Clarification please

When I get bored, I read through the vast amounts of info found on this site. One thing that I have read a few times now, is the theory of being able to "tone" or to "spot treat" areas of your body for weight loss or muscle gain. When this theory is put forth, it seems to get knocked down pretty quickly by the majority(at least the majority that post to the thread, any way) as not being a valid way of achieving one's goal.

To me, this raises a question: If muscle helps to burn fat, why can't "toning" or "spot treating" work? I must say, that when i wasn't able to do my cardio as much as I would like, I still lifted to hlep my chest stay solid and for me arms to stay lean.....that spot treating kept me toned. Just putting it out there...I'm no egggzpert on the matter.

BTW and FWIW, I understand the connection the two...a good diet with regualr exercise for long term weight mangement and over all general good health.
 
To me, this raises a question: If muscle helps to burn fat, why can't "toning" or "spot treating" work? I must say, that when i wasn't able to do my cardio as much as I would like, I still lifted to hlep my chest stay solid and for me arms to stay lean.....that spot treating kept me toned. Just putting it out there...I'm no egggzpert on the matter.

BTW and FWIW, I understand the connection the two...a good diet with regualr exercise for long term weight mangement and over all general good health.

The spot treating as you call it, didn't help you get toned. The fact that you worked out the chest, and increased the muscle mass in the chest area, and improved the aesthetics of your chest, doesn't mean that you lost fat in that area. It means that you added muscle, which overshadows the fat that you have in that area, and makes it look better visually.
 
Hmmm....not so sure that is the deal.

I will use myself as an example here...

When i first started taking my body seriously, my chest was very loose. Little muscle to be found. Within a 3 month window, my chest was very firm and little fat was evident(or could be pinched, even without flexing). Now, are yous saying that the fat was "stretched out" or was it gone, or hiding some where else?

Please don't take the tone as argumentative.....just some healthy conversation here. I happen to feel that "spot treating" can indeed produce results in more definition and fat loss. I feel this way only becuase of my results, however maybe I mis-understand what has hapend
 
Hmmm....not so sure that is the deal.

I will use myself as an example here...

When i first started taking my body seriously, my chest was very loose. Little muscle to be found. Within a 3 month window, my chest was very firm and little fat was evident(or could be pinched, even without flexing). Now, are yous saying that the fat was "stretched out" or was it gone, or hiding some where else?

Please don't take the tone as argumentative.....just some healthy conversation here. I happen to feel that "spot treating" can indeed produce results in more definition and fat loss. I feel this way only becuase of my results, however maybe I mis-understand what has hapend

Don't worry, I know that this is just a friendly discussion, just giving you my stance on this :)

If you were bulking, eating a caloric surplus when you got the improvement in your chest, I most probably would say that the fat it streched.
For example when some people start bulking and don't have any previous visible abdominal muscles, even though they're bulking and gaining fat, especially in the tummy area, often they claim that their abs are starting to show(i.e are more visible than before), even though they're chubbier.
 
No bulking.....just eating a heathly menu of various things.

Maybe I am mixing to things together here that shouldn't be...for a clarifacation purposes.

If one is trying to loose weight, hopfeully they would be doing this by several means:a healthy, appropriate diet; regular excercise and good rest. This person could expect to loose weigh on a "equal basis". Sure, some could shed faster from some areas more so then others, but generally speaking.

One of the things that I have read and been advised is that adding muscle(were not talking about bulky muscle...just lean muscle will surfice) wil help shred away fat. The question is, if muscle helps to burn away fat, why, if someone lifts weights and only weights(no cardio, but eats healthy) would they not be able to isolate where they "tone" their muscle? Pectoral muscles for example. One could tighten up their chest just by lifting weights, thus shredding some fat from their chest, if this is true about muscle burning fat.

Make any more sense?
 
You are talking about two different processes.

Yes you can lift weights to stimulate muscle growth in certain areas. However, any weight loss that occurs is purely up to where your body decides to take it from.

In your example, if you were new to lifting then you would have gained some muscle in your chest area and also lost fat. The fact that you lost fat around your chest was the design of your body, not because you were doing bench press.

Does that make sense?
 
In some way, it makes sense.

I guess I'm just questioning just how important muscle is to burning fat, when, if, cardio is abscent but weight lifting is present, muscle growth goes up, but fat loss is simply hidden.
 
In NROL , after explaining a big study about how many calories muscle burns it says, "Bottom line: It's the work you do, not the results of the work, that burns the extra calories." So its not as much the muscles that are really that are burning those calories, its the workouts and their after-effects that are the big players.
 
I don't know much about heart rate and burning fat, but really what I am saying is that most of the extra calories you are burning during the day are going to come from calories burned during your workouts, and the calories that are burned post workout. Don't get me wrong, muscle is metabolically active tissue, and therefore does burn calories, but the big factor here is the daily work that you put in. As FlyinFree says "Sweat Daily"!

Also don't take this to mean that you can burn fat simply by working out, you do need to be in a calorie deficit, which you seem to understand. But I hope this helps!
 
I'm simply trying to connect dots. Nothing is more confusion to someone who is just now starting to better themselves via workout and a healthy life style, then to wade through all of the various ideas, comjuecture or not, put forth to better burn fat and add muscle if desired. Lucky for me, I am no longer at those begining stages...I have found what works for me. And that took me some time to do.

The "muscle burning fat" issue was always of interest to me, simple becuase of the results I happen to yield. It simply didn't appear to jive with what some others have stated here in other threads about the ability to tone or spot treat. I simply wanted to pursue that area. :SaiyanSmilie_anim:
 
Spot reduction is a myth. Your body loses fat in reverse order of where it put it on. In the inventory control world we call this LIFO. Last In First Out. Here is a blurb:

On the surface, spot reduction sounds logical, and this is probably why this myth has survived so long. If you want flat abs, do abdominal exercises. If you want slim arms, do arm exercises. If you want skinny thighs, work out your legs. But as many frustrated exercisers have discovered, spot reduction does not always work. Despite hundreds of tricep kickbacks, they still have fatty arms. Even if they do half an hour of crunches a day, they still have a jiggly belly.

The truth is specific localized exercises like leg lifts and ab crunches will make the muscles being exercised stronger, firmer and harder, and if you lift weights heavy enough, even bigger. But the fat in that area will not necessarily become smaller. A 1971 experiment done on tennis players showed that the athletes had approximately the same amount of fat in their dominant and non-dominant arm. The muscles in the arm they used the most were bigger and stronger but the fat was the same in both arms. If spot reduction was possible, then the dominant arm should have less fat than the non-dominant arm.

There are a few reasons spot reduction is a myth. One, spot exercises by themselves do not burn enough calories to make a dent in fat loss. So, if all you are doing to achieve your goal of a flat stomach is hundreds of crunches a day, you will get strong hard abdominal muscles but you may still have a sizable chunk of belly fat.

To see a significant change in your appearance, you have to burn a considerable number of calories (3,500 calories for one pound of fat), and spot exercises alone are not going to do it. Spot exercises should be part of a total program to reduce body fat-aerobic exercise, resistance training, a sensible diet and an active daily lifestyle.

Aerobic exercise is any kind of exercise that uses large muscles of the body in a continuous rhythmic manner like walking, running, cycling or aerobic classes. Resistance training is exercise using some kind of resistance like weights, rubber bands or body weight. Examples of body weight exercises are those done in yoga and Pilates.

The second reason spot reduction doesn't work is that even if you could burn the appropriate number of calories by doing spot exercises for your "problem" area, you have no control over where your fat will be burned.

In a 1984 study conducted at the University of Massachusetts, male participants did the equivalent of 5,000 sit-ups for 27 days. Fat was measured in the abdomen, buttocks and upper back. According to the spot reduction theory, fat should have been reduced only in the abdominal area because the buttocks and upper back are not actively involved in doing a sit-up. Researchers found that fat was reduced in all three areas.

It would be nice to lose fat only from our "problem" areas, but it doesn't work that way.

Whether we like it or not, our bodies respond to fat loss or gain in different ways depending on our gender, age and genetic make-up. In general, men usually store fat in the mid-section while women tend to store fat in their hips, buttocks and thighs, although some women have apple-shaped bodies (more fat in the trunk and arms compared to the legs) and a few men are pear-shaped (more fat in the lower abdomen and buttocks).

You will lose fat in the reverse order that you tend to gain it. This is called the "first on, last off" theory. If you are the type who gets fat in the lower abdomen when you gain weight, then that is usually the last place the fat will disappear from when you lose weight.
 
When I get bored, I read through the vast amounts of info found on this site. One thing that I have read a few times now, is the theory of being able to "tone" or to "spot treat" areas of your body for weight loss or muscle gain. When this theory is put forth, it seems to get knocked down pretty quickly by the majority(at least the majority that post to the thread, any way) as not being a valid way of achieving one's goal.

To me, this raises a question: If muscle helps to burn fat, why can't "toning" or "spot treating" work? I must say, that when i wasn't able to do my cardio as much as I would like, I still lifted to hlep my chest stay solid and for me arms to stay lean.....that spot treating kept me toned. Just putting it out there...I'm no egggzpert on the matter.

BTW and FWIW, I understand the connection the two...a good diet with regualr exercise for long term weight mangement and over all general good health.

Fats stored within the body are very motile, meaning they can be very mobile within the body. When the body, or parts of the body, need fats as fuel, they do not come from just one place, they come from all over the body, regardless of distance. This is because it is better (healthier) and more efficient for the body to maintain its fat storage and spacing (determined by genetics) then to allow pooling in some areas and cutting in others.

That is not to say that you won't see improvements in certain regions before you see them in others. It completely depends on your genetic mapping how your body is going to store fats.
 
Back
Top