Do u find the "Cannot spot reduce" theory a bit misleading?

[richie83]

Assumptions:

1.BF% is not significantly high levels (14% or under)
2. Diet is in check and calorie deficit maintained

I think the whole "Cannot Spot Reduce" theory is a bit misleading. It somewhat implies that there is no point in working your abdominal muscles and the only way you'll get crisp abs is by lowering your bf%. I disagree. I think you have to have BOTH - engaging the ab muscles AND significantly lowering bf%. I hate it when ppl ask questions like should I do deadlifts and squats to lose my tummy and all the answers they get is "cannot spot reduce sorry"....which is TRUE but only HALF TRUTH. You ALSO need to work your core! (Provided you are close to 14% bf or less; No point if you are like 25% bf).


I'll give u an analogy...When I was 20% bf I had flabby arms and no definition in chest...Now I have better definition in both. I did lose bf (13% now) BUT I ALSO worked them consistently. Had I lost body fat through cardio and eating enough protein I doubt I'd see the same definition in my biceps and pecs.....correct?

So by the same analogy, is it not correct to WORK your abdominal section IN ADDITION to losing Fat to see visible abs? (I am not talking about someone with a huge gut...but rather someone with 12-14% bf and a layer of fat left).

Correct me if I am wrong...but IMO, it's EASY to engage biceps and chest and legs because they are muscles that can be EASILY WORKED...by easily worked I mean...it's easier to move them under resistance. We have more control over them because they are external limbs...not an integral part of the body such as abdomen. It'd be hard to curl your abs (with the same intensity as your biceps) in a similar fashion. Therefore we do exercises like crunches, deadlifts, squats etc to engage the ab muscles as much as we can...i.e. thru compound exercises. Crunches would only work to show abs if body fat % is significantly low...because even though you might get abs thru crunches, they will be hidden under the layer of fat....hence the "cannot spot reduce" theory. Usually biceps and pecs are lower bf% to begin with and therefore most ppl see definition there before in the core region (and also the fact that those muscles can be easily worked).



So Working your core + losing bf% = great six pack

Only losing bf% (thru lifting and cardio but not so much ab work) = measly abs



What do u guys think?


P.S. I am down to 13% bf now and still a layer of fat left. Won't give up until I see those 6 (or 8) pack lol.

[bigollie2006]

I think its implied you work your abs if you are working out in the first place so that shouldnt be an issue. No, you cannot spot reduce.

[richie83]

It's not always implied when you get answers like "don't bother doing ab exercises..u need to lose body fat..u cannot spot reduce"

which is true but only half truth

I believe once you get down to 10-11% BF you CAN spot reduce by doing isolation exercises. So it's your existing bf% that determines whether you can or cannot spot reduce.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gx7Pyro]

i think you might not know what spot reducing is...(or at least, what i believe spot reducing is...)

of course you need to work your abs and have a low bodyfat % in order to have a 6 pack. the reason why people say you dont need to directly hit your abs for a 6 pack is because your core is being used for many lifts. in order to perform most compound lifts (deadlifts/squats/bench/pullups/etc) you NEED a strong core. try squatting your max without flexing your abs - trust me, you wont be able to do it. most lifters will have abs - its almost a given. what they need is to lose bodyfat. so isolating their abs will have little/no benefit.

the spot reduce theory is more like "by doing crunches, i will lose the fat on my stomach". it is usually seen as incorrect - by doing crunches, you will gain muscle on the stomach. losing the fat is an entire different story.

[bakyhama]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being unable to "spot reduce" as it is a matter of being able to "spot grow".

You cannot spot reduce fat. That is, you can't target a specific body region and say "I'm going to lose fat from my ass and ONLY from my ass" and magically train and not lose fat anywhere else. We all have our predisposed fat distributions and as you burn fat, it will come off everywhere at proportionally appropriate rates.

What you CAN do however it target a specific muscle to grow. If I looked at my arms and said "I'm going to beef up my arms and nowhere else", I would actually be able to do it. I can spot increase a muscle, I cannot spot reduce fat.

Now suppose I am 100lbs with 10% bodyfat. Now let's say that due to my genetic distribution, I have 5 lbs of fat in my arms and 5 lbs of fat in my legs for an even 50/50 split (bear with me). If I keep the 10 lbs of total fat on my body, I can't change my fat distribution and make it 4lbs on my arms and 6 on my legs and so on. But, I CAN beef up one muscle group such that the ratio of muscle to fat on that particular muscle group is very skewed.

