what's easier to get rid of? soft fat or hard fat?

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by BlahBlahYouToo, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. BlahBlahYouToo

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    or is there no correlation?

    the fat around my gut is hard, and on my gf (what little she has) is soft and jiggly.
     
  2. Redfraggle

    Redfraggle Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fat is fat, and getting rid of it depends upon the person. I think what you are referring to just means you have more of it, and the fat cells are packed in there denser. I mean, think about it, if all the fat you had was as soft, everything would be around your ankles.

    This is really freaking me out and I'm going to go look at unicorns or something now.
     
  3. KoolDrew

    KoolDrew Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10,226
    Likes Received:
    0
    As weird and stupid as this question sounds, it's actually a good question and covered in great detail in "The Stubborn Bodyfat Solution" by Lyle McDonald. What many people don't know is that the type of fat stored does effect how well it is mobilized from the fat cell. It actually turns out that unsaturated fats are easier to mobilize than saturated, and polyunsaturates actually are the easiest of all. The spots that feel "hard" are mostly made up of saturated fats, while the "soft and jiggly" spots are most likely made up of unsaturated fats. This makes sense since saturated fats are solid at room temperature and unsaturated are liquid.
     
  4. GenHoth

    GenHoth Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do we really keep that many unsaturated fats stored? I thought they were mainly liquids and thus difficult for us to store since we're mobile?
     
  5. KoolDrew

    KoolDrew Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10,226
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. skace

    skace Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    14,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Subcutaneous fat is found right beneath the skin. Since it is beneath the skin it is jiggly and soft because there is nothing much keeping it in place.

    Visceral fat is found between internal organs. Because it is deep within the body it is very hard.

    Since Visceral fat is around your organs and near your waistline it is generally going to be the hardest fat to get rid of, not necessarily because of type but location.

    I don't know if Visceral vs Subcutaneous from the same location has any difference in "difficulty to lose"

    Edit: For what it's worth, you, having the Visceral Fat, have a greater justification for losing it as Visceral Fat is supposedly more dangerous.
     
  7. KoolDrew

    KoolDrew Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10,226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Visceral fat is usually the first to go.
     
  8. KingGheedora

    KingGheedora Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Visceral fat is also directly beneath the abdominal muscles, not just around the organs. So some people who have a lot of visceral fat can have a huge waistline but seem "firm" since most of the fat is beneath the muscle.

    I still don't understand why your body would store fat in one place vs. the other. If anyone has a link to an explanation that'd be awesome.
     
  9. MrMatt

    MrMatt Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually not quite. Fat stored around the belly is called 'visceral' fat and is actually harder to lose than 'cutaneous' fat typically found around the hips for instance. Visceral fat is highly correlated with things like heart disease, cutaneous more with diabetes and it's ilk.
     
  10. MrMatt

    MrMatt Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    oops, replied before I saw this. Absolutely correct!

    genetics from what I remember
     
  11. Redfraggle

    Redfraggle Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stand corrected then. Either way, still best to lose the fat. It's not healthy.
     
  12. KoolDrew

    KoolDrew Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10,226
    Likes Received:
    0
    The paper I posted above points out a few reasons.

    Uhh... no. First of all, Visceral fat, by definition is "located inside the peritoneal cavity, packed in between internal organs," while subcutaneous fat is right beneath the skin (hence the name). Visceral fat is also more metabolically active than subcutaneous fat. Meaning that it is easier to burn than subcutaneous fat. It's also less effected by insulin, which means when insulin goes up, visceral fat continues to release fatty acids, while subcutaneous fat does not. This is also one of the reasons it is considered worse health wise - high blood fatty acids and high insulin levels tend to do bad things in terms of health. Visceral fat also has better blood flow, which means it's easier to mobilize from the fat cell. All of these result in visceral being MUCH easier to get rid of.

    Most males won't have much if any visceral fat once they reach about 15% bodyfat or below. IIRC, the OP is around there so visceral fat shouldn't be an issue, unless he's taking massive amounts of androgens or something.