Help! Losing inches off boobs not lower belly/thighs despite doing lower body workouts!Any advice?
Replies
-
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.7 -
6
-
4
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »
I agree with boobs. I most certainly definitely agree with boobs.
Wait, what were we talking about again?7 -
Try a different bra. Use a padded and push up bra. Otherwise, I agree with everybody else. It has to do with my own genetics that I got a bum and bigger chest. Be happy with what you have, girl!4
-
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I average 50-60 grams of fiber per day and I went from a 40DDD to a 32D while losing 100 pounds. I've also still got a little fat on my stomach and thighs. I'd love it if you could link me to some peer-reviewed scientific studies that would tell me why I lost so much breast tissue and still have fat in those areas despite eating far more than 35 grams of fiber per day.8 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Not everyone's fat patterns are affected by hormones. Genetics plays a major role too. Some people genetically lose fat last in their midsection. If a woman's breasts are mostly fat rather than breast tissue, no amount of fiber is going to keep the fat in her breasts.
I have heard previously that excess estrogen makes you more likely to store fat around your middle. I have no idea whether that is a fact or not. But even if it is, it doesn't mean all belly fat is caused by it. Some belly fat is just because you're overweight and you are genetically predisposed to hold it there. Even if what you are saying is true, OP could start losing a bit more from her belly but continue to lose a little from her upper body. People need to have realistic expectations, and clearly that is part of OP's problem, whether she needs more fiber in her diet or not.9 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
16 -
.1
-
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"9 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
To be clear... did she ever say fiber = boob saver? I thought she said increased fiber = less estrogen = less fat around the midsection, thus making boobs look bigger. But the conversation has really skewed since then, so I'm not sure what the actual point/take-away is.4 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
To be clear... did she ever say fiber = boob saver? I thought she said increased fiber = less fat around the midsection, thus making boobs look bigger. But the conversation has really skewed since then, so I'm not sure what the actual point/take-away is.
Here is the post that started all this.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
It does seem ambiguous. Either--increasing your fiber intake somehow, magically tells your hormones to deal with the fat around your midsection and not the fat in your boobs, or--increasing your fiber intake somehow, magically tells your hormones to bypass your boobs entirely (or to some appreciable degree). Perhaps a combination of the two? It's so tough to say without some kind of, y'know, scientific evidence of any kind to back up the claim.
3 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I average 50-60 grams of fiber per day and I went from a 40DDD to a 32D while losing 100 pounds. I've also still got a little fat on my stomach and thighs. I'd love it if you could link me to some peer-reviewed scientific studies that would tell me why I lost so much breast tissue and still have fat in those areas despite eating far more than 35 grams of fiber per day.
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.
16 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
Those are your quotes, not mine.3 -
To be clear... did she ever say fiber = boob saver? I thought she said increased fiber = less estrogen = less fat around the midsection, thus making boobs look bigger. But the conversation has really skewed since then, so I'm not sure what the actual point/take-away is.
Here's what she said:Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »...Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones...
That sounds like she's claiming fiber = boob saver. Although there's no basis whatsoever in physiology for that claim.6 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
To be clear... did she ever say fiber = boob saver? I thought she said increased fiber = less estrogen = less fat around the midsection, thus making boobs look bigger. But the conversation has really skewed since then, so I'm not sure what the actual point/take-away is.
not quite, no lol5 -
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.
9 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I average 50-60 grams of fiber per day and I went from a 40DDD to a 32D while losing 100 pounds. I've also still got a little fat on my stomach and thighs. I'd love it if you could link me to some peer-reviewed scientific studies that would tell me why I lost so much breast tissue and still have fat in those areas despite eating far more than 35 grams of fiber per day.
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.
1) Nothing, I'm perfectly happy with my size.
2) I don't need to track my blood sugar because I am not diabetic.
3) The person who makes a claim should provide evidence to back up said claim.7 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
Those are your quotes, not mine.
Still awaiting a source, any source, besides only your own anecdotal experience.9 -
^this.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
N=1?Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Dude. No, just no. Most of us here are high fibre.... and what you’re saying does not compute. At all.Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »Fat loss and fat deposits on your body are hormonally directed.
One way to help with losing weight around your midsection instead of your breasts is to increase your fiber intake, as fiber carries out excess hormones like estrogen (which tends to add fat around belly, hips and thighs).
Add 2-3g fiber each day until you get to 35+ grams fiber daily.
Track your fiber intake.
Sources of fiber: beans, legumes, some in veggies, fiber supplements, avocado, etc.
I'm not a dude.
I actually have breasts, and breast size is not static. They can change for the better or worse, and I've experienced both! There was a time when I seemed to lose all my breasts when dieting, but struggled so much to get it off my butt hips thighs.
So my answer reflects what I know and experience. I'm very happy with my results and am sharing that with OP.
Weight will not come off the exact same way every time you lose weight. Also, I wasn't the only one who replied to and/or disagreed with your post.... fibre has nothing to do with breast reduction or growth, unless you can point me to some valid scientific evidence that it does. I’m sure many of us will appreciate this. Thanks.
Exactly, you said it....weight won't come off exactly the same way every time you lose weight. WHY is that?
I don't really care who disagrees with my post.
Fiber has a LOT to do with breast health and, indirectly, with breast size.
Don't you understand that metabolism = hormones?
I didn't give advice to a bodybuilder or anyone who takes their bodyfat down to very low levels...obviously the breasts will reduce their size.
Don't you understand that other people just want you to cite some kind of source for this quackery of fiber=boob-saver?
Edited to add: Something besides, "Well, no one can replicate this, but it worked for ME. No questions!"
Those are your quotes, not mine.
Still awaiting a source, any source, besides only your own anecdotal experience.
2 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions