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 reduction: Perhaps not so mythical?
magnusthenerd
Posts: 1,207 Member
in Debate Club
It seems that spot reduction is a pervasive hope of many, and denying that possibility a perhaps perverse pleasure of skeptics.
So while there are many nails in the coffin, a 2017 study may be a zombie pounding from inside the coffin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28497942
16 inactive women began an 8 week training protocol. One group trained upper body followed by aerobic cycling and another trained lower body, followed by aerobic arm-ergometer. The results showed that there was some level of specificity to where fat was lost, preferentially from the region used in resistance training. Perhaps resistance training can mobilize local fat stores, but it takes aerobic activity to deplete that mobilized fat before it returns to storage.
So while there are many nails in the coffin, a 2017 study may be a zombie pounding from inside the coffin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28497942
16 inactive women began an 8 week training protocol. One group trained upper body followed by aerobic cycling and another trained lower body, followed by aerobic arm-ergometer. The results showed that there was some level of specificity to where fat was lost, preferentially from the region used in resistance training. Perhaps resistance training can mobilize local fat stores, but it takes aerobic activity to deplete that mobilized fat before it returns to storage.
6
Replies
-
I have some skepticism that a study this tiny (8 people in each group) can really be that illustrative of anything. If they follow it up with a larger study that replicates the results, that would be something, but a study this small could easily be an outlier.13
-
I don't believe there is enough information to conclude that you can "spot reduce" based on where you train. There are too many variables left unsaid for any accurate conclusion. Were calories tracked with the increase in exercise? Was there any change in weight during this 8 week period? Were any of these women previously athletes or trained in any capacity prior to being "inactive"? What constitutes "physically inactive"?
ETA: These questions are in addition to the fact that it was such a small sample size.2 -
Okay this topic is a very sensitive one, so right off the start I'll admit that I don't believe in spot reduction. I'm fully convinced the fat cells are created when needed in spots predetermined by genetics.
This study finds interesting results but I find the Upper Body vs. Lower Body split a bit too broad. Whereas the interesting applications would be in a much localized areas such as arms, lower belly, hips...
My second issue with this is that lacking the access to the paper I have no idea what the theoretical basis of the experiment is. Do they assume that by the creation of new vessels in the areas targeted by training simply induces the migration of fat cells?2 -
The stated results fall just above statistical significance, but I question the validity of such a small sample size. I also question the design of experiment being appropriate for the hypothesis. I would also want to know the devices utilized to determine fat loss and suspect this is localized water weight change as opposed to fat loss.2
-
The implication isn't that training a spot causes fat reduction in that spot, but rather that it makes it possible to reduce it from that spot by using up mobilized fat from that spot.Cassandraw3 wrote: »I don't believe there is enough information to conclude that you can "spot reduce" based on where you train. There are too many variables left unsaid for any accurate conclusion. Were calories tracked with the increase in exercise? Was there any change in weight during this 8 week period? Were any of these women previously athletes or trained in any capacity prior to being "inactive"? What constitutes "physically inactive"?
ETA: These questions are in addition to the fact that it was such a small sample size.
Why would we need to know their calorie consumption? The subjects had a regional DEXA scan to establish fat loss in the region.5 -
Okay this topic is a very sensitive one, so right off the start I'll admit that I don't believe in spot reduction. I'm fully convinced the fat cells are created when needed in spots predetermined by genetics.
This study finds interesting results but I find the Upper Body vs. Lower Body split a bit too broad. Whereas the interesting applications would be in a much localized areas such as arms, lower belly, hips...
My second issue with this is that lacking the access to the paper I have no idea what the theoretical basis of the experiment is. Do they assume that by the creation of new vessels in the areas targeted by training simply induces the migration of fat cells?
To the best of my knowledge, fat cells do die, but their number is held fairly consistent post puberty. Fat loss doesn't cause a loss or migration of cells, just a reduction in the lipid storage inside of various fat cells - I believe this is even the basis for "squishy" fat - that a person losing fat will have some of their fat cells hold more water.
In that context, I would take it that the theoretical model of the loss is that the resistance training causes the local muscles to release hormones that signal fat cells to release stores of lipds. Adipose nearer the muscle would receive the signals the most / the soonest. These lipids would then be free floating for using by the entire body. Doing aerobic exercise just after then makes use of the free floating lipids over the typical lipid release patterns bodies use based on "genetics".
Though I don't think fat storage is genetic. It has been observed that people who have done cycles of gaining and losing fat will see changes in which locations fat is gained.0 -
The stated results fall just above statistical significance, but I question the validity of such a small sample size. I also question the design of experiment being appropriate for the hypothesis. I would also want to know the devices utilized to determine fat loss and suspect this is localized water weight change as opposed to fat loss.Regional body composition was assessed by DEXA and skin fold measures.0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »
The implication isn't that training a spot causes fat reduction in that spot, but rather that it makes it possible to reduce it from that spot by using up mobilized fat from that spot.Cassandraw3 wrote: »I don't believe there is enough information to conclude that you can "spot reduce" based on where you train. There are too many variables left unsaid for any accurate conclusion. Were calories tracked with the increase in exercise? Was there any change in weight during this 8 week period? Were any of these women previously athletes or trained in any capacity prior to being "inactive"? What constitutes "physically inactive"?
ETA: These questions are in addition to the fact that it was such a small sample size.
Why would we need to know their calorie consumption? The subjects had a regional DEXA scan to establish fat loss in the region.
Did they eat at a calorie deficit or at their maintenance with the increased activity? Based on the data that the lower body resistance training group was able to gain lean mass while losing fat, but the upper body group did not gain lean mass while losing fat mass raises some suspicion from me. If one group was at a deficit while the other was at maintenance, this would play an impact on the data.0 -
I remember Eric Helms spoke about that study, he discussed aerobic exercise releasing the fatty acids in those areas and allowing those to possibly be used as fuel. However, he does go on to say that it was a very small study and it may have been erroneous.
As much as I was skeptical of spot reduction (and still am) during my last cut I decided to give a few different things a try (I figured, why not). I did a some strength training to specific areas where I wanted to lose fat only, then did some cardio after. So what happened? Well... I did lose some fat in those areas at the end of it.. but it was not very significant, and since I didn't have a control, it's hard to know if it really made a difference or if it was just a matter of the stubborn areas eventually going down being leaner and leaner with a continued deficit.
So... in conclusion. Meh. I'm not 100% convinced until there are more studies. Will I personally try it again? Sure, I have nothing to lose so why not.3 -
For clarification - I've posted the study because I heard of it and found it interesting. I'm not convinced either, given there have been several studies on the subject prior. The most unique part of this study seems to be the mobilization followed by utilization.3
-
I think it's very flawed to compare upper body and lower body cardio and assume the impact is the same due to the far greater power output from legs (and hence calorie burns). Ditto really comparing upper body / lower body resistance training - far greater potential for muscle growth in larger lower body muscles I would have thought, especially in previously inactive overweight women.
Now if they had their subjects train one arm/one leg differently to the other arm/leg and could measure a difference it would be more convincing.
Wondering what the "explosive" nature of the resistance training was - and why choose that modality?
BTW describing 30 mins of cardio as "endurance" made me snort....
Anecdote alert!!!
It's pretty common to see long distance cyclists with defined and very lean leg muscles but still carrying a fair amount of body fat. So maybe it's nothing to do with resistance training at all and it's purely a cardio effect?2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »The stated results fall just above statistical significance, but I question the validity of such a small sample size. I also question the design of experiment being appropriate for the hypothesis. I would also want to know the devices utilized to determine fat loss and suspect this is localized water weight change as opposed to fat loss.Regional body composition was assessed by DEXA and skin fold measures.
Which DEXA devices? Depending on the make/model these hold as high as 25 degree of error.
If the degree of instrument error exceeds delta, the results are statistically insignificant.
I reached out to the authors for more information and will see if they respond.1 -
I'm not sure that splitting horizontally over vertically would work. Certainly, a horizontal split might be more convincing, but there is the issue of sympathetic response that might mask it - continuing to resistance train a limb when the other is injured and immobilized seems to cause less muscle loss in the other limb. Perhaps that kind of signaling could have been at play in prior research that didn't show this.I think it's very flawed to compare upper body and lower body cardio and assume the impact is the same due to the far greater power output from legs (and hence calorie burns). Ditto really comparing upper body / lower body resistance training - far greater potential for muscle growth in larger lower body muscles I would have thought, especially in previously inactive overweight women.
Now if they had their subjects train one arm/one leg differently to the other arm/leg and could measure a difference it would be more convincing.
Wondering what the "explosive" nature of the resistance training was - and why choose that modality?
BTW describing 30 mins of cardio as "endurance" made me snort....
Anecdote alert!!!
It's pretty common to see long distance cyclists with defined and very lean leg muscles but still carrying a fair amount of body fat. So maybe it's nothing to do with resistance training at all and it's purely a cardio effect?
Found the full paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317742443_Effect_of_combined_resistance_and_endurance_exercise_training_on_regional_fat_loss
Bolding is mine to highlight the possible answer to why or what is meant by "explosive".Furthermore, Kang et al.15 highlighted the role of exercise intensity, by demonstrating that fat oxidation during aerobic exercise was greater when prior resistance exercise intensity was high.Based on the abovementioned observations, it could be hypothesized that the combination of diverse exer-cise types, when performed in different bodily region, may induce different effects on regional body compo-sition. The aim of the present study was thus to elu-cidate the effect of combining explosive resistance ex-ercise with steady state endurance exercise, performed separately in different body regions (lower limbs/upper
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »For clarification - I've posted the study because I heard of it and found it interesting. I'm not convinced either, given there have been several studies on the subject prior. The most unique part of this study seems to be the mobilization followed by utilization.
I'm reading Frederic Delavier's Women's Strength Training Anatomy -Workouts, and he references studies that have demonstrated an accelerated use of fat that covers working muscles. Also, the increase in blood flow due to muscle contractions inside near fat stores seem to show an accelerated fat release, while new fat won't accumulate.
Is there hope...?
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I'm not sure that splitting horizontally over vertically would work. Certainly, a horizontal split might be more convincing, but there is the issue of sympathetic response that might mask it - continuing to resistance train a limb when the other is injured and immobilized seems to cause less muscle loss in the other limb. Perhaps that kind of signaling could have been at play in prior research that didn't show this.I think it's very flawed to compare upper body and lower body cardio and assume the impact is the same due to the far greater power output from legs (and hence calorie burns). Ditto really comparing upper body / lower body resistance training - far greater potential for muscle growth in larger lower body muscles I would have thought, especially in previously inactive overweight women.
Now if they had their subjects train one arm/one leg differently to the other arm/leg and could measure a difference it would be more convincing.
Wondering what the "explosive" nature of the resistance training was - and why choose that modality?
BTW describing 30 mins of cardio as "endurance" made me snort....
Anecdote alert!!!
It's pretty common to see long distance cyclists with defined and very lean leg muscles but still carrying a fair amount of body fat. So maybe it's nothing to do with resistance training at all and it's purely a cardio effect?
Found the full paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317742443_Effect_of_combined_resistance_and_endurance_exercise_training_on_regional_fat_loss
Bolding is mine to highlight the possible answer to why or what is meant by "explosive".Furthermore, Kang et al.15 highlighted the role of exercise intensity, by demonstrating that fat oxidation during aerobic exercise was greater when prior resistance exercise intensity was high.Based on the abovementioned observations, it could be hypothesized that the combination of diverse exer-cise types, when performed in different bodily region, may induce different effects on regional body compo-sition. The aim of the present study was thus to elu-cidate the effect of combining explosive resistance ex-ercise with steady state endurance exercise, performed separately in different body regions (lower limbs/upper
Thanks for finding that. Guess the assumption is that the intense exercise mobilises some subcutaneous stores as well as using some intra muscular and circulating triglycerides and that the low intensity exercise (where fat can be the predominate fuel) burns it. I've never seen it stated that the mobilisation is localised though and not sure why it would be as it would be transported in the bloodstream.
Surprising more study hasn't been done as the appeal of localised / targeted fat loss would have plenty of commercial appeal.
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I'm not sure that splitting horizontally over vertically would work. Certainly, a horizontal split might be more convincing, but there is the issue of sympathetic response that might mask it - continuing to resistance train a limb when the other is injured and immobilized seems to cause less muscle loss in the other limb. Perhaps that kind of signaling could have been at play in prior research that didn't show this.I think it's very flawed to compare upper body and lower body cardio and assume the impact is the same due to the far greater power output from legs (and hence calorie burns). Ditto really comparing upper body / lower body resistance training - far greater potential for muscle growth in larger lower body muscles I would have thought, especially in previously inactive overweight women.
Now if they had their subjects train one arm/one leg differently to the other arm/leg and could measure a difference it would be more convincing.
Wondering what the "explosive" nature of the resistance training was - and why choose that modality?
BTW describing 30 mins of cardio as "endurance" made me snort....
Anecdote alert!!!
It's pretty common to see long distance cyclists with defined and very lean leg muscles but still carrying a fair amount of body fat. So maybe it's nothing to do with resistance training at all and it's purely a cardio effect?
Found the full paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317742443_Effect_of_combined_resistance_and_endurance_exercise_training_on_regional_fat_loss
Bolding is mine to highlight the possible answer to why or what is meant by "explosive".Furthermore, Kang et al.15 highlighted the role of exercise intensity, by demonstrating that fat oxidation during aerobic exercise was greater when prior resistance exercise intensity was high.Based on the abovementioned observations, it could be hypothesized that the combination of diverse exer-cise types, when performed in different bodily region, may induce different effects on regional body compo-sition. The aim of the present study was thus to elu-cidate the effect of combining explosive resistance ex-ercise with steady state endurance exercise, performed separately in different body regions (lower limbs/upper
Thanks for finding that. Guess the assumption is that the intense exercise mobilises some subcutaneous stores as well as using some intra muscular and circulating triglycerides and that the low intensity exercise (where fat can be the predominate fuel) burns it. I've never seen it stated that the mobilisation is localised though and not sure why it would be as it would be transported in the bloodstream.
Surprising more study hasn't been done as the appeal of localised / targeted fat loss would have plenty of commercial appeal.
In terms of commerical appeal, something similar seems to be the basis of Emsculpt.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions