cannot spot reduce?

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
so what are some recommendations for losing fat from the stomach/belly region without having to sacrifice muscle from the rest of your body because of a caloric deficit?

does someone just have to lose all fat that they want to before seriously taking up a weight lifting regimen?

Well, here's how it goes. 1) You can lose fat and gain STRENGTH, but not necessarily muscle mass. 2) You don't sacrifice muscle from the rest of your body while losing fat if you continue lifting. The caloric deficit will take energy from the fat reserves, not the muscles (if you continue to lift). 3) Like people said, you cannot spot reduce. If you want to lose your belly, you will lose it, as well as other fat that you gained, at the same proportional rate that you gained it.

If you want to lose the fat and keep up your strength (so, like somebody said, you're not a fat skinny guy), you will have to do both cardio and lifting. I don't even know if you read this thread by the questions you're asking 'cause they are answered several times over

Summary

Lifting + cardio = healthy weight loss while maintaining/gaining strength.

 

[skace]

The problem with the common answer that you cannot gain muscle and lose fat at the same time is that it never suggests a time period. Our bodies are constantly working so while you cannot gain and lose at the exact same time, you can, however, create a plan where you lose fat and gain muscle during the same week. See, fat loss does require a calorie deficit in general, but in more specific terms it requires a glycogen deficit, something that can be accomplished under temporary conditions to attack your fat stores for limited periods of time. And muscle growth does not require a surplus, because the term surplus means an unused amount and every unused amount will become fat. What muscle growth requires might be an increased amount to what you are used to, but if it is used then it isn't a surplus and doesn't become fat. The common answer is an oversimplification that is valid in it's oversimplified form but is not entirely true when thought about. It only makes sense because most people are not going to be able to walk the narrow line between eating healthy, getting significant cardio and doing complete workouts while supplementing them with protein.

Also, everyone here is in agreement with regards to spot reduction. But what I haven't noticed mention is that the OP still has a bit of a misunderstanding in how the body works. See, you look at your body and what you see is a fat midsection and you assume if you do cardio then that midsection will disappear. Well, it will, but there is a very good chance that you have fat elsewhere in your body that you are completely ignoring at this time since your stomach appears to be the worst area. This happens to every guy. The end result is that you will lose fat everywhere and you will lose the fat from your stomach last. This is why you cannot spot reduce. Doing situps or some other exercise in an attempt to lose fat from your midsection is a double fault because situps aren't the best form of cardio and when you are trying to lose fat you want a total body cardio workout that is going to exhaust glycogen stores as efficiently as possible.

Edit: Also, the biggest impact from not having sufficient protein for muscle repair post workout is a lengthier downtime. Muscles may be sore for many days instead of 1-2 days. This means that you will not completely stop muscle growth, at worst slow it down. Although, slowing it down could be damaging enough if you also include a strenuous cardio workout that is burning muscle.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
ok, let me see if i can sum this up.

in order to gain muscle, you need a caloric surplus.
in order to lost fat, you need a caloric deficit.
therefore you cannot reduce fat and build muscle at the same time.

common sense still tells me i can build my calves if i do calf raises and lose my gut if i do cardio and situps and eat healthy (low fat, low carb, high protein).
i guess i'm stubborn.

Good luck with that. Not only are the calves one of the hardest places to add mass, but you would have to be a genetic anomoly to be able to lose fat and increase muscle fiber diameter at the same time.

Your body can only use so much protein. Alot of exercise physiologists are now speculating that the protein requirements of athletes are not much higher than someone who does nothing. All that excess protein is just going to be converted (inefficiently) into energy for immediate use. You're not going to be gaining muscle if you are starving yourself of carbs. Likewise, you aren't gonna be losing fat if you are giving yourself and excess of carbs.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
to build muscle you need a calorie excess.

to lose fat you need a calorie defecit.

To do them optimally but there are plenty of people who've started dieting on a month-long calorie deficit and also put on muscle--not just strength, but size, too. The body can certainly put calories around with more intelligence than simply whether one is on a deficit or not.

I also subscribe to skace's talk about a given period. If we find a chubby weak person and look at him a year later he may be lean and muscular. How did he do it at the same time? Possibly he was trimming for 6 months and gaining muscle for 6 months, but in the context of a year it was at the same time. Even within a 24 hour window I don't see why a person couldn't be losing fat for 15 hours/day (and maintaining muscle) and then the other 9 hours increasing muscle with a marginal increase in fat, so in the context of a day they've lost fat/gained muscle. People do it all the time. I've done it, too.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: purbeast0
to build muscle you need a calorie excess.

to lose fat you need a calorie defecit.

To do them optimally but there are plenty of people who've started dieting on a month-long calorie deficit and also put on muscle--not just strength, but size, too. The body can certainly put calories around with more intelligence than simply whether one is on a deficit or not.

I also subscribe to skace's talk about a given period. If we find a chubby weak person and look at him a year later he may be lean and muscular. How did he do it at the same time? Possibly he was trimming for 6 months and gaining muscle for 6 months, but in the context of a year it was at the same time. Even within a 24 hour window I don't see why a person couldn't be losing fat for 15 hours/day (and maintaining muscle) and then the other 9 hours increasing muscle with a marginal increase in fat, so in the context of a day they've lost fat/gained muscle. People do it all the time. I've done it, too.

yup, and i've just debunked this myth.
in the past 2 months or so, i've lost about 10 pounds, lowered by body fat % from 17% to 15%, trimmed my waistline, and put on muscle on my calves (1/4" increase in diameter).

 

[KoolDrew]

It's really not as black and white as many of you seem to make it when it comes to muscle gain and fat loss. There's a lot more going on in the body dealing with adaptions, which is directly related to leptin (which is related to bodyfat levels), insulin resistance of muscle vs. fat, etc.

Lyle McDonald does a better job explaining it than I could, so here you go...

Ok, since this seems to come up with some regularity, here are my thoughts on it. I had made a post to mfw a long time bck but it's faster to just retype it here than try to dig through google groups.

The basic question that continues to come up is "How come newbies can gain muscle and lose fat but more advanced guys can't."

First and foremost, I want to point out that only fat newbies can accomplish this, lean guys are not going to lean out significantly while gaining muscle. And I think this points us partly in the right direction.

Way back when, when I first got on the track of leptin (oh, about 98 I think), a lot of what leptin was doing (and note that leptin is related to bodyfat levels) seemed to explain at least part of this. Leptin turned out to be the big missing middle puzzle piece that I"d been looking for for about 10 years.

So consider a fat untrained individual. Because of all of the bodyfat they are carrying, there are a bunch of adapations that have occurred which, given the right stimulus, is going to make them *more effectively* mobilize fat for fuel. I know I"ve discussed this before but now expect a zillion and one questions.

But when you look at that actual adaptations in terms of whole body (especially fat cell) insulin resistance, it's clear that they occur in an attempt to limit further fat gain/help with fat loss once the excess calories are removed. The fat cells are resistant to insulin (meaning insulin can't be anti-lipolytic) leptin would be limiting food intake if the brain weren't resistant, leptin is trying to push fatty acid oxidation (except that muscle is alos resistant), there are tons of fatty acids n the bloodstream just waiting to be burned, &c. So even in the face of high insulin or whatever, fatty acids can be mobilize for fuel.

Read that last sentence again, especially given the role of insulin in muscle growth.

So I think that's the first part of the story. The body is primed to use a lot of fat for fuel under those conditions. Going back to 98, this is actually what led me to leptin, trying to figure out why fatter people can lose fat with less LBM loss compared to lean. So I started looking at the differences physiologically in fat people vs. lean people. And kept coming back to leptin (which I'd been deliberately ignoring for years). Which turns out to be part (but certainly not the entire picture). But I digress.

But it's not the whole story. The other part of it and at this point I get way off into speculation land I think has to do with being relatively more untrained. Everybody knows that beginners respond better to training than anybody else. Primarily because they are so far from their genetic potential. They have more 'room to grow' to put it one way. This is true of everything, first year of any training is when you will make the most massive gains, unless you're training is retarded. And as you get closer to your genetic limits, things start to level off and you reach an asymptote.

And I think that the two factors together are what allow it to happen.

You're in a situation where
a. muscle can be gained quite easily
b. fat can be lost quite easily

Because both are so far below (in the case of muscle) or above (in the case of fat) genetic limits. That's on top of all the hormonal/energetic stuff going on when you're fat. The body is trying to push fatty acids away from storage and towards fat oxidation, even in the face of a relatively anabolic hormonal state.

But a fat but trained individual doesn't have both factors going no. They may have plenty of fat to lose but they don't have a ton of muscle to gain. No newbie effect.

A semi-lean but muscular individual has to drop insulin to mobilize/burn fat for fuel at any effective rate. Which limits their anabolic potential (and this is ignoring all of the stuff going on in the muscle with AMPk and protien synthesis and all that crap). They can lose fat but they can't gain muscle at the same time.

