# Does riding trim stomach fat?



## Snakebitten (Jun 26, 2008)

Really got back into biking because of health issues and my laziness to exercise. Gas prices have also helped me see the light. Im reading up alot of info on here and to tell you the truth its quite daunting the amount of info on this site. Im overloaded lol. Ive just gotten to this Nutrition section and it got me wondering if riding will help get rid of my stubburn belly fat? If so how long before I see results to my total body? Ive heard the quads refered to as "your second heart" and that its responsible for the shape of your body. Ive already changed my eating habbits but it hasnt really helped. Any help appreciated.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Snakebitten said:


> Really got back into biking because of health issues and my laziness to exercise. Gas prices have also helped me see the light. Im reading up alot of info on here and to tell you the truth its quite daunting the amount of info on this site. Im overloaded lol. Ive just gotten to this Nutrition section and it got me wondering if riding will help get rid of my stubburn belly fat? If so how long before I see results to my total body? Ive heard the quads refered to as "your second heart" and that its responsible for the shape of your body. Ive already changed my eating habbits but it hasnt really helped. Any help appreciated.


Spot reduction is a myth. To lose weight eat less and exercise more. Eventually your belly fat will go away also. Rule of thumb re: fat is first on, last off. In men that usually means belly...in women it's the butt and thighs.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Yes, for most men the belly is where excess fat goes, but every individual has a unique pattern of fat storage.

Seems like most successful, persistent weight loss is acquired through a combination of exercise and caloric restriction. I've seen lots and lots of people do it.

Another weight loss "secret" is getting plenty of sleep. IMO when you are sleep-deprived you are more likely to go for excess calories as a way of making up for your tired state.


----------



## rsosborn (May 19, 2008)

pretender said:


> Yes, for most men the belly is where excess fat goes, but every individual has a unique pattern of fat storage.
> 
> Seems like most successful, persistent weight loss is acquired through a combination of exercise and caloric restriction. I've seen lots and lots of people do it.
> 
> Another weight loss "secret" is getting plenty of sleep. IMO when you are sleep-deprived you are more likely to go for excess calories as a way of making up for your tired state.


i found this true as well. i read your body uses fat while you sleep.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

rsosborn said:


> i read your body uses fat while you sleep.


Net caloric balance is negative during sleep, at the very least. Unless you are a sleepeater.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

burn more calories than you eat, and you will lose weight. its your choice how you burn them


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

bauerb said:


> burn more calories than you eat, and you will lose weight.


Sort of an unhelpful tautology, that.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

i completely disagree. there are so many wack diets out there, I truly believe that most people do not understand the simplicity of weight loss. if more calories go in then are burned, you gain wait. you can eat "low fat" all day long, but if you over consume, you will gain wait. if I need 3k calories per day, I can eat 4 egg mcmuffins and still lose weight. there are varying ways to remain fit, healthy, full of energy etc, as you lose weight, but it is all about calories in the end.


----------



## lawrence (May 17, 2005)

Calories burned burns fat, fat comes off your body throughout the entire body, torso, face, hands, feet. Problem with biking many times your caloric intake goes up because you are famished.

For every 1 lb of muscle you put on your body, you will burn an extra 15 calories while you sleep.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

Completely agree. Weight loss is not rocket science.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Another "I agree" 

burn more than you consume...it ain't rocket science


----------



## Snakebitten (Jun 26, 2008)

great info guys. Thanks. I used to be 300lbs and lost most my weight from jogging and aerobic workouts but that damn belly wont turn into a 6 pack. Ill just work harder..


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

something else to consider is that areas that get the most muscle usage, seem(at least in my case) to be the leanest. my legs are more lean then my upper body for example. there is a correlation to the fact that 98% of my exercise is cycling. my point is: don't forget to workout your stomach muscles if a 6 pack is part of your goal along with weight loss


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

as said above, you cannot target specific fat loss zones. Your genetics decide where your fat stores go. Want less fat? Burn more fuel by increasing excersize. Eating better, less junk, less high glycemic foods. Build muscle is also key to weight loss. True, muscle weighs more then fat however, more muscle requires more fuel to maitain that muscle. Put some more good meat on the bones and it will raise your metabolic rate. You'll burn more fat in your sleep and during inactivity like at work.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

MikeBiker said:


> There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.


I don't see any reliable evidence of a "wheat belly" phenomenon. For example, look at what this doctor recommends:

_If you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables; healthy oils; lean proteins (lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, yogurt and cottage cheese); raw nuts like almonds, walnuts, and pecans; and fruit. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free._

If a person actually were to follow such a plan, _of course_ it would lead to weight loss, because there would be a _net caloric deficit_. It's the calories, not the _wheat_.

AFAIK there is no evidence that different kinds of food target different fat stores.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

MikeBiker said:


> There is more to it than just calories. You need to get adequate micro-nutrients and avoid foods that cause problems. You could have a Wheat Belly problem. Exercise alone will not fix this.


This is an anecdotal claim that clearly mixes different factors such that you can't blame anything on "wheat" per se. Simply stated, if one eliminated a similar amount of calories from non-wheat sources, you would likely see the same outcome.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

What's really funny is when the fat comes out, the patterns change as the fat moves.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

phoehn9111 said:


> I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
> than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
> I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
> fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.


apples to apples please
if you're riding and running at the same energy output then the results should be more similar. 

But all things aren't equal
You can't coast while running. 
You can't soft pedal.
you can't draft

Also running is more anerobic because of the impact work the legs are doing. You'll build more muscle mass then spinning. Greater muscle mass = higher resting metobolic rate = more fat burnt during inactivity.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

phoehn9111 said:


> I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
> than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
> I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
> fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.


1. The caloric "in-out" hypothesis is proven fact, as much as the earth rotating around the sun. What makes the whole thing tricky, and why the weight loss advice "burn more calories than you eat" is worthless, is because calories don't get consumed or burned in a vacuum. The timing and content of what you consume influences how many calories you burn, and vice versa. Add in real-world concerns like job, family, little time for sleep, the expense of fresh healthy food vs the cheapness and easy availability of processed calorically-dense food, etc etc, and you start to see why weight loss in the real world is difficult.

2. Unless you are _really_ railing it on the bike, running easily burns more calories per unit time than cycling. Also, running generally requires that your stomach is empty, so there is a good two to three hours of pre-run fasting that isn't required for cycling. I also think there is selection bias: fat people can indeed cycle quite well, because the bike supports all of one's weight, but fat people are at tremendous disadvantage in running. People are more likely to stick with an exercise in which they are competent.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

phoehn9111 said:


> I know whenever I used to run a lot it was much easier for me to lose weight
> than it is for a comparitive amount of time in the saddle. That doesn't compute.
> I often see somewhat paunchy middle-aged dedicated cyclists, not so many runners
> fit that demographic and body type. That shouldn't be, according to the in-out theory.


You do realize that you could be mistaken in your observation, or your observations are real but don't apply to the population as a whole, or maybe runners burn more calories than cyclists or diffrent body types choose to run vs. cycling or....a hundred other explanations. That is why we do controlled studies to try to get at underlying causes as best as possible.

The "in-out theory" at least on the surface has to be correct from a basic thermodynamics perspective. Of course, clearly something could affect the "in or out" so it becomes less obvious. E.g. perhaps eating wheat depresses basal metabolism so there is less "out" or maybe we're really efficient at digesting wheat so that a 100 cal in the mouth ends up being a hundred calories in the cells, where as some other food we don't digest so well so 100 cal in the mouth doesn't get fully digested and actually puts less than 100 cal in the body to use as energy.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I should know better than to spout
off vague generalities and subjective BS, especially in this forum where
measureability and objectivity should be paramount. Apples to apples, indeed.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

When weight is lost, it will come from wherever your body chooses. You can't do anything to pick where.

I gain 7-8 pounds every winter and always have a hard time losing it, to get down to my preferred 132-134. It's very easy to consume far more calories in energy drinks and power bars than you expend riding. Most estimates of calories consumed per mile are exaggerated. 

I would not eat any extra calories on any ride of 2 hours or less. If you know you'll be out for a lot longer than that, take an energy drink or power bar (either one being about 240 calories), but not both. When I ride 3 hours, I drink 120-240 calories in energy drink on the road and my consume that much in a recovery drink when I get home, but eating much more often causes weight gain rather than loss.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

I can't believe we are still having this debate. lose weight = eat fewer calories. supermodels don't do intervals, they starve themselves and smoke cigarettes. they may be unhealthy inside, but it works to lose weight. now if you want to be super fit/healthy and lose weight, you need to be mindful of *what* you eat and how much. the kind of exercise is irrelevant if you know your caloric burn. also helpful is a BMR. the most elegant answer to this debate on pure weight loss is still "eat fewer calories then you burn". when and how you burn, and when, what you eat are irrelevant


----------



## rsosborn (May 19, 2008)

C-40 said:


> When weight is lost, it will come from wherever your body chooses. You can't do anything to pick where.


but doesn't what you eat affect this? maybe this for example? 

if i eat only protein after a hard ride, i am probably going to feel more tired. but won't my body become more lean after the process?

versus if i eat all simple sugars after that same ride, wouldn't that more likely appear as body fat? my body wouldn't have to so hard work to use this food.


----------



## grebletie (Nov 12, 2006)

rsosborn said:


> but doesn't what you eat affect this? maybe this for example?
> 
> if i eat only protein after a hard ride, i am probably going to feel more tired. but won't my body become more lean after the process?
> 
> versus if i eat all simple sugars after that same ride, wouldn't that more likely appear as body fat? my body wouldn't have to so hard work to use this food.


Actually, that's completely and utterly incorrect. After a ride, simple sugars are _more likely_ to be transported directly back to the muscles to replace lost glycogen, rather than be stored as adipose tissue.


----------



## Snakebitten (Jun 26, 2008)

Someone said something about sleep. Ive had a sleeping disorder for 15+ years. I average about 3-4 hours sleep and they are not contiguous. I wake several times etc. I was recently diagnosed with ulcerated stomach so I dont know if this was the cause all these years. Many incompetant uncaring doctors Ive seen over those long 15+ years. Maybe this is why Im still flabby even after 4 straight months of 2 hour workouts at Ballys and running etc[last year]. It just keeps defeating me the harder I work it seems the flabbier I get and I usually dont sleep well if at all after a workout. Maybe I should focus on the sleeping problem first before the fat loss. 

This is interesting because I noticed that the odd day when I get at least 5 hours contiguous sleep I do notice a flatter waist area and I do feel lighter over all in the stomach . Weird to explain it but Im used to getting up feeling bloated even after a hard workout when I get to actually sleep. 

After reading alot of what you guys have been saying Im starting to realize there is no easy answer to fat loss. Too many variables such as my sleeping disorder, genetics etc.


----------



## 262209 (Jun 26, 2006)

Testestrone levels also play a part in bodyfat. Lower test levels means a higher perpensity to fat storage and loss of lean body mass. Its proven that endurance athletes have lower test levels than other types of athlethes which is why marathon runners are not rock solid like their sprinting counterparts. 

Not enough sleep lowers test levels as well. 

I attempt to reverse dropping test levels by weightlifting. Heavy squats and deadlifts are proven to elevate test levels. 

.02


----------



## PJay (May 28, 2004)

*porr sleep = more cortisol = weight gain*

when you have less sleep, your body has greater cortisol levels, which is an indicator to the body to put on fat and crave simple carbs versus complex carbs.

this is how poor sleep leads to weight gain.

stress management can lower cortisol.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

A year ago I wouldve said no but thats because I was using bad form with my legs. Now that ive been using the drops on flats and good form with the cranks Ive been noticing my abs getting stronger and the fat going away. I know that theres people that say spot training doesnt do anything and wont burn the fat in that area... this is pretty much true but what does happen is the growing muscle will push the fat elsewhere thinning it out over the focused area. So in a way yes, it does work... just not how most think it would.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

B15serv said:


> A year ago I wouldve said no but thats because I was using bad form with my legs. Now that ive been using the drops on flats and good form with the cranks Ive been noticing my abs getting stronger and the fat going away. I know that theres people that say spot training doesnt do anything and wont burn the fat in that area... this is pretty much true but what does happen is the growing muscle will push the fat elsewhere thinning it out over the focused area. So in a way yes, it does work... just not how most think it would.


So where is your fat now?

If this were true, one should simply be able to massage a given area to "push" the fat away to some other area.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

B15serv said:


> A year ago I wouldve said no but thats because I was using bad form with my legs. Now that ive been using the drops on flats and good form with the cranks Ive been noticing my abs getting stronger and the fat going away. I know that theres people that say spot training doesnt do anything and wont burn the fat in that area... this is pretty much true but what does happen is the growing muscle will push the fat elsewhere thinning it out over the focused area. So in a way yes, it does work... just not how most think it would.


you should print out this post and show it to your family doctor. Please photo the look on his face when you try to explain how your muscles are pushing your fat elsewhere.


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

The answer is that riding does trim stomach fat.


----------



## breadandwater (Oct 1, 2007)

another interesting fact about cycling is that a lot of power to move your legs comes from the core muscles in your abs and such, so a solid, low calorie diet with a cycling regimen with definitely yield good results.

also to ad to what fishtanker said, its been shown that doing solid 30 minute workouts, that involve all the major muscle groups, at least twice a week in conjunction with your cardio keeps fat burning metabolism burning an extra 36 hours


----------



## Snakebitten (Jun 26, 2008)

Interesting info and great advice. Never thought about the testosterone hit sleeplessness can take on a man. Geez something else to worry about. I'll take up dead lifting along with the cycling and deffinately target my sleeping habits once I get my bike tuned for the road. Looking forward to starting this routine and hopefully I can see results all around.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

breadandwater said:


> another interesting fact about cycling is that a lot of power to move your legs comes from the core muscles in your abs and such, so a solid, low calorie diet with a cycling regimen with definitely yield good results.
> 
> also to ad to what fishtanker said, its been shown that doing solid 30 minute workouts, that involve all the major muscle groups, at least twice a week in conjunction with your cardio keeps fat burning metabolism burning an extra 36 hours


I try to look at this stuff when I come across it in the research literature. From what I can recall doing "solid" workouts (I assume you mean weightlifting?) are mainly beneficial to metabolism by increasing resting metabolic rate due to the addition of muscle mass. Otherwise weightlifting effect on metabolism is relatively small because the acute effect on metabolism (the Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption, EPOC) is mostly proportional to the work performed during exercise, and since you typically perform much more work doing aerobic exercise than weightlifting, you get much more of an "acute" boost in metabolism from the former. However, the EPOC is always pretty small compared to what you actually burn during the exercise itself.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I try to look at this stuff when I come across it in the research literature. From what I can recall doing "solid" workouts (I assume you mean weightlifting?) are mainly beneficial to metabolism by increasing resting metabolic rate due to the addition of muscle mass. Otherwise weightlifting effect on metabolism is relatively small because the acute effect on metabolism (the Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption, EPOC) is mostly proportional to the work performed during exercise, and since you typically perform much more work doing aerobic exercise than weightlifting, you get much more of an "acute" boost in metabolism from the former. However, the EPOC is small compared always pretty small compared to what you actually burn during the exercise itself.


So in other words, train with the activity you want to do well? (Whodathunk?)


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

pretender said:


> So in other words, train with the activity you want to do well? (Whodathunk?)


While that is undoubtably true, the so-called specificity principle, I'm not sure how you got that out of what I posted?

I'm just talking about the effect of the two main "types" of exercise on metabolism, doesn't have anything to do with doing well at anything.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> While that is undoubtably true, the so-called specificity principle, I'm not sure how you got that out of what I posted?


Just the bit about weight training increasing metabolism only insofar as it adds muscle mass.

IOW, if one's goal is to lose excess weight in order to ride a bike faster, and one decides to lift weights to lose that excess weight, it's a cart before the horse situation.

OTOH some people view the bike riding as a method of losing weight, not the reverse.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

pretender said:


> Just the bit about weight training increasing metabolism only insofar as it adds muscle mass.
> 
> IOW, if one's goal is to lose excess weight in order to ride a bike faster, and one decides to lift weights to lose that excess weight, it's a cart before the horse situation.
> 
> OTOH some people view the bike riding as a method of losing weight, not the reverse.


In my case, it's both.

I want to lose weight so I can ride faster, and I'm riding a lot so I can lose weight.

That said, I think when daylight savings goes away this October, I'm going to switch to a more even workout schedule. I think it's probably important to have total body fitness, and not be underdeveloped in the upper body. 

During this morning's weigh in, I found I am currently 32 pounds down since April 7 this year. Key is to keep losing and to make sure it never comes back.


----------



## GTScott (Dec 6, 2007)

I have found the best, straight forward description regarding the simplicity of weight loss and food intake in general to be in Nancy Clark's "Complete Guide to Sports Nutrition" (or something like that). It is a great book and I highly recommend anyone interested in general fueling and the processing of fuel to take a look at it. I am about 1/2 way through it and find about 35% of it, thus far, to be very relevant to cycling and running. It would be more but there is a section about how you should eat and train while pregnant and that just was not too relevant for me.

-GT


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

Snakebitten said:


> great info guys. Thanks. I used to be 300lbs and lost most my weight from jogging and aerobic workouts but that damn belly wont turn into a 6 pack. Ill just work harder..


A very important step in getting a "six pack" is to shave the area and get it tan if possible. If you look at the fitness models on the cover of Men's Health, they all have six packs but not a hair follicle in the bunch.

-ilan


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

phoehn9111 said:


> The answer is that riding does trim stomach fat.


Yes, but as you improve, you start sticking out your stomach more in order to flatten your back. To have a flat stomach on a bike you need to be really lean or just very tall. If you look at the stockier riders like O'Grady they seem to have a big midsection compared to their skinny legs (due to their core strength as well). 

It helps to wear bibs with good abdominal support. The worst for me are skinsuits in which the seam between the top and bottom parts is right under my little flap of flab (which I can't lose even when at my absolute fittest at about 10% BF, I estimate it represents about 200g of fat, so impossible to lose for me) so when I'm at the track on the rail lining up for a race, the fans can see it up close and personal, pretty disgusting . 

-ilan


----------



## gatorling (Jun 25, 2008)

Certainly most of the advice given is sound. Yes it is true that you need to create a caloric deficit in order to lose body mass but in order to prevent the loss of lean body muscle (i.e muscle) you should perform some degree of strength training.

If looks is what you're going for then core exercises will also go a long way to help make you look thinner. The more muscle there is in the mid section the better they can hold your internal organs in and the thinner you will appear. No it will not actually reduce the fat in the area but it may draw your waist-line in (kinda like how your density will increase if you wear a compression suit, i.e you'll look thinner).

I'm not a personal trainer but a combination of cycling, weight lifting and a sensible diet will yield the best results. From what I understand the best way to increase your resting metabolic rate is to increase lean body mass (although here are many who say this will adversely affect your cycling performance)


----------



## havnmonkey (Jun 21, 2008)

idiots guide to _getting fitter_

1) burn more calories than you consume. notice how I said *burn* before *consume*, don't let your diet determine your activities... let your activities determine your diet.

2) eat healthy stupid! Yes, a Big Mac is bad for you... we should all know this by now. I'm an organic minded vegetarian... I was raised that way and it has worked for me. It's easy, just try harder.

3) the best way to lose weight and maintain good fitness is to cross-train... What do you think fitness models do? Every exercise has it's benefits... Running, cycling, swimming... do 'em all if you want to stay fit. Throw in some weight training to gain some size... racquet ball, basketball, volleyball, surfing, and most team sports will also increase mental coordination and agility. Yoga, tai-bo, martial arts, and aerobics may help w/ tone and relaxation... wanna get your a$$ kicked? Try MMC style workouts.

4) it is easier to put on weight than to lose it. The # of fat cells in your body will increase, they never decrease. Once a fat cell reaches it's capacity it will divide and form two cells. Those 2 cells can hold as much as the original cell could. Diet as much as you want, those divided cells will only shrink, they'll never disappear. That's why they invented liposuction.

5) our world is waaaaaay too easy to live in. Society is based on convenience. Everything must be made easier to do otherwise we'll b!tch about doing it. Suck it up and endure the pain!!!


----------



## ilan (Nov 27, 2006)

havnmonkey said:


> idiots guide to _getting fitter_
> 
> What do you think fitness models do?


I'm not 100% sure, but I do suspect that most fitness models take a lot of supplements and legal and more probably illegal substances to speed up their metabolism (I've never heard of drug testing for fitness models). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them smoke, because that is actually a fairly effective way to maintain a lower fat percentage without doing any work. Other than the rare actual athletes (mostly pole vaulters, female swimmers, etc.) I would also conjecture that they mostly do their training using machines at fitness clubs since, as is very likely, they're also personal trainers amd that's what 99% of clients want (these days actual athletes will mostly train with free weights or do body weight exercises). 

-ilan


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

this whole calorie burning, excercize thing is WAAAYYYY over-rated. there's tons of stuff available on late night infommertials that alleviate the need for stupid, time wasting excercize. Just take one of those pills, turn on the tv, and hit the couch! Done...
...more importantly, if you wanna loose another 5-8 lbs, just start smoking. Marlboro lights (half to 3/4 pack per day)=3 lbs
marlboro mediums (same amount) 4-6lbs
marlboro reds - any other filterless (full pack+ per day) 10-12 lbs. You can probably loose up to 15lbs if you start chain smoking. 
smoking with diet pills is the way to go..


----------



## Killroy (Feb 9, 2006)

C-40 said:


> I gain 7-8 pounds every winter and always have a hard time losing it, to get down to my preferred 132-134. It's very easy to consume far more calories in energy drinks and power bars than you expend riding. Most estimates of calories consumed per mile are exaggerated.
> .



133 lb, that is light. How tall, what body fat % is that. I'm 5'6" and I have never been below 146 lb, but I speculate that I could go as low as 135-136 to be at 5% body fat, base on on a skin fold body fat test that determined my lean mass at the time. I dont know, but I thought that 5% body fat was skinny, but safe. I still have 10-14 lb to loose.

Power to weight ratio, right?


OBTW, sorry for semi-grave diggin'.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Although spot training is a myth there is a sort of way that it works. Doing crunches all day wont make your tummy fat vanish but will happen is as the abs and obliques get strong and grow they will push the fat away from them. This isnt an abo****e rule but it does help out a little with pushing the fat away from your belly. The negative is that if you have too much belly fat itll just push it straight out making you look worse. Now I know that spot training is a myth and ill get [email protected] for this post but this is the small way that it sort of isnt a myth.... sort of. Its the same reason that alot of cyclists (pro excluded) can have belly or chest fat but legs that are so solid and cut that you cant even pinch the skin.


----------



## Dream Plus (Feb 4, 2004)

Don't forget the photoshop. You can really trim belly fat and accentuate musculature AFTER you take the picture.I think you can select skintones too. 

Check out the movie "Bigger, Stronger, Faster". There's a scene where a photographer shows how "Before and After" shots for supplements and weight loss can be taken on the same day.



ilan said:


> A very important step in getting a "six pack" is to shave the area and get it tan if possible. If you look at the fitness models on the cover of Men's Health, they all have six packs but not a hair follicle in the bunch.
> 
> -ilan


----------

