Spot Reducing: Can we all please stop trying it?
I keep seeing post after post of people looking for ways to reduce fat around ......pick a body part.....(abdominals, thighs and hips seem to be the most popular).
Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble but you will never get a flat stomach by just doing abdominal exercises. Why? Because a muscle does not own the fat surrounding it, so doing sit ups and working your abdominal muscles will not get rid of the fat covering that particular muscle. Yes it will make the muscles stronger but fat loss is the result of a balanced diet, cardio and yes weight training.
You may have noticed that you will loss fat deposits in some areas of your body quicker than others. This is because of your genetic make-up and not because you are doing more exercises for that area.
Men tend to store fat in the abdominal region while women store more in the gluteal/hip/thigh region. So can we all please stop trying to reduce the size of ...... by doing hundreds of exercises to ........ and wonder why it is not working and focus on a well balanced program that targets all areas of : healthy eating, cardio and total body strengthening.
I totally see what you're saying man. But I read this interesting article a few months back saying it was possible to pinpoint fat reduction. Something about when you contact the muscles in a particular area, the blood flows to that muscle better, thus burning calories in that area... or something like that. I'll have to dig it up again, even if it's not true, sounded not to far fetched
Tht would be incorrect research data...and tru science is always countered by numerous scientists before coming to a complete conclusion and even thn anther scientist can still conduct his own experimentation and challenge the existing data thus ths idea of bogus manipulated research data is completely bogus and missing variables itself ...and all the rest is media sensationalism
Actually, there is a degree of fudging involved when publishing experimental data. The data collected may be entirely correct, the procedure unrefutable and the general laboratory acceptability great, but when data is analysed, there are a range of transforms available from which significance can be derived. When data is not really normal, a range of transforms can be applied until significance is achieved.
Then media takes the results and sensationalise them as Hannah said.
Can you tell me more bout these transforms? Please??? Id like to understand better what your saying... I've never heard of it... could you explain it to me?
But I also notice you say presented in a bias manner ... I appreciate you trying to point something out to me but I'm afraid I'm not quite understanding...
Haha if only this post could end the ignorance.
I'm not a statistician and fortunately have never had to do any of the transforms myself but here I go:
When a trait in a population sample is being examined, it is theoretically meant to have a normal distribution (think of a bell curve). There is what is called a standard normal distribution curve where 68% of the population displays either the average value for the investigated trait or is within one standard deviation on each side. As the number of standard deviations increase, the percentage of the population included in that range of values for that trait increases.
A general normal distribution can be considered a stretching of the standard normal distribution.
The central limit theory then states that most distributions are normal.
Now, in a normal distribution, there are 3 key components:
The average, the variance, the stretching factor.
(Obviously, the trait is also important but that's the independent variable which causes the 3 key components to change)
By appling the central limit theorem, values for the 3 key components can be calculated such that the shape formed can fit the shape of the data. The basic idea of transforms relates to the stretching factor, which could be linear, quadratic, exponential, log or otherwise. Note that these are empirical factors. They're not necessarily wrong but it's often impossible to explain them. They are, in essence, fudge factors. Variables such as temperature, minerals in the air, a sea change etc which go unnoticed (scientists are humans too afterall) can affect the data - particularly since biological studies involving animals are so subject to randomness anyway to start with.
The final transformation which is chosen is the one which has the closest fit to the data. This is what I meant by bias - it's the best way to say that the data is important and therefore they pick this transform. Like I said, changes which are hard to quantify are hard to control and short of locking every subject in the study up in the same air conditioned and making all of them eating the same thing for the whole course of the study, total control of variables is impossible.
Again, I'd like to emphasise that I'm not a statistician so my understanding of the transform thing may be wrong. However, a friend conducting a thesis on possum behavior has had to do this which is why I learnt of it.
You cannot reduce fat by exercising that part of body you need to work on full body
Brian..its all physiology..... its all interconnected...thts like claiming tht the dicussion is about transportation and we went from talking bout cars..to trucks ..to trains and now to the subway transit system... no one on here has disagreed with you tht spot reduction doesn't work I'm pretty sure we all knw that but we arnt closing the door to it either..as we recognize that nothing is set in stone and we dnt knw as much yet in this field as we want to or think...I dnt like offending people either :) But I like to learn esp. bout physiology..its my " special interest" lol I have the college textbook in my room..so I guess I question everything Its my way of learning and I hope people dnt get the wrong idea...I like whn you post because its technical and I knw your educated in the field and I learn a lot from you
What I havent fully understood just yet, is how you know this stuff. You have recently discussed with me some aspects of metabolism and calories counting, remember!? Are you a trainer, an athlet, a coach, a dietician?