Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Spot Reducing...This Should Be Interesting...
Replies
-
xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
apparently, there is a legality issue with said compounds.
Not to mention that fact that said person has produced zero proof that they actually spot reduce.
Can I personally ask you how you came across this site?
University of Southern California 2004 is a good place to start.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055.figures-only
Oxandrolone reduced total (-1.9 ± 1.0 kg) and trunk fat (-1.3 ± 0.6 kg; P < 0.001), and these decreases were greater (P < 0.001) than placebo. Twelve weeks after oxandrolone was discontinued (week 24), the increments in LBM and muscle strength were no longer different from baseline (P > 0.15). However, the decreases in total and trunk fat were sustained (-1.5 ± 1.8, P = 0.001 and -1.0 ± 1.1 kg, P < 0.001, respectively). Thus oxandrolone induced short-term improvements in LBM, muscle area, and strength, while reducing whole body and trunk adiposity. Anabolic improvements were lost 12 wk after discontinuing oxandrolone, whereas improvements in fat mass were largely sustained.
Among other research:
Oh brother here let me do it for you since this appears to be going around in circles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14578370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25899102 (for older women)
Oxandrolone treatment augmented increases in lean tissue for the whole body (2.6 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-4.2 kg; P = 0.003), arms (0.3 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5 kg; P = 0.001), legs (0.8 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4 kg; P = 0.018), and trunk (1.4 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3 kg; P = 0.004). Oxandrolone also augmented loss of fat tissue of the whole body (-1 kg; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.4; P = 0.002), arms (-0.2 kg; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.02 kg; P = 0.032), legs (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1; P = 0.009), and tended to reduce trunk fat (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.04; P = 0.07). Improvements in muscle strength and power, chair stand, and dynamic balance were all significant over time (P < 0.05) but not different between groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Oxandrolone improves body composition adaptations to PRT in older women over 12 wk without augmenting muscle function or functional performance beyond that of PRT alone.
As for GH:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jcem.83.2.4594
"In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that GH is anabolic, lipolytic, and has an antinatriuretic action (8–10). Each of these properties has an impact on body composition. Most of the studies investigating body composition have referred to a two-compartment model consisting of fat mass and lean body mass (LBM)."
. Fat mass. GH replacement therapy has resulted in a mean reduction in fat mass of approximately 4–6 kg in GH-deficient adults (6, 7, 12–17, 21, 26–32). A recent study suggests that this reduction occurs similarly in both CO and AO GH deficiency (33). Anthropometric measurements indicate that the most important change occurs in the abdominal region (6). In addition, studies using CT (12) and MRI (13) have shown that the reduction in abdominal fat mass is mainly due to a reduction in visceral fat mass.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
Because..... people.
Because.... "humans be humans".
They are prescribed often enough to those who need them. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it is something that should be publicly available or even a first/second even third option for those seeking a certain goal?
Example:
gammahydroxybutyrate acid releases a lot of important chemicals and triggers 3-4 hours of REM sleep but is only used for cataplexy linked to narcolepsy where we are. In other countries it's used for sleep disorders with circadian rhythm problems. Those who have sleeping problems do not automatically start on that, do they? They get referred to antihistamines like diphenhydramine, followed by things like zopiclone 3.75 then 7.5 and it continues.
The OP had a question. The answer is naturally no, chemically yes. Just because it works doesn't mean your FDA will approve it for widespread Walmart availability?
What is the criteria for getting a prescription for these compounds? Is it not legal to use them for fat reduction? If so, why? If I were obese and went to you requesting this treatment, what would you say?
I know one of them is a banned substance for athletes (not of the bodybuilding sort unless they do natty comps). I assume anything in the steroid family would be too.
As for the legalities of prescribing HGH off label for vanity spot reduction, I don't know but I would certainly hope it's not approved, especially here where the NHS is already under great strain from long term underfunding.
I was figuring as much. I guess I just don't get why it was even brought up as a viable option when it isn't.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
Because..... people.
Because.... "humans be humans".
They are prescribed often enough to those who need them. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it is something that should be publicly available or even a first/second even third option for those seeking a certain goal?
Example:
gammahydroxybutyrate acid releases a lot of important chemicals and triggers 3-4 hours of REM sleep but is only used for cataplexy linked to narcolepsy where we are. In other countries it's used for sleep disorders with circadian rhythm problems. Those who have sleeping problems do not automatically start on that, do they? They get referred to antihistamines like diphenhydramine, followed by things like zopiclone 3.75 then 7.5 and it continues.
