fat pad and visceral fat

**BBC Action** · 10-11-2019

Its calories in vs calories out. Doesn't really matter what you eat, unless you lift weights. Keep decreasing calories, or increase activity. If your weight loss stalls subtract calories by 100.

**Carguy88** · 10-11-2019

Hmmm... going to have to take exception with the statement that it doesn't matter what you eat. While the specific carb/fat/protein ratio is different for different goals, the way you get those calories matters. Cheap processed sugars are a piss-poor way to meet your carb demands. Trans-fats are a horrible way to meet your fat demands. Now, that being said, saturated fat and cholesterol are actually good for you in the right amounts. That amount will be different based on your individual metabolism, health needs, genetics, and fitness goals.
Now, the caloric deficit statement is true- if you feed your body more than it burns, particularly in few and large meals a day, it will tend to store fat. Smaller meals spread out throughout the day help, particularly if coupled with caloric matching. The idea of fasting every day, except for 1 giant meal, rarely works- your body will think food is scarce and be more likely to store. Now, extended and strategic fasting can do some bodies a load of good, but only if your health needs allow. People who struggle with daily hypoglycemia (non-diabetic in this example) may not do well with extended fasting. Their natural glucagon and insulin balance/imbalance can put safety at risk if not properly managed.

Anyway... I'm not a dietitian, and am not "qualified" to tell anyone what to do for their health. I fix yellow iron, not pink-brown squishy bodies. Nor am I a personal trainer or bodybuilder. I have all of those in my family, but that doesn't make me an expert by any means.

**Pegasus** · 10-12-2019

[QUOTE=Carguy88;1601602]I would imagine HIIT would be a bit more effective than steady, but just doing ANY aerobic/cardio excercises yields considerable gains above and beyond just fat loss.[/QUOTE

I would have thought hiit would have been more effective but the evidence is lacking .

**Pegasus** · 10-12-2019

Originally Posted by BBC Action

Its calories in vs calories out. Doesn't really matter what you eat, unless you lift weights. Keep decreasing calories, or increase activity. If your weight loss stalls subtract calories by 100.

I have recently come off a period where I dieted and lost 5 kg and some waist measure . The dexa test showed the loss to be totally made up of muscle . So this approach does nothing for me.

**Johnny D** · 10-12-2019

Originally Posted by BBC Action

Its calories in vs calories out. Doesn't really matter what you eat, unless you lift weights. Keep decreasing calories, or increase activity. If your weight loss stalls subtract calories by 100.

Macro composition and quality are too important to overlook. Your body and metabolism will respond to 2000 calories of gummy worms very differently than to 2000 calories of turkey breast.

**Pegasus** · 10-12-2019

A reminder this thread is not about weight loss .

One can lose weight and not lose fat , one can gain weight and not gain fat .

This thread is even more pointy it is about loss of core fat. Core fat is visceral fat and other core fat like fat pad .
My research reveals it is possible to target this type of fat .

**Johnny D** · 10-12-2019

Yes. And if the thread was simply about weight loss, regardless of location or composition, the assertion of it's as simple as calories-in/calories-out would have some bit of merit.

**Pegasus** · 10-12-2019

[QUOTE=Johnny D;1601657]Yes. And if the thread was simply about weight loss, regardless of location or composition, the assertion of it's as simple as calories-in/calories-out would have some bit of merit.[/Q

Exactly.

Visceral fat is associated with negative health outcomes , in a way subcutaneous fat and particularly muscle is not.

**Carguy88** · 10-12-2019

I would say based on personal experience that calorie composition does affect visceral fat- simple/processed carbs are a huge offender for not just subQ and visceral fat but many areas of overall health. Yes, trans-fats are bad as well, but sugar is really a much more nefarious issue than I know I was brought up thinking.
While avoiding simple sugars, trans-fat, etc will aid in whole-body health, I think it could be a useful tool in targeting stubborn belly fat.

Though, for me, I can definitely echo again the work stress point. More stress at work is also usually coupled with less sleep, at least for me, and usually results in a bit of "pudge" building up. It's a vicious cycle for me- more stress, less sleep, crappier eating (energy drinks, fast food, etc), more stress, etc. Can be a hard cycle to break off.

**HansTwilight** · 10-12-2019

Originally Posted by BBC Action

Its calories in vs calories out. Doesn't really matter what you eat, unless you lift weights. Keep decreasing calories, or increase activity. If your weight loss stalls subtract calories by 100.

I disagree, carbs and sugars make you store fat. Cutting out all sugars (processed or natural) and limiting your carb intake so you have just as much energy your body needs is what most bodybuilders do. Some of them even do k.e.t.o.
I don't know why the system doesn't let us type the word "k.e.t.o" out.