And, in a muscle gaining mode, you're in a net anabolic state anyhow. You can't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time for the most part.

Now quit asking me about this.

 

[saechaka]

My question is similar in theory but quite the opposite. What if I wanted to gain muscle mass in my legs but lose body fat elsewhere? Can I just eat more the days after I do my leg routine and eat at a calorie deficit during my other days? Will this work?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: saechaka
My question is similar in theory but quite the opposite. What if I wanted to gain muscle mass in my legs but lose body fat elsewhere? Can I just eat more the days after I do my leg routine and eat at a calorie deficit during my other days? Will this work?

Don't make this harder than it has to be, which is not hard at all. You want size on legs hammer them out regularly with weights while taking in a net calorie deficit and despite all the rubbish about not being able to put on muscle and lose fat, you will do just that if your diet is zeroed in.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: saechaka
My question is similar in theory but quite the opposite. What if I wanted to gain muscle mass in my legs but lose body fat elsewhere? Can I just eat more the days after I do my leg routine and eat at a calorie deficit during my other days? Will this work?

Don't make this harder than it has to be, which is not hard at all. You want size on legs hammer them out regularly with weights while taking in a net calorie deficit and despite all the rubbish about not being able to put on muscle and lose fat, you will do just that if your diet is zeroed in.

I agree. Either bulk or cut. Make up your mind. You won't gain much mass on your legs if you're in a caloric deficit, but you will continue to strengthen them. I tend to worry about strength more than size though, so that whole thing isn't an issue for me.

 

[KoolDrew]

What if I wanted to gain muscle mass in my legs but lose body fat elsewhere? Can I just eat more the days after I do my leg routine and eat at a calorie deficit during my other days? Will this work?

Choose what's more important to you and go towards that goal. If you're more concerned with losing weight, eat in a calorie deficit. If you're more concerned with gaining, eat in a calorie surplus. Just because something may be possible in fat and/or untrained individuals doesn't mean that should be your goal. Concentration should be on one goal at a time, even if both are possible at first. If you happen to do two things at once at first, be happy. If not.. oh well.

 

[Java Cafe]

I am a newbie, and I am totally confused. I am sorry.

But, please tell me if I have understood this correctly. In order to lose fat now, I should go into a calorie-deficit diet and do a lot of aerobics. Then, after I m happy with my weight loss, say a month or two from now, I should go into a calorie surplus diet and do weights. Right?

Then, why do they say, having muscles increases your metabolism and helps to lose your fat faster? Myth?

Please tell me how I should start? I want to rid myself of flab first, and then add some definition (including slightly more prominent muscles) especially in my upper body.

Is there a FAQ? A primer? A *really* good book I can buy? I don't want to get into heavy lifting, preferring small equipment at home.

Thank you for reading this and appreciate your responses.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
I am a newbie, and I am totally confused. I am sorry.

But, please tell me if I have understood this correctly. In order to lose fat now, I should go into a calorie-deficit diet and do a lot of aerobics. Then, after I m happy with my weight loss, say a month or two from now, I should go into a calorie surplus diet and do weights. Right?

Then, why do they say, having muscles increases your metabolism and helps to lose your fat faster? Myth?

Please tell me how I should start? I want to rid myself of flab first, and then add some definition (including slightly more prominent muscles) especially in my upper body.

Is there a FAQ? A primer? A *really* good book I can buy? I don't want to get into heavy lifting, preferring small equipment at home.

Thank you for reading this and appreciate your responses.

That's only partially correct. If you go into a caloric deficit, and do a ton of aerobic activity you will lose both fat AND muscle. If you want to maintain your muscle mass and lose fat, you need to do both aerobic and anaerobic activity. This will allow you to increase your strength, and maintain your muscle mass, which is usually what's best.

No, it's not a myth. Having a higher % of muscle makes your body burn more calories inherently. That is correct. Therefore, if you maintain your muscle mass instead of losing it, you will have an advantage.

You should get into a weightlifting program and do cardio. You can really choose which of each you would like to do, but a lot of people will suggest the Starting Strength book or something like it for lifting. You can do your preferred cardio (running, biking, swimming, etc) and choose your preferred method (high intensity interval training, long and slow cardio). Also, why are you looking to avoid heavy lifting other than wanting home equipment? Heavy lifting will increase your strength immensely. I don't understand why people don't want to get stronger.

 

[Java Cafe]

Thank you for the wonderful response. I see what you mean about losing fat, while keeping muscle. Would you mind recommend a beginner's regimen for me? I will post my particulars, goals included, only if you agree. I think you convinced me. I will not be averse to heavy lifting. But, I want to do it at home. I don't like gyms.

Thanks, again.

 

[Goi]

Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit. It's about the endocrine system. To think otherwise would be to think that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, which is not true.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
Thank you for the wonderful response. I see what you mean about losing fat, while keeping muscle. Would you mind recommend a beginner's regimen for me? I will post my particulars, goals included, only if you agree. I think you convinced me. I will not be averse to heavy lifting. But, I want to do it at home. I don't like gyms.

Thanks, again.

I can try to come up with a regimen for ya. Post your particulars and I'll do my best. Why don't ya like gyms? It's gonna be pretty hard to get access to certain things if you don't go to the gym. Screw what people think. You're there for you. Reply and I'll do what I can

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit. It's about the endocrine system. To think otherwise would be to think that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, which is not true.

Well, when you're 500+ calories under your intake, you're gonna lose weight no matter what calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is all about caloric deficit.

 

[Goi]

I would imagine the TS is concerned with fat loss, not weight loss.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Goi
I would imagine the TS is concerned with fat loss, not weight loss.

If you're lifting while doing all this, you will lose fat and fat alone pretty much. Obviously, we assume the person wants to lose fat only on these boards.

 

[Goi]

Hence it's not all about caloric deficit, because if it were, lifting would do the same thing as cardio as long as you match the number of expended calories, but we all know that isn't true. The hormonal response is completely different.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Goi
Hence it's not all about caloric deficit, because if it were, lifting would do the same thing as cardio as long as you match the number of expended calories, but we all know that isn't true. The hormonal response is completely different.

It doesn't do the same thing as cardio, but you most certainly could lose fat while doing only anaerobic activity. Aerobic activity is used to up the expenditure of calories often times and therefore increases the rate at which fat is lost. The whole process would take longer, but you could do it with just weights (although you'd be in crap cardio condition and such).

 

[Goi]

Strength training and cardiovascular training are in the same continuum, they're not discrete entities, and they're not mutually exclusive. You can't lift weights without getting a cardio workout. Just try doing a strength workout and see if your heart rate is elevated. If it isn't, you're probably just curling pink dumbbells, and that isn't strength training.

You don't need to be in crap cardio condition just lifting weights. Just look at the Crossfit programs for example. Even if you taken away the steady state aerobics and gymnastics, and just focus on the weights, you would be really conditioned if you're any good at it!

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Goi
Strength training and cardiovascular training are in the same continuum, they're not discrete entities, and they're not mutually exclusive. You can't lift weights without getting a cardio workout. Just try doing a strength workout and see if your heart rate is elevated. If it isn't, you're probably just curling pink dumbbells, and that isn't strength training.

You don't need to be in crap cardio condition just lifting weights. Just look at the Crossfit programs for example. Even if you taken away the steady state aerobics and gymnastics, and just focus on the weights, you would be really conditioned if you're any good at it!

Lol, right. I wasn't saying anything different. I was saying that you can lose weight without direct aerobic activity. Also, the weight training I was referring to was heavy weight, low reps. That is not the type of workout that CF provides on a daily basis (although it involves them often on non-metcon days). I dunno how we evolved from me saying a caloric deficit is how you lose weight to you saying this Somehow we got off-subject to something that isn't really significant to this thread.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

 

[spamsk8r]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

True that. I do CrossFit myself, and it's a great workout each and every day, but if I don't watch what I put in my mouth (calorie-wise) I don't lose jack crap for weight.

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

No, it really isn't. I know people who lose fat on a 5000 calorie diet. I also know people who don't lose any on a 1200 calorie diet. It's not about caloric deficit. If only it were that simple...

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Goi
Losing fat is not about a caloric deficit.

If calories are controlled it matters very little what the source is, given there is adequate protein intake. The source of those calories and different macronutrient breakdowns may just make it much easier to stick to.

It is all about a calorie deficit.

No, it really isn't. I know people who lose fat on a 5000 calorie diet. I also know people who don't lose any on a 1200 calorie diet. It's not about caloric deficit. If only it were that simple...

I can hardly believe that, unless they are marathoners or cyclists or something. They would, therefore, be essentially in a caloric deficit anyway. AND you will lose weight always on a 1200 calorie diet. I don't think you understand how the body works with that whole ordeal Your body needs energy. Calories. If you don't get that, it needs to get it elsewhere (aka your fat stores or your muscles or your glycogen stores). You will always lose weight on 1200 calories - I really don't know what you're talking about.