Why do people say to run as cardio when most people already don't have much fat in their legs, especially men. Wouldn't it be better to do sit ups as cardio since most people store fat in their stomachs so you will burn more fat off.
true
>>36603538
Yes, you came to this conclusion yourself however if you read the sticky it would have told you it.
I guess now you don't have to read the sticky. Remember to stay vigilant - misinformation is out there. Running is NOT the best form of cardio if you have a gut.
>>36603538
This might be true to build some muscles in the area with most fat so it looks less.
But overall you cant spot reduce fat.
I only see obese people using the ab machine at my gym. Why is this?
Sometimes I wonder if in their heads they think doing crunches will give them a six pack within a few weeks
>>36603616
Whats spot reducing mean? I'm just saying that if you exercise your stomach it will burn more fat there than doing running.
>>36603654
>what's spot reducing mean
>defines it in the next sentence
>can't use Google
I hope your mother is slowly and painfully tortured then killed.
>>36603654
Exactly that is not possible.
You can just build a little bit of muscle but you wont see it because of the fat above.
You need to lose overall fat.
See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427
>>36603654
gr8 b8 m8
>>36603626
Yes, that's exactly what they think. They're self-conscious about their bellies, and think they can target the fat by doing stomach exercises.
>>36603732
So why don't they? It's not that hard to do a couple crunches. I'm so confused
>>36603748
Read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427
It is not possible to burn fat at the abs by doing crunches.
Running, or HIIT cardio is way more effective.
>>36603702
Wait this doesn't even make any sense. Exercising uses energy so therefore they should've lost fat. Also I am not talking about abdominal fat I'm talking about stomach fat.
>>36603695
Leave my mother out of this please
>>36603758
None of this thread even agrees with you dude, stop trying to spread misinformation as the above poster said.
>>36603764
jesus you dumb cunt. doing abs doesnt make u burn stomach fat specifically. if your body burns fat it burns a little bit from all parts of your body. not all from the area your working.
also for good measure. read the fucking sticky
>>36603764
>Exercising uses energy so therefore they should've lost fat.
They lose fat, but you cant decide where.
It doesnt matter what exercise you do to lose stomach fat. Crunches arent that effective because you could do harder more cardio like excercises like rowing/running.
>abdominal fat I'm talking about stomach fat.
There is no difference, since thats the same area in your body.
>>36603779
It doesnt matter if you agree or not, I am just stating out the scientific facts to help people out.
But hey, since you know it better, do you have some studies to back up your claims?
> there's years of studies proving that spot fat reduction is a myth
> /fit/ proves that it is, in fact, real!
> how?
> shitposting!
>>36603538
People just need to start walking more. Walking is severely underrated. Better for your joints as well.
https://www.t-nation.com/training/the-