Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

How to lose that fat on the bottom abs

MkUltra

MkUltra

Member
I am at liek 10% body fat right now and I still have a little "pouch" of fat around my belly button area that I cannot get rid of. How much lower do I need to get my body fat?

Is there anything else I can add to my diet/workouts (i know spot reduction doesnt work) that I can do??
 
sweet name, some people just hold fat in certain areas, its the last place the fat hold out.

I dont believe site specific fatloss is effective (topicals) due to it being re deposited, so as stated lower your body fat %.
 
Do you think I could get to 8% just with my diet/a little cardio? (i skateboard everyday about 2 miles) Or will I have to run to get there? I dont want to lose much more weight, just the fat (everbody's dream scenario i suppose heh)
 
Make sure your diet is in check, once it is, I would highly suggest HIIT, and if its being stubborn bring in a fat burner, to get those last couple %s.
 
im already eating like 50% protein 30% fat 20% carbs absolutely no sugar except whats in my once a day protein bar. I tried lean extreme for a month which helped me get from 12% to 10% still the pouch on the tummy though.

It annoying cuz i have abs, i have my v cuts and it just interferes, i dont have that perfect flat, almost concave stomach Im after! damn it
 
you can't spot reduce mate. I tried that for years, never worked.

The only way to get rid of that 'bottom fat' is by continuing to diet and workout so the body burns fat overall. In which case, the bottom fat will eventually get burnt. yea 8% or less.
 
Probably not, you should have vegetables though as they are a good source of fiber, some carbs, but very calorie dense and fill you up
 
I can't believe no one's mentioned Invalid Link Removed yet. HIIT plus naplam, maybe even mixed with clen would probably work well since he's in the 10% vincinty.
 
Keto diet with a caloric deficit...and a fat burner...maybe a good anti-cortisol supp...can't go wrong with that combo! burn burn burn!

I think it's really necessary to cut out those carbs if you're aiming for single digit bodyfat.
 
BoyFromAus said:
you can't spot reduce mate. I tried that for years, never worked.

The only way to get rid of that 'bottom fat' is by continuing to diet and workout so the body burns fat overall. In which case, the bottom fat will eventually get burnt. yea 8% or less.
Click to expand...
Everyone wants washboard abs but how exactly do you get them?
The answer has not been very clear and many professional
fitness trainers disagree about the proper way to achieve that
desirable mid section. This causes much confusion amongst
their clients. "Am I wasting my time doing hours of abdominal
work every week?"

For some time now there have been two schools of thought –
those who believe the only way to see your abs is to focus on
shedding whole-body f at levels through d iet and aerobic
exercise, and those who say that you have to do lots of
abdominal exercises to reduce the f at in you mid-section.

Up until now, many scoffed at the premise of exercise induced
spot-f at-reduction. Well the jury is finally in and it appears
that spot-f at reduction is a reality.

While whole body f at reduction is best served by reducing
caloric intake and performing aerobic exercise, there is now
evidence that the f at that is directly adjacent to the working
muscles burns at a higher rate than f at that is adjacent to
the resting muscles. It stands to reason, but until now, has
not been proven.

A study published this month by the Department of Medical
Physiology at the Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen
in Denmark showed that subjects who performed high repetition
leg extensions at varying intervals and resistance levels for
up to two hours with one leg at a time exhibited a higher
degree of f at oxidation in area directly adjacent to the
working leg muscles.

This increase in f at oxidation was irrespective to exercise
duration or intensity. The f at directly adjacent to the
working muscles burned at a higher rate than the resting
muscles. Period.

This increased f at oxidation was also associated with a
higher degree of blood flow to the local area of the working
muscles and adjacent f atty tissue. This may enhance the f ats
ability to be carried away and disposed of by the liver thus
increasing the likelihood that the f at won't simply be
re-deposited elsewhere.

The take away from this study is very clear and should put
the debate over exercise induced spot-f at reduction to rest
once and for all. If you want to rid yourself of the f at
that covers a specific area of your body, such as your abs,
you'll have the greatest success if you focus on exercises
that work the muscles directly adjacent to the problem area.
If you want washboard abs you'll have to start doing more
abdominal work.
 
try lowering the cals a lil and upping cardio. Anti cortisol supp is a good idea too so that way when you lower the cals and up cardio ur body is less likely to go into a catabolic state and help preserve more of ur hard earned muslce. HIIT cardio is supposed to help alot as well.
 
i would definately give the HIIT a shot, also would try a Ketogenic diet. i just started it two days ago and so far it hasnt been too bad. check out my cut log thats in my sig
 
i suggest switching to ckd with cardio and weighted ab workouts. losing the fat on the pouch but also you need to tighten in or it will just be loose skin. i have that problem right now.
 
lennoxchi said:
Everyone wants washboard abs but how exactly do you get them?
The answer has not been very clear and many professional
fitness trainers disagree about the proper way to achieve that
desirable mid section. This causes much confusion amongst
their clients. "Am I wasting my time doing hours of abdominal
work every week?"

For some time now there have been two schools of thought –
those who believe the only way to see your abs is to focus on
shedding whole-body f at levels through d iet and aerobic
exercise, and those who say that you have to do lots of
abdominal exercises to reduce the f at in you mid-section.

Up until now, many scoffed at the premise of exercise induced
spot-f at-reduction. Well the jury is finally in and it appears
that spot-f at reduction is a reality.

While whole body f at reduction is best served by reducing
caloric intake and performing aerobic exercise, there is now
evidence that the f at that is directly adjacent to the working
muscles burns at a higher rate than f at that is adjacent to
the resting muscles. It stands to reason, but until now, has
not been proven.

A study published this month by the Department of Medical
Physiology at the Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen
in Denmark showed that subjects who performed high repetition
leg extensions at varying intervals and resistance levels for
up to two hours with one leg at a time exhibited a higher
degree of f at oxidation in area directly adjacent to the
working leg muscles.

This increase in f at oxidation was irrespective to exercise
duration or intensity. The f at directly adjacent to the
working muscles burned at a higher rate than the resting
muscles. Period.

This increased f at oxidation was also associated with a
higher degree of blood flow to the local area of the working
muscles and adjacent f atty tissue. This may enhance the f ats
ability to be carried away and disposed of by the liver thus
increasing the likelihood that the f at won't simply be
re-deposited elsewhere.

The take away from this study is very clear and should put
the debate over exercise induced spot-f at reduction to rest
once and for all. If you want to rid yourself of the f at
that covers a specific area of your body, such as your abs,
you'll have the greatest success if you focus on exercises
that work the muscles directly adjacent to the problem area.
If you want washboard abs you'll have to start doing more
abdominal work.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that works for certain people.
out of personal experience, it never worked for me.
Then i read up on the lypolisis process and fat reduction and it seemed to support my observation.

But i used to be very fat i.e roughly 27% bf.
 
this is only my second day on it, but from my experience so far it seems to be a solid product, it gives good clean energy without the jitters that lasts, and it is very convenient in the packets
 
MkUltra said:
I am at liek 10% body fat right now and I still have a little "pouch" of fat around my belly button area that I cannot get rid of. How much lower do I need to get my body fat?

Is there anything else I can add to my diet/workouts (i know spot reduction doesnt work) that I can do??
Click to expand...


I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but Napalm or Lipo Ultra I'm on a cut and i took 3 inches off my waist with Napalm while arms stayed the same and Chest was bigger
 
GotTest said:
Isn't Napalm only effective if BF is <10%??
Question is more for me than the OP. :)
Click to expand...


No Lipoderm Ultra is more effective at a lower bf but napalm from what I understand works at highter bf also well at least it worked from me and I was not 10% when I started.
 
lennoxchi said:
Everyone wants washboard abs but how exactly do you get them?
The answer has not been very clear and many professional
fitness trainers disagree about the proper way to achieve that
desirable mid section. This causes much confusion amongst
their clients. "Am I wasting my time doing hours of abdominal
work every week?"

For some time now there have been two schools of thought –
those who believe the only way to see your abs is to focus on
shedding whole-body f at levels through d iet and aerobic
exercise, and those who say that you have to do lots of
abdominal exercises to reduce the f at in you mid-section.

Up until now, many scoffed at the premise of exercise induced
spot-f at-reduction. Well the jury is finally in and it appears
that spot-f at reduction is a reality.

While whole body f at reduction is best served by reducing
caloric intake and performing aerobic exercise, there is now
evidence that the f at that is directly adjacent to the working
muscles burns at a higher rate than f at that is adjacent to
the resting muscles. It stands to reason, but until now, has
not been proven.

A study published this month by the Department of Medical
Physiology at the Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen
in Denmark showed that subjects who performed high repetition
leg extensions at varying intervals and resistance levels for
up to two hours with one leg at a time exhibited a higher
degree of f at oxidation in area directly adjacent to the
working leg muscles.

This increase in f at oxidation was irrespective to exercise
duration or intensity. The f at directly adjacent to the
working muscles burned at a higher rate than the resting
muscles. Period.

This increased f at oxidation was also associated with a
higher degree of blood flow to the local area of the working
muscles and adjacent f atty tissue. This may enhance the f ats
ability to be carried away and disposed of by the liver thus
increasing the likelihood that the f at won't simply be
re-deposited elsewhere.

The take away from this study is very clear and should put
the debate over exercise induced spot-f at reduction to rest
once and for all. If you want to rid yourself of the f at
that covers a specific area of your body, such as your abs,
you'll have the greatest success if you focus on exercises
that work the muscles directly adjacent to the problem area.
If you want washboard abs you'll have to start doing more
abdominal work.
Click to expand...


Source?

Now, I know there was a study done on spot reduction that showed that there was in fact some thermogenic effect that assisted in fat burning, but the extents I'm not sure of.
 
Spot reduction isn't possible, but spot "encouragement" is. When the muscle tissue is at work it creates a demand of energy on the body. Lipids move more easily when "heated", so where would you imagine Lipids move into the blood stream more easily?
 
really cool article, it raises a few curiosities I've had before...

let's say you do crunches until you deplete your abdominal muscles of glycogen. wouldn't further exercise require adipose tissue in the area to continue? or would it burn muscle?

Also, I've thought theoretically cardio after a leg workout could "prefer fat burn" because cardio almost always tends to involve the legs to the highest degree, quads, hams, glutes... if you deplete your glycogen stores in your legs from a hardcore leg session, then when you're humming away on the cardio machine it can't be using glycogen... so I'd think it'd try to switch to fat yes? or burn muscle?

and oppositely, think of having a great chest workout and doing cardio after. people tend to think cardio after weights = more fat burned. But your legs are fresh, they probably have plenty of glycogen to go in this scenario...

any thoughts?
 
pinchharmonic said:
really cool article, it raises a few curiosities I've had before...

let's say you do crunches until you deplete your abdominal muscles of glycogen. wouldn't further exercise require adipose tissue in the area to continue? or would it burn muscle?

Also, I've thought theoretically cardio after a leg workout could "prefer fat burn" because cardio almost always tends to involve the legs to the highest degree, quads, hams, glutes... if you deplete your glycogen stores in your legs from a hardcore leg session, then when you're humming away on the cardio machine it can't be using glycogen... so I'd think it'd try to switch to fat yes? or burn muscle?

and oppositely, think of having a great chest workout and doing cardio after. people tend to think cardio after weights = more fat burned. But your legs are fresh, they probably have plenty of glycogen to go in this scenario...

any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Its going to be a really complex answer anyway, there is a lot to consider.

First thing is the amount of glycogen in the muscle, which differs with both diet and with training intensity.Second thing, even if you were to use all the glyocgen in the muscle, what hormonal changes would occur and cause the partitioning of fat vs muscle?

Doing cardio after any workout, would theoretically cause more fat burning because of EPOC. The body is in an oxygen debt basically and the metabolic processes to return to homeostasis raise metabolism for hours after the workout.

Everything really depends on the intensity, the body might still burn muscle for glucose fuel even if your in a exercise range that oxidizing fat for fuel.
 
ThomasRivera said:
Source?

Now, I know there was a study done on spot reduction that showed that there was in fact some thermogenic effect that assisted in fat burning, but the extents I'm not sure of.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Me thinks the authors of the study are taking some liberities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top