CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2005, 11:58 AM   #1
John Walsh
Banned John Walsh is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston  MA
Posts: 467
Spot reduction.

Yeah I know there is no such thing but is it 100% true? Sometimes we’ll grab onto a concept and it becomes dogma. We just repeat the mantra without really thinking it through or all the factors at play.

This may be the case for me with spot reduction. Now my bias up front is that I never had the patience to do bodybuilding type workouts where this day is for your left bicep and that day is for your right lat. So the concept of spot reduction being a crock was an immediate sell for me.

A natural BB friend of mine was defending the concept as valid and I suppose from his perspective it makes sense. He does bicep curls on a regular basis and his biceps are large, developed and devoid of excess fat. I don’t do bicep curls but I have pretty big arms from all the pressing I have done over the years. My BB friend says my triceps are over developed compared to my biceps. My biceps don’t look like his.

He also pointed out how I stored almost all of my fat in the form of love handles. I have a good diet but a better diet could surely eliminate some of this. He contends that I don’t work my obliques enough doing my CF routine. Not enough trunk rotation in his opinion. Yes men tend to store fat in their guts but he contends that it’s because we don’t use this part of the body properly.

As an experiment he gave me some simple medicine ball exercises to complete at the end of my workouts. The routine consists of trunk rotations, wood choppers, that sort of thing. I must admit that I have noticed some spot reduction as a result of doing these exercises. Nothing dramatic mind you but a difference none the less. Has anyone else found this to be true or am I simply experiencing some sort of wishful placebo effect?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:11 PM   #2
Paul Symes
Member Paul Symes is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London  Croydon
Posts: 299
I know what you mean about the dogma. Maybe you're right. I've always thought my chest looked leaner after a few dips sessions but I put it down to being a bit more pumped up.

(Message edited by symzie on December 05, 2005)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:36 PM   #3
Stanley Kunnathu
Member Stanley Kunnathu is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Calgary  Alberta
Posts: 319
If you don't carry fat around your arms you won't see fat loss on your arms. Also because your arms are big to begin with, the fat is spread over a greater surface area. Fat loss at your arms is going to be less noticeable.

Gut fat is the most noticeable because it's concentrated in one area. Also, this is the area we obsess over. If our abs were as big as our pecs I sure we wouldn't be talking about spot reduction.

All of that being said, I think the appearance of spot reduction is really just a reflection of our physiological signature of where we like to store our fat. Belly fat is generally going to be the most stubborn for guys so when you've lost fat everywhere else and finally start seeing your abs you might confuse co-incidence with causation.

"I've got belly fat (only)"
"I started doing wood choppers"
"My belly fat is decreasing"
"Wood choppers must be good for belly fat"

or its possible that the added work has increased your calorie expenditure period.

My guess is that the guy who has leg fat and belly fat and starts doing wood choppers is going to see a reduction in leg fat before belly.

I think that made sense.
FWIW, that's not me in the avatar:lol:
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:50 PM   #4
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
John, you're probably getting bigger muscles in those areas. Your body fat percentage in those specific areas may have decreased as a reslut of muscle hypertrophy, but that doesn't mean you burned fat in that area.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:55 PM   #5
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
I often wonder what moulded our genes into storing fat near the belly, or butt for ladies.

From an evolutionary perspective, I'm sure it isn't random...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:57 PM   #6
Ross Hunt
Member Ross Hunt is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Annapolis  MD
Posts: 914
Pump and glycogen uptake could cause increased size in worked muscles.

T-nation has oodles of info on the relation between bodyfat at different skinfold locations and different hormonal levels. Check out the recent review of the SWIS Symposium and you will find info on this in the report on Charles Poliquin's presentation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 03:02 PM   #7
Rene Renteria
Member Rene Renteria is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Francisco  CA
Posts: 364
I often wonder what moulded our genes into storing fat near the belly, or butt for ladies.

This is an area of scientific interest, and one of the reasons is the struggle to keep fat in certain areas of the body instead of losing it, such as in reconstructive surgery. Here's an abstract that talks about it a little bit:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=9448285&query_hl=4
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):1062-6. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read Click here to read
De novo adipogenesis in mice at the site of injection of basement membrane and basic fibroblast growth factor.

Kawaguchi N, Toriyama K, Nicodemou-Lena E, Inou K, Torii S, Kitagawa Y.

Laboratory of Organogenesis, Nagoya University BioScience Center, Chikusa, Nagoya 464-01, Japan.

Autografting of fat pads has a long history in plastic and reconstructive surgery for augmentation of lost soft tissue. However, the results are disappointing because of absorption of the grafts with time. The fate of transplanted fat is linked to adipose precursor cells distributed widely in connective tissues. Adipocyte precursor cells can proliferate and mature into adipocytes even in the adult body depending on microenvironment. When reconstituted basement membrane, Matrigel, supplemented with more than 1 ng/ml bFGF was injected s.c. into 6-week-old mice, the neovascularization induced within 1 week was followed by migration of endogenous adipose precursor cells, and a clearly visible fat pad was formed. The pad grew until 3 weeks after the injection and persisted for at least 10 weeks. Such de novo adipogenesis was induced reproducibly by s.c. injection of Matrigel and bFGF over the chest, lateral abdomen, or head. Adipogenesis could be induced even in ear cartilage or in muscle. Thus, our results demonstrated that an abundant population of adipose precursor cells is distributed widely in connective tissues of the adult body and that they migrate into the neovascularized plug of Matrigel for proliferation and maturation. These results suggest a technique of augmenting lost soft tissue in plastic and reconstructive surgery.
----

You might be able to find some information on bFGF signaling in early development and find that it stimulates adipocyte (fat cell) production in the areas that will become the trunk. (bFGF is used for many things in development, not just for this.)

Evolutionarily speaking, we do need to keep our cores' warm, even at the expense of the extremities, so putting it in the trunk makes sense in that way (for insulation). (We also have "brown fat", which is used to make warmth by burning body fuel, up in our necks/upper backs, a place where it can warm the blood heading into our brains.) Fat requires vascularization, like all tissue (but not as much as other tissues, I think), so keeping it near the heart is good. Also, the organs have fat sheathes, so maybe it's an outgrowth of that before all the muscle walls close off. Finally, putting fat out on the limbs would expend more energy because of leverage the weight would cause.

Interesting questions; I wish I knew the answers.
Best,
Rene'
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 11:39 PM   #8
Alexander Karatis
Member Alexander Karatis is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Athens  Attica, Greece
Posts: 786
Oh, but your answers are great so far Rene! So why would women be better off by not storing it near the belly? Childbirth perhaps? Also what good does storing it in the butt provide?

And even trickier is the question of why some people will put it on their face, belly, butt and back, some have proportionatelly more on the limbs etc. IS there something in our genetic backround that required us to have more fat around certain areas? Or is this purely chance? A degree of fluctuation that comes as a result of diversity in breeding? Still, anthropologically, there are differences in fat storage. African/Asiatic/IndoEuropean types all have different patterns in fat storage. Or don't they?
I wonder what in their environment required changes such as these they exhibit.

Fascinating subject, this evolution is...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 07:46 AM   #9
Jeffrey Crawford
Member Jeffrey Crawford is offline
 
Jeffrey Crawford's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne  FL
Posts: 685
I would believe you are losing the access body fat due to the increased workload, not muscle specific training. In example, if you did 50 jumping jacks and 50 air squats at the end of every workout you should also see a difference in time. Is this not the same theory that those info commercials use when selling ab machines? If you use this product then you will be shredded in no time. With no mention of neither diet nor total fitness.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 10:04 AM   #10
John Walsh
Banned John Walsh is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston  MA
Posts: 467
I should have included this in my first post. The additional workload is negligible or non existent. I cut back on other exercises to include these medicine ball exercises.


“John, you're probably getting bigger muscles in those areas. Your body fat percentage in those specific areas may have decreased as a reslut of muscle hypertrophy, but that doesn't mean you burned fat in that area.”

This doesn’t make a bit of sense. Please clarify



  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It is so easy to spot a crossfitter Craig Van De Walker Community 25 03-07-2007 11:12 PM
Carb Reduction Steve Sheffar Nutrition 5 02-06-2007 12:07 PM
Calorie Reduction on Zone Lee Lister Nutrition 8 03-02-2006 04:19 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.