spot reduction - by michael gundhill
- 12-30-2003, 12:32 PM
spot reduction - by michael gundhill
With very frequent workouts, on the order of at least three daily ab workouts for men, over time the body will adapt by reducing esterification—that is, the likelihood that new fatty acids produced through the basal renewal will enter fat cells.Micheal gundill even quotes some specialists who claim “The triglycerides in fat cells are renewed about once every two to three weeks."
rationale is that by increasing blood flow to a troublesome body part which, in this case, is the abs for most men, we limit the amount of fatty acids that can reenter the cell during the basal renewal process:
"The greater blood flow doesn't drop your body fat percentage, but the amount of blood flow controls the location of the fat deposits. How is that possible? It determines where new fatty acids will be located."
any thoughts on this ? very interesting .
- 12-30-2003, 12:39 PM
Interesting thought or theory! In all my readings both in nutrition biochem and finally exersise phys i have never heard of this nor have I ever heard of this being tried. three ab workouts a day huh? I wonder what the ratio of fatty acid displacement is? Again it might be an interesting theory but I cant believe it has actually been research or tested. I might be very wrong on this subject but like I said I never have read anything like this before with studdies. Infact I am not even sure you could test this?
good thought to try though!!
- 12-30-2003, 12:42 PM
well , frequent use of the forearm for example , keeps it lean , an indivudual could get pretty damn fat and yet his forearms would be lean , simple reason being frequent blood flow ... something on the lines as above ... common thing overlooked ?
12-30-2003, 02:31 PM
Interesting. I will do some questioning and get back with more info.
12-30-2003, 04:05 PM
Interesting I'm going to ask around as well and see what comes up. But that's alot of ab work. Is he saying three time daily every day?
12-30-2003, 07:11 PM
Like we talked about earlier, even truly obese people also have leaner calves when compared to the rest of their body. I remember a study from years ago suggesting that by doing 30 sec concentrations of the abs you could speed up fatloss in that area. Tried it for like 3-4 days then forgot to keep trying it, but it is something to think about.
12-30-2003, 10:48 PM
- 6'0" 237 lbs.
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
very interesting indeed ray.....never would have even thought about that angle
we need some studies to try and back up some of this if at all possible, but this seems promising
12-30-2003, 11:17 PM
Just to play devils advocate to the calf and forearm thing. Chances are there are genetically less adipose depositories, ie places to store fat in those areas. So using them as a reference seems a bit far fetched. And one thing I would be interesed in checking on would be someone whom has say cancer of the lungs or cystic fibrosis or for that matter any type of disease that makes you cough very frequently. and check there abs. as you know coughing can really burn the heck out of your abs and if you are doing it for a long period and for more than say a week at a time then with this example the fat stores should be smaller. But in reality this would even be a scewed study as most of these people cant eat enough anyway. again a great theory one I could use to my advantage if it were true. I would be the top trainer in VA, with all my cllients loosing ab fat man that really would be a great thing. Everyone that is working on researching this let us know.
good thread though makes us use our brains! Thanks Ray!
12-31-2003, 12:18 AM
spoke about this with author l rea , his reply :
"Yes, this is true to an extent that is somewhat controllable.
Consider this: When we train an area we alter the chemistry profiles that surround it to a certain degree.
If we increase PGF-2a locally then there is a degree of local inhibition toward fat redeposits as a result. If we do this often enough there is a notable alteration in local body composition to consider. This is one reason that a PGF-2a depot is effective as a localized fat reduction product.
Training triggers a degree of inflammation that is in part due to increased PGF-2a . "
12-31-2003, 05:15 AM
I tend to agree that spot reduction thru exercise is not possible. My old man does a ton of sit-ups 2x daily for years w/ little to no results. I guess it could be possible though. Very interesting. Yeah, the whole forearm/calf idea was not convincing.
01-03-2004, 03:42 PM
Well, i spoke with someone about this and the response was "Interesting but I am not certain. I will look in some research on related ideas and see if I can find something. It may be possible but I would hesitate to say that it would be overly effective." Not an exact quote but something along those lines.
01-04-2004, 02:23 AM
the thing is , how much would one need to do to see any sort of result from this ? ofcourse a decent diet etc would be irreplacable , but i remember a britney spears interview where she said she normally does 600-1000 sit ups in a day ! i was like wtf !?
01-04-2004, 11:32 AM
Raybravo...........you need to forget your Britney Spears obsession. Unless, you have a secret singing and dancing career you do not tell anyone about.
01-04-2004, 02:13 PM
dude lol , did u forget she's hot as **** !!!??
01-06-2004, 10:53 AM
I don't agree with this post simply because many men who do not workout but are lean except in the mid-section do tons of situps thinking this is going to get rid of their belly and it does not make an improvement whatsoever.
01-06-2004, 01:23 PM
tons ? are u sure ? cos i know very few people who do thousands of sit ups a day .Originally Posted by RONIN
01-06-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by raybravo
especially good/strict/functional situps. Majority of people that do large volumes of situps are simply flailing their body around with the work load not forced onto the abdomen.
01-06-2004, 07:58 PM
just start doing them 3-4 times per day and see how it goes. what is the worst that is going to happen?
01-06-2004, 08:55 PM
usher the singer said he dose sometimes 1000 set up..................he got pretty good 6 packs there. i thnk the mid section muscles are diffrent than any muscle in the body
01-06-2004, 10:13 PM
I like the the part about the part of the body that gets trained will change its chemistry, environment, etc. I think that it may fall along the lines of the theory that states "If you train bodyparts with a higher repetition, longer enduring type of anerobic excercise, or even aerobic exc. that your muscles will try and take the form of slow-twitch to fast-twitch (Type 1 to Type 2) or vice versa.
I mean you look at an endurance athlete and they are shredded. You look at a big BB'er and they will have a harder time getting shredded as if an endurance type athlete would perhaps diet down and the appropriatte measures would be taken. After the fact of course that they would be using higher reps and higher endurance to a FAR greater extent than that of the BB'er. I think that the more blood flow and even in this case with the lactic acid burn while doing higher reps more frequently when we're working out will in fact have an effect that was spoken of. Hell, I'll try it out, nothing really to lose right?
01-07-2004, 01:26 AM
yes , i'm going to try it soon as well , as soon as my exams get over in a month .
01-07-2004, 01:46 AM
- 6'3" 235 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
what i dont get, if you consistantly work a muscle and are burning calories, just in truth how could it NOT get bigger? seems weird to think that you could work out and not get better.
01-07-2004, 01:51 AM
well , it becomes aerobic work , at that rep range , so u dont get bigger .
01-07-2004, 01:52 AM
Really bigger is not the original issue here it is spot reduction of fat. And by the likes of it if you train a muscle over and over again the muscle itself does not always get bigger in truth. But again that is not the issue here it is lose of fat. Not busting on you I just was setting the record straight this has become quite a long thread and is also quite a debate.
01-07-2004, 02:04 AM
- 6'3" 235 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
thats what i meant is leaner, which now im not sure if thats it either just tired and couldnt think of the word, sorry.. haha
01-10-2004, 02:08 AM
posted by michael gundill in reply to this question :
"As to the question, you need to add the neural innervation of the adipose tissue. It means that your nervous system can send lipolytic hormones directly to the fat cells if properly asked. I would not be surprised that training abs (for example) could increased the level of those lipolytic hormones in the surrounding fat cells."
also , if anyone is interested in asking him questions directly, this is what he said :
"You can contact me there:
Feel free to post in english."
also , another question on this topic is , whats the volume and frequency with which one would have to train his abs for this effect to take place , his reply :
"I guess, this would depend on your diet. The more you would eat, the more volume you would need.
Ideally, I guess working abs both in the morning and in the evening would be best. One or 2 sets, squeezing them hard for high reps (at least 20) should be enough."
this is a nice way to get things cleared right ? .
01-10-2004, 05:26 AM
I think you would have a hard time determining whether
or not it was the increase in aerobic activity which would
give you an increased fat loss overall, as oposed to a spot
reduction in the midsection.
Two extra sets of abs every day would definately burn
new calories so it would probably be a good idea anyway.
01-10-2004, 10:08 AM
cmon , how significant would be the slight increase in calories burnt , if there is anything noticable , it will only be due to something diff from a normal calorie deficit causing over all fat loss . I once again point out how much the chemistry is altered in the arms , calves etc due to the frequent use.
01-10-2004, 11:56 AM
raybravo. It sounds like you believe that an increase in abdominal
work would actually have an effect on the FAT in the area worked.
To get more blood into the fat deposits it would probably be more
effective to slap it around and give it (the fat deposits) a massage
or something. Doing ab work will get blood to the abdominal muscles
but unlikely have a big effect on the surrounding tissue.
Working your biceps does not have any effect on the subcutaneous
fat in your arms in any direct way. I would imagine that as some of
the bros mentioned earlier, the calves and arms don't have a predisposition
to fat deposits.
It has something to do with an increased number alpha 2 adrenoreceptors that bind catecholamines in the midsection of males or thighs in women that do not allow fat
That is why your fat gut has a clammy cold feeling while the rest of
you is burning up, even in the summer.
01-10-2004, 04:15 PM
Not sure if you are being serious, but this actually may be effective also.Originally Posted by Greyvolk
Boxers, kickboxers, martial arts, etc often train high volume crunches and physical strikes to the abdomen. Many have very developed and lean stomaches. This may be attributed to some of the striking/manipulation work that gets directed towards the stomach.
01-10-2004, 05:31 PM
It just sounds like gross overtraining to me. Abs are muscles just the same. You want to see your abs, diet and cardio is the way.
01-10-2004, 05:33 PM
Not exactly b/c you are training in a completely different method.Originally Posted by jminis
01-10-2004, 09:09 PM
how so by not using weight? This method has you doing an insane amount of reps using a specific muscle (abdominals). Don't you think they need rest like any other muscle.Originally Posted by size
01-10-2004, 11:09 PM
the fibre type of the muscle matters as well , again , we arent really trying to build it are we ?
01-10-2004, 11:12 PM
its what michael gundill believes , which intruiged me , so i posted it for everyone's opinion bro .Originally Posted by Greyvolk
eithr way , i think gundill believes that there might be some alteration of chemistry site specifically due to working the abs in this particular way .
01-11-2004, 01:22 PM
I understand that, but my thinking is the reason for this is to get the six pack right? Well the bigger and more developed your abdominals are the more your gonna see that six pack. I know your abs don't grow like many of the other muscles in your body but they still grow. Anyway that's where I'm coming from.Originally Posted by raybravo
I think it couldn't hurt to try if you wanted to and it's always nice to read new idea's and theories. Good post Ray.
Similar Forum Threads
- By jbray in forum SupplementsReplies: 20Last Post: 01-05-2010, 04:14 AM
- By stfdkd37 in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 6Last Post: 12-24-2009, 12:19 PM
- By stfdkd37 in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 09-12-2008, 10:23 AM
- By mattyboy86 in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 46Last Post: 06-20-2008, 04:10 PM
- By growmore in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-10-2004, 10:21 PM