So to continue the example...Lets say my arms have 20lbs of muscle and my legs have 30lbs. Both still have 5 lbs of fat. If I completely ignored my legs for a few years and ONLY trained arms such that my arms eventually grew to 40lbs and my legs shrank to 10 lbs, what do you think I'd look like (aside from freaking stupid)?

Since the regional fat to muscle ratio in my arms went in favor of muscle, my arms will undoubtedly look leaner and veinier. The same amount of fat now has to distribute itself over twice as much arm muscle, thus thinning itself out. The reverse would be true for my legs. They would look fatter than ever. At first glance, you could say "o hay u spot reduced ur armz mang", which is incorrect. The absolute amount of fat is still the same (5 lbs). But the regional relative amount of fat greatly reduced, resulting in a leaner looking arm.

So in regards to spot reducing belly fat...it just so happens that most people are predisposed to carrying a large amount of fat around the belly. Additionally, the ab muscles dont exactly grow in the same explosive manner that the chest, arms, and legs do. As such, while someone may cut their bodyfat in half, the fact of the matter is that the regional fat to muscle ratio in the abdominal region may still be horrendously skewed towards fat.

I think you are correct in saying that you need to do ab work as well as reduce bodyfat in order to really bring out the abs. But I personally don't believe that you can "spot reduce". I think you just need to work the muscles and lose the fat to make the ratios favorable.

Sorry for long post, that's just my 2c.

[ALLUCANEATRIBS]

wait, what? doesnt everyone do a ****load of ab work?

[richie83]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being unable to "spot reduce" as it is a matter of being able to "spot grow".

You cannot spot reduce fat. That is, you can't target a specific body region and say "I'm going to lose fat from my ass and ONLY from my ass" and magically train and not lose fat anywhere else. We all have our predisposed fat distributions and as you burn fat, it will come off everywhere at proportionally appropriate rates.

What you CAN do however it target a specific muscle to grow. If I looked at my arms and said "I'm going to beef up my arms and nowhere else", I would actually be able to do it. I can spot increase a muscle, I cannot spot reduce fat.

Now suppose I am 100lbs with 10% bodyfat. Now let's say that due to my genetic distribution, I have 5 lbs of fat in my arms and 5 lbs of fat in my legs for an even 50/50 split (bear with me). If I keep the 10 lbs of total fat on my body, I can't change my fat distribution and make it 4lbs on my arms and 6 on my legs and so on. But, I CAN beef up one muscle group such that the ratio of muscle to fat on that particular muscle group is very skewed.

So to continue the example...Lets say my arms have 20lbs of muscle and my legs have 30lbs. Both still have 5 lbs of fat. If I completely ignored my legs for a few years and ONLY trained arms such that my arms eventually grew to 40lbs and my legs shrank to 10 lbs, what do you think I'd look like (aside from freaking stupid)?

Since the regional fat to muscle ratio in my arms went in favor of muscle, my arms will undoubtedly look leaner and veinier. The same amount of fat now has to distribute itself over twice as much arm muscle, thus thinning itself out. The reverse would be true for my legs. They would look fatter than ever. At first glance, you could say "o hay u spot reduced ur armz mang", which is incorrect. The absolute amount of fat is still the same (5 lbs). But the regional relative amount of fat greatly reduced, resulting in a leaner looking arm.

So in regards to spot reducing belly fat...it just so happens that most people are predisposed to carrying a large amount of fat around the belly. Additionally, the ab muscles dont exactly grow in the same explosive manner that the chest, arms, and legs do. As such, while someone may cut their bodyfat in half, the fact of the matter is that the regional fat to muscle ratio in the abdominal region may still be horrendously skewed towards fat.

I think you are correct in saying that you need to do ab work as well as reduce bodyfat in order to really bring out the abs. But I personally don't believe that you can "spot reduce". I think you just need to work the muscles and lose the fat to make the ratios favorable.

Sorry for long post, that's just my 2c.

Great reply and you put some things correctly which I couldn't. Reps on recharge.

[psiconoclast]

This is a classic case of overcorrection. Unscrupulous marketers spent years lying to people, basically telling them that they could lose fat in the places they wanted to lose it, which has so irked the community, that the moment anyone talks about doing targeted exercises, it generates this reflexive "no such thing as spot reduction" response.

Fat looks bad. That same amount of fat, over an increased amount of muscle tends to look better. A little bit less fat overall, with significant increases in muscle in "weak" areas looks even better.

At the risk of getting yelled at, however, I do believe that there may be an important caveat to the whole "no spot reduction" thing. I've personally been up and down, weight wise, most of my adult life. In the past, when I worked on losing weight, I cut calories and increased exercise, which did result in weight loss. This time, however, I have added a whole "stress management" component to my weight loss. I'm only a sample of one, and I'm older, and eating better than I did before, so it is far from conclusive, but I strongly suspect that focusing on busting my stress is having an impact on how rapidly and where I am losing fat. To be clear, this isn't spot reduction in classic sense, but for men who are dealing with trunk fat, I would definitely encourage them to add a stress management component to their plan.

[msm00b]

So Working your core + losing bf% = great six pack

Only losing bf% (thru lifting and cardio but not so much ab work) = measly abs

-Actively working/stressing muscles on a routine basis causes hypertrophy.
-Abs are muscles, working them causes hypertrophy.
-Hypertrophy leads to increased visibility/definition at higher BF percentages and improved overall visible physique when lean.

None of this changes the basic principle that you can't spot reduce fat. You can't wake up one day and say "I think I'll burn some of the fat off my ass". You can do squats/lunges and run your happy little ass to hell and back, but that fat's gonna come off your body more or less globally (affected beyond that by genetics and gender - everyone has a tendency to store their last pockets in certain places).

What you CAN control is precisely what you hint at: how your body looks while carrying a static volume of fat or what the end results are once you finall burn off the fat. Working your abs will make them look that much better once you hit your BF% goal, and working them will help them be visible sooner. Beyond that, having a strong core is central to nearly every athlete regardless of their field or goal. Anyone who doesn't actively doing something to strengthen their core is setting themselves up for injury. This doesn't mean you need to be pounding out crunches ad infinitum ... you just need to be doing something that keeps them in reasonable shape. Lots of the large compound lifts done in the gym help work your core and lower back, along with several of the various cardio exercises out there.

[JerryB]

You cannot spot reduce. If you are correct why don’t you see your 6 peak now? Weight training is an anaerobic activity. Your muscles do not obtain energy for resistance exercises by using the subcutaneous fat in the area near the muscle. Your body used the subcutaneous fat in your arms and chest for energy to get you through the day on a reduced caloric diet. When those areas are depleted your body with seek other areas of subcutaneous fat if you continue your reduced calorie intake. The pattern varies between individuals. In my case as in many others the abs and the glutes is the last area for a reduction in subcutaneous fat. Belly fat, visceral fat, is also a source of energy when you are on a diet.

[JerryB]

It's not always implied when you get answers like "don't bother doing ab exercises..u need to lose body fat..u cannot spot reduce"

which is true but only half truth

I believe once you get down to 10-11% BF you CAN spot reduce by doing isolation exercises. So it's your existing bf% that determines whether you can or cannot spot reduce.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm at 7.3% body fat. I cannot spot reduce fat. Isolation exercises will not result in spot fat reduction. Muscles do not use the subcutaneous fat in the skin near the muscles for energy. A basic understanding of muscle physiology and muscle metabolism will make this obvious to you. The internet is a great avenue to learn without purchasing expensive textbooks.

[JerryB]

wait, what? doesnt everyone do a ****load of ab work?

No. I work my abs maybe twice a month.

[critterbug]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being unable to "spot reduce" as it is a matter of being able to "spot grow".

You cannot spot reduce fat. That is, you can't target a specific body region and say "I'm going to lose fat from my ass and ONLY from my ass" and magically train and not lose fat anywhere else. We all have our predisposed fat distributions and as you burn fat, it will come off everywhere at proportionally appropriate rates.

What you CAN do however it target a specific muscle to grow. If I looked at my arms and said "I'm going to beef up my arms and nowhere else", I would actually be able to do it. I can spot increase a muscle, I cannot spot reduce fat.

Now suppose I am 100lbs with 10% bodyfat. Now let's say that due to my genetic distribution, I have 5 lbs of fat in my arms and 5 lbs of fat in my legs for an even 50/50 split (bear with me). If I keep the 10 lbs of total fat on my body, I can't change my fat distribution and make it 4lbs on my arms and 6 on my legs and so on. But, I CAN beef up one muscle group such that the ratio of muscle to fat on that particular muscle group is very skewed.

So to continue the example...Lets say my arms have 20lbs of muscle and my legs have 30lbs. Both still have 5 lbs of fat. If I completely ignored my legs for a few years and ONLY trained arms such that my arms eventually grew to 40lbs and my legs shrank to 10 lbs, what do you think I'd look like (aside from freaking stupid)?

Since the regional fat to muscle ratio in my arms went in favor of muscle, my arms will undoubtedly look leaner and veinier. The same amount of fat now has to distribute itself over twice as much arm muscle, thus thinning itself out. The reverse would be true for my legs. They would look fatter than ever. At first glance, you could say "o hay u spot reduced ur armz mang", which is incorrect. The absolute amount of fat is still the same (5 lbs). But the regional relative amount of fat greatly reduced, resulting in a leaner looking arm.

So in regards to spot reducing belly fat...it just so happens that most people are predisposed to carrying a large amount of fat around the belly. Additionally, the ab muscles dont exactly grow in the same explosive manner that the chest, arms, and legs do. As such, while someone may cut their bodyfat in half, the fact of the matter is that the regional fat to muscle ratio in the abdominal region may still be horrendously skewed towards fat.

I think you are correct in saying that you need to do ab work as well as reduce bodyfat in order to really bring out the abs. But I personally don't believe that you can "spot reduce". I think you just need to work the muscles and lose the fat to make the ratios favorable.

Sorry for long post, that's just my 2c.

Get out! Excellent explanation!

[Shredded-Wolf]

It's not always implied when you get answers like "don't bother doing ab exercises..u need to lose body fat..u cannot spot reduce"

which is true but only half truth

I believe once you get down to 10-11% BF you CAN spot reduce by doing isolation exercises. So it's your existing bf% that determines whether you can or cannot spot reduce.

Just my 2 cents.

That would be your muscles getting bigger... pushing on the skin.

[JerryB]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being unable to "spot reduce" as it is a matter of being able to "spot grow".

You cannot spot reduce fat. That is, you can't target a specific body region and say "I'm going to lose fat from my ass and ONLY from my ass" and magically train and not lose fat anywhere else. We all have our predisposed fat distributions and as you burn fat, it will come off everywhere at proportionally appropriate rates.

What you CAN do however it target a specific muscle to grow. If I looked at my arms and said "I'm going to beef up my arms and nowhere else", I would actually be able to do it. I can spot increase a muscle, I cannot spot reduce fat.

Now suppose I am 100lbs with 10% bodyfat. Now let's say that due to my genetic distribution, I have 5 lbs of fat in my arms and 5 lbs of fat in my legs for an even 50/50 split (bear with me). If I keep the 10 lbs of total fat on my body, I can't change my fat distribution and make it 4lbs on my arms and 6 on my legs and so on. But, I CAN beef up one muscle group such that the ratio of muscle to fat on that particular muscle group is very skewed.

So to continue the example...Lets say my arms have 20lbs of muscle and my legs have 30lbs. Both still have 5 lbs of fat. If I completely ignored my legs for a few years and ONLY trained arms such that my arms eventually grew to 40lbs and my legs shrank to 10 lbs, what do you think I'd look like (aside from freaking stupid)?

Since the regional fat to muscle ratio in my arms went in favor of muscle, my arms will undoubtedly look leaner and veinier. The same amount of fat now has to distribute itself over twice as much arm muscle, thus thinning itself out. The reverse would be true for my legs. They would look fatter than ever. At first glance, you could say "o hay u spot reduced ur armz mang", which is incorrect. The absolute amount of fat is still the same (5 lbs). But the regional relative amount of fat greatly reduced, resulting in a leaner looking arm.

So in regards to spot reducing belly fat...it just so happens that most people are predisposed to carrying a large amount of fat around the belly. Additionally, the ab muscles dont exactly grow in the same explosive manner that the chest, arms, and legs do. As such, while someone may cut their bodyfat in half, the fact of the matter is that the regional fat to muscle ratio in the abdominal region may still be horrendously skewed towards fat.

I think you are correct in saying that you need to do ab work as well as reduce bodyfat in order to really bring out the abs. But I personally don't believe that you can "spot reduce". I think you just need to work the muscles and lose the fat to make the ratios favorable.

Sorry for long post, that's just my 2c.

Showing your abs is about reducing your total body fat. Genetically I guess through evolution the abdominal and glutes area are the last areas of subcutaneous fat the body seeks for energy when it adapts to a reduction in caloric intake. In regards to your arms and leg analogy , I have seen guys who never worked they legs and only worked their arms. Their arms got bigger but were still fat. The change in regional fat is a function of how the body selects area for energy when you are not intake in sufficient calories. When I diet for a contest the first place I notice fat loss is my face.

[bah01001]

what your saying is true, you need to work the abs to build them regardless of what BF% you are currently at so when you do lose the fat, they will be well developed.

Spot reducing is really what you mean in your OP...this is simply implying me doing a 1000000 sit ups every day will make the fat go away in my abdominal region, which is FALSE

Yes, it will develop my abs but when it boils down to it,my body decides where I lose my body fat and the order that I lose it....

[avx81]

Showing your abs is about reducing your total body fat. Genetically I guess through evolution the abdominal and glutes area are the last areas of subcutaneous fat the body seeks for energy when it adapts to a reduction in caloric intake. In regards to your arms and leg analogy , I have seen guys who never worked they legs and only worked their arms. Their arms got bigger but were still fat. The change in regional fat is a function of how the body selects area for energy when you are not intake in sufficient calories. When I diet for a contest the first place I notice fat loss is my face.

Not to sure about that. I knew a guy that had a pretty big gut, round face, etc. For some reason his legs and calves specifically looked pretty ripped. Muscle definition was good and you could see the veins running through them. Maybe its all the hiking and riding that he was doing in previous years. I know some guys in the gym that are ripped and yet their legs don't look nearly as good. Maybe he was just a freak or there's a little more to it than we all think.

[im12watisthis]

developing your abdominal muscles and reducing belly fat are completely different things. That's like saying curls reduce arm fat.

[JerryB]

Not to sure about that. I knew a guy that had a pretty big gut, round face, etc. For some reason his legs and calves specifically looked pretty ripped. Muscle definition was good and you could see the veins running through them. Maybe its all the hiking and riding that he was doing in previous years. I know some guys in the gym that are ripped and yet their legs don't look nearly as good. Maybe he was just a freak or there's a little more to it than we all think.

I know my command does not apply to all cases. I just observed it when I once trained primarily at a commmerical gym. I currently train in my gargage.

[Da_Jtac_0]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being unable to "spot reduce" as it is a matter of being able to "spot grow".

You cannot spot reduce fat. That is, you can't target a specific body region and say "I'm going to lose fat from my ass and ONLY from my ass" and magically train and not lose fat anywhere else. We all have our predisposed fat distributions and as you burn fat, it will come off everywhere at proportionally appropriate rates.

What you CAN do however it target a specific muscle to grow. If I looked at my arms and said "I'm going to beef up my arms and nowhere else", I would actually be able to do it. I can spot increase a muscle, I cannot spot reduce fat.

Now suppose I am 100lbs with 10% bodyfat. Now let's say that due to my genetic distribution, I have 5 lbs of fat in my arms and 5 lbs of fat in my legs for an even 50/50 split (bear with me). If I keep the 10 lbs of total fat on my body, I can't change my fat distribution and make it 4lbs on my arms and 6 on my legs and so on. But, I CAN beef up one muscle group such that the ratio of muscle to fat on that particular muscle group is very skewed.

So to continue the example...Lets say my arms have 20lbs of muscle and my legs have 30lbs. Both still have 5 lbs of fat. If I completely ignored my legs for a few years and ONLY trained arms such that my arms eventually grew to 40lbs and my legs shrank to 10 lbs, what do you think I'd look like (aside from freaking stupid)?

Since the regional fat to muscle ratio in my arms went in favor of muscle, my arms will undoubtedly look leaner and veinier. The same amount of fat now has to distribute itself over twice as much arm muscle, thus thinning itself out. The reverse would be true for my legs. They would look fatter than ever. At first glance, you could say "o hay u spot reduced ur armz mang", which is incorrect. The absolute amount of fat is still the same (5 lbs). But the regional relative amount of fat greatly reduced, resulting in a leaner looking arm.

So in regards to spot reducing belly fat...it just so happens that most people are predisposed to carrying a large amount of fat around the belly. Additionally, the ab muscles dont exactly grow in the same explosive manner that the chest, arms, and legs do. As such, while someone may cut their bodyfat in half, the fact of the matter is that the regional fat to muscle ratio in the abdominal region may still be horrendously skewed towards fat.

I think you are correct in saying that you need to do ab work as well as reduce bodyfat in order to really bring out the abs. But I personally don't believe that you can "spot reduce". I think you just need to work the muscles and lose the fat to make the ratios favorable.

Sorry for long post, that's just my 2c.

reps. you said everything i was to lazy to write.

@op: you look to much into it. when people ask how can i see my abs and people reply cannot spot reduce i think they are assuming the person is already doing ab work.