all posts post new thread

Old Forum How to Lose Belly Fat: Deep Belly (Visceral)

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

GeoffreyLevens

Level 6 Valued Member
A friend just sent me this. I think it is helpful tip for people like me who strongly tend toward visceral fat deposition as opposed to subcutaneous. We can easily become "skinny" diabetics. I was on may way to that before I came here. Diet of course comes first but exercise is an important component
~G

How to Lose Belly Fat: Deep Belly (Visceral), Subcutaneous, and Fat Around The Liver

After eight months, those who did just strength training lost only subcutaneous (below-the-skin) abdominal fat (See Fig 1 below).

In contrast, those who did aerobic training --12 miles/week at 75% max V02, e.g. brisk walk, with or without strength training— lost deep belly fat, subcutaneous belly fat, and fat from around the liver (See Fig 1 below).


http://www.nutritionaction.com/daily...Tips+Nutrition Action Daily&utm_campaign=2015.04.08 Daily Tip
(open access paper)  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3214001/
 
Hi Geoffrey, thanks for sharing this wonderful information. Shows one the importance of aerobic exercise. I am somebody with a fair amount of visceral fat and was looking for concrete research-based information like this.

Can someone explain to me how to calculate my VO2 max? its a new concept to me.

Just to add to this, for those interested aerobics is also proven to improve brain functions (mood, memory, intellect, focus, sharpness, brain cell growth...you name it). It is as if effects on the body is secondary to the effects on the brain!. Source :Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain by John J. Ratey.
 
nothing against an occasional bout of aerobic exercise, I love mountain biking, swimming, walking, an occasional run - but take this study with a grain of salt - the resistance training used in this study is not likely equivalent to the resistance training typically suggested/discussed in this forum.
 
Geoffrey, nice link.  Seems to fit in with the high/low strategy of heavy strength training and easy aerobics.  Very analogous to Taleb's "barbell" strategy of investing.
 
Read about the resistance training in the study - it is a far cry from what we here do and therefore not a comparison I find useful or, for that matter, valid.

-S-
 
Well nothing new here, both strength training and long slow distance work together is the optimal thing to do for humans... lean and strong!

 

 
 
Read the study

They're doing the classic "do 8 reps, then build up to 12 reps, then increase the weight and start over at 8 reps" thing.

They're using machines, not free weights.

No doubt that this, by itself, doesn't achieve the desired result, and I'm frankly surprised that it's useful at all in anything other than a rehabilitation context.

JMO.

-S-
 
Steve Friedes absolutely nailed it.  When those of us who actually strength train think of "resistance training", we think of squats, deadlifts, presses, bench presses, power cleans, Get Ups, and the like.  Heavy, low rep, multi-set, long rest, strength training.  That is NOT what gets labeled "resistance training" in research literature.  Here's why:

1. Nobody in that world knows there's a difference between a barbell back squat and a leg press machine exercise; between a barbell deadlift and one on a Hammer Strength deadlift machine; between curls with pink dumbbells and cleans with two heavy kettlebells; between hoisting a 135lb barbell over your head and pressing up a pair of foam dumbbells.  So they think they can sit you at a plate-loaded, selectorized "military press" and create the same effect as unracking a barbell, walking it a couple steps backward, pressing out your sets, and re-racking it in perfect control.  But why would they know this?  They're medical professionals, not weightlifters.  The Exercise Science people know very slightly better than this, but it doesn't seem to matter, because:

2. The barbell (or kettlebell) isn't an option because they don't know how to coach the lifts.  They're taking rank noobs off the street, conning them into volunteering for a study, making them show up and do the work.  It's already quite an imposition.  Now throw in learning the barbell lifts.  Now throw in the fact that barbell lifts are HARD.  Nobody in this scenario is equipped to administer or receive what we all know to be worthwhile resistance training.

3.  This study is an exception, but most are laughably short and small.  I have seen conclusions somberly-drawn by people who should know better based upon a study that "showed" whatever they wanted to argue.  The study was literally 8 lifters.  Eight.  This kind of crap can get published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.  It's literally no better than an educated guess, but it's now ensconced in "the peer-reviewed literature".  As to duration - it's related to #2 above.  Genuine strength training is a long process that involves not inconsiderable discomfort if not outright pain.  Researchers try mightily to ignore this fact and pretend you can put a few Bros on some machines for a few weeks and draw conclusions about the efficacy of "resistance training" vs some other thing.  That's a wonderful idea.  Now if we could just get somebody to test actual resistance training.
 
Actually, whilst it is easy to dismiss the resistance training component I am not sure this study should be written off. The resistance training was at least sufficient to make them stronger.

The fact that they are seeing the results with fairly moderate aerobic exercise at a relatively low dose is interesting. There were about 50 subjects / group so the sample size is not too bad either.

Another interesting points - doing aerobic exercise on top and presumably improving aerobic fitness did not have any positive effects on strength improvement in resistance training.

 
 
Nobody in that world knows there’s a difference between a barbell back squat and a leg press machine exercise...
Click to expand...
A bit of devil's advocacy here:  I totally agree that there are pronounced differences in outcomes between heavy barbell work and weigh machines I don't think that is what this study is looking at.  The physiology being addressed in the study is the difference between relatively brief periods of very high intensity muscle contractions vs relatively much longer periods of low intensity contraction.

The outcomes being measured (visceral fat loss amount) may or may not be part of the difference between barbells and machines; both of those are in fact of the briefer, higher intensity type exercise. Though one may indeed be much more intense and require a different type of mental focus (and therefore learning) does it require a different type of physiology or only a different degree? Quality vs quantity sort of thing.
 
Karl, because it gives a favorable review to an activity we like doesn’t mean we should endorse its method, IMHO. I know machines are better than nothing, but, well …

I would have been happier if it weren't called resistance training. The kind of resistance training we do here can change body composition without traditional cardio, and it bothers me that this study doesn't seem to even acknowledge that such a possibility exists.

-S-
 
Steve,

Agreed. Visceral fat is not commonly measured amongst the general population. It would be good to see what effect a KB routine where you could hit your max HR with ease would do.

Certainly make s a big difference to sub cut fat in my case. Also didn't really see any detail on the diet involved in this study.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom