Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:30 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582

"Starvation mode", regular eating, fasting & stubborn belly fat loss


Hi I've read about a few diets. Some say to eat 5-6 times a day and there are intermittent fasting diets - e.g. fasting 1-2 days per week or fasting 16 hours per day and eating normally for the other 8 hours (i.e. not eating extra to make up for the fasting)
From "Eat Stop Eat":

Quote:
....The idea that we must eat to fuel our brains may in fact be true for children, as research seems to suggest that children do better in basic school tests after they have had breakfast as opposed to when they skip breakfast.

This makes sense, as children are still growing and developing, but is it true for adults too?

As it turns out, the research doesn’t really support the idea that you get ‘dumb’ or ‘slow’ when you haven’t eaten for a couple of hours.
In some diets they say that if you don't eat for a while you go into "starvation mode" and fat accumulates on your belly.

So anyway I was wondering what is the best thing to do to lose stubborn belly fat? Is the total calories just what really matters? Regular eating is sometimes said to keep your metabolism going.... but does it have much of an effect?
  #2  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:32 AM
bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,642
Eat less - exercise more.
  #3  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:34 AM
aNewLeaf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Eat less - exercise more.
That's how the Army does it to soldiers. If there was a complicated, somewhat cruel procedure that worked better, they'd use that.
  #4  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:35 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Eat less - exercise more.
But is there any difference to stubborn belly fat loss if you had six meals of 200 calories per day vs one meal with 1200 calories?
  #5  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:37 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
Eat less - exercise more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
That's how the Army does it to soldiers. If there was a complicated, somewhat cruel procedure that worked better, they'd use that.
Body builders have much much less fat than soldiers... Their tiny amount of fat is why their muscles and veins are so visible. (also they built up their muscles)
  #6  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:53 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post
But is there any difference to stubborn belly fat loss if you had six meals of 200 calories per day vs one meal with 1200 calories?
Your body burns fat however it likes, you can't spot reduce. Lower your overall fat percentage and the belly fat will eventually go away. But not everyone can get to that low fat state without unreasonable efforts. If it's the last place your body wants to burn fat from, you may need to get very lean to get rid of it.

There are benefits to eating 6 200 calories meals vs one 1200 calorie meal, but in the long run the differences are pretty small. It's not going to change where your body will burn the fat from.
  #7  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:11 AM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,278
Understand one thing when you bring up this issue, there are two schools of thought and each side thinks the other just doesn't get it.

The first group is the calories in vs. calories out crowd. They believe every answer is (in-out)/3600 and if you are watching calories and still not losing weight, they accuse you of lying about how much food you're eating, you're too stupid to know how to count calories, or tell you to get the fork out of your mouth and go jog half a mile. This group cannot think outside the box that despite empirical evidence and scientific studies that there are other issues in weight control in addition to the magic formula.

The other group goes to the other side and talks about how weight gain is all hormonal. Insulin resistance, cortisol, ghrelin, testosterone/estrogen balance etc. While the evidence is clear via medical studies that these hormones do play a factor in weight gain/loss (to which the above group put their fingers in there ears and say "Nuh-uh."), there's no magic metabolism booster you can buy of the TV at 1am in the morning that enables you to lose weight while sitting on your couch eating your Big Mac super-sized meal. At best hormones influence weight gain/loss but you still need to eat sensibly and do some exercise beyond pressing remote buttons.
  #8  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:26 AM
aNewLeaf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,602
Expend more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Hormones have nothing to do with that fundamental truth.
  #9  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:31 AM
Asympotically fat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,169
This may be getting into IMHO territory, but for me I've found that weight gain/weight loss is very much a matter of how much I eat.

From what I understand the causal link between weight loss and exercise is not as well-established as is popularly perceived. I can only speak from personal experience, but I've never noticed any correlation between the amount of exercise I do and my weight. When I was at my heaviest (about 215 lbs, which is moderately overweight for my height of 6'3") is when I swam nearly for several hours everyday.
  #10  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:50 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,543
Here is an article that reviews some of the more recent literature on this topic. It seems that eating more meals slightly raises metabolism during eating but is not associated with any weight loss over time. Skipping meals seems to be a way to reduce calories overall but can lead to binge eating and more calories consumed. It just depends on the person. The question is definetly not settled.
  #11  
Old 10-07-2013, 11:34 AM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Expend more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Hormones have nothing to do with that fundamental truth.
Then explain how a woman can weigh 50 pounds LESS at 9 months pregnant, give birth, go on a post-partum exercise regimen while eating the same and have all the weight put back on in less than 6 months.

Or are you going to do the typical 3600er thing and accuse me of lying or being to stupid to know what I saw.
  #12  
Old 10-07-2013, 11:45 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,813
IANADietician, IANA Fat Specialist except in the sense of demostrating how to ensure I have lots.

There's a whole series of different arguments, not unlike what St. Cad mentions.

Just after you eat, as the meal is digested, your body reacts - blood sugar rises (if it was that sort of meal) insulin kicks in, some say insulin is "bad" as it tells the body to store anything unnecessary for a rainy day (the old Atkins diet argument). 6 small meals vs. one large one keeps your blood sugar elevated for longer. Meanwhile, starch breaks down to sugar slowly, so instead of getting a blast of sugar in the blood, you get a more gradual rise and fall. Again, 6 small meals means a much longer time with elevated blood sugar.

IIRC, you have to be starving for about 2 days before your body goes into panic mode and starts shutting down unnecessary calorie consumption. This the "starve for only 2 days" diet - you are using up calories from your stored reserves, but avoid the shutdown where your body suddenly can get by on a reduced caloric intake.

(This is also the "theory" of the Atkins diet... that the mechanism that triggers the burn mode - burn calories from fat because we're not eating any food - is triggered from lack of carbohydrates, while the starvation response - stop burning calories and shut down as much of the body as you can - comes from a lack of protein. Eat only protein - and maybe some fat - and the body will at the same time burn off fat while not severely shutting down it's normal functions.)

Your body burns calories even at rest. One item I recall said about 1/3 of the calories we burn go to making the brain work - thus, other animals have much smaller brains because maintaining a brain is expensive, and unless it gives a good return on that investment or food is plentiful, it is a luxury that evolution may reduce. It also explains why having a good meal before taking a test is an advantage if you are typically short of nutrition.

Both the brain and the muscles burn energy, even at rest. This is another way that exercise helps. You build the muscles your body demonstrates that it has needed. These muscles burn energy just being there. So exercise helps you even when you've stopped. A fit person likely burns more calories.

This is also one of the dangers of starvation diets (and possibly Atkins). When the body goes into starvation mode, one way it prevents a high level of calorie burning, to survive a lack of food, is to stop feeding the rest muscles. Instead they absorb these muscles. If the diet goes too far, the body may be absorbing relatively important muscles, like heart muscle. Excessive starvation diets can result in heart problems among other problems.

Last edited by md2000; 10-07-2013 at 11:48 AM.
  #13  
Old 10-07-2013, 11:49 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Then explain how a woman can weigh 50 pounds LESS at 9 months pregnant, give birth, go on a post-partum exercise regimen while eating the same and have all the weight put back on in less than 6 months.

Or are you going to do the typical 3600er thing and accuse me of lying or being to stupid to know what I saw.
I wouldn't accuse you of lying or being stupid, but I would make the assumption that you didn't observe the person 24/7. No one is going to gain 50 lbs by following what you just wrote. Something is missing.
  #14  
Old 10-07-2013, 12:56 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Expend more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Hormones have nothing to do with that fundamental truth.
Yes, but don't hormones affect how many calories you expend?
  #15  
Old 10-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
I wouldn't accuse you of lying or being stupid, but I would make the assumption that you didn't observe the person 24/7. No one is going to gain 50 lbs by following what you just wrote. Something is missing.
FYI it was Mrs Cad so as close to 24/7 as you can get.
And you're exactly right that something is missing and we've spent 16 years trying to find out what. I think it's hormones but some woman had a similar case where it was mitral valve prolapse but I can't find the case for the life of me. MVP fixed and she lost weight. Every doctor we ask says that MVP would never cause these symptoms (although it has in at least one person) and my point is that at least is some people it is not all about (in-out)/3600. It may be rare I grant you but it is not impossible as the calorie counters claim.
  #16  
Old 10-07-2013, 01:11 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,813
As someone pointed out once, nobody came out of the WWII concentration camps fat, hormones or not.

With inadequate calories/nutrition, you will steadily lose weight.
For adequate diets, how much you burn and how much you store depend on a lot of factors, including hormones and other body chemistry that can vary greatly from individual to individual.
  #17  
Old 10-07-2013, 01:12 PM
jacobsta811 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Expend more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Hormones have nothing to do with that fundamental truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Then explain how a woman can weigh 50 pounds LESS at 9 months pregnant, give birth, go on a post-partum exercise regimen while eating the same and have all the weight put back on in less than 6 months....
These can both be true, and nobody has to be lying or wrong. I hope calories in/calories out people aren't saying that the calories out part is static, that the base metabolism or how efficiently you process/store the food can't change. Clearly at 0 calories in, drinking only water you will lose weight (over some reasonable length of time - days or weeks). So the question is what number above 0 is the right number for you to survive and still lose weight. I certainly believe personally that that number can need to be as low as 1000 calories or lower for some people, which is why they may not lose weight on a traditional low calorie diet, but I don't believe for a second that there isn't *some* number of calories they could get down to that would cause them to lose weight. Of course caloric restriction has proven all but impossible for most people to maintain over the long term in the real world, so I'm hoping for that miracle pill.
  #18  
Old 10-07-2013, 02:46 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post

So anyway I was wondering what is the best thing to do to lose stubborn belly fat? Is the total calories just what really matters? Regular eating is sometimes said to keep your metabolism going.... but does it have much of an effect?
You are raising two slightly different questions: Fat loss in general and fat distribution.

Is the problem that you have too much fat on your body in general? Or are you happy with the amount of at you have but not with the distribution?

And by "belly fat" do you mean visceral fat? Or do you mean any fat in the area?
  #19  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:25 PM
Hockey Monkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 5,254
There is no way to target where your fat loss comes off.
  #20  
Old 10-07-2013, 04:37 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Monkey View Post
There is no way to target where your fat loss comes off.
There is evidence associating stress with an increased proportion of abdominal fat. So it is reasonable to hypothesize that stress might play a role in where fat reduction takes place during weight loss.
  #21  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,142
There is not enough done on intermittent fasting as an approach to be able to say if it works as well or better than traditional "diet" approaches (e.g. caloric restriction). If some version of intermittent fasting appeals to you stylistically (and it does to some, while others would see it as horrific) then it is reasonable to give it a try.

Visceral fat (not the fat outside your muscle wall over your belly, but the stuff on the inside, around your intenstines and such) does come off preferentially with exercise, especially higher intensity exercise, and is not especially stubborn.

The pinchable fat above your beltline? That is pretty damn stubborn stuff and probably won't come off until you have gotten to a pretty damn low body fat percentage. For many that is the last fat to go. To the best of my knowledge you cannot target it short of with liposuction. OTOH from the health perspective the stubborn bits of superficial subcutaneous fat are pretty much inconsequential.
  #22  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:50 PM
dracoi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
FYI it was Mrs Cad so as close to 24/7 as you can get.
And you're exactly right that something is missing and we've spent 16 years trying to find out what. I think it's hormones but some woman had a similar case where it was mitral valve prolapse but I can't find the case for the life of me. MVP fixed and she lost weight. Every doctor we ask says that MVP would never cause these symptoms (although it has in at least one person) and my point is that at least is some people it is not all about (in-out)/3600. It may be rare I grant you but it is not impossible as the calorie counters claim.
It is simply physically impossible to gain weight unless you have consumed the calories to produce the weight gain.

Hormones can play key roles in total appetite, food preferences, eating habits, basal metabolism, activity levels, etc. These things might mean that 1500 calories is enough for me to lose weight, but enough for you to gain weight

We even know that gut bacteria play a role in calorie absorption. That might mean that a hamburger is only 800 calories to me, but 900 to you.

But, in the end, (in-out)/3600 is what matters unless you turn green and start photosynthesizing.
  #23  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:56 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNewLeaf View Post
Expend more calories than you consume and you will lose weight. Hormones have nothing to do with that fundamental truth.
It is true. But it is also a fundamental truth that exercise makes it harder to reduce intake, because it stimulates the appetite.
  #24  
Old 10-07-2013, 06:59 PM
Hockey Monkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
There is evidence associating stress with an increased proportion of abdominal fat. So it is reasonable to hypothesize that stress might play a role in where fat reduction takes place during weight loss.
That may be so, but you still cannot target specific areas for fat reduction. There just isn't any way to lose weight in the area you want it to come off. It comes off where the biology of your body tells it to.
  #25  
Old 10-07-2013, 07:56 PM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Monkey View Post
That may be so, but you still cannot target specific areas for fat reduction....
It's about two kinds of fat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Adipose_tissue
The location of the tissue determines its metabolic profile: "visceral fat" is located within the abdominal wall (i.e., beneath the wall of abdominal muscle) whereas "subcutaneous fat" is located beneath the skin (and includes fat that is located in the abdominal area beneath the skin but above the abdominal muscle wall).

....An excess of visceral fat is known as central obesity, or "belly fat", in which the abdomen protrudes excessively. Excess visceral fat is also linked to type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, inflammatory diseases, and other obesity-related diseases.

If you do a google search for lose belly fat there are lots of results.... i.e. it seems that that kind of fat can be targeted.
  #26  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:16 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,841
Let me speak as someone 85 lb below his maximum weight (and I've been there for two years, with no uptick). First, there is no question about the calories in less calories out. It is called conservation of mass. You are certainly in control of the calories in. But the calories out is more mysterious. The claim that you store carbohydrates more easily than fats or proteins is one claim. Insulin is what turns carbs into fat. I suspect that it may be true, at least in part. When I started taking metformin, which inhibits the release of glucose by the liver, I lost 20 lb in the following year without any attempt at dieting. Then I stalled, at that point about 40 lb below max weight.

Then I adopted a strategy of not eating between meals (which I was doing a lot of) and, over a 2 1/2 year period lost a further 45 lb, which is where I am now. I have lost no weight in the past year and am not especially anxious to, although I am still technically overweight (BMI = 27). So for me, at least, lots of small meals don't work. But they might for you.

I tried asking why I lost weight on metformin (which I still take, although my blood glucose and A1G are well within normal limits now) and the only answer I got was that I must somehow be excreting some of what I was eating. Well, yes, that or metabolizing it. How can I know? So the calories out is not clear. Incidentally, my exercise level is, if anything, a bit lower than it used to be. I used to walk a minimum of three miles a day. Every day. Now I skip it one or two days a week, most weeks.
  #27  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:25 PM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Btw me and a few others I know are on psychiatric medications such as clozapine. I used to be about the skinniest guy in school but now my body is good except for my belly. I know a girl on that medication who is about 200 pounds with a 46 inch waist. The rest of her body is quite normal. If a medication can lead to a specific type of fat gain (visceral) I think visceral fat could be lost in a targeted way somehow.

Last edited by JohnClay; 10-07-2013 at 08:26 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:25 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post
If you do a google search for lose belly fat there are lots of results.... i.e. it seems that that kind of fat can be targeted.
If you do a Google search for "the Loch Ness Monster exists" there are lots of results. The problem is that they are all wrong. Same with targeted weight loss. It doesn't work, never has, never will.
  #29  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:27 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post
Like someone said in a post here exercise could help
No it can't because that's not how fat is burned. Exercise builds muscles in a specific location but it burns fat from everywhere.
  #30  
Old 10-07-2013, 08:48 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 43,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asympotically fat View Post
This may be getting into IMHO territory, but for me I've found that weight gain/weight loss is very much a matter of how much I eat.
And how old are you? When I was in my 20s I ate pretty much whatever I wanted to eat, in any quantity, and I got very little exercise. I was somewhat overweight, but not anywhere near obese. Now, four decades later, I eat almost exclusively lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains . . . everything I know I should be eating . . . and I still get very little exercise, and I weigh about 70 lbs. more than in my 20s. So neither the quantity nor the quality of food is the deciding factor. The only factor that has changed for the worse is my age.
  #31  
Old 10-07-2013, 09:02 PM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
No it can't because that's not how fat is burned. Exercise builds muscles in a specific location but it burns fat from everywhere.
I wonder if it really burns both types of fat at an equal rate.... (subcutaneous vs visceral)
  #32  
Old 10-07-2013, 10:02 PM
astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,151
One thing I have found over decades of on and off dieting and accurate calorie counting is how variable metabolisms are between individuals. I workout at least 3x a week intensively and am fairly active and muscular, but I only burn about 10 calories lb of body weight per day. Other people require 11-12-13 and I'm sure there are people who can get by on less than I require ratio-wise. While these do not sound like huge differentials they can amount to huge differences in body weight over time given similar starting points.

You can count calories all day long (and I do) but your metabolic clock is going to rule the roost in the end with respect to what you can afford to intake. Fat people often don't have to eat that much more on a daily basis to maintain obese weight levels. One extra 400 calorie BK Whopper Jr burger during the day would be enough to maintain 40 lbs of excess fat. And these are the smaller burgers calorie-wise. It all adds up.

Last edited by astro; 10-07-2013 at 10:05 PM.
  #33  
Old 10-07-2013, 11:24 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It is true. But it is also a fundamental truth that exercise makes it harder to reduce intake, because it stimulates the appetite.
Anecdotally, this is not my experience. On the contrary, I find it easier to maintain a reduced-calorie intake when I'm following a vigorous exercise program, and much harder if I'm just doing my regular lifestyle of walking a mile or two every other day or so.

Now, I don't claim to be able to run marathons on an 800-calories-per-day diet, and I'm certainly no medical miracle. But "you will find it harder to undereat if you exercise more" is one of those statements, like "if you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight", that isn't uniformly applicable to all people in all circumstances without considerable qualification.

While in an extreme interpretation it may apply to everybody (e.g., a true starvation diet will make everybody lose weight and a grueling workout several hours a day will make everybody hungrier), in a more moderate form it may be experienced very differently by different people.

Body chemistry, state of mind, and other factors make it very tricky to predict for any given individual exactly what form a moderately rigorous weight-loss regimen should take in order to be adequately effective without being insupportably burdensome. If they could reliably figure that out, there wouldn't be all these different diet books and all these people getting frustrated with diets not working.
  #34  
Old 10-08-2013, 03:52 AM
AaronX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Your body burns fat however it likes, you can't spot reduce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Monkey View Post
There is no way to target where your fat loss comes off.
Ok there seems to be (objective, studied) consensus on this. But how about fat GAIN? Does anything affect where you gain fat? Why do we have terms like "beer belly"?
  #35  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:04 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronX View Post
Ok there seems to be (objective, studied) consensus on this. But how about fat GAIN? Does anything affect where you gain fat? Why do we have terms like "beer belly"?
It's not just that there is a location for the fat... there are two different types of fat! (subcutaneous vs visceral)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Adipose_tissue
Visceral fat was recently discovered to be a significant producer of signaling chemicals (i.e., hormones), among which several are involved in inflammatory tissue responses. One of these is resistin which has been linked to obesity, insulin resistance, and Type 2 diabetes

http://measureup.gov.au/internet/abh...+measure+up-lp
....irrespective of your height or build, if your waistline is getting bigger it could mean you are at increased risk of developing a chronic disease such as some cancers, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

The waist measurement has a lot to do with visceral fat. I know fat people who have big thighs and huge butts but their belly isn't very big. Skinny people with big bellies apparently have a bigger health risk.

Last edited by JohnClay; 10-08-2013 at 04:08 AM.
  #36  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:09 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Monkey View Post
That may be so, but you still cannot target specific areas for fat reduction.
Well, assuming that low stress = relatively more visceral fat is burned, then one could target such fat by trying to reduce stress while dieting.
  #37  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:12 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
BTW there is also a thing called Waist-hip ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

I know two obese women who would have two very different ratios. One has a huge butt and hips and a not very fat belly. The other has a pretty slim butt and hips but a 46 inch waist. The doctor said that she was at risk of diabetes (like what my previous post mentioned).

Last edited by JohnClay; 10-08-2013 at 04:16 AM.
  #38  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:22 AM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
BTW
http://measureup.gov.au/internet/abh...yself-lp#waist
Greatly increased risk:
Men: more than 102 centimetres
Women: more than 88 centimetres


That's 40 inches for mens' waists and 34.6 inches for womens' waists....
  #39  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:40 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
If you do a Google search for "the Loch Ness Monster exists" there are lots of results. The problem is that they are all wrong. Same with targeted weight loss. It doesn't work, never has, never will.
I don't see how you can be so sure.

Do you agree that there are bona fide scientific studies out there which suggest there is a relationship between stress and fat distribution?
  #40  
Old 10-08-2013, 04:50 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
And how old are you? When I was in my 20s I ate pretty much whatever I wanted to eat, in any quantity, and I got very little exercise. I was somewhat overweight, but not anywhere near obese. Now, four decades later, I eat almost exclusively lean protein, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains . . . everything I know I should be eating . . . and I still get very little exercise, and I weigh about 70 lbs. more than in my 20s.
Unless you kept very careful records, it's hard to really know. I would guess that most people would have trouble estimating their energy consumption from last week, let alone from 40 years ago.
  #41  
Old 10-08-2013, 06:13 AM
elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Anecdotally, this is not my experience. On the contrary, I find it easier to maintain a reduced-calorie intake when I'm following a vigorous exercise program, and much harder if I'm just doing my regular lifestyle of walking a mile or two every other day or so.
Me too, but exercise doesn't make me hungry because it makes me nauseous. So I'm willing to concede that people who say it makes them hungrier probably are telling the truth.
  #42  
Old 10-08-2013, 07:43 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I don't see how you can be so sure.

Do you agree that there are bona fide scientific studies out there which suggest there is a relationship between stress and fat distribution?
Fair point, there are studies that show some correlation and I'm not up to speed on them.

But the OP appears to be asking about specific exercises or diet to reduce belly fat, and so far there is nothing to suggest any way to do that. You can reduce overall body fat and if your body releases belly fat last then it'll be the last part of your body to become lean.
  #43  
Old 10-08-2013, 12:17 PM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Fair point, there are studies that show some correlation and I'm not up to speed on them.

But the OP appears to be asking about specific exercises or diet to reduce belly fat, and so far there is nothing to suggest any way to do that.
Given that stress might play a role, I would consider a diet and exercise regime designed to minimize stress during weight loss, for example a balanced diet with only a moderate calorie deficit -- like 4-5 hundred per day, combined with daily yoga and a relaxing cup of hot tea after each meal.

I don't have a study to back up my proposal, but on the other hand there isn't much downside to it.
  #44  
Old 10-08-2013, 01:46 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I don't have a study to back up my proposal, but on the other hand there isn't much downside to it.
I can't argue with that. But I suspect the difference substituting a nap for the yoga would be pretty difficult to measure in weight loss.
  #45  
Old 10-08-2013, 10:02 PM
JohnClay is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
....But the OP appears to be asking about specific exercises or diet to reduce belly fat, and so far there is nothing to suggest any way to do that.....
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/up...about-it.shtml
....The good news is that visceral fat yields fairly easily to exercise and diet,....

http://www.prevention.com/weight-los...eral-belly-fat
....What also distinguishes the Flat Belly Diet is that it targets the second type of fat—visceral—which is much more dangerous and difficult to lose.....

I've heard that magazines like Prevention aren't very accurate though that first link had "Harvard" in the title...

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/body/visceral-fat.html
...Harvard University states that diet and exercise have been to be more effective at reducing visceral fat than the fat around our hips and thighs....

BTW that page also said this:
....Liposuction only removes subcutaneous fat and therefore should not be undertaken as a procedure for improving health.....

I thought that might have been a possibility to help that woman with a huge belly.
  #46  
Old 10-09-2013, 05:21 AM
Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronX View Post
Ok there seems to be (objective, studied) consensus on this. But how about fat GAIN? Does anything affect where you gain fat? Why do we have terms like "beer belly"?

Its just the same. There is no fat cell differentiation,
it may be in the heart muscle more or less than on the belly or bum.

Men drink beer , and men tend to put fat onto their belly first (or mostly).


Some guys have fat legs and no huge belly.
  #47  
Old 10-09-2013, 06:05 AM
Darth Panda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 5,681
This is from what I would consider a reliable source, WebMD, quoting an expert in the field:

Quote:
So when you lose weight, what kind or kinds of fat do you shed? "You're losing white fat," Fried tells WebMD. "People tend to lose evenly all over."

The results change a bit, however, if you add workouts to your calorie reduction, she says. "If you exercise plus diet you will tend to lose slightly more visceral fat from your belly."

"We're at an exciting point in science," says Whitmer, echoing the input from other scientists in the field.

Whitmer and others expect more discoveries about fat of all types to be made in the near future.
(bolding mine)

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/t...out-fat?page=3

The person being quoted is
Quote:
Susan Fried, PhD, director of the Boston Obesity and Nutrition Research Center at Boston University
and the article was reviewed by Louise Chang, MD.

Quote:
Chang completed her undergraduate degree at Stanford University and attended medical school at New York Medical College. She completed her internal medicine residency at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City, where she also served as a chief resident. Prior to joining WebMD, Dr. Chang served as an attending physician at Grady Memorial Hospital and faculty of the Emory University School of Medicine. She currently is adjunct assistant professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine.

Last edited by Darth Panda; 10-09-2013 at 06:08 AM.
  #48  
Old 10-09-2013, 09:05 AM
brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
Its just the same. There is no fat cell differentiation,
it may be in the heart muscle more or less than on the belly or bum.

Men drink beer , and men tend to put fat onto their belly first (or mostly).
I did a Google search on alcohol and visceral fat and found this study among other things.

Quote:
Alcohol Drinking Patterns Differentially Affect Central Adiposity as Measured by Abdominal Height in Women and Men
Central adiposity = belly fat AFAIK.
  #49  
Old 10-09-2013, 09:46 AM
SerafinaPekala is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rsveräsçutrå
Posts: 922

Secretagogues


The trick for me was to trigger the IGF (insulin growth factor) and hGH. Many ways to do this but fasting after 7p, exercise in short high intensity bursts (HIIT) and taking secretagogues (GIYF) did it finally for me.

I take glutamine 2000mg po on empty stomach at bedtime for 6 months, then switch to GrowthFactor9 for 6 months.

I dont eat eggs, gluten, sugar or sugar subs, soy, peanuts, or dairy. Its essentially the Virgin Diet and I take the protein powder drink for brek mixed with colostrum powder, greens powder and royal jelly.

I only eat meat, veggies, quinoa and fruits and lots of water and green tea. Believe me its not that hard and its self-perpetuating once you realize how much better your body works this way.

YMMV of course, just sharing what works for me.
  #50  
Old 10-09-2013, 10:02 AM
Lucas Jackson's Avatar
Lucas Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post
If you do a google search for lose belly fat there are lots of results.... i.e. it seems that that kind of fat can be targeted.
I have my ACE certification and have worked at various health clubs during my life. Despite the preponderance of websites, ads and fascination with belly fat there is no way to target it in any meaningful way. It's a national obsession. Think of all the 'ab-buster' type devises there are ads and infomercials for. If there was a way to target belly fat, it would be well known. From a practical standpoint spot reducing will not work, period.

Look at the link in Darth Panda's post. "Exercise plus diet" is the best thing you can do. But that's standard advice and it will pull fat from your body in the reverse order your body put it on.

BTW, in my experience exercise does not stimulate appetite.
Reply

Bookmarks

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017