really stupid question

ck2d
ck2d Posts: 372 Member
edited November 22 in Fitness and Exercise
Can you be overweight and still have visible abs?
I'm asking because of what someone I know, who I think is just trying to bring me down a peg, has insisted that it's not possible.
I am ~50 lbs overweight. I carry my weight like I've got two spare tires around me, one in the boob area and one in the hip area. My lower stomach, from the belly button down, is a little bubble. But above it, I'm very narrow. I work out a lot. I have 3 vertical indentations exactly where everyone else's (ie thin people) abs are. So I'm thinking, they're my abs, and I'm just lucky they're visible.
Someone I know says it's impossible to have visible abs and be overweight. They're rolls.
Maybe I'm clueless. I thought rolls were horizontal fat pockets. I've never heard of vertical rolls. But I could be deluding myself. Maybe it is fat that dimples that way.
So what do you think - is it possible to be overweight and have visible abs?

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    Tell him to mind his own business. :lol:
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    It sounds impossible at first blush. Maybe a photo?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I don't know that it's impossible but it is definitely something I'd have to see to believe. It seems like it would look very odd.
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    You didn't post a picture so there's no way to say for sure but I would say 99.9% no. I have the same indentations and they are definitely not abs. You can feel your own abs, just flex them and poke through the fat and you can feel the hard muscle below an inch or two or flab. THOSE are your abs :D
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    A picture would be useful

    Has this person seen your stomach to be able to comment?
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    If you're asking if those are your abs? They aren't your abs.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Not really. I guess it depends how big the muscles are and how the weight is distributed, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited October 2017
    It could be as simple as a deeper than normal groove between the recti. If you can pinch a considerable amount of skin in that area, they aren't abs.
  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    At 50 pounds overweight, I would think not. I have those lines when I am heavier as well (you can look at an example in my profile), but I don't consider that seeing my abs. Just a not-too-ugly fat distribution around my midsection.
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Even when heavy I have had a smaller waist and some "definition lines" vertically where abs might be. Were my abs exposed? Nope. I still had a thick layer of fat over even the definition lines. A good test (maybe?) would be to see if the area squishes. I've felt rock-hard exposed abs and they were firm to the touch.
  • ck2d
    ck2d Posts: 372 Member
    Alright, well I guess I'm wrong. It must be a lucky coincidence.
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    ck2d wrote: »
    So what do you think - is it possible to be overweight and have visible abs?

    i try to not have opinions like this, especially about other people. but fwiw, i do get visible shadow along the border between my obliques and that rectus abdominus segment even when there's still a fair bit of fat overlying the entire zone. that's not the same thing as being able to look right through a super-thin layer of bodyfat and see the clear outline of what's right underneath, which may be what your 'someone you know' is holding out for. but it's not the same thing as 'nah, that's just fat' either.

    i guess i think there's a difference between people being able to make out the shape of a muscle underneath fat, and them being able to see the muscle itself - but that either can be a real thing. i have no idea what the official definition of 'definition' is so maybe it's a semantics thing.
This discussion has been closed.