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...
Options
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.
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.
Other studies do that, but frankly there's nothing wrong with it if the study design and data supports it.
Both of those studies' participants appear to qualify as 'partially GH deficient'. It's a bit hard to tell given none of them posted what 'partial' means, but with one study classifying it's participants as low to normal and the other as 1-2 std dev below normal, I figure they qualify. So, test results in 'normal' GH background is still necessary.
And again, like the oxandrolone papers, they do show trunk and total fat loss vs placebo (men only*). Additionally, there's a statistically significant visceral fat loss (both men and women), but neither looks at the trunk to total fat loss ratio.
I still don't see how these provide supporting evidence for either of these compounds having spot reducing effects as I believe spot reducing is commonly understood. I haven't read any posts in this thread contradicting that there are compounds that encourage trunk fat loss, even visceral fat loss.
*Paper speculates that may be due to differences in drug dosage (lower for women) or an actual difference in response.0 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
You're right, anyone can go back and look. The post prior to your was "You can't spot reduce", you followed up with: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.
By even mentioning there are compounds it was of course going to turn into a discussion about that. For one who claims to be of superior intelligence you sure do seem to miss the point sometimes. Or perhaps it's wilful ignorance or an attempt at oneupmanship. I have no doubt you will have a come back for that.
And sure, I mention my diagnosis, but I never claim to be an authority on the subject and never make medication recommendations to those who come here or in other venues. It's not my place. It's not really any sort of comparison.
And those photos don't really prove anything, they could be from anywhere or anyone. None of them contain a photo ID or your name. Not that I encourage anyone to go sharing those things freely but you surely understand we can't just take some random on the internets' word for it they're a consultant? And we don't even know what your specialism is to know if your training is specifically relevant to the discussions. That would give more weight to your arguments although your approach, heavy with sarcasm and condescension already makes it difficult for people to want to engage in a friendlier, more information sharing way.
8 -
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?
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.
Other studies do that, but frankly there's nothing wrong with it if the study design and data supports it.
Both of those studies' participants appear to qualify as 'partially GH deficient'. It's a bit hard to tell given none of them posted what 'partial' means, but with one study classifying it's participants as low to normal and the other as 1-2 std dev below normal, I figure they qualify. So, test results in 'normal' GH background is still necessary.
And again, like the oxandrolone papers, they do show trunk and total fat loss vs placebo (men only*). Additionally, there's a statistically significant visceral fat loss (both men and women), but neither looks at the trunk to total fat loss ratio.
I still don't see how these provide supporting evidence for either of these compounds having spot reducing effects as I believe spot reducing is commonly understood. I haven't read any posts in this thread contradicting that there are compounds that encourage trunk fat loss, even visceral fat loss.
*Paper speculates that may be due to differences in drug dosage (lower for women) or an actual difference in response.
You're right, anyone can go back and look. The post prior to your was "You can't spot reduce", you followed up with: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.
By even mentioning there are compounds it was of course going to turn into a discussion about that. For one who claims to be of superior intelligence you sure do seem to miss the point sometimes. Or perhaps it's wilful ignorance or an attempt at oneupmanship. I have no doubt you will have a come back for that.
And sure, I mention my diagnosis, but I never claim to be an authority on the subject and never make medication recommendations to those who come here or in other venues. It's not my place. It's not really any sort of comparison.
And those photos don't really prove anything, they could be from anywhere or anyone. None of them contain a photo ID or your name. Not that I encourage anyone to go sharing those things freely but you surely understand we can't just take some random on the internets' word for it they're a consultant? And we don't even know what your specialism is to know if your training is specifically relevant to the discussions. That would give more weight to your arguments although your approach, heavy with sarcasm and condescension already makes it difficult for people to want to engage in a friendlier, more information sharing way.
I think you have a valid point about mentioning that there are certain things: yes, I think that would have driven the discussion in that manner. You're right about that. But the amount of dismissive content far outweighed people looking and possibly discussing it like stealth, ninerbuff, theo166 (going to look into coolsculpting so that's something that has helped ME learn) and Yohimbine which trigden1991 mentioned that I will also look into. That's four actual adult posters out of numerous dismissive content.
As for showing my work ID cards FULLY to promote possible fraud and GMC registration details... That makes no security sense whatsoever for myself NOR the NHS as a whole. Being anonymous and showing items that would be unavailable to the public as far as cards and letters is enough for me and whether it's enough for you or not I frankly am not concerning myself with that. I'm here for discussion but please don't question my credentials without proof when the burden of proof by me has been demonstrated with what I've shown whilst keeping a 'safe' distance. And NO you cannot blatantly get them from anywhere.... from anyone... that would be utterly insane and impersonating a doctor is highly illegal just as impersonating a police officer would be. Some things are really just NOT worth it and an online forum on the fringes of the internet is hardly the place to grandstand.
Like I said I have other material and hell I can show you some things privately because it seems as if there's a witch hunt going on against my credibility but there's certain things not open for public viewing and my name and GMC registration number are vital to my anon. The fact that I'm paying the GMC fees should tell you that they don't just send out direct debit slips and payment slips.
I'm on a 2 week compassionate and 2 week holiday b2b so it has been enjoyable to take my mind off things. Believe it or not but I'm not here under anything other than distraction and interest in health due to my own reawakening during this time off into fixing my life up health wise, OK?
I'll happily debate anything but what I don't think is fair is the nitpicking, the language based pedantry and conjecture about purposes of threads or directions or responsible parties for what is basically the topic of spot reduction. It is a debate forum, right?1 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.0 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
You did. You simply said 'NO'. That's it.
I guess I don't understand why you chose to focus your energy on explaining how some compounds--that people shouldn't use in the way you said they could be used--work, instead of explaining to the OP why her wraps weren't actually spot reduction. Seems like an awful lot of effort to try and prove something wrong while also not really helping the OP understand why she is misguided.1 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
You did. You simply said 'NO'. That's it.
I guess I don't understand why you chose to focus your energy on explaining how some compounds--that people shouldn't use in the way you said they could be used--work, instead of explaining to the OP why her wraps weren't actually spot reduction. Seems like an awful lot of effort to try and prove something wrong while also not really helping the OP understand why she is misguided.
The OP had their question answered with the technique she was using for spot reduction. I mentioned about other ways to achieve it. The rest of it was spot reduction with compounds from other users. Still in keeping with the theme of spot reduction. In other words: "just leave it" is what you keep hinting at. - OK - try looking into another thread if you want another topic. That's entirely your choice to read this thread, or not. Just like you mention my focus - nobody is forcing you to focus on this, either. You choose to click on it. Or just block my username. Entirely up to yourself, madam, what you choose to do. The power is in your hands and you don't have to read or look at this. OK?0 -
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.
Other studies do that, but frankly there's nothing wrong with it if the study design and data supports it.
Both of those studies' participants appear to qualify as 'partially GH deficient'. It's a bit hard to tell given none of them posted what 'partial' means, but with one study classifying it's participants as low to normal and the other as 1-2 std dev below normal, I figure they qualify. So, test results in 'normal' GH background is still necessary.
And again, like the oxandrolone papers, they do show trunk and total fat loss vs placebo (men only*). Additionally, there's a statistically significant visceral fat loss (both men and women), but neither looks at the trunk to total fat loss ratio.
I still don't see how these provide supporting evidence for either of these compounds having spot reducing effects as I believe spot reducing is commonly understood. I haven't read any posts in this thread contradicting that there are compounds that encourage trunk fat loss, even visceral fat loss.
*Paper speculates that may be due to differences in drug dosage (lower for women) or an actual difference in response.
Hi - thanks again for response. I think that if anything, having elderly subjects with diminished GH production will provide a MUCH better study group. Normal IGF-1 blood levels for adults will be between 200 and 450 ng/ml. Since there is a 10 to 15 percent decrease each year after the age of thirty, the variation can be extreme in comparison to older people. A replenishment will allow to demonstrate the 'reversal'. So in terms of them being partially GH deficient - I believe that group if any will show what GH therapy can do to reverse aging an fatloss
The fact that they are otherwise not suffering from genetic GHD nor Turner syndrome, Prada-Willi, kidney disease or any form of muscle wastage disease is a good study group in terms of fat. Their processes of lipolysis will be no different to any other healthy humans and there's no conditions that would affect it nor their metabolic processes function any different.
I'm looking into your oxandrolone points now and will respond 0 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
still not seeing where any of these magical compounds specifically target a specific area.1 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
still not seeing where any of these magical compounds specifically target a specific area.
I'm sure you don't. PGF2A is an example you have already been told about0 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
You did. You simply said 'NO'. That's it.
I guess I don't understand why you chose to focus your energy on explaining how some compounds--that people shouldn't use in the way you said they could be used--work, instead of explaining to the OP why her wraps weren't actually spot reduction. Seems like an awful lot of effort to try and prove something wrong while also not really helping the OP understand why she is misguided.
The OP had their question answered with the technique she was using for spot reduction. I mentioned about other ways to achieve it. The rest of it was spot reduction with compounds from other users. Still in keeping with the theme of spot reduction. In other words: "just leave it" is what you keep hinting at. - OK - try looking into another thread if you want another topic. That's entirely your choice to read this thread, or not. Just like you mention my focus - nobody is forcing you to focus on this, either. You choose to click on it. Or just block my username. Entirely up to yourself, madam, what you choose to do. The power is in your hands and you don't have to read or look at this. OK?
Thanks! I was unaware that I could ignore things on the internet. So glad I had someone take the time to explain it to me. Next time, please use smaller words so my feeble mind can comprehend the full level of your mansplaining.
ETA: 9 -
Hormones and drugs aside, the take away from this should be that if anyone thinks that spot reduction with wraps, creams and exercises are verifiable, that would be a NO.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I completely agree with you. I did say that naturally it's not possible in my first response.
You did. You simply said 'NO'. That's it.
I guess I don't understand why you chose to focus your energy on explaining how some compounds--that people shouldn't use in the way you said they could be used--work, instead of explaining to the OP why her wraps weren't actually spot reduction. Seems like an awful lot of effort to try and prove something wrong while also not really helping the OP understand why she is misguided.
The OP had their question answered with the technique she was using for spot reduction. I mentioned about other ways to achieve it. The rest of it was spot reduction with compounds from other users. Still in keeping with the theme of spot reduction. In other words: "just leave it" is what you keep hinting at. - OK - try looking into another thread if you want another topic. That's entirely your choice to read this thread, or not. Just like you mention my focus - nobody is forcing you to focus on this, either. You choose to click on it. Or just block my username. Entirely up to yourself, madam, what you choose to do. The power is in your hands and you don't have to read or look at this. OK?
Thanks! I was unaware that I could ignore things on the internet. So glad I had someone take the time to explain it to me. Next time, please use smaller words so my feeble mind can comprehend the full level of your mansplaining.
ETA:
Glad to have been the one to help you. Mansplaining? Ooooooh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight yes it's all making sense now. Now I completely get it. Oh, deary me. Yes I've heard of that, I think. I had to look it up and here we go: [video="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJyQpRfaGnw"]https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJyQpRfaGnw[/video]
Making gender an issue here is quite a leap, don't you think?-1 -
It helps with water loss.
A lot of girls now do body wraps (with anticellulite masks) during exercising. It helps to lose water and sweat and therefore to reduce cellulite.
Though I can not stand that burning sensation so I'm not into it.
That's how their slick sales pitch goes, but water loss from those wraps is temporary and does absolutely nothing to reduce cellulite. There is no lasting benefit to increasing sweat production in a particular area of the body. Unfortunately, people who don't realize this will waste their money on those useless scam products.
lol who's slick sales pitch?
Nobody sells anything to anybody.
I personally do it at home twice a week with natural oils and wraps and I can certainly see changes. My skin is tighter and much softer, cellulite is still there but less visible.
I can't do it during exercises, I find it too uncomfortable for my body. But I see many girls who wrap their legs and waistlines at my gym.0 -
ItWorks is the first scammy sales pitch I think of when I think of scammy wraps.It helps with water loss.
A lot of girls now do body wraps (with anticellulite masks) during exercising. It helps to lose water and sweat and therefore to reduce cellulite.
Though I can not stand that burning sensation so I'm not into it.
That's how their slick sales pitch goes, but water loss from those wraps is temporary and does absolutely nothing to reduce cellulite. There is no lasting benefit to increasing sweat production in a particular area of the body. Unfortunately, people who don't realize this will waste their money on those useless scam products.
lol who's slick sales pitch?
Nobody sells anything to anybody.
I personally do it at home twice a week with natural oils and wraps and I can certainly see changes. My skin is tighter and much softer, cellulite is still there but less visible.
I can't do it during exercises, I find it too uncomfortable for my body. But I see many girls who wrap their legs and waistlines at my gym.
As to the bolded, I see people do a lot of dumb and ineffective things at the gym. That's not a testimony to their effectiveness, it's a testimony to the fact that people do dumb and ineffective things because they believe it works, even when it doesn't.
There is no such thing as spot reduction.6 -
It helps with water loss.
A lot of girls now do body wraps (with anticellulite masks) during exercising. It helps to lose water and sweat and therefore to reduce cellulite.
Though I can not stand that burning sensation so I'm not into it.
That's how their slick sales pitch goes, but water loss from those wraps is temporary and does absolutely nothing to reduce cellulite. There is no lasting benefit to increasing sweat production in a particular area of the body. Unfortunately, people who don't realize this will waste their money on those useless scam products.
lol who's slick sales pitch?
Nobody sells anything to anybody.
I personally do it at home twice a week with natural oils and wraps and I can certainly see changes. My skin is tighter and much softer, cellulite is still there but less visible.
I can't do it during exercises, I find it too uncomfortable for my body. But I see many girls who wrap their legs and waistlines at my gym.
You know it's the better skincare doing the work and not the wraps? When I'm more consistent with applying moisturiser etc to my legs and thighs they look 100 times better than when they resemble the desert. It's my first suggestion to anyone wanting to improve the appearance of cellulite.0 -
Whatever you guys say, I judge from my own experience. Wrapping does help me with losing extra water and using essential oils helps with my cellulite.
And yes, those girls in my gym do look terrific.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »It helps with water loss.
A lot of girls now do body wraps (with anticellulite masks) during exercising. It helps to lose water and sweat and therefore to reduce cellulite.
Though I can not stand that burning sensation so I'm not into it.
That's how their slick sales pitch goes, but water loss from those wraps is temporary and does absolutely nothing to reduce cellulite. There is no lasting benefit to increasing sweat production in a particular area of the body. Unfortunately, people who don't realize this will waste their money on those useless scam products.
lol who's slick sales pitch?
Nobody sells anything to anybody.
I personally do it at home twice a week with natural oils and wraps and I can certainly see changes. My skin is tighter and much softer, cellulite is still there but less visible.
I can't do it during exercises, I find it too uncomfortable for my body. But I see many girls who wrap their legs and waistlines at my gym.
You know it's the better skincare doing the work and not the wraps? When I'm more consistent with applying moisturiser etc to my legs and thighs they look 100 times better than when they resemble the desert. It's my first suggestion to anyone wanting to improve the appearance of cellulite.
I don't think it's just the skin care because I've always used skin care religiously. I did find improvement with my cellulite after I started using wrapping.
I have hot shower and use Moroccan kessa to exfoliate. Then I use my oils (mixed oforange, pepper and mint essential oils with some basic oil like coconut) and wrap it up with plastic food wrappings. It can be pretty burning, skin gets red from blood circulation. I keep the wrap for 30-50 minutes, depends on what's going on on tv. Then I wash it off and moisturize my skin with a body cream, I really like Collistar now.0 -
Whatever you guys say, I judge from my own experience. Wrapping does help me with losing extra water and using essential oils helps with my cellulite.
And yes, those girls in my gym do look terrific.
Yes, the wraps do temporarily help remove water, and oils/moisturizers help to plump up skin to mask cellulite. Temporary being the key word. If you stop using them you end up back where you started. The advertising for products like ItWorks make it sound like they are making you thinner, ie losing fat. And that doesn't happen.
There are lots of legit products for cellulite and all of them say they temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite.2 -
Whatever you guys say, I judge from my own experience. Wrapping does help me with losing extra water and using essential oils helps with my cellulite.
And yes, those girls in my gym do look terrific.
Yes, the wraps do temporarily help remove water, and oils/moisturizers help to plump up skin to mask cellulite. Temporary being the key word. If you stop using them you end up back where you started. The advertising for products like ItWorks make it sound like they are making you thinner, ie losing fat. And that doesn't happen.
There are lots of legit products for cellulite and all of them say they temporarily reduce the appearance of cellulite.
Everything is temporary, unfortunately, and stoping a certain routine might bring the old results. If I stop eating healthy, I'd gain weight again, if I stop using skincare, my skin would get dry and etc.2 -
I believe you only lost water.
(Anyone correct me if I am wrong) Weren't these "wrap" things a way to look a bit "slimmer" before a party or something? How did people manage to think they are losing fat???0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions