Help! Losing inches off boobs not lower belly/thighs despite doing lower body workouts!Any advice?
Options
Replies
-
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"8 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou8 -
Runaroundafieldx2 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou
Actually not a terrible article, at the link. Completely unrelated to the point it's supposed to prove IMO, though.
OP wants to retain fat and lose fat at the same time, in a desired pattern that may not be her genetic predisposition. PP argues that fiber will somehow do hormonal magic, and result in loss of central fat with retention of fatty tissue in the breast, because estrogen (I guess; it was hard to follow).
Article headline is clickbait; actual article describes something not exactly matching headline. Neither headline, nor article, supports breast fat/body fat/fiber/estrogen hypothesis.
I'm betting on the plastic surgery hypothesis, myself. Also, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be like a Kardashian in any way, except possibly rich (if one could do it more ethically). But I'm old, so what do I know.13 -
SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick.
and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.2 -
collectingblues wrote: »SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick. and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.
I would be thrilled if I lose enough to get down to a 34DD. It would make bra shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I guess I better decrease my fibre. 1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick. and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.
I would be thrilled if I lose enough to get down to a 34DD. It would make bra shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I guess I better decrease my fibre.
I do find clothes shopping easier than the days of 38D.
Although bra shopping is just as much of a PITA, because it turns out that you're not expected to have a narrow band size and an OMG BOOBS cup size.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick. and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.
I would be thrilled if I lose enough to get down to a 34DD. It would make bra shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I guess I better decrease my fibre.
I dunno, is fiber supposed to affect cup size, band size, or both?
In all seriousness, I didn’t lose any cup sizes until I was really close to my goal. I only lost band sizes at first. I assume I was losing fat proportionally in my breasts and around my rib cage, so the cups stayed the same until my last 15 pounds or so. If you’re still losing fat, hang in there—it might happen.1 -
collectingblues wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick. and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.
I would be thrilled if I lose enough to get down to a 34DD. It would make bra shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I guess I better decrease my fibre.
I do find clothes shopping easier than the days of 38D.
Although bra shopping is just as much of a PITA, because it turns out that you're not expected to have a narrow band size and an OMG BOOBS cup size.
Even when I was in the DDDs it was easier than being a G. Fortunately, those bras are getting too big, but not enough so that I can buy a semi-normal size. Ugh, I hope another 30lbs will make the difference. Although I'm a little concerned about how far down my abdomen they will be hanging, but there's always surgery.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »SaniyaOct18 wrote: »
Oh my bad, definitely eat LOTS of fiber for your boobs, that should do the trick. and don't forget to wash it down with apple cider vinegar too preferably after a large glass of milk.
So all I had to do was eat less fiber when losing and I wouldn't have needed that painful reduction?
I predict a huge jump in metamucil stocks when this news gets out. Time to buy!
I wonder if there would be benefits to the transgender community, too? Increased fiber intake rather than estrogen blockers... Big pharma is going to hate that.
With all the fiber I eat, I should put Dolly Parton to shame by now!
And vice versa, with how much I struggle to get all of my fiber, I *really* shouldn't still be an owner of 34DDs.
I would be thrilled if I lose enough to get down to a 34DD. It would make bra shopping so much easier (and cheaper). I guess I better decrease my fibre.
I dunno, is fiber supposed to affect cup size, band size, or both?
In all seriousness, I didn’t lose any cup sizes until I was really close to my goal. I only lost band sizes at first. I assume I was losing fat proportionally in my breasts and around my rib cage, so the cups stayed the same until my last 15 pounds or so. If you’re still losing fat, hang in there—it might happen.
Definitely been getting smaller. So yay! Still a bit to go. I guess I'll see as I get closer.1 -
Runaroundafieldx2 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou
Actually not a terrible article, at the link. Completely unrelated to the point it's supposed to prove IMO, though.
OP wants to retain fat and lose fat at the same time, in a desired pattern that may not be her genetic predisposition. PP argues that fiber will somehow do hormonal magic, and result in loss of central fat with retention of fatty tissue in the breast, because estrogen (I guess; it was hard to follow).
Article headline is clickbait; actual article describes something not exactly matching headline. Neither headline, nor article, supports breast fat/body fat/fiber/estrogen hypothesis.
I'm betting on the plastic surgery hypothesis, myself. Also, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be like a Kardashian in any way, except possibly rich (if one could do it more ethically). But I'm old, so what do I know.
I was answering back to hammerhead or anvilhead or whoever he is.
He said "There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit."
So the article is an answer to that.
8 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
LOL. Did you even read all the way through what you linked to??? Or was that just the first result when you Googled “gain fat in deficit”? 4 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Runaroundafieldx2 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou
Actually not a terrible article, at the link. Completely unrelated to the point it's supposed to prove IMO, though.
OP wants to retain fat and lose fat at the same time, in a desired pattern that may not be her genetic predisposition. PP argues that fiber will somehow do hormonal magic, and result in loss of central fat with retention of fatty tissue in the breast, because estrogen (I guess; it was hard to follow).
Article headline is clickbait; actual article describes something not exactly matching headline. Neither headline, nor article, supports breast fat/body fat/fiber/estrogen hypothesis.
I'm betting on the plastic surgery hypothesis, myself. Also, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be like a Kardashian in any way, except possibly rich (if one could do it more ethically). But I'm old, so what do I know.
I was answering back to hammerhead or anvilhead or whoever he is.
He said "There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit."
So the article is an answer to that.
Except it kind of doesn't. And it's just some guys opinion, not proof of anything. And I'll copy and paste the About the Author:
Menno Henselmans
Formerly a business consultant, I've traded my company car to follow my passion in strength training. I'm now an online physique coach, scientist and international public speaker with the mission to help serious trainees master their physique.4 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Runaroundafieldx2 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou
Actually not a terrible article, at the link. Completely unrelated to the point it's supposed to prove IMO, though.
OP wants to retain fat and lose fat at the same time, in a desired pattern that may not be her genetic predisposition. PP argues that fiber will somehow do hormonal magic, and result in loss of central fat with retention of fatty tissue in the breast, because estrogen (I guess; it was hard to follow).
Article headline is clickbait; actual article describes something not exactly matching headline. Neither headline, nor article, supports breast fat/body fat/fiber/estrogen hypothesis.
I'm betting on the plastic surgery hypothesis, myself. Also, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be like a Kardashian in any way, except possibly rich (if one could do it more ethically). But I'm old, so what do I know.
I was answering back to hammerhead or anvilhead or whoever he is.
He said "There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit."
So the article is an answer to that.
Except it kind of doesn't. And it's just some guys opinion, not proof of anything. And I'll copy and paste the About the Author:
Menno Henselmans
Formerly a business consultant, I've traded my company car to follow my passion in strength training. I'm now an online physique coach, scientist and international public speaker with the mission to help serious trainees master their physique.
FWIW, Menno generally isn't held in very high regard by evidence-based researchers. He's often been at odds with people such as Eric Helms and Lyle McDonald (the latter has pretty strongly worded opinions about Menno - which is unsurprising if you know anything about Lyle).
7 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Runaroundafieldx2 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
Incorrect again. There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit. No matter what kind of garbage people like Fung want to claim. The insulin theory of obesity has been scientifically shot to pieces, it's a myth.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »What is wrong with a 32D?
Do you keep track of your blood sugar?
High insulin levels will take your calories and deposit them as fat on your body, even if you eat low cals and loads of fiber.
Fat distribution is hormonally directed.
Metabolism = hormones
I'm not here to accept an assignment from you, do your own research.
So as it applies to the OP, eating fiber and/or influencing insulin levels will have nothing whatsoever to do with her goals. What she's trying to do can't be accomplished any way other than plastic surgery, despite what the Kardashians may lead people to believe.
https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/energy-balance-myths/
"Energy balance myths: Why you can gain fat in a deficit"
What do you think you just linked to?
Please show the link to an actual study not just some one typing their own thou
Actually not a terrible article, at the link. Completely unrelated to the point it's supposed to prove IMO, though.
OP wants to retain fat and lose fat at the same time, in a desired pattern that may not be her genetic predisposition. PP argues that fiber will somehow do hormonal magic, and result in loss of central fat with retention of fatty tissue in the breast, because estrogen (I guess; it was hard to follow).
Article headline is clickbait; actual article describes something not exactly matching headline. Neither headline, nor article, supports breast fat/body fat/fiber/estrogen hypothesis.
I'm betting on the plastic surgery hypothesis, myself. Also, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be like a Kardashian in any way, except possibly rich (if one could do it more ethically). But I'm old, so what do I know.
I was answering back to hammerhead or anvilhead or whoever he is.
He said "There is no net fat storage anywhere on your body when you are in a caloric deficit."
So the article is an answer to that.
But it's not. Other than the headline, I mean.
The closest it comes is this:Following the same logic, you can also gain fat in a deficit. If you lose muscle 5.2 times as fast as you get fat, you gain fat while remaining in a deficit. Unless your weight loss program really sucks though, I should hope this only ever occurs if you stop training, you have a serious medical condition or there are drugs involved.
Note the "If" and the dismissive caveat at the end.
The main thrust of the article is that you can gain muscle while losing fat (yay, recomposition works), with some comments up top that weight change happens when water weight changes (which has nothing to do with gain or loss of muscle or fat).
Yeah, there's some questionable reasoning in there (like the slippery stuff about weight vs. fat), and a touching faith in the precision accuracy of DXA, etc. But it doesn't really matter. The text doesn't back up the clickbait headline.5 -
well I can say when I was 140 lbs my boobs were the same size at 209 lbs. the only thing that changed with gaining weight and losing weight was band size cause I gained back fat when I gained. when I lost I lost the back fat. Im on a higher fiber diet, my boobs are still the same size. so fiber hasnt helped me out in anyway. oh and as for belly fat its one of the last 3 places I lose,so still losing there as well as in my hips and thighs. fiber hasnt helped with those things either.
Fiber has helped bring my cholesterol down along with my low fat,low cholesterol diet and medication. but its taken me 5 years and still going and I still have a little belly fat,thigh fat to go. its coming off but it has nothing to do with the fiber. if you gain weight your boobs will grow IF they are mostly fat tissue. if they are whats called dense breast Like I have they may grow very little if any with weight gain. with weight loss you may lose some but if you are like me you wont lose any size. Im wearing the same size bras I was when I was a teen.2 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:1. Play Nice
I WILL:
• I will be respectful and understand that everyone is different. Some members are new to this, so be kind to the newbies.
• I will remember the human on the other side of the screen.
• I will share my opinions while respecting others' thoughts and feelings as well.
• I will be ready to hear and accept other opinions that I might not always agree with.
• I will ignore users.
I WON’T:
• I won’t be a jerk.
• I will not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. I can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but I cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the member’s spelling or command of written English, belittling a member for posting a duplicate discussion, or attacking a member for posting in an older discussion. (ie. It’s lose not loose, strong first post, didn’t you already post this today, etc.) Not every member has the same level of education, so I’ll refrain from criticizing a member for not framing their content in a manner befitting a university-level science paper.
• I won’t pick apart how something is said; I will focus on the meaning/message.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
kgeyser
MyFitnessPal Moderator
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions