How long does it take to...get rid of that *stubborn* fat?

Fat is not stubborn.. you need to refocus your efforts on body composition.

Fatvaporizer wrote: »

I'm not sure what counts as stubborn fat, but I'm talking about the still visible layers of belly fat, although not as much as before, that you still have even after you've lost a considerable amount of weight. How long does it take and what are the necessary steps to completely get rid of those, and make sure that your chest/abdomen area goes completely flat or toned? Thanks for your feedback and advice.

I think when you get down to the remaining belly fat, targeting a 1/2 pound to 1 pound loss per week is a very reasonable goal. By doing so, you can figure out the "how long does it take" portion of your question. The typical "spare tire" with the love handles and remaining belly fat is most often about 15-20 pounds. So your target of one pound per week will take 15-20 weeks, and twice as long if you target 1/2 pound per week. Keep lifting to maintain as much muscle mass as you possibly can during the weight loss.

That accounts for the patience requirement as other posters have pointed out.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

RoxieDawn wrote: »

Fat is not stubborn.. you need to refocus your efforts on body composition.

Unfortunately you are wrong about that. Some fat is stubborn! It's location varies between women and men but it very much is a real thing.

This. Ask any bodybuilder who's dieted down to contest leanness. For most men, the body can get to the point where it would rather eat the muscle off of your big toe, than to take the last of the fat from the midsection. It gets hard as hell the further down you go.

15% bf is easy. 10% is challenging. 5% requires more concerted effort in a month than 10% does in six. And sadly, that last few percent is almost always in the "problem areas": abdomen and lower back for men, hips and thighs for women.

I should have elaborated from a much broader perspective, getting down to low low bf percentages, and from a body building perspective.. but you did not for me..

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

Im 4 years into my weight loss. having a slow time losing weight,I still have some belly fat,thigh fat,saddle bags,etc. its not as bad as it was when I first started. but its still there. of course Im female. but the weight is slower at coming off than the fat it seems. which I wont complain.Ive been set to lose less than .5 a week for more than a year too.I will keep going no matter how long it takes.right now Im eating in maintenance for the winter and I find Im getting better results now than I was at a deficit.

I really do feel for the women who are trying to get themselves lean. You guys have to put in twice the effort, for half of the return, and are constantly being gut punched by the worst waves of hormones that human biology has to offer.

I used to get frustrated with my ex-wife's eating problems, until I started to understand the endocrine system a bit better. Luckily, once a woman gets low enough in bodyfat to shut down her reproductive system, it seems to get a lot easier to stay that way, than it was to get there.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

Im 4 years into my weight loss. having a slow time losing weight,I still have some belly fat,thigh fat,saddle bags,etc. its not as bad as it was when I first started. but its still there. of course Im female. but the weight is slower at coming off than the fat it seems. which I wont complain.Ive been set to lose less than .5 a week for more than a year too.I will keep going no matter how long it takes.right now Im eating in maintenance for the winter and I find Im getting better results now than I was at a deficit.

I really do feel for the women who are trying to get themselves lean. You guys have to put in twice the effort, for half of the return, and are constantly being gut punched by the worst waves of hormones that human biology has to offer.

I used to get frustrated with my ex-wife's eating problems, until I started to understand the endocrine system a bit better. Luckily, once a woman gets low enough in bodyfat to shut down her reproductive system, it seems to get a lot easier to stay that way, than it was to get there.

yeah,Im just trying to get it low enough to where I feel better. 20% would be fine for me .Im probably somewhere around 25/26?. I dont want to be too lean,I can see some abs now but If I never see a six pack I will be fine with that too. just hoping some of my trouble areas get a little better. I know for me I will never look like a SI model, or win a bikini contest and for me thats ok. just as long as I feel comfortable in my own skin is what counts.

Same here. No matter what kind of shape I get in, I'll never be IFBB material. I refuse to have the excess skin or stretch marks removed. I wrecked my body early in life with obesity, and I need to keep those reminders around. They'll always be there to punch me in the throat, should I decide to start letting myself slip again.

They're a testament to a total lack of discipline, and a monument to what happens when I fail and betray myself.

FWIW, you don't look like you "wrecked" your body at all. But I am also my own worst critic, so I can relate to this mindset.

I am currently dealing with this. Seeing visual progress everywhere else, but those stubborn areas aren't moving at all and while I've seen some progress in the past when I got pretty lean, I think I will always be stuck with them to some degree. My hope was building muscle in the area would help, so we will see.

Right now just weight lifting, small deficit and tons of patience.

Fatvaporizer wrote: »

Is there a difference between eating at a small deficit or large?

Yes. Your body can only burn a certain fraction of its fat on any given day. So, if you don't have a lot of fat (and are just looking to lose a few vanity pounds or "tighten up"), a small deficit will be better. If your deficit is too large, you'll tend to lose more muscle mass alongside the fat.

For somebody with more fat to lose, a larger deficit become reasonable and, in their case, will lead to faster fat loss. But for somebody who is small, raising your deficit beyond the maximum amount of fat your body can burn in a day is counterproductive. (This is, of course, speaking long term. So, if somebody does intermittent fasting, we're looking at their weekly deficit and how much fat their body can burn in a week instead of the daily numbers. For most other people, daily numbers are easier to deal with.)

Fatvaporizer wrote: »

Is there a difference between eating at a small deficit or large?

Typically a smaller deficit is recommended more because it is sustainable and you don't burn out when training especially if you are starting out weight training. Maintenance of lean body mass at higher deficits has been challenged as Gallowmere stated above, however, I believe people with more experience cutting weight, elite athletes with little to lose etc will be better able to handle a more intense deficit and do it safely/correctly vs someone who is still learning to build a healthy lifestyle.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

RoxieDawn wrote: »

Fat is not stubborn.. you need to refocus your efforts on body composition.

Unfortunately you are wrong about that. Some fat is stubborn! It's location varies between women and men but it very much is a real thing.

This. Ask any bodybuilder who's dieted down to contest leanness. For most men, the body can get to the point where it would rather eat the muscle off of your big toe, than to take the last of the fat from the midsection. It gets hard as hell the further down you go.

15% bf is easy. 10% is challenging. 5% requires more concerted effort in a month than 10% does in six. And sadly, that last few percent is almost always in the "problem areas": abdomen and lower back for men, hips and thighs for women.

Hips and thighs for women? Definitely hips, but as well abdomen, and lower back for women.

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

malioumba wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

RoxieDawn wrote: »

Fat is not stubborn.. you need to refocus your efforts on body composition.

Unfortunately you are wrong about that. Some fat is stubborn! It's location varies between women and men but it very much is a real thing.

This. Ask any bodybuilder who's dieted down to contest leanness. For most men, the body can get to the point where it would rather eat the muscle off of your big toe, than to take the last of the fat from the midsection. It gets hard as hell the further down you go.

15% bf is easy. 10% is challenging. 5% requires more concerted effort in a month than 10% does in six. And sadly, that last few percent is almost always in the "problem areas": abdomen and lower back for men, hips and thighs for women.

Hips and thighs for women? Definitely hips, but as well abdomen, and lower back for women.

There's a lot of variation between individuals, but I see a lot of women with abs that you could wash clothes on who still have pretty notable fat on their legs.

Yea that is me... although I don't end up with washboard abs, it's more bones

Fatvaporizer wrote: »

SusanMFindlay wrote: »

Fatvaporizer wrote: »

Is there a difference between eating at a small deficit or large?

Yes. Your body can only burn a certain fraction of its fat on any given day. So, if you don't have a lot of fat (and are just looking to lose a few vanity pounds or "tighten up"), a small deficit will be better. If your deficit is too large, you'll tend to lose more muscle mass alongside the fat.

For somebody with more fat to lose, a larger deficit become reasonable and, in their case, will lead to faster fat loss. But for somebody who is small, raising your deficit beyond the maximum amount of fat your body can burn in a day is counterproductive. (This is, of course, speaking long term. So, if somebody does intermittent fasting, we're looking at their weekly deficit and how much fat their body can burn in a week instead of the daily numbers. For most other people, daily numbers are easier to deal with.)

So are you saying that...for example, someone walks all day at a park and someone else only walks 20 minutes that day. The amount of fat loss will pause at some point for the all day walker who probably used up a lot of calories, and that it's kind of pointless to keep burning calories after a certain amount of exercise or diet?

Not in a single day - or even a week. Bodies don't operate on a "oops I ran out of fat burning ability by walking one minute too long" kind of time scale. Like anything else, it's a sliding scale of "at a very low deficit, you'll pretty much only burn fat; as the deficit increases, the amount of lean tissue burned as well increases along with the amount of fat burned such that the percentage of fat burned decreases as the deficit goes up. Much of this is hormonally driven (which is why the long term pattern matters more than a single day's activities). But if you're asking whether an exercise bulemic can get to the point where they're destroying their lean mass before eliminating every last trace of fat? Yes, they can.

There are, of course, ways to reduce the net loss of lean mass. Strength training and ensuring sufficient protein intake go a long way toward allowing the body to rebuild the lean tissue that is broken down as a result of the deficit. So, yes, the poster above who lifts heavy and does a protein-sparing modified fast to cut is able to burn fat about as fast as the body can handle. But even he would run into issues with lean tissue maintenance if he tried to run *too* huge of a deficit (which, in his case, might involve adding several hours a day of cardio to his routine since the calories really can't go any lower during those cuts) or stayed in a cut phase for too long.

Please don't misunderstand my comments to imply that the typically recommended 0.5 pounds/week is the highest rate of fat loss that a "healthy BMI" body can handle. There *is* scientific literature on what those numbers actually are; I don't have the links on hand and don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. I want to say something like 30 calories of deficit per pound of fat on the body per day, but I could be misremembering. And, again, that's for prolonged calorie cutting not for short-term body building cut phases.