 4 years I have almost never done ab specific exercise. At all, never. Perhaps non coincidentally - my abs have never been particularly visible, always coated with a generous layer of fat even at 9% bodyfat (based on comprehensive caliper and matching DEXA measurements). I


I get veins popping out, my workmates claim i'm lucky for having good genetics, but my abs always seem to have more fat than other people at '10%'.

On the other hand my gym is full of people with great abs doing bosu ball balancing and 'Hardcore abs' boot camps 3 times per week who couldn't squat more than 60Kg.

I'm starting to wonder if this is the missing link and that maybe i should train my abs for once.

I'm interested to know what Lyle thinks about the increased blood flow to a particular area of stubborn fat via increased bloodflow to adjacent muscles before i go chasing something fantasy
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 02-06-2016, 12:30 AM
Solis Solis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 80
Default

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...h-review.html/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 02-06-2016, 01:16 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,275
Default

Your whole post is ridiculous: "I've been 9% body fat on DEXA *and* calipers (even though DEXA is virtually always considerably higher in its readings than the caliper method). People in the gym have way better abs than me: I *know* which ones have the best abs, and I've watched what they do: they go to hardcore ABZ camps three times a week."

What a load of self serving nonsense.

But even so, you have missed one fundamental detail: namely, that a more muscular abdominal region is going to show more through the fat. There was a case at my local gym where a guy (in fact, a Musclemania Mr Universe 'natural' champion) had the most phenomenal abs at a caliper measurement of 13% body fat. He just had outrageously bulky abs, from relentless heavy work on them for years.

The secret ingredient that you're missing MAY indeed be abdominal work, but NOT because of spot reduction; rather, because heavily muscled abs are going to show nicely provided body fat is not too high, just like for any other muscle group.

So ab work is probably not altogether a waste of time. But then, who ever said it was? Notice that the GBR has heavy ab work in it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 02-06-2016, 01:36 AM
Solis Solis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 80
Default

I was gonna add a couple of points to my post, but Peter already said them neatly.

While ab work won't work for spot reduction, they'll still work for hypertrophy which may help make your abs more visible at any given BF%. And if you want to maximize hypertrophy, you should do dynamic movements too. "Isometric work from compounds is all you need for your abs/forearms" is just a meme repeated by compound-only lovers.

Even DEXA/calipers can have a significant margin of error when looking at individuals rather than at averages, compared to a 4-compartment model which is still an estimate. Krieger has some articles about this on weightology.net

Of course, you may have simply been screwed with bad fat distribution.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 02-06-2016, 03:43 AM
Hectic's Avatar
Hectic Hectic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 380
Default

Thanks for the link, somehow missed that one

And cheers BPP for pointing out my entire post is ridiculous,you shouldn't have even bothered replying, sorry for wasting your time. I do admit that sometimes I can become a little over dramatic when i post on the internet.

By the way I read your blog earlier today about the walking thing, and i'm going to give it a try, nice work. Currently at ~15% (not 9% anymore for my mental health). Was the 21 km in addition to your normal movement or including it?

Just some fyi I have measured myself with DEXA 3 times and everytime my dexa is about 1.5% higher than my caliper measurements, so it's at least consistent. Last time i got 10.5% on my calipers and 12% on my DEXA so its not too bad. I just didn't think it was worth detailing my measuring techniques. The point is I think they are close enough to give supporting evidence that i'm not severely underestimating my BF%.

I think the lack of hypertrophy on my abs has a lot to do with it which ill have to address

In regards to Lyles post about that study, I have the follwing thoughts:

Lyle says the extra fat mobilized was insignificant because it was so minuscule.
Well, how much fat was being mobilized without the extra movement. If it is also miniscule then it may have been a relatively significant increase.

From looking at the numbers on the 25%
i see: 6.6 vs 3.9 for blood flow (40% increase)
102 vs 55 for lypolysis. (46% increase)


So because i don't know how much total mobilisation happened for control vs extra, that looks to me like ~40% increase.


-what happens if not much blood was being taken from that area at the time because of fat distribution?
-wh
-they only tested a leg, is it different for other muscles?
- was it stubborn fat?
-what was the body fat of the subjects
-did they have plenty of visceral fat to use first
-are they sure that their measurements relate to mobilizations the way they think they do?
-are their measurements correct and relevant?
-has this been repeated anywhere else?

just questions i don't think it's a particularly thorough investigation

Last edited by Hectic : 02-06-2016 at 03:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 02-06-2016, 08:32 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,171
Default

40% more of jack squat is still jack squat.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 02-06-2016, 10:08 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
40% more of jack squat is still jack squat.
I guess what you're saying is that, far from 1,000 years, one could effectively use this method to get lean in 750.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 02-06-2016, 10:26 AM
Nick19 Nick19 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hectic View Post
I recently read what I thought was a reasonably well presented case for spot fat reduction via increasing blood flow to the area. its a reasonably well known site in the bodybuilding community so i'm guessing a few people might have seen it. The studies referenced were old news though.

The mechanisms included:

-using the muscle adjacent to the stubborn fat to increase blood flow to the stubborn fat
-keeping the stubborn fat warm to increase blood flow
-doing these at the right time in your diet/ workout sequence and allowing for activity to utilize the fatty acids

It made sense to me because it addressed many of the same concepts as SFS, and i generally take lyles word as gospel...

... Now I've always subscribed to the ab exercise is not particularly worthwhile or time efficient because it mainly depends on BF% and abs will be worked inadvertently doing other excises...

Consequently in 4 years I have almost never done ab specific exercise. At all, never. Perhaps non coincidentally - my abs have never been particularly visible, always coated with a generous layer of fat even at 9% bodyfat (based on comprehensive caliper and matching DEXA measurements). I


I get veins popping out, my workmates claim i'm lucky for having good genetics, but my abs always seem to have more fat than other people at '10%'.

On the other hand my gym is full of people with great abs doing bosu ball balancing and 'Hardcore abs' boot camps 3 times per week who couldn't squat more than 60Kg.

I'm starting to wonder if this is the missing link and that maybe i should train my abs for once.

I'm interested to know what Lyle thinks about the increased blood flow to a particular area of stubborn fat via increased bloodflow to adjacent muscles before i go chasing something fantasy
Why not try spot increase muscle mass. weight ab exercises>Bigger Ab muscles> fat spreads out and you look visibly leaner.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 02-06-2016, 12:49 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter View Post
I guess what you're saying is that, far from 1,000 years, one could effectively use this method to get lean in 750.
In that I did not read the article linked, I don't know what the claims are

But the whole stupid 'fat mobilization in adjacent muscle thing' study was mis-read by all but me. The amount was trivial and insignificant compared to what you'd burn with an equivalent amount of cardio
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 02-06-2016, 09:36 PM
Hectic's Avatar
Hectic Hectic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 380
Default

what is the point of an experiment that measures the difference in fat mobilization from an area and situation where insignificant fat is being mobilized in the first place ...

Has this measurement technique even been used to equate fat mobilization measurements from areas in subjects which are losing fat from this area over a short period of time to prove that it means anything practical?

why does the control lypolysis go negative on the 85%Wmax?

Last edited by Hectic : 02-06-2016 at 09:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.