Show said studies.

Things change, certainly. But I don't need science to tell me what's true and what's not Claudia, for every given situation. Spot reducing.... what can a study show me that my own eyes haven't seen.

Science doesn't creat reality.... it merely defines/describes it.

I subscribe to this magazine which sites scientific studies and I've seen the spot reducing ones mentioned several times. I will see if its in the current issue, otherwise I'll need to wait til I see a study referenced again. Again, no one is saying you can get rid of an entire area just by spot reducing, so it may not be so noticeable to the human eye but this was tracked more accurately with instruments in the study. As soon as I see a reference to one of these studies again, I'll post it for you .

What is the common underlying theory on fasted cardio and why do you find those to be completely without merit?

Subcutaneous Fat Alterations Resulting from an Upper-Body Resistance Training Program

(From the discussion

A reason that skin calipers but not MRI detected spot reduction may be that the muscle growth compressed the extracellular space between fat cells in the upper arm. The total amount of subcutaneous fat in the trained arm may remain the same after resistance training but occupy less space because of muscle hypertrophy; therefore, it would result in a decrease in subcutaneous fat as assessed by skinfold, as we have reported. Krotkeiwski et al. report a similar finding in the trained leg compared with the untrained leg after 5 wk of resistance training. In the trained leg, subcutaneous fat decreased when assessed by skinfold, and the muscle increased. The actual size of the adipocytes in the trained area was unchanged, as verified by measurements of fat-cell weight via fat biopsy. Fat biopsies were not taken in our study, so we can only speculate that adipocyte cell size did not change.

A possible explanation that MRI did not detect spot reduction, as skinfold calipers did, is that MRI was sensitive to variations in muscle and subcutaneous fat responses from resistance training along the entire upper arm, whereas skinfold calipers measured subcutaneous fat change only at the belly of the muscle. Absolute pre-resistance training subcutaneous fat volume in the trained arm (coefficient of variation = 48.3%) showed the least variation compared with absolute pre-resistance training skinfolds (coefficient of variation = 60.0%) in men. However, when comparing pre- versus post-subcutaneous fat variations in the trained arm among the two techniques in men, subcutaneous fat volume (coefficient of variation = 228.8%) as assessed by MRI was more variable than when assessed by skinfold (coefficient of variation = 172.7%). The larger variations in muscle and subcutaneous fat responses to resistance training as determined by MRI in the trained arm in men is the most likely reason that MRI did not detect a pre- versus postresistance training difference in subcutaneous fat between the trained and untrained arms, as skinfold measurements did.

I've always liked this approach to the issue. Honest and relatively concise.

Michael

One study would never be enough to sway me, even if it was a good study, which most are not, when I've got years of real world, hands on experience that suggests otherwise.

And suppose a nifty little study came out using fancy instruments and said that isolation exercises for spot reducing made .0001 units of impact on localized fat.

What the hell would I do with that?

Anything makes a difference. But it's about optimally making a difference. If a study found some small factor of fat usage via isolation spot reducing, I'd still give the same recommendation as before: Stick with the big compound lifts that work your entire body.... b/c that's what works in the real world.

And I'd still say spot reducing is a myth since it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter and it doing any sort of spot-reducing exercise would just be taking away from time you could have spent doing something much more optimal.

Read this, Alan has done more research than everyone on this forum combined:

Myths Under the Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone - AlanAragon.com

Myths Under the Microscope Part 2: False Hopes for Fasted Cardio - AlanAragon.com

Myths Under the Microscope Part 3: Discussion & Afterthoughts - AlanAragon.com

Steve,

Thanks for the links.

Can u answer my question in regard to HR and is a elevated HR necessary in expending calories?
Thanks

Thanks Michael!

Are you asking if an elevated heart rate is necessary for caloric expenditure?

If so, no.

You burn calories while you sleep.

The more you exert yourself, the higher your heart rate is going to be, and indirectly, is going to lead to more energy burned.

I guess my point here is that if you have a lower resting heart rate then you burn less calories when you are sleeping than someone that has a higher one?

I guess it kinds of confuses me. I know especially when I was in top shape, had a resting hr of about 50. One time during a run, something shot out of the back of a truck, like a boomerang, and got me in the lower shin. Went to get a stitch and I remember the doc taking my HR and saying, what r u dead?? It was 50 and that was after having this whole event happen. He said u must be a runner.

Took a stress test once, about 5 yrs ago and the doc was surprised I was able to stay on the treadmill that long, finally he said, when it was almost 20 minutes, time to take the measurements. He did, everything was fine and my hr was under 100 just over 2 minutes after getting of the treadmill. He said they like to see it go under 100 at about 5 minutes.

But, here's the part, I find confusing w/ hr and calorie expenditure. The more in shape, your heart then the less you burn in the way of calories??? Doesn't seem right... Thinking, I am missing something here.

So, if I have this right (yeh, i know, probably don't) a person w/ a resting hr of 50 and someone else w a resting hr of 70, the person w/ the 70 would burn more calories sleeping than the other person. Again, considering all things are equal.


Okay, probably missing a whole lot.

Do you know what BMR is?

Nanuet thats what I meant. Most gyms deter fromt he "muscle head" scene. Although thats what some guys are now finding they cant find. I want to lift heavy weights dammit, not watch TV on an eliptical.

You mean if your heart rate is 160 you'll burn 100 cals and hr at 150 youll burn 90 cals? Is that your question?

Fitness Rx?

Hi Tony,

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

Steve - since u like wikipedia, i am copying this for u and of course me.

Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy expended while at rest in a neutrally temperate environment, in the post-absorptive state (meaning that the digestive system is inactive, which requires about twelve hours of fasting in humans). The release of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, such as the heart, lungs, brain and the rest of the nervous system, liver, kidneys, sex organs, muscles and skin. BMR decreases with age and with the loss of lean body mass

Seeing that bmr is the amt of energy required for the body to function, then I would think the higher your heart rate, more energy required.

Also, read how they measure bmr, but, no, hr is not factored in to the equation. Though, I am assuming the numbers they use to multiply age/ht/wt are assuming a certain hr. Though, why would your bmr decrease as you get older?

Sadly, even my golds gym is turning away from this... Gonna have to start my own meathead gym soon. That would be amazing.

Hey,

Use that for the name, kind of catchy and fun. Okay, at least to me.

Well, I mean what amount of wts do u guys need?

Tony, u do believe in cardio, so y not watch tv while working out?

There's still a World Gym on Rte 202 in Garnerville NY. When I was there, there was a lot of grunting going on, probably still the same.

Maybe they changed because more people are getting into exercise, women especially and they don't want them to feel intimidated. Don't know.

I know, that when I first started my wt workout, I bought Dr. Joyce Verdal (think that's her name) book. showed pics of before & after and listed all the do's & don'ts of the exercises. I brought the book w/ me to the gym. Didn't care, what all the guys thought. Not one to be intimidated. That was over 20 yrs ago, not too many women in the wt section. Actually, when I did this, I was the only one.

Anyway, I think yrs ago, wt section was for the big guys and not only women but men too were intimidated. So, now, gyms probably think they can attract more customers by gearing it to the avg. joe. My take.

So, I guess we can make meathead drinks, that would be protien shakes. Boy we could have a lot of fun w/ that name. More Meat for your money!
Come and meat us. where's the beef, here at meatheads?
Get your meat's worth. k, let me shut up before I start getting bad here, because I can see where I might go w/ the meat & head thing and wanta keep this clean. it is a family forum, right? lol