Stuborn cellulite - no muscle underneath?

[freebirdmac]

A question about the pear distribution. If you are storing the fat (cellulite) in the thighs/butt area, and your upper body is lean. Does that mean that you have to reduce your overall BF and some of that fat will hopefully come off the lower area. Is that how it works? Won't it get to the point of where you will end up with nothing on your upper body while trying to get it off the lower body? Or does that not matter. Just curious.

Yep. Bulk/lean cycles can also help when going in a straight fat loss line is obviously not going to give you the body you want.

[gwnorth]

Those are interesting articles, but the key word in both is "brief". HIIT is 10-15 seconds all out as the "sprint" interval. While intense, this doesn't exactly constitute a sprint workout. Those tend to have longer sprint durations. I didn't realize that you were interchanging "sprinting" with "HIIT", hence my clarification.

Actually, not, though this may explain all those people out there who claim to be doing HIIT 3-4x a week. True HIIT protocol calls for 30 sec on and 30 sec off, at least the protocol that uses HIIT as orignally devised ie for elite athletes to improve V02 max.

[erinlee01]

Actually, not, though this may explain all those people out there who claim to be doing HIIT 3-4x a week. True HIIT protocol calls for 30 sec on and 30 sec off, at least the protocol that uses HIIT as orignally devised ie for elite athletes to improve V02 max.

I was not aware that there is a "true HIIT protocol". I've seen it done many ways and when advised by a trainer, I was given 15 second all out intervals followed by 15 seconds of lower intensity. I also haven't seen anyone doing intervals that long who call it HIIT. Of course, you do mention elite athletes for this protocol. I'd be willing to bet that most people here can't sustain that. But, that is just based on what I have seen and I am in no way an expert on HIIT. (i.e. I am not disagreeing with you)

Regardless, unless we are talking about an elite sprinter, I wouldn't count 30 seconds as a sprint workout. They typically are a variety of distances from 200m (which may be able to be done in 30 seconds) on up. 400m would be a mid-range sprint and the world record for that is just under 45 seconds.

[wakechica]

Ok there's HIIT and then there's Fartlek training. Both terms get confused and often used instead of each other, I've done it on here myself purely as so many view them both as HIIT. Many often confuse Fartlek or 'speed play' as HIIT. However, saying that you can make Fartlek as intense as you want and also make HIIT intense yet not as intense as it should be (recovery dependent). I always view HIIT as:

All out 100% sprints for a period of time followed by a recovery period or speed that once your 'recovery period' is over you aren't fully recovered.

Fartlek or speed play is similar but often comprises of different speeds and thus gives more of a recovery component (usually).

I may be wrong but this is my understanding. I aslo don't get this hard and fast 30 sec on 30 sec off rule. Seriously? I had great success with fat loss mixing it up. I had sessions where I wanted to puke at the end or even mid-way. I would call this HIIT.

Back on track - I read a lot of this thread with interest and also a few comments really just got me and I almost didn't believe it was the real poster posting them:

well, no. you have no 'stubborn' fat at your stats, unless you magically dropped 10% bodyfat in a few months, which you haven't done

Yes, you've used a smiley, but really - why should HIIT be reserved only for stubborn fat loss? That's how you're answer to my statement came across: You don't have stubborn fat on your saddle bags you just have fat. Ok, it may not be stubborn as defined by Lyle McDonald HOWEVER it is still FAT and why should I just use diet and lifting? WHY can't I do HIIT or Fartlek? Yes I take L-Tyrosine as recommended but I take it for my underactive thyroid. This answer you gave Miranda just really threw me. Maybe I've taken it out out of context.
The way I view it - if you wish to use HIIT to aid fat loss (of the non-stubborn kind) then fair enough. The person will probably be fit enough to cope with having to move it up a level and add on some steady state at the end without totally killing themselves.

Spot reduction, no matter how it's couched, does not work. That's why crunches do not give people the abs they want.

I think I can see why you posted this but you should know I know spot reduction doesn't work. And yes sprinting does help build leg muscle. I did it for a few years which is why my legs have a much better base than my upper body.

Actually, you didn't understand what Freebirdmac said. She said sprinting and stairs "are helping to create growth". Which is 100% true. Studies have shown that sprinting creates an anabolic effect in your body.

Edit - one study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057403

Yes, 100% true. Look at a sprinters legs vs a half/full marathon runners legs.

so does playing volleyball, running for your life to catch a bus, lifting weights and HI endurance exercise. it is not specific to sprinting.

regardless and with all due respect, FBC implies sprints 'work' because they're 'stimulate growth'. okay. how does 'stimulating growth' burn off fat in those areas?

then sprinting is suddenly 'spot reduction' if it works by using the mechanism i noted (adrenaline/noradrenaline).

which is it?

do they work, or do they not work, within the very specific context (ie BF in mid-high teens with stubborn fat pockets) mentioned?



i can see why you would say that. but her commentary and advice make it very clear she doesn't understand what the OP asked and what is being talked about here.

OP asks about fat loss with a few specs thrown in. the advice to 'build muscle' has nothing to do with that.

fat and muscle are two totally different tissues. reducing one won't increase another and vice versa. they need separate approaches.

it is also easy for people to be confused about 'stubborn' fat because people are confused about how fat they actually are. two posters in this thread said they were in the low teens yet had cellulite (= fat) in the lower body. going by their pics, they're nothing of the sort.

the 'stubborn fat protocol' i was talking about won't do anything in that regard, because they have to lower their BF more first for it to become a valuable asset.

I don't agree with your last sentence in whole. Yes it is valuable to those who are at a v low BF% and have cellulite or whatever still showing HOWEVER it shouldn't be put aside for those at x BF or below. It's a valuable tool for all to use. I use it with my dad. He's definitely not got stubborn fat. He's just overweight. But it's work very quickly to get his BF% down accompanied by a fairly well tracked diet by my mom (!!) 2-3 times/week with some light weight thrown in (at the age where he's not going to go down and hit the power rack). If it does target stubborn fat in the protocol laid out, why save it til when you need it? Why not get it in early?

And I believe what has been suggested about building my prosterior chain etc will help with the LOOK. Yes I have probably over exaggerated how bad it looks (more so in certain light levels) - i know just building muscle won't lose my cellulite like magic however we can at least try to make it look a bit easier on the eye!

I hope my long old post has been viewed as part of the discussion and not as a punch in anyway. It was a long thread and interesting to see people's views on this. I put the question out and suffice to say, probably not the best worded question! Maybe I'll got take some photos to show Miranda that I've magically dropped 10% in the last month hah

[Miranda]

why should HIIT be reserved only for stubborn fat loss? That's how you're answer to my statement came across: You don't have stubborn fat on your saddle bags you just have fat. Ok, it may not be stubborn as defined by Lyle McDonald HOWEVER it is still FAT and why should I just use diet and lifting? WHY can't I do HIIT or Fartlek? Maybe I've taken it out out of context.

i think you worded the OP in an ill manner. having 'stubborn cellulite (=fat)' and wondering whether sprinting will take care of it, was a bit moot in itself. what you view as 'stubborn' isn't stubborn in any real sense of the term, there's just too much of it. that doesn't invalidate that stubborn fat protocols can greatly help reduce truly stubborn fat.

you're comparing apples and oranges, if that makes sense.

more confusion comes from the fact the stubborn fat protocols as prescribed by lyle mcdonald aren't 'HIIT' or 'fartlek' or 'interval training' as those are prescribed, although they do have a [brutal] sprinting aspect to them.

you 'can' do HIIT (not SFP, although you certainly 'can' if you want to) as part of a fat loss program, and it does help with fat loss - as do other forms of cardio. there is nothing special about HIIT in that regard.

HIIT is a form of interval training. but not all interval training is HIIT or SFP, or has the benefits associated with HIIT.

intervals are time-efficient, less 'boring' and help increase lactate threshold and VO2 max. those help create a more powerful aerobic engine that helps with calorie burning during SS endurance exercise (and makes you better at it, too). enhanced endurance performance was the main reason it was developed in the first place.

in the context of fat loss - calories in vs calories out - HIIT burns calories, but a single short HIIT session is likely to burn as much (or less) than a long SS session. it all depends on how things are set up. so that's up to the individual.

look at it this way, and i believe i said it in my first reply: you CAN implement SFP (not HIIT, although you certainly 'can' if you want to) in your fat loss program if you WANT to, only that it isn't NECESSARY. it will help in overall fat loss, but it won't 'spot reduce' the fat in your 'stubborn' areas, because your fat isn't stubborn, there's just too much of it SFP may be more or less needed when you're at a stage where fat mobilisation and transport is a real issue (roughly 15-17% for women). nor did i say you absolutely SHOULD NOT implement it either.

people tend to think in absolutes: if a given approach works, then it is not only 'the' way to do it, but the BEST way, and consequently the ONLY way. of course you can do HIIT, but you don't have to. is it the best, or only way to go? no. there are plenty others, and they can be used together. it doesn't have to be either/or.

The way I view it - if you wish to use HIIT to aid fat loss (of the non-stubborn kind) then fair enough. The person will probably be fit enough to cope with having to move it up a level and add on some steady state at the end without totally killing themselves.

yes to HIIT, albeit with a strong 'probably'. if an individual is not fit enough to work up to the intensity required for the effects of HIIT (and SFP), then why do it? i understand that you personally do a lot of cardio as part of your training, though.

Yes, 100% true. Look at a sprinters legs vs a half/full marathon runners legs.

strong correlation equals causation confusion here. the sprinters vs marathoners analogy is flawed.

marathoners don't have muscle because they don't lift weights. they don't lift weights, because for them any extra mass is useless dead weight. it hurts their performance. sprinters lift weights because powerful, strong muscles aid their performance. duh. if you look at the elite, remember that both ends are genetically gifted (ie have the body type/potential) in the first place. and sprinters (as do many top athletes) take roids. you can't leave that one out.

plus, have a look how 100m and 400m sprinters actually train, not how people think they train. plenty volume work and little HIIT in there.

if you do sprints (as HIIT or SFP) as they're intended, they murder your legs. if you already train legs heavy 2 x week, adding more brutal leg work impairs your recovery and ability to train legs effectively in the gym. if you want to build muscle, that is counterproductive.

regardless, SFP works because of the way it stimulates and enhances fat mobilisation and transport. if you believe HIIT 'works' by building muscle that then burns more fat [off the 'stubborn' areas], because elite sprinters look the way they do, then fine, but it is based on a flawed analogy and misinformation.

Yes it is valuable to those who are at a v low BF% and have cellulite or whatever still showing HOWEVER it shouldn't be put aside for those at x BF or below. It's a valuable tool for all to use. I use it with my dad. He's definitely not got stubborn fat. He's just overweight. But it's work very quickly to get his BF% down accompanied by a fairly well tracked diet by my mom (!!) 2-3 times/week with some light weight thrown in (at the age where he's not going to go down and hit the power rack).

don't forget that if you're talking about absolute beginners, pretty much anything will work. you have them walk on an incline, and it works. they jog a bit, walk a bit as 'interval training', and it works. they lift a bit of weights in the gym, and it works. beginners respond quickly to all sorts work. get your diet in check, and it all works together beautifully.

and i doubt your dad did stubborn fat protocols

[tmonkey]

Thanks op

I think you are on the right track

[birdiefu]

Interesting discussion going on in this thread. While I may not agree with everything said, I do second the fact that Lyle McDonald's stubborn fat protocol (which *is* a pretty in-depth protocol) was established and works on "targeting" the stubborn fact pockets only when BF levels are low and subsequent physiological factors come into play. It is in no way as simple as just some HITT.

For those who have not gotten his books, I just want to say that until you have read them and digested the plethora of information involved with it, it is not accurate to say that it works the same at a low BF% and a higher one. It doesn't. However, that isn't to say that you can't still lose fat doing it - just like taking a whole bunch of supps while eating at a deficit you will still lose weight, but it isn't really the supps doing so. Putting yourself through all the strict rigors of the protocol is not necessary when you can lose the "general" fat with less hassle.

[freebirdmac]

Interesting discussion going on in this thread. While I may not agree with everything said, I do second the fact that Lyle McDonald's stubborn fat protocol (which *is* a pretty in-depth protocol) was established and works on "targeting" the stubborn fact pockets only when BF levels are low and subsequent physiological factors come into play. It is in no way as simple as just some HITT.

For those who have not gotten his books, I just want to say that until you have read them and digested the plethora of information involved with it, it is not accurate to say that it works the same at a low BF% and a higher one. It doesn't. However, that isn't to say that you can't still lose fat doing it - just like taking a whole bunch of supps while eating at a deficit you will still lose weight, but it isn't really the supps doing so. Putting yourself through all the strict rigors of the protocol is not necessary when you can lose the "general" fat with less hassle.

There also seems to be some confusing of HIIT with running sprints and doing bleacher running. They are not the same. OP understands. She can continue to lose body fat and that building underlying muscle can improve her appearance.

[birdiefu]

There also seems to be some confusing of HIIT with running sprints and doing bleacher running. They are not the same. OP understands. She can continue to lose body fat and that building underlying muscle can improve her appearance.

Yes, I agree there seems to have been quite the confusion of different exercise terms in this thread. I just wanted to address the specific SFP confusion, as it's usually even less understood (or at least, discussed) by forum-goers.

[Miranda]

Some additional citations for the muscle building effects of sprinting:

interesting. research indicates anabolic hormones (insulin, GH etc.) in response to exercise aren't correlated with muscle hypertrophy per se. ie 'anabolic response' does not = 'muscular hypertrophy'.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19736298

Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men.
West DW, Kujbida GW, Moore DR, Atherton P, Burd NA, Padzik JP, De Lisio M, Tang JE, Parise G, Rennie MJ, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
Source

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
Abstract

We aimed to determine whether exercise-induced elevations in systemic concentration of testosterone, growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) enhanced post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) and phosphorylation of signalling proteins important in regulating mRNA translation. Eight young men (20 +/- 1.1 years, BMI = 26 +/- 3.5 kg m(-2)) completed two exercise protocols designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (low hormone, LH) or elicit increases in endogenous hormones (high hormone, HH). In the LH protocol, participants performed a bout of unilateral resistance exercise with the elbow flexors. The HH protocol consisted of the same elbow flexor exercise with the contralateral arm followed immediately by high-volume leg resistance exercise. Participants consumed 25 g of protein after arm exercise to maximize MPS. Muscle biopsies and blood samples were taken as appropriate. There were no changes in serum testosterone, GH or IGF-1 after the LH protocol, whereas there were marked elevations after HH (testosterone, P < 0.001; GH, P < 0.001; IGF-1, P < 0.05). Exercise stimulated a rise in MPS in the biceps brachii (rest = 0.040 +/- 0.007, LH = 0.071 +/- 0.008, HH = 0.064 +/- 0.014% h(-1); P < 0.05) with no effect of elevated hormones (P = 0.72). Phosphorylation of the 70 kDa S6 protein kinase (p70S6K) also increased post-exercise (P < 0.05) with no differences between conditions. We conclude that the transient increases in endogenous purportedly anabolic hormones do not enhance fed-state anabolic signalling or MPS following resistance exercise. Local mechanisms are likely to be of predominant importance for the post-exercise increase in MPS.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910330

Elevations in ostensibly anabolic hormones with resistance exercise enhance neither training-induced muscle hypertrophy nor strength of the elbow flexors.
West DW, Burd NA, Tang JE, Moore DR, Staples AW, Holwerda AM, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
Source

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Dept. of Kinesiology, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, ON L8S4K1 Canada.
Abstract

The aim of our study was to determine whether resistance exercise-induced elevations in endogenous hormones enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy with training. Twelve healthy young men (21.8 +/- 1.2 yr, body mass index = 23.1 +/- 0.6 kg/m(2)) trained their elbow flexors independently for 15 wk on separate days and under different hormonal milieu. In one training condition, participants performed isolated arm curl exercise designed to maintain basal hormone concentrations (low hormone, LH); in the other training condition, participants performed identical arm exercise to the LH condition followed immediately by a high volume of leg resistance exercise to elicit a large increase in endogenous hormones (high hormone, HH). There was no elevation in serum growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), or testosterone after the LH protocol but significant (P < 0.001) elevations in these hormones immediately and 15 and 30 min after the HH protocol. The hormone responses elicited by each respective exercise protocol late in the training period were similar to the response elicited early in the training period, indicating that a divergent postexercise hormone response was maintained over the training period. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) increased by 12% in LH and 10% in HH (P < 0.001) with no difference between conditions (condition x training interaction, P = 0.25). Similarly, type I (P < 0.01) and type II (P < 0.001) muscle fiber CSA increased with training with no effect of hormone elevation in the HH condition. Strength increased in both arms, but the increase was not different between the LH and HH conditions. We conclude that exposure of loaded muscle to acute exercise-induced elevations in endogenous anabolic hormones enhances neither muscle hypertrophy nor strength with resistance training in young men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16972050

Hypertrophy with unilateral resistance exercise occurs without increases in endogenous anabolic hormone concentration.
Wilkinson SB, Tarnopolsky MA, Grant EJ, Correia CE, Phillips SM.
Source

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract

We aimed to gain insight into the role that the transitory increases in anabolic hormones play in muscle hypertrophy with unilateral resistance training. Ten healthy young male subjects (21.8 +/- 0.4 years, 1.78 +/- 0.04 m, 75.6 +/- 2.9 kg; mean +/- SE) engaged in unilateral resistance training for 8 week (3 days/week). Exercises were knee extension and leg press performed at 80-90% of the subject's single repetition maximum (1RM). Blood samples were collected in the acute period before and after the first training bout and following the last training bout and analyzed for total testosterone, free-testosterone, luteinizing hormone, sex hormone binding globulin, growth hormone, cortisol, and insulin-like growth factor-1. Thigh muscle cross sectional area (CSA) and muscle fibre CSA by biopsy (vastus lateralis) were measured pre- and post-training. Acutely, no changes in systemic hormone concentrations were observed in the 90 min period following exercise and there was no influence of training on these results. Training-induced increases were observed in type IIx and IIa muscle fibre CSA of 22 +/- 3 and 13 +/- 2% (both P < 0.001). No changes were observed in fibre CSA in the untrained leg (all P > 0.5). Whole muscle CSA increased by 5.4 +/- 0.9% in the trained leg (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged in the untrained leg (P = 0.76). Isotonic 1RM increased in the trained leg for leg press and for knee extension (P < 0.001). No changes were seen in the untrained leg. [b]In conclusion, unilateral training induced local muscle hypertrophy only in the exercised limb, which occurred in the absence of changes in systemic hormones that ostensibly play a role in muscle hypertrophy.

and:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20959702

Anabolic processes in human skeletal muscle: restoring the identities of growth hormone and testosterone.
West DW, Phillips SM.
Source

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiolgy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract

Testosterone supplementation acts via numerous mechanisms as a highly potent anabolic agent to skeletal muscle. Although growth hormone (GH) strongly affects collagen synthesis and lipolysis, as well as increasing lean body mass, it is not anabolic toward the contractile (ie, myofibrillar) muscle tissue in healthy individuals. However, there is a persistent belief (both in scientific literature and among recreational weightlifters) that exercise-induced release of GH and testosterone underpins muscular hypertrophy with resistance training. This is a premature assumption because although pharmacological GH supplementation can increase muscle strength or size in individuals with clinical GH deficiency, there is no evidence that transient exercise-induced changes in GH have the same effects in individuals with normal GH levels. Exercise paradigms are designed based on the assumption (not necessarily evidenced-based mechanisms) that GH and testosterone facilitate anabolic processes that lead to skeletal muscle protein accretion and hypertrophy. Our recent work disputes this assumption. Instead, our data indicate that exercise-induced hormonal elevations do not enhance intracellular markers of anabolic signaling or the acute postexercise elevation of myofibrillar protein synthesis. Furthermore, data from our training study demonstrate that exercise-induced increases in GH and testosterone availability are not necessary for and do not enhance strength and hypertrophy adaptations. Instead, our data lead us to conclude that local mechanisms that are intrinsic to the skeletal muscle tissue performing the resistive contractions (ie, weightlifting) are predominant in stimulating anabolism. The purpose of this article is 1) to provide a brief overview of the mechanisms of action of testosterone and GH; 2) to discuss the inability of physiological exercise-induced elevations in these hormones to have a measurable impact on skeletal muscle anabolism; and 3) to describe factors that we believe are more important for stimulating hypertrophy in human skeletal muscle. Clarifying both the role of hormones in regulating muscle mass as well as the underlying basis for adaptation of skeletal muscle to resistance exercise will hopefully enhance and support the prescription of resistance exercise as an integral component of a healthy lifestyle.

[erinlee01]

I'm not even going to bother to respond further. Honestly, Miranda, I find it interesting that you accuse me of adding "noise" to the conversation that is confusing people when you, in fact, are the one confusing people. You are the only one talking specifically about SFP.

SFP is one type of interval training. HIIT is another. And sprint workouts are another. While all of those are interval workouts, not all interval workouts are sprint workouts (i.e. the all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares analogy).

The articles you cited below speak to one tiny piece of one of the studies I posted above, specifically (you pulled the information out of context to prove your point, let's put it back in):

[ulr]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19432586[/url]

Abstract
AIM:
In a previous study, sprint training has been shown to increase muscle cross-sectional area in women but not in men [Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74 (1996) 375]. We hypothesized that sprint exercise induces a different hormonal response in women than in men. Such a difference may contribute to explaining the observed gender difference in training response.
METHOD:
Metabolic and hormonal response to three 30-s sprints with 20-min rest between the sprints was studied in 18 physically active men and women.
RESULTS:
Accumulation of blood lactate [interaction term gender (g) x time (t): P = 0.022], and plasma ammonia (g x t: P < 0.001) after sprint exercise was greater in men. Serum insulin increased after sprint exercise more so in women than in men (g x t: P = 0.020), while plasma glucose increased in men, but not in women (g x t: P < 0.001). Serum growth hormone (GH) increased in both women and men reaching similar peak levels, but with different time courses. In women the peak serum GH level was observed after sprint 1, whereas in men the peak was observed after sprint 3 (g x t; P < 0.001). Serum testosterone tended to decrease in men and increase in women (g x t: P = 0.065). Serum cortisol increased approx. 10-15% after sprint exercise, independent of gender (time: P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION:
Women elicited a greater response of serum GH and insulin to sprint exercise. This may contribute to explaining the earlier observed muscle hypertrophy in women in response to sprint training.

If you read the very next sentence, it say is "may" explain it. The articles you posted still do not negate the fact that each of those articles specifically cites muscle growth as on observed outcome.

You seem to be the only one the thread who disagrees and who doesn't understand that we are talking about something different than you (and why you keep going on about it when you say it won't help the OP is beyond me). You want to believe something else, so be it. I have no motivation to change your mind.

[Miranda]

each of those articles specifically cites muscle growth as on observed outcome.

strong reading skills. go read them again.

we are talking about something different than you

indeed you are.

you claim sprint training 'builds muscle'. that is noise. freebirdmac and you brought it in. 'building muscle' has nothing to do with how lyle mcdonald's stubborn fat protocols work. and if you think they are 'interval training' you are sadly mistaken

furthermore, OP asked about 'stubborn fat' and how to get rid of it. building muscle, however you think it may be achieved, has nought to do with fat loss.

[erinlee01]

'building muscle' has nothing to do with how stubborn sprint protocols work.

No kidding. No one said it did. Sprinting was another suggestion made by another poster and had nothing to do with SFP or with anything you posted. Again, you are the only one talking about that. And again, I have to ask why since you've stated so clearly that it won't work for the OP.

furthermore, OP asked about 'stubborn fat' and how to get rid of it.

Personally, I think you're reading too much into the use of the term "stubborn". Not everyone is a devotee of Lyle MacDonald and it is a subjective word.

building muscle, however you think it may be achieved, has nought to do with fat loss.

I disagree that is has naught to do with fat loss. Again, as you did with the sprints comment, you are speaking in absolutes. It may not have a large impact on fat loss, but increased muscle mass does impact it.

Regardless, if you're going to introduce cardio to help burn fat, you'd want to choose something that is muscle sparing, at least. If it's muscle building, it's a bonus.


And quite frankly, I'm done with the conversation. Go ahead and pick out minor pieces of my posts to argue with. I'll not waste more time discussing the topic with someone who refuses to look outside of their box and understand another viewpoint.

[freebirdmac]

No kidding. No one said it did. Sprinting was another suggestion made by another poster and had nothing to do with SFP or with anything you posted. Again, you are the only one talking about that. And again, I have to ask why since you've stated so clearly that it won't work for the OP.



Personally, I think you're reading too much into the use of the term "stubborn". Not everyone is a devotee of Lyle MacDonald and it is a subjective word.



I disagree that is has naught to do with fat loss. Again, as you did with the sprints comment, you are speaking in absolutes. It may not have a large impact on fat loss, but increased muscle mass does impact it.

Regardless, if you're going to introduce cardio to help burn fat, you'd want to choose something that is muscle sparing, at least. If it's muscle building, it's a bonus.


And quite frankly, I'm done with the conversation. Go ahead and pick out minor pieces of my posts to argue with. I'll not waste more time discussing the topic with someone who refuses to look outside of their box and understand another viewpoint.

Lol! Building muscle came into all of this because of how it can improve the appearance of fat! APPEARANCE! The OP knew this and specifically asked about it:

"My questions:
1. If I were to bulk, would this help?
2. Is there anything I can add to my routine which could help build muscle in that area?
3. Am I just going to have to go HIIT crazy to get rid?
4. Or is this just going to take more time?

I will bulk if it will help....a slow bulk none the less."

[ELLSKIES]

. . . and the increased muscle burns the fat off your thighs?



sprinting does not build muscle. progressive tension overload builds muscle.

sprints (in the least if you do them in correctly + add in other stuff) work by increasing adrenaline and noradrenaline release, which stimulates both blood flow and breakdown of fat in stubborn fat areas.

Agreed. Repped. To BUILD muscle, one must be in a caloric surplus. period. Sprinters legs look the way they do because of GENETICS. Swimming pool analogy: When you drain a pool, the shallow end empties first, but it takes awhile down there at the deep end. But the water is being drained at an even rate all over when you pull the plug. In other words, where the water is deeper, it's gonna take longer.

[freebirdmac]

Agreed. Repped. To BUILD muscle, one must be in a caloric surplus. period. Sprinters legs look the way they do because of GENETICS. Swimming pool analogy: When you drain a pool, the shallow end empties first, but it takes awhile down there at the deep end. But the water is being drained at an even rate all over when you pull the plug. In other words, where the water is deeper, it's gonna take longer.

Hey! That's my analogy!

And no, you do not have to be in a surplus to gain muscle. It is far easier, and you will gain more, but you're not at a complete standstill at a deficit. There are always exceptions, like deep into comp prep, but in general your statement is false.

And yes, genetics do play a role for sprinters as well as everybody in every athletic endeavor. But we're not talking about gaining huge amounts of mass here. That also takes years. Nor do you need to look at elite athletes. Just look around at recreational sports. You can see a nice difference between those participants and those who only watch. Think about step ups for a moment. They work no?

[erinlee01]

Agreed. Repped. To BUILD muscle, one must be in a caloric surplus. period.

Again, be careful with the wording. I sat on my ass for years eating at a surplus and I can assure you I gained no muscle. I'm sure you meant to say "with proper training".

Sprinters legs look the way they do because of GENETICS.

For an elite athlete, yes, genetics play a huge part. But as Freebirdmac says, look at recreational athletes. Or even high school athletes.

No one is saying you're going to become a mass monster if you sprint. No one is recommending that you sprint if you want to become muscular. But it is just flat out wrong to say that sprint workouts of any kind won't build muscle period. The right kind done correctly will. It also will aid in the burning of fat.

Honestly, if people would stop making these absolute statements with no merit, this thread would be much more useful.

[wakechica]

Risky dredging this thread up I know.... But to save starting a new one.

5 months on..........

Some improvement but I think my ass cellulite looks worse; when I tense my glutes OMG like cellulite city. There's even 'dents' where there isn't any :/
I've lost bf for sure but not liking what I'm seeing.

Being doing Madcows for 7 weeks and think my legs look better. Is it ok to carry on doing 5x5 or would hypertrophy be more beneficial? I know my PC was lacking, but was wondering whether going to hypertrophy (squats) would be of any help to my problem. Or will I still see good results on a 5x5??

[gwnorth]

Risky dredging this thread up I know.... But to save starting a new one.

5 months on..........

Some improvement but I think my ass cellulite looks worse; when I tense my glutes OMG like cellulite city. There's even 'dents' where there isn't any :/
I've lost bf for sure but not liking what I'm seeing.

Being doing Madcows for 7 weeks and think my legs look better. Is it ok to carry on doing 5x5 or would hypertrophy be more beneficial? I know my PC was lacking, but was wondering whether going to hypertrophy (squats) would be of any help to my problem. Or will I still see good results on a 5x5??

I can only tell you what my experience with my cellulite has been, and that is that as my bf% has dropped, in certain places the cellulite looks worse. Reason being, cellulite isn't actually about fat. Yes cellulite is fat, but not everybody who has fat has cellulite. It has to do with the way the fat is distributed and how it attaches to the skin on top. As you lose fat, it often takes longer for the skin to tighten up. Lose skin can make the area actually look worse. How much the skin tightens up has a lot to do with individual genetics and your age, since as you age you lose collegen which contributes to the skin's elasticity. This is where cellulite creams can help. They don't make the fat go away, but they can temporarily improve the look of the cellulite by plumping up the skin in the area to help smooth out the appearance of the lumps. In my experience though, the improvement is subtle.

[MilaGroski]

Low carb will make it look worse while you are dropping body fat. It will take some time for the skin to tighten, fat does not come off evenly, its all patience.
Creams are creams, they do not go anywhere by the upper layers of skin and only very superficially, fat is subcutaneous/under the skin.
Carbs will pull water into the muscle which plumps it out/hydrates the underlying tissues. Water intake will also plump tissues.

[Miranda]

in terms of having lost fat - where is it 'apparent'?

it's possible for fat to travel through the body whereby you lose fat in areas where it's easier to lose (often upper body) and then store it in other areas (such as lower body). once fatty acids are in the bloodstream but you don't burn them, they get reabsorbed elsewhere.

[wakechica]

in terms of having lost fat - where is it 'apparent'?

it's possible for fat to travel through the body whereby you lose fat in areas where it's easier to lose (often upper body) and then store it in other areas (such as lower body). once fatty acids are in the bloodstream but you don't burn them,

I have deffo lost fat off glutea/ass area. My jeans are bigger and my other half has noticed. But not as much off my thighs as I would have liked at all. Also a wee bit off my lower abs. Poss a bit of upper body, hard to tell.
Hence I now have 'holes' in the area of my glutes
(photos to come) when I tense and it's gross. I drink a lot of water poss need to keep tabs on my fat intake as its a little bit lower at the moment but nothing dramatic has changed. I'm 27 and have cellulite of a 50 year old!!!

[CathyVee]

in terms of having lost fat - where is it 'apparent'?

it's possible for fat to travel through the body whereby you lose fat in areas where it's easier to lose (often upper body) and then store it in other areas (such as lower body). once fatty acids are in the bloodstream but you don't burn them,

Is there any way to counter-act this or are we all pretty much doomed to having cellulite?

[freebirdmac]

Is there any way to counter-act this or are we all pretty much doomed to having cellulite?

At our age it is a more difficult proposition. Loose skin from thinning and loss of collagen exacerbates what genetics and body composition have already handed us. The practical way of handling it is to reduce body fat and increase muscle mass. Red light therapy is supposed to help with collagen growth. My tanning place had a red light therapy booth and I used it for about 8 months. I did see an improvement in my face, neck, and legs. It was subtle, definitely not plastic surgery type results, but there was an improvement. The hue improvement though came from changing body composition.

[Miranda]

Is there any way to counter-act this or are we all pretty much doomed to having cellulite?

fatty acid reabsorption? not really. you'll always have fatty acids floating in the bloodstream. some of them get burned, some don't. if you don't burn them, you reabsorb them. i've had dexa scans where i had lost fat in the upper body and gained fat in the lower with the two averaging out at overall fat loss. yay.

i don't know much about ageing in regard to collagen loss, other than that UV overexposure can damage collagen and loss of skin elasticity becomes apparent as you age. if it happens on your face, i can't imagine why it wouldn't happen on your ass. not much you can do to correct the sins of yore though.

loose from skin elasticity issues,

if you want to get rid of cellulite, you have to get rid of fat. i've a rather poor bodyfat deposition pattern and i had the absolutely most horrid (as they all say ) cellulite in my saddlebags and ass. once i lost the fat in those areas, it disappeared.

i've also a bit of loose skin on the sides of my glutes. goes on to show how much fat i once had there, but it doesn't look like cellulite. it looks like loose skin.

[wakechica]

Here's the offending article: my leg and ass.

Age 27. Leg slightly abducted (not tensed). You can't see the 'dents' as I wasn't prepared to totally photograph my ass



Hard in unnatural light, but think it gets the point across! I'll try and get some full body shots in some better light tomorrow.

[catskills]

Here's the offending article: my leg and ass.

Age 27. Leg slightly abducted (not tensed). You can't see the 'dents' as I wasn't prepared to totally photograph my ass



Hard in unnatural light, but think it gets the point across! I'll try and get some full body shots in some better light tomorrow.

I've had cellulite since I was 16, so I don't really think it has anything to do with age. 8( However I will say this, I've had to drop my BF much lower than I originally thought. I thought 10lbs of fat loss would do it. Now it is more like 15+ and my cellulite is starting to disappear. Last time I weighed this little I was in high school. The difference is though that I have a lot more muscle mass than I did when I was in high school, so I can support the look, otherwise I would probably look like a skeleton.

[wakechica]

I've had cellulite since I was 16, so I don't really think it has anything to do with age. 8( However I will say this, I've had to drop my BF much lower than I originally thought. I thought 10lbs of fat loss would do it. Now it is more like 15+ and my cellulite is starting to disappear. Last time I weighed this little I was in high school. The difference is though that I have a lot more muscle mass than I did when I was in high school, so I can support the look, otherwise I would probably look like a skeleton.

I only developed cellulite when my thyroid started to not work :/ And now it's bad. I don't know how much more I can lose scale weight wise. I've been about 138lbs before and that was pretty skinny! It's only about 4lbs but seems like it's going to be horrendous to get rid of it! Was wondering if more muscle in the area would help with getting rid of it? I don't know, I'm not a science boffin but surely increased blood flow to the area with an increase in muscle must help in some way?

[Romina81]

do you think that cardio would help since it helps with blood flow/circulation? do you do any cardio currently?

[Miranda]

Was wondering if more muscle in the area would help with getting rid of it? I don't know, I'm not a science boffin but surely increased blood flow to the area with an increase in muscle must help in some way?

why not go tickle a marble statue and wait until it giggles?

really, you posted this thread almost six months ago, and you seem to keep asking the same question in a different manner.
perhaps in the hope it will beget some sort *poof* magic answer.

i don't mean to sound like a dick here and i'm aware that i - much like you - sound like a broken record

but

1/ cellulite is fat.
not everyone has it, but if you do, it's genetic. it has to do with the size and the shape of your fat cells in your hips/ass/thighs, and how they attach to the septa, combined with skin type. (i posted a link re this when you last asked.) if you have cellulite, there's nothing you can do the get rid of it - not make it look 'temporarily pretty' - other than lose fat. that's when fat cells collapse, and the appearence goes away.

2/ you have a great muscle base but you carry quite a bit of fat on top. in your case, building more muscle won't magically eat your lower body fat away. if anything, you'll gain more fat with it. that fat will likely go to your hips and ass.

3/ see for yourself - if you can't flex it, it's fat.

4/ if you're like a fukton of other women, you carry a LOT of fat in the lower body. not 'a few pounds' - tens of pounds. you also carry quite a bit of fat in the upper body (upper back and arms, specifically). when you diet down, your upper body is likely to lean out first. if so, there's nothing you can do about it, if you want to get rid of lower body fat. that means you will have to lose a lot more fat than 4-5 pounds. fwiw, i had to shave off roughly 20 pounds myself and i wasn't overweight when i started.

5/ if you don't want to diet, or lose scale weight, then don't. but you will continue to have cellulite and post threads about it. no matter how much muscle you build, because the fat layer with cellulite-y apprearence is on top of the muscle.

not that you have to take note of anything i wrote above. but since you've opted for building muscle/recomp and perhaps cellulite creams and extra blood flow . . . and six months later, still same problem . . . why not pull your head out and see if this curious 'cellulite is fat' suggestion might, just might, be the ticket?