Is it just pure coincidence that the waistline has little/least fat

[darkxshade]

Compared to the rest of your midsection? Or is it the result of constant compression from the elastic waistband or belts that we've worn all our lives?

That got me thinking, we all know spot reduction is not possible but based on how you answer the above question. Do you believe in spot prevention? That is... for those who plan on gaining weight, that maybe one can gain an advantage with a more even fat distribution by wearing a more form fitting compression garment where fat is more likely to accumulate in. That way when said person goes on a cut, they would not have start with a larger belly.

Possible question is, where would the fat go? I have a slight belief that we get negligibly larger love handles, bellies, ass, thighs, or whatever because the fat that would have normally gone to our waists were "blocked". Keep in mind that I'm not saying fat didn't deposit there at all because peoples waistlines do go up as they get fatter but stand in front of a mirror and you clearly see it's the thinnest circle is around your midsection. Now the gain in fat may have been negligible when you were wearing a belt because the area was small but consider a compression garment that covers the entire midsection.

Your thoughts?

 

[JAG87]

Fat location has 99% to do with your genetics, 1% to do with what areas you exercise, and 0% to do with your clothing.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Clothing does not effect the distribution of fat. The waistline is not an appropriate place for fat depositions due to the placement of pelvis, bladder, and genitalia. That's just how humans are built. Go watch a documentary on African tribes who were no clothing most of their lives. The fat ones will still have the same fat distribution.

And no, you can't prevent the deposition by wearing clothing. Fat will deposit where it always does. I don't know if you've ever seen an overweight individual if you posted this theory. Every heard of "muffin tops?" Clearly there is a ton of fat accumulation lower than you're thinking of. Just because you wear jeans doesn't mean your fat is going to deposit elsewhere. Adipose cells are still present or easily created at positions of pressure and therefore fatty acids can/will be stored there. There is no preference due to tension created by clothing.

 

[ElFenix]

Clothing does not effect the distribution of fat. The waistline is not an appropriate place for fat depositions due to the placement of pelvis, bladder, and genitalia. That's just how humans are built. Go watch a documentary on African tribes who were no clothing most of their lives. The fat ones will still have the same fat distribution.

your waist is not down where your pelvis is. the waist is between the rib cage and the pelvis. waist is around the belly button area, which is often where fat accumulates.

 

[darkxshade]

So then it's just a coincidence... that's all I needed to know

I've seen overweight people but they're clothed so it's really hard to get a gauge and I clearly haven't and do not wish to lay eyes up on a naked one. But looking at the clothed ones for example here's one I found on google images:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3313/images/03-off-ist2258419overweight-l.jpg

I see this a lot which almost looks as if the waist is significantly thinner than the belly. If he were to take that belt off, it would certainly release some pressure and his belly would drop down and settle in but the waist would certainly still have signficantly little fat by comparison by circumference. It could very well be genetics which is what I was wondering about, otherwise it just seemed that over time[in the long term], that fat has more difficulty depositing there due to the waistline constantly being compressed in place. I know from my personal waistline that there's a red circle around my waist because I like to wear my belt tight. When I pinch the skin on my waistline now, it's measured under 1/3rd - 1/4 inch... go right above the belt and give myself a pinch and I can grab and 1.5 inches of skinfold.

edit: here's another more extreme:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_03/BigBellyREX_468x310.jpg

 

[PingSpike]

I think he's talking about the point how when you've got a gut you can just throw it over the top of a pair of 34 jeans like my dad. My dad doesn't have a 34 inch waist by a long shot, but that is where the waist of the pants are!

Should just get a corset and make those love handles into pecs.

 

[skace]

Speaking of corsets, I believe they are valid examples of clothing that can permanently modify a body's composition. I would probably say shoes are another example. I don't know whether tight pants/belt has any impact. It's certainly an area where are supposed to gain weight, but would it be identical naked as it is clothed is, I think, a valid question.

People who wear their pants at their belly button, except tightly, have they ever managed to split their gut into 2 guts? I think I've seen older women who have this effect.... That sub-gut effect.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

your waist is not down where your pelvis is. the waist is between the rib cage and the pelvis. waist is around the belly button area, which is often where fat accumulates.

Fair enough, couldn't remember if the waist was above or below the hips. If this is the case, then the OP is mistaken as well. Fat frequently accumulates at those points.

 

[darkxshade]

Fair enough, couldn't remember if the waist was above or below the hips. If this is the case, then the OP is mistaken as well. Fat frequently accumulates at those points.

I didn't say fat didn't accumulate there. I'm questioning if it's just coincidence that our body accumulate fat there the least[vs an inch above or below that waistline] or could it be the result of a lifetime of restriction due to constant compression of that area from belts, waistbands and what have you. Like I said, if I do a skinfold test, it's really thin, go an inch above or below where I wear my belt, the skinfold is multiple times thicker.


edit: Maybe this is a bad example but if people can do this:

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=neck%20rings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

It's not outrageous to question within the same context fat restriction/prevention due to a lifetime of wearing belts.

 

[JAG87]

What you are referring to is due to the fact that we have some of the largest bones in surface area in the pelvis. It's just like your head, the cranium constitutes most of it's mass.

Fat doesn't store near bones, it stores near muscles. And the biggest muscles are home to the most fat. Think of abs, quads/hamstring, glutes, and even your bicept/tricept. Where it does the most is genetics. Some people store in ass, some people gut, some people even arms (mostly girls)...

Your question is like, why doesn't fat go to my hands instead of my gut, the answer is because your hand is mostly bone.

 

[skace]

I've seen fat hands...

 

[JAG87]

I've seen fat hands...

On a skinny person?

 

[kamper]

Maybe it's not a co-incidence. Maybe we put our belts where we put them because they fit comfortably on our bodies there. Seems more likely that we'd adapt our clothing to our bodies than our bodies to our clothing.