Visceral fat loss v the rest

BuddhaB0y

I've tried searching for information on this and maybe I'm not using the right keywords so I'm looking for advice here.

I understand that when losing weight, fat loss can't be spot reduced and you lose it according to how your body naturally wants to consume it.

However I'm wondering if visceral fat (fat located in and around your internal organs) is the same or does it work differently. For example, fatty liver is fairly common in the obese, would the liver use up its own fat before canibalizing other areas? Or would it shed fat more or less in the same proportions as the rest of the fat in your body.

I know brown and white fats are different so I'm curious if they get used up differently.

Cheers

cafeaulait7

It's a case where diet alone may not be a good enough route. Exercise is pretty necessary, and resistance training helps the most. This is maybe because of hormonal changes from weightlifting.

You also want to make sure you are not insulin resistant, or either eat as if you are already, so avoid high-glycemic carbs and get a lot of fiber (and exercise once again).

If there is a chance your testosterone is low, get that checked. I don't know the risks of testosterone supplementation, but low T does contribute to more visceral fat in men.

Resistance training and losing weight in general are the best bets, imho. But definitely find out about your blood sugars, because what you eat can make a huge difference if IR is contributing to a visceral fat problem. IR also ups the health risks a great deal.

BuddhaB0y

I'm actually on a testosterone injection every 2 weeks (deletesterol). I'm also not allowed to lift weights right now due to my aortic aneurysm.

I'm more interested from a scientific perspective, as I lose weight I'm curious if the internal fat tends to get used up faster than subcutaneous fat, or do all the fats get used up proportionally.

scolaris

There's a movie on here that gets links, a British special on weight loss, and in one of the segments the reporter had been diagnosed with visceral fat. The gist of the program was that it is actually pretty quick to metabolise away once you address it... darn I wish I had that link! I'll look around for it later. (One of the segments had a lady who swears she can't lose weight eating 'healthy' with her slow metabolism but when they give her some special double blind drinking water it reveals her caloric intake & she's eating WAAAY more than she's reporting. The whole show was pretty interesting...)

BuddhaB0y

Oh I watched that... I must have missed the bit on the visceral fat. It was funny how she went on about how her friend ate twice as much as her and stayed thin, only to be shown that in fact it's her that's eating twice as much.

It was an eye opening video, made me become much more aware of portion control, I know I have fooled myself many times into believing I was not eating as much as I was.

madammags

The show @scolaris is talking about is this one
The Truth about Food - How to be slim

Some of the tests they run are pretty dodgy science (most of them are just run as illustrations, and are based on actual scientific trials), but there is some good info in the programs. There are 6 parts all up, you can find them all on youtube.

cafeaulait7

BuddhaB0y wrote: »

I'm actually on a testosterone injection every 2 weeks (deletesterol). I'm also not allowed to lift weights right now due to my aortic aneurysm.

I'm more interested from a scientific perspective, as I lose weight I'm curious if the internal fat tends to get used up faster than subcutaneous fat, or do all the fats get used up proportionally.

I don't know, yeah. There's something about exercise that uses a higher amount of it compared to deficit alone, but that's the only thing I've read in any detail about how it's burned compared to other kinds of fat.

Lovee_Dove7

They are metabolically different! Visceral fat is more "dangerous" than fat elsewhere. Any positive changes to your habits and of eating an exercising i'm sure will benefit that. I'm for high fat/protein/fiber and lower carb diets, as that midsection fat is related to cortisol levels and insulin and how your body is using sugar.

afatpersonwholikesfood

There was a thread on here awhile back pertaining to women and visceral fat. I don't have a link to the study, but it showed that women who exercised at least twice per week moderately (I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think I am close) lost significant visceral fat compared to those who just dieted. Dunno about men.

pollypocket1021

Visceral fat tends to be more susceptible to exercise than subcutaneous.

Are you on aromatase inhibitors?

Lovee_Dove7

@afatpersonwholikesfood and @pollypocket1021
That's good news!!

BuddhaB0y

pollypocket1021 wrote: »

Visceral fat tends to be more susceptible to exercise than subcutaneous.

Are you on aromatase inhibitors?

Since I don't know what those are, I'm going to say no.

mandipandi75

I was just at a medical weight loss appt with my daughter who has several medical issues. One of which is insulin resistance/diabetes/fatty liver. The dr told her to eat low carb so that the liver would use the stored fat from the liver first. You may want to look at that.

pollypocket1021

BuddhaB0y wrote: »

pollypocket1021 wrote: »

Visceral fat tends to be more susceptible to exercise than subcutaneous.

Are you on aromatase inhibitors?

Since I don't know what those are, I'm going to say no.

They are sometimes prescribed alongside testosterone and can impact where you tend to develop larger fatty deposits. (Visceral vs subcutaneous )

BuddhaB0y

Oh that's good to know. I'll have to look into it.thanks for the info!

BuddhaB0y

Ohh u know what I do know what they are... I was looking at them a while back. I was interested in taking clomid but my doc said he didn't think I needed it. I might ask him again since I have an impressive set of moobs

pollypocket1021

Aromatase inhibitors are horrible for your health, by and large. If you are not one them, great. They can contribute to fractures and heart disease. But I see them prescribed in some men on testosterone replacement therapy, so I felt compelled to ask.

BuddhaB0y

Ahhh good to know!

scolaris

Thanks @madammags !

yarwell

BuddhaB0y wrote: »

However I'm wondering if visceral fat (fat located in and around your internal organs) is the same or does it work differently. For example, fatty liver is fairly common in the obese, would the liver use up its own fat before canibalizing other areas? Or would it shed fat more or less in the same proportions as the rest of the fat in your body.

Liver fat reduction study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21367948 - of the two diets compared the one with twice the fat content was better at reducing liver fat.

Sued0nim

yarwell wrote: »

BuddhaB0y wrote: »

However I'm wondering if visceral fat (fat located in and around your internal organs) is the same or does it work differently. For example, fatty liver is fairly common in the obese, would the liver use up its own fat before canibalizing other areas? Or would it shed fat more or less in the same proportions as the rest of the fat in your body.

Liver fat reduction study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21367948 - of the two diets compared the one with twice the fat content was better at reducing liver fat.

Should be pointed out that study was only 2 weeks long, and we all know there are significant short term biological effects with lowering carbohydrate intake, I don't believe that conclusion should be taken as any kind of recommendation.

Also it appeared to compare calorie restriction with carb restriction rather than overall calorie specification in both and defined macro limits in each ..one group ate 1200-1500 calories, the other <20g c daily ..I missed the mention of fat though one would assume higher fat in the carb controlled group

So interesting but inconclusive and longer term, larger studies with more specificity in macro parameters and caloric stability are warranted

yarwell

rabbitjb wrote: »

So interesting but inconclusive and longer term, larger studies with more specificity in macro parameters and caloric stability are warranted

Not inconclusive - "Two weeks of dietary intervention (≈4.3% weight loss) reduced hepatic triglycerides by ≈42% in subjects with NAFLD".

Addresses the OPs question directly. Fat and protein were both double (grams per day) in the carb restricted arm http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/5/1048/T2.expansion.html

"Liver triglycerides decreased significantly with weight loss (P < 0.001) but decreased significantly more (P = 0.008) in carbohydrate-restricted subjects (−55 ± 14%) than in calorie-restricted subjects (−28 ± 23%). Dietary fat (r = 0.643, P = 0.004), carbohydrate (r = −0.606, P = 0.008), posttreatment plasma ketones (r = 0.755, P = 0.006), and respiratory quotient (r = −0.797, P < 0.001) were related to a reduction in liver triglycerides"

Sued0nim

Sorry I misspoke

Within the parameters of the study there was clearly a conclusion

But the extrapolation to a dietary recommendation is not possible due to the constraints (time, size, parameters) of the study so unfortunately does not lead to any recommendation

But still interesting

Sued0nim

Which the study includes actually

"Since our initial report (8) and another report (23), it has been unclear whether the effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on hepatic triglycerides was specific to the diet or a more general feature of weight loss. Although we have shown here a metabolic advantage of carbohydrate restriction, the increased effectiveness of this diet in reducing liver triglycerides cannot be extrapolated beyond the 2-wk period of observation. The only other study similar to ours was carried out by Kirk et al (24) in 22 subjects. They showed that carbohydrate restriction reduced hepatic triglycerides more than did calorie restriction after 48 h of negative energy balance (−2% weight); however, the 2 dietary interventions were equally effective by ≈11 wk of negative energy balance (−7% weight)."

yarwell

Switching to a fat based metabolism for 2 weeks in the study above gives double the liver fat depletion. After 11 weeks in a different study the effect of diet composition was not significant - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677125/ - "The relative decrease in IHTG was ~3 times greater in the LC group than in the HC group at 48 h of CR, but was not different between groups after ~11 wks of CR (~7% weight loss)"

In answer to the OP's question it appears that the body will initially reduce liver fat rapidly if the carbohydrate reduction is sufficient, but will eventually deplete it in a calorie restricted diet regardless.

BuddhaB0y

Thanks

GaleHawkins

Visceral fat is the last of my fat and it really does not want to let go in my case it seems. Not sure if the link below relates to the link above but it talks about visceral fat cause.

in.reuters.com/article/us-health-beverages-fat-idINKCN0UP2CP20160111