Underlying factors influencing where your body decides to distribute/remove fat

[Coaster1214]

Now before i start, yes generally the consensus is you cant spot reduce fat you can only lose overall bf%. now this is true so lets not get any confusion around that general consensus.
however with that being said do you think (APART FROM GENETICS) there are any other factors that might sway the distribution of bodyfat (in terms of either storing or losing)
for example why is it that we humans store most fat around the belly? because it is the most energy-saving favourable area due to being the centre of gravity. hence those with this gene had a better chance of surviving hence passed down their genes etc..
but as we know if you lose say 10lb of fat, then regain the 10lb of fat. it you wont look the same, ie the fat has been distributed differently. same goes for losing fat.
now from reading many anecdotal posts, many people who partake in cycling during their cut complain they "lost size in their legs, calves especially" now could this loss of fat (and some muscle) be somewhat influenced by the activity of cycling due to the fact that you whole body is pretty much stationary except your legs hence any fat weight stored there would not be energy-saving favourable.
now just to summarize i AM NOT contradicting the simple rules of "calories in vs calories out" or that you cant spot reduce fat. so being in a weekly deficit of 3500 cals will always equal a pound of fat lost,however do you think certain actions could possibly skew the ratios of where that pound is being taken from around your body?

thanks

[libtolu]

In4 answer

[Winfamy]

Also in for an answer supported by studies.

With no scientific proof, from what I've seen, I'd say if you lose 10 pounds of fat they'd be chosen based solely on your genetics and would be the same 10 pounds no matter what kind of activities you took part in. I assume the only influence the kind of activity you have will have is in regards to the ratio of fat to muscle lost.

/broscience

[dmacdonal9]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

[ademyster]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. I will rep you once I am off spread.

[Tommy W.]

It's all genetics. We can second guess it all we want to try to change and challenge it but we get what we get.

[Coaster1214]

It's all genetics. We can second guess it all we want to try to change and challenge it but we get what we get.

read the above article, it seems my original post wasn't too far off. the type of exercise seems to slightly influence the local site of fat loss.

[Tommy W.]

read the above article, it seems my original post wasn't too far off. the type of exercise seems to slightly influence the local site of fat loss.

I can read all the articles in the world and it won't change basic physiology

[stefanuus]

dunno brah but i know that if i lose fat and then regain it i dont look the same despite having the same muscle mass. Use to think it was just water retention or something but am starting to wonder now

[Coaster1214]

I can read all the articles in the world and it won't change basic physiology

that makes no sense at all, a study was carried showing a correlation between location of lipolysis and the exercise performed to burn those calories.
you cant just turn a blind eye to actual study results. "basic physiology" as you call it was built upon observing correlation from a wealth of tests. thats how science progresses, we conduct a study and observe the results then come to conclusions. so how can you just dismiss this study because it seems to go against what is generally thought to be correct? im not suddenly saying you can spot reduce fat because that is very misleading but you cant deny that the results on the study suggest we can SLIGHTLY influence the location of where our body takes the fat from

[Coaster1214]

dunno brah but i know that if i lose fat and then regain it i dont look the same despite having the same muscle mass. Use to think it was just water retention or something but am starting to wonder now

yh exactly, if the distribution/redistribtution/reduction of bodyfat was simply based on genetic only and not influenced by any of our actions then we should look exactly the same if we lose 20lb then regain it. and from so many analogies that never see,s to be the case

[truushot]

The problem with the theory is that so many store fat in different ways. Guys complain about different body parts storing fat. Sometimes its the face, or butt usually its in the belly and chest. Some guys have no chest fat etc... What was the percentage increase from targeting a specific area? It was such a tiny number to make it mostly meaningless. Of course doing some exercises with lean out different parts of your body but are you really loosing more fat from those areas? The areas that you can work a lot more, arms and legs at least for most guys, don't carry a lot of fat as compared to the torso. They can also gain muscle mass that is far more noticeable which would further tighten the skin.

If you have to exercise 300 minutes to gain an additional 1g of fat loss from an area, and there is 4440g in a pound of fat. Well, you do the math.

[Tommy W.]

that makes no sense at all, a study was carried showing a correlation between location of lipolysis and the exercise performed to burn those calories.
you cant just turn a blind eye to actual study results. "basic physiology" as you call it was built upon observing correlation from a wealth of tests. thats how science progresses, we conduct a study and observe the results then come to conclusions. so how can you just dismiss this study because it seems to go against what is generally thought to be correct? im not suddenly saying you can spot reduce fat because that is very misleading but you cant deny that the results on the study suggest we can SLIGHTLY influence the location of where our body takes the fat from

SLIGHTLY (in caps) is the take home point. And even THAT is questionable.When people chase something that makes a miniscule difference they're usually forgoing the bigger picture which will generally be more advantageous.

Just because someone writes an article about something doesn't validate it as an absolute. A good example is the fasted cardio debate.

[dmacdonal9]

If you have to exercise 300 minutes to gain an additional 1g of fat loss from an area, and there is 4440g in a pound of fat. Well, you do the math.

Yeah, that was the whole point of the thing. While it's true that localized exercise can improve blood flow and hence burn more fat in that specific area, the actual amount burned is way below any kind of meaningful threshold.

I think it's a great example of how we often fail to take into account the magnitude of an effect. It's way to easy to gloss over the actual numbers. If it's too small an effect to notice, then there's very little point in paying any attention to it.

[Tommy W.]

Yeah, that was the whole point of the thing. While it's true that localized exercise can improve blood flow and hence burn more fat in that specific area, the actual amount burned is way below any kind of meaningful threshold.

I think it's a great example of how we often fail to take into account the magnitude of an effect. It's way to easy to gloss over the actual numbers. If it's too small an effect to notice, then there's very little point in paying any attention to it.

This^^^^^

[acrawlingchaos]

read the above article, it seems my original post wasn't too far off. the type of exercise seems to slightly influence the local site of fat loss.

Did you read the entire article?

And, so far as I’m concerned, that should be the death knell for the idea of spot reduction. Yes, there appears to be an effect whereby working a given muscle impacts on local fat cell metabolism but the effect is completely and utterly irrelevant in quantatitive terms. The amount of fat mobilized due to increased hormones or blood flow is simply insignificant to anything in the real world

[Coaster1214]

if i'm honest, no.
my bad guys...embarrasing

[Tommy W.]

Coaster you'll find we're a tough crowd. Never anything personal.

[Rupert IV]

I've often thought that since the body is clearly extremely good at adapting to a regularly performed exercise, to the point where the performance goes from being energy inefficient to very energy efficient, perhaps there is a way of targetting fat by performing exercises in which the targetted area of fat is a barrier against efficiency. It would make sense then for the body to prioritise disposal of that fat in order for it to be able to perform the exercise more efficiently.

This thought process came from my own experience of taking up running. I had previously stored a lot of fat around my mid-riff and chest. This fat did seem to 'get in the way' when running, much more so than it did when performing other forms of exercise, and indeed i do feel that i lost more fat from those areas after i started running than I had done previously.

I posted this theory up on here a couple of years ago, and was quickly shot down by the conventional 'can't spot reduce' wisdom.

[Holowitz]

While It seems you can't spot reduce fat reduction I do believe there are some factors that contribute to where fat is stored on the body when you're in a surplus. A class I was in looked at a study that showed that high levels of chronic stress lead to higher fat storage specifically in the abdominal region due to higher levels of cortisol. I can't find a link to the study now though, so don't take this as fact.

I doubt lowering your stress levels will have any effect on body composition while in a cut but when your bulking it can't hurt do try and avoid stress. I'd be interested to see a study of stress and body fat done on fit individuals and see how much it actually effects body composition. For general purposes for people in this forum though this probably has a negligible effect.