The OP had a question. The answer is naturally no, chemically yes. Just because it works doesn't mean your FDA will approve it for widespread Walmart availability?
What is the criteria for getting a prescription for these compounds? Is it not legal to use them for fat reduction? If so, why? If I were obese and went to you requesting this treatment, what would you say?
I know one of them is a banned substance for athletes (not of the bodybuilding sort unless they do natty comps). I assume anything in the steroid family would be too.
As for the legalities of prescribing HGH off label for vanity spot reduction, I don't know but I would certainly hope it's not approved, especially here where the NHS is already under great strain from long term underfunding.
I was figuring as much. I guess I just don't get why it was even brought up as a viable option when it isn't.
Moralistic viewpoints when it comes to factual science is by the by. They asked a question and got a factual answer. Others then started with the: No you can't oh no you can't nuh huh mentality and decided to blurt it out without any tact. The names of them shouldn't have been blurted out by that individual in public where it didn't belong.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
Because..... people.
Because.... "humans be humans".
They are prescribed often enough to those who need them. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it is something that should be publicly available or even a first/second even third option for those seeking a certain goal?
Example:
gammahydroxybutyrate acid releases a lot of important chemicals and triggers 3-4 hours of REM sleep but is only used for cataplexy linked to narcolepsy where we are. In other countries it's used for sleep disorders with circadian rhythm problems. Those who have sleeping problems do not automatically start on that, do they? They get referred to antihistamines like diphenhydramine, followed by things like zopiclone 3.75 then 7.5 and it continues.
The OP had a question. The answer is naturally no, chemically yes. Just because it works doesn't mean your FDA will approve it for widespread Walmart availability?
What is the criteria for getting a prescription for these compounds? Is it not legal to use them for fat reduction? If so, why? If I were obese and went to you requesting this treatment, what would you say?
I know one of them is a banned substance for athletes (not of the bodybuilding sort unless they do natty comps). I assume anything in the steroid family would be too.
As for the legalities of prescribing HGH off label for vanity spot reduction, I don't know but I would certainly hope it's not approved, especially here where the NHS is already under great strain from long term underfunding.
I was figuring as much. I guess I just don't get why it was even brought up as a viable option when it isn't.
My point as well. Thanks for articulating that better than I could in the moment.3 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
apparently, there is a legality issue with said compounds.
Not to mention that fact that said person has produced zero proof that they actually spot reduce.
Can I personally ask you how you came across this site?
University of Southern California 2004 is a good place to start.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055.figures-only
Oxandrolone reduced total (-1.9 ± 1.0 kg) and trunk fat (-1.3 ± 0.6 kg; P < 0.001), and these decreases were greater (P < 0.001) than placebo. Twelve weeks after oxandrolone was discontinued (week 24), the increments in LBM and muscle strength were no longer different from baseline (P > 0.15). However, the decreases in total and trunk fat were sustained (-1.5 ± 1.8, P = 0.001 and -1.0 ± 1.1 kg, P < 0.001, respectively). Thus oxandrolone induced short-term improvements in LBM, muscle area, and strength, while reducing whole body and trunk adiposity. Anabolic improvements were lost 12 wk after discontinuing oxandrolone, whereas improvements in fat mass were largely sustained.
Among other research:
Oh brother here let me do it for you since this appears to be going around in circles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14578370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25899102 (for older women)
Oxandrolone treatment augmented increases in lean tissue for the whole body (2.6 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-4.2 kg; P = 0.003), arms (0.3 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5 kg; P = 0.001), legs (0.8 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4 kg; P = 0.018), and trunk (1.4 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3 kg; P = 0.004). Oxandrolone also augmented loss of fat tissue of the whole body (-1 kg; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.4; P = 0.002), arms (-0.2 kg; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.02 kg; P = 0.032), legs (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1; P = 0.009), and tended to reduce trunk fat (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.04; P = 0.07). Improvements in muscle strength and power, chair stand, and dynamic balance were all significant over time (P < 0.05) but not different between groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Oxandrolone improves body composition adaptations to PRT in older women over 12 wk without augmenting muscle function or functional performance beyond that of PRT alone.
As for GH:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jcem.83.2.4594
"In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that GH is anabolic, lipolytic, and has an antinatriuretic action (8–10). Each of these properties has an impact on body composition. Most of the studies investigating body composition have referred to a two-compartment model consisting of fat mass and lean body mass (LBM)."
. Fat mass. GH replacement therapy has resulted in a mean reduction in fat mass of approximately 4–6 kg in GH-deficient adults (6, 7, 12–17, 21, 26–32). A recent study suggests that this reduction occurs similarly in both CO and AO GH deficiency (33). Anthropometric measurements indicate that the most important change occurs in the abdominal region (6). In addition, studies using CT (12) and MRI (13) have shown that the reduction in abdominal fat mass is mainly due to a reduction in visceral fat mass.
so it reduced body fat all over? not sure how that relates to spot reduction.
I can just eat in a deficit and strength train and lose fat all over, over time.8 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Oh lookie, neither of the two things you sent me in the PMs actually showed spot reduction, just fat loss induced because one is a steroid and the other is hgh.
Care to share which miracle "spot reduction" things these are?
Oxandrolone and HGH. Really this secrecy crap stinks to high heavens. There's no reason to not write it public unless being afraid of being shown to be wrong.
Both of those are well known and regularly used by bodybuilders and others during cutting cycles. HGH is profoundly good at mobilising fat and oxandrolane (Anavar) anecdotally is good at the same.
However neither have any spot reduction capabilities.
The only compound that I can think of that "spot reduces" (and I use that phrase very loosely) is Yohimbine as it targets the stubborn fat areas due it stimulating the beta receptors.2 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...0 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.2 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
OK--and what are the side effects?0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
OK--and what are the side effects?
Not something I'd recommend as you can see my post that it's not intended for that purpose in any medical setting but people use it for that purpose. I'm sure you can search for its side effects. From what I know it increases protein synthesis as well. Theoretically you could combine it with IGF-1 and mimic the process of 'training' your muscles without actually lifting a weight. PGF2a for protein synthesis by activating ribosomes and thereby also IFs such as eIF-4e, as well as IGF-1 to activate cells to bind and up amount of mRNA to be used by the ribosomes.
Like I said: using something for aesthetics and risking untested and unapproved methods is nothing but silly - whereas you're a lot safer with tried and tested methods: sleep, eat and exercise.
If anything GH is far safer and is used for the right purposes. It is documented at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514513 that site injections in abdomen tend to bring faster concentration levels with higher tissue thickness and fat levels in comparison to the thigh - however the metabolic effects of GH were similar across both injection sites.0 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
so basically it is something that one should never do, so you still can't spot reduce.
glad we cleared that up.0 -
No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
so basically it is something that one should never do, so you still can't spot reduce.
glad we cleared that up.
Turning empirical arguments into moralistic ones is the last refuge of a losing argument. People do it quite often in fitness/bodybuilding circles (PGF2A) both in transdermal and subcutaneous form.
So no - we didn't clear anything up other than your insistence that you can't given numerous examples that you can. Strawman arguments based on moralistic judgement don't change the fact that you can spot reduce. Simple.
"if anything GH is far safer and is used for the right purposes. It is documented at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514513 that site injections in abdomen tend to bring faster concentration levels with higher tissue thickness and fat levels in comparison to the thigh - however the metabolic effects of GH were similar across both injection sites."
Like I said it's far safer and is actually medically used for some of those health benefits.2 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."13 -
snowflake954 wrote: »No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
OK--and what are the side effects?
Not something I'd recommend as you can see my post that it's not intended for that purpose in any medical setting but people use it for that purpose. I'm sure you can search for its side effects. From what I know it increases protein synthesis as well. Theoretically you could combine it with IGF-1 and mimic the process of 'training' your muscles without actually lifting a weight. PGF2a for protein synthesis by activating ribosomes and thereby also IFs such as eIF-4e, as well as IGF-1 to activate cells to bind and up amount of mRNA to be used by the ribosomes.
Like I said: using something for aesthetics and risking untested and unapproved methods is nothing but silly - whereas you're a lot safer with tried and tested methods: sleep, eat and exercise.
If anything GH is far safer and is used for the right purposes. It is documented at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514513 that site injections in abdomen tend to bring faster concentration levels with higher tissue thickness and fat levels in comparison to the thigh - however the metabolic effects of GH were similar across both injection sites.
so without the use of a drug -that may or may not have harmful side effects and is probably illegal - you can't spot reduce.
so for 99% of us, spot reduction is not a thing.
2 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
so you are saying there is a chance?0 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
so you are saying there is a chance?
0 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
1 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
as are yours...3 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
Except.........the OP claimed she spot reduced using methods that can do no such thing. So really that's the topic up for discussion. Will the methods she employed lead to spot reduction. And the simple answer to that is no.11 -
FOR THE RECORD: Define probably illegal with a doctor's precription when different countries have different requirements and protocols? In other words: that is also incorrect and don't go assuming that prescription medication is illegal. You are giving a negative connotation to a compound which is used medically for health purposes in the case of GH. As for things like Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) - plenty of information is on that online and people who use it. I wouldn't but that's my own choice just like it's your choice. OK? Nobody elses. Yours. You speak for yourself - not 99% of people.snowflake954 wrote: »No - look at the figures and differences. Particular emphasis on abdominal in Ox and through its pharmacology with GH precisely *WHERE* you inject it into the fat cells before it spreads.
Yeah - sure you can eat in a deficit, train and lose fat as well as muscle - all over.... over time. What you CANNOT do is remain static on calories or even in a deficit in a sedentary manner and lose fat whilst gaining strength. Particularly abdominal fat which Ox is known to do.
As for GH - if you look into how it works within cells via administration in a particular site of course it's going to spot reduce that fat moreso unless you go for the other option (IM) rather than Subc administration whereby itll be more even.
so my options are 1) take steroids, eat regularly, lift heavy, and lose fat from all over; 2) eat in calorie deficit, lift heavy, lose fat all over; 3) recomp and lose some fat and gain some muscle...
I dont see anything in what you have posted that by taking these compounds I can just target, say, belly fat...
Oxandrolone will specifically target more abdominal 'belly' fat than any other. Prostaglandin 2a (PGF2A) will in particular spot reduce an area where you inject it. It works directly on the fat cells you inject it into. I don't condone its use for this purpose but some people use it for that purpose.
OK--and what are the side effects?
Not something I'd recommend as you can see my post that it's not intended for that purpose in any medical setting but people use it for that purpose. I'm sure you can search for its side effects. From what I know it increases protein synthesis as well. Theoretically you could combine it with IGF-1 and mimic the process of 'training' your muscles without actually lifting a weight. PGF2a for protein synthesis by activating ribosomes and thereby also IFs such as eIF-4e, as well as IGF-1 to activate cells to bind and up amount of mRNA to be used by the ribosomes.
Like I said: using something for aesthetics and risking untested and unapproved methods is nothing but silly - whereas you're a lot safer with tried and tested methods: sleep, eat and exercise.
If anything GH is far safer and is used for the right purposes. It is documented at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7514513 that site injections in abdomen tend to bring faster concentration levels with higher tissue thickness and fat levels in comparison to the thigh - however the metabolic effects of GH were similar across both injection sites.
so without the use of a drug -that may or may not have harmful side effects and is probably illegal - you can't spot reduce.
so for 99% of us, spot reduction is not a thing.
Yet again - OK. You choose not to do something. Plenty of people choose to do the opposite. Doesn't take much online research to view fitness communities with personal experiences of aforementioned compounds.
In other words: just because YOU decide something is not for you doesn't mean that the information available and facts that these things exist is automatically irrelevant. What your moralistic judgements are is subjective to that of somebody elses. MMMkay?
Again: OP asked a question. OP got an answer. It may not be the answer you like but it's an answer nontheless. It's an answer that numerous people have found it to their benefit. Some of them have used one moreso than the other and I'd prefer people use the safer options - but it's not my place to judge these choices.
1930's book burning and art theft in Germany due to mass hysteria and ignorance towards the arts/culture/science/anthropological and biological facts didn't precisely end too well for a lot of people. Nothing is worse than a situation where people project their moralistic standpoints above empirical data and refuse to see that obvious is obvious...0 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
as are yours...
I beg to differ.1 -
So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
as are yours...
I beg to differ.
OMG, we know...10 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
Except.........the OP claimed she spot reduced using methods that can do no such thing. So really that's the topic up for discussion. Will the methods she employed lead to spot reduction. And the simple answer to that is no.
Title of thread: Spot Reducing...This Should Be Interesting...
Beginning with: "They say you cant do this...I say you can. I did it. "
My first response:
"There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
I addressed her particular situation and mentioned the water retention.
The REST of the thread has been responses to questions regarding these compounds. That's it. Generally if there's a discussion and questions are thrown to somebody - it's quite often they'll respond to said questions. Not like the thread has digressed into anything other than spot reduction - so it is STILL very much so linked to the theme of the subject. At what point did I encourage this discussion given that at the very most I privately sent somebody some examples and they decided to blurt them out.
Even down to nitpicking so I went for something I wouldn't use myself like prostaglandin 2a because people cannot seem to understand how GH mechanisms work.
Tongue twsiting and pedantry over linguistics to suit your stance is subterfuge and frankly doesn't address any technical points whatsoever.1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
apparently, there is a legality issue with said compounds.
Not to mention that fact that said person has produced zero proof that they actually spot reduce.
Can I personally ask you how you came across this site?
University of Southern California 2004 is a good place to start.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055.figures-only
Oxandrolone reduced total (-1.9 ± 1.0 kg) and trunk fat (-1.3 ± 0.6 kg; P < 0.001), and these decreases were greater (P < 0.001) than placebo. Twelve weeks after oxandrolone was discontinued (week 24), the increments in LBM and muscle strength were no longer different from baseline (P > 0.15). However, the decreases in total and trunk fat were sustained (-1.5 ± 1.8, P = 0.001 and -1.0 ± 1.1 kg, P < 0.001, respectively). Thus oxandrolone induced short-term improvements in LBM, muscle area, and strength, while reducing whole body and trunk adiposity. Anabolic improvements were lost 12 wk after discontinuing oxandrolone, whereas improvements in fat mass were largely sustained.
Among other research:
Oh brother here let me do it for you since this appears to be going around in circles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14578370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25899102 (for older women)
Oxandrolone treatment augmented increases in lean tissue for the whole body (2.6 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-4.2 kg; P = 0.003), arms (0.3 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5 kg; P = 0.001), legs (0.8 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4 kg; P = 0.018), and trunk (1.4 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3 kg; P = 0.004). Oxandrolone also augmented loss of fat tissue of the whole body (-1 kg; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.4; P = 0.002), arms (-0.2 kg; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.02 kg; P = 0.032), legs (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1; P = 0.009), and tended to reduce trunk fat (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.04; P = 0.07). Improvements in muscle strength and power, chair stand, and dynamic balance were all significant over time (P < 0.05) but not different between groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Oxandrolone improves body composition adaptations to PRT in older women over 12 wk without augmenting muscle function or functional performance beyond that of PRT alone.
As for GH:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jcem.83.2.4594
"In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that GH is anabolic, lipolytic, and has an antinatriuretic action (8–10). Each of these properties has an impact on body composition. Most of the studies investigating body composition have referred to a two-compartment model consisting of fat mass and lean body mass (LBM)."
. Fat mass. GH replacement therapy has resulted in a mean reduction in fat mass of approximately 4–6 kg in GH-deficient adults (6, 7, 12–17, 21, 26–32). A recent study suggests that this reduction occurs similarly in both CO and AO GH deficiency (33). Anthropometric measurements indicate that the most important change occurs in the abdominal region (6). In addition, studies using CT (12) and MRI (13) have shown that the reduction in abdominal fat mass is mainly due to a reduction in visceral fat mass.
Disclaimer: This is not my area of research so I am not up on the most current studies, and these are likely nowhere close given they're dated 2006, 1998, etc. So, these compounds might well be capable of preferentially reducing trunk fat - which seems to be IVMay's interpretation of 'spot reduction'*. However, the data presented does not support the claim.
Re oxandrolone: The data shows statistically significant total body fat loss and statistically significant trunk fat loss vs placebo. What it does not show is that there is a statistically significant difference in the ratio of trunk fat to total fat loss vs placebo's ratio of trunk fat to total body fat loss. Therefore, the ability of oxandrolone to preferentially reduce trunk fat is unknown. The researchers had the data and could have presented the calculation, so either preferentially reducing trunk fat was not an important effect to them, or the result was not significant and the authors or reviewers didn't feel that fact was worth publishing.
I will also mention as a point of interest that the 2nd paper makes a particular point that DXA may not be as accurate in measuring lean mass for patients receiving oxandrolone at certain time points because the drug causes "a disproportionate increase in total body water compared with DXA-derived increase in lean tissue". Based on the first paper's data, that should only affect wk 12 after administration. Total body water appears to return to baseline at the wk 24 time point.
Re GH: I'm confused as to why GH replacement therapy in deficient adults would be used as evidence of effect in non-GH deficient adults. Even research in partially deficient adults had not been done at the time of publication of the text you provided: "Most of the studies to date have focused on those with absent or profoundly reduced GH secretion. The effect of GH replacement on those with partial GH deficiency has not been addressed." This is listed as one of the barriers to routine use of GH replacement as a therapy.
*I think most people think of 'spot reduction' more as removing specifically from upper arms, lower belly, love handles, etc. More targeted than over the entire trunk.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
as are yours...
I beg to differ.
OMG, we know...
Popularity contests was never my purpose. I like to discuss facts. This particular forum is general debating and discussions, is it not?
I don't: virtue signal or have crowd behaviour attributes. I do however have a keen mind that is eager to discuss a particular topic which so happens to be this one that is on this thread.
Apparently now the discussion of spot reduction and ways to achieve it is not apart of the topic of spot reduction. Sure thing.
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
Except.........the OP claimed she spot reduced using methods that can do no such thing. So really that's the topic up for discussion. Will the methods she employed lead to spot reduction. And the simple answer to that is no.
Title of thread: Spot Reducing...This Should Be Interesting...
Beginning with: "They say you cant do this...I say you can. I did it. "
My first response:
"There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
I addressed her particular situation and mentioned the water retention.
The REST of the thread has been responses to questions regarding these compounds. That's it. Generally if there's a discussion and questions are thrown to somebody - it's quite often they'll respond to said questions. Not like the thread has digressed into anything other than spot reduction - so it is STILL very much so linked to the theme of the subject. At what point did I encourage this discussion given that at the very most I privately sent somebody some examples and they decided to blurt them out.
Even down to nitpicking so I went for something I wouldn't use myself like prostaglandin 2a because people cannot seem to understand how GH mechanisms work.
Tongue twsiting and pedantry over linguistics to suit your stance is subterfuge and frankly doesn't address any technical points whatsoever.
those compounds don't even show a direct link to spot reduction ...
I will refer to @stealthq comments2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So your entire argument in this thread is based on a technicality that has little to no relevance to the topic at hand or to the general public. Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it practical, applicable or doable.
It's like someone saying that we aren't able to live on Mars and then you come saying "You're all wrong. Of course you can live on Mars. You just need to be a genius-level botanist with a ready supply of potatoes and a space hut. Shows what you know."
1. Practical depending on which individual and which logistics?
2. Applicable as it is applied in many cases in medical settings for purposes of longevity, health, musculature, fat, etc
3. See points 1 and 2.
OP had a question.
OP got a response.
You can keep talking about practicalities till the cows come home: it's all relative. To some it may be impractical to drive a manual car if they only have an automatic license. That changes little to do with the fact that it is possible for people to obtain a manual driving certificate to drive a manual car.
Your points are moot in this instance.
Except.........the OP claimed she spot reduced using methods that can do no such thing. So really that's the topic up for discussion. Will the methods she employed lead to spot reduction. And the simple answer to that is no.
Title of thread: Spot Reducing...This Should Be Interesting...
Beginning with: "They say you cant do this...I say you can. I did it. "
My first response:
"There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
I addressed her particular situation and mentioned the water retention.
The REST of the thread has been responses to questions regarding these compounds. That's it. Generally if there's a discussion and questions are thrown to somebody - it's quite often they'll respond to said questions. Not like the thread has digressed into anything other than spot reduction - so it is STILL very much so linked to the theme of the subject. At what point did I encourage this discussion given that at the very most I privately sent somebody some examples and they decided to blurt them out.
Even down to nitpicking so I went for something I wouldn't use myself like prostaglandin 2a because people cannot seem to understand how GH mechanisms work.
Tongue twsiting and pedantry over linguistics to suit your stance is subterfuge and frankly doesn't address any technical points whatsoever.
Except you were the one that brought them up, YOU derailed the thread into illegal and grey area supplements when that was not the topic for discussion. Saying the title of the thread is the crux is a strawman because that's not what the OP set out to discuss.
Subterfuge. LOLs.
And you also seem to be obsessed with said compounds and speaking about them publicly, which is bizarre in my view for a doctor (allegedly).5 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Why am I not surprised you don't like people linking to the WHO?
The WHO wasn't the issue - the complete shock of the irrelevance of your 'research' was the issue. Anyway that's another thread. I just sent you two messages with two examples. You want some more messages with other examples? I also provided you with links if you require any more links or research into those let me know.
Without prescription and approval from a doctor I find it more appropriate to not discuss particulars but you get the idea
Why not post your citations here? As a professional researcher, one of my great joys in life is destroying clown science.
The fact that you "know" all this but can't post your supersecret, magical compounds or link to any science backing you up is hysterical.
I've already done it in private. Since he has namedropped two examples and I've provided further information I'll assume you've heard of search engines? I'm not here to be your joey or dog and fetch for you when I've already provided my examples as well as sent him links.
I'm glad you get joy in destroying clown science. So do I. We're in the same boat, then.
Why kind of research is it, that you do? I do some research, myself.
You're missing the point of the discussion. You cannot spot reduce based on things that are readily available to us. You cannot, for the most part, exercise a muscle to death to spot reduce fat. You just can't. TECHNICALLY, there are likely a bunch of cagey, unsafe, massive side affect, drugs out there that could slightly increase it. But there is no magic thigh pill that if you take 3x's a day you're thighs will magically shed fat! Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducing. You can't. End of story.
Sigh. You've contradicted yourself there. The OP asked about spot reduction. The OP employed a method of use that dealt more with water and sweat than actual fat. The responses were of a technical nature regarding fat loss. water. muscle. etc etc. I gave a technical dispute using science. I was asked to clarify. The thing went to pot with ignorance. The rest is history.
I appreciate your rebuttal that I am, in fact, the one missing the point; however, I'm well aware what the point of this thread was. You are holding strong to your argument that spot reduction can happen with "compounds". My response was, spot reduction cannot happen with things readily available to us or without extreme measures.
My first opening post on here was this: "There are certain compounds that will allow spot reduction and others that have been medically shown in studies to fight certain areas of fat. Naturally through diet and exercise: NO. Your genetically predisposed to storing fat in certain areas depending on your genetics. Everybody differs. Unless you plan on taking certain compounds you cannot spot reduce fat. Water retention is another issue, completely."
In other words we agree on the enhanced vs natural differences.
Where we don't agree on is your use of 'slight' when studies have shown dramatic reduction of fat with the aforementioned compounds and in particular with abdominal areas in one and relative to subc. administration in the other which is specific to spot reduction. It is what it is.
"Don't over complicate things, the OP brought up spot reducting. You can't. End of story" <-- Just lol.
I may have missed this, but if these compounds ares so effective, why aren't they being used and prescribed more often?
apparently, there is a legality issue with said compounds.
Not to mention that fact that said person has produced zero proof that they actually spot reduce.
Can I personally ask you how you came across this site?
University of Southern California 2004 is a good place to start.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055
http://jap.physiology.org/content/96/3/1055.figures-only
Oxandrolone reduced total (-1.9 ± 1.0 kg) and trunk fat (-1.3 ± 0.6 kg; P < 0.001), and these decreases were greater (P < 0.001) than placebo. Twelve weeks after oxandrolone was discontinued (week 24), the increments in LBM and muscle strength were no longer different from baseline (P > 0.15). However, the decreases in total and trunk fat were sustained (-1.5 ± 1.8, P = 0.001 and -1.0 ± 1.1 kg, P < 0.001, respectively). Thus oxandrolone induced short-term improvements in LBM, muscle area, and strength, while reducing whole body and trunk adiposity. Anabolic improvements were lost 12 wk after discontinuing oxandrolone, whereas improvements in fat mass were largely sustained.
Among other research:
Oh brother here let me do it for you since this appears to be going around in circles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14578370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25899102 (for older women)
Oxandrolone treatment augmented increases in lean tissue for the whole body (2.6 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-4.2 kg; P = 0.003), arms (0.3 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5 kg; P = 0.001), legs (0.8 kg; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4 kg; P = 0.018), and trunk (1.4 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.3 kg; P = 0.004). Oxandrolone also augmented loss of fat tissue of the whole body (-1 kg; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.4; P = 0.002), arms (-0.2 kg; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.02 kg; P = 0.032), legs (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1; P = 0.009), and tended to reduce trunk fat (-0.4 kg; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.04; P = 0.07). Improvements in muscle strength and power, chair stand, and dynamic balance were all significant over time (P < 0.05) but not different between groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Oxandrolone improves body composition adaptations to PRT in older women over 12 wk without augmenting muscle function or functional performance beyond that of PRT alone.
As for GH:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jcem.83.2.4594
"In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that GH is anabolic, lipolytic, and has an antinatriuretic action (8–10). Each of these properties has an impact on body composition. Most of the studies investigating body composition have referred to a two-compartment model consisting of fat mass and lean body mass (LBM)."
. Fat mass. GH replacement therapy has resulted in a mean reduction in fat mass of approximately 4–6 kg in GH-deficient adults (6, 7, 12–17, 21, 26–32). A recent study suggests that this reduction occurs similarly in both CO and AO GH deficiency (33). Anthropometric measurements indicate that the most important change occurs in the abdominal region (6). In addition, studies using CT (12) and MRI (13) have shown that the reduction in abdominal fat mass is mainly due to a reduction in visceral fat mass.
Disclaimer: This is not my area of research so I am not up on the most current studies, and these are likely nowhere close given they're dated 2006, 1998, etc. So, these compounds might well be capable of preferentially reducing trunk fat - which seems to be IVMay's interpretation of 'spot reduction'*. However, the data presented does not support the claim.
Re oxandrolone: The data shows statistically significant total body fat loss and statistically significant trunk fat loss vs placebo. What it does not show is that there is a statistically significant difference in the ratio of trunk fat to total fat loss vs placebo's ratio of trunk fat to total body fat loss. Therefore, the ability of oxandrolone to preferentially reduce trunk fat is unknown. The researchers had the data and could have presented the calculation, so either preferentially reducing trunk fat was not an important effect to them, or the result was not significant and the authors or reviewers didn't feel that fact was worth publishing.
I will also mention as a point of interest that the 2nd paper makes a particular point that DXA may not be as accurate in measuring lean mass for patients receiving oxandrolone at certain time points because the drug causes "a disproportionate increase in total body water compared with DXA-derived increase in lean tissue". Based on the first paper's data, that should only affect wk 12 after administration. Total body water appears to return to baseline at the wk 24 time point.
Re GH: I'm confused as to why GH replacement therapy in deficient adults would be used as evidence of effect in non-GH deficient adults. Even research in partially deficient adults had not been done at the time of publication of the text you provided: "Most of the studies to date have focused on those with absent or profoundly reduced GH secretion. The effect of GH replacement on those with partial GH deficiency has not been addressed." This is listed as one of the barriers to routine use of GH replacement as a therapy.
*I think most people think of 'spot reduction' more as removing specifically from upper arms, lower belly, love handles, etc. More targeted than over the entire trunk.
Hi. Thanks for your response and for looking into this.. Makes a considerable change from..... well...
GH: The reason why GH replacement therapy is given as an example with humans suffering from GHD or conditions such as Turner's or Prader Wills (sp) is that 90% of the research has been forcused towards tackling life altering issues such as that. In a sense there is limited scope to reach to but there have been some studies which are adults without GHD or low levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9062473 for instance
"Growth hormone treatment of abdominally obese men reduces abdominal fat mass, improves glucose and lipoprotein metabolism, and reduces diastolic blood pressure."
"The glucose disposal rate (GDR) was measured during an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp. In response to the rhGH treatment, total body fat and abdominal sc and visceral adipose tissue decreased by 9.2 +/- 2.4%, 6.1 +/- 3.2%, and 18.1 +/- 7.6%, respectively."
Granted that a lot of the studies specifically deal with trunk and abdominal levels; as well as focus entirely on obese subjects. Though they are based on investigating just that - which I guess is better than an 'afterthought' which you rightly said other studies do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15598680
"Growth hormone treatment reduces abdominal visceral fat in postmenopausal women with abdominal obesity: a 12-month placebo-controlled trial."
"In postmenopausal women with abdominal obesity, 1 yr of GH treatment improved insulin sensitivity and reduced abdominal visceral fat and total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The improvement in insulin sensitivity was associated with reduced hepatic fat content."
One of the other underlying issues is that it naturally diminishes with age past the late 20's so these studies are a good reason for testing older subjects. There have been combined GH and Test/sex hormone studies done on both healthy men and women at early adult stages and those of pensioner age that showed significant losses of fat and muscle mass increases.
0 -
Must be why I have no fat on my forehead... I'm always sweating in that spot! :-P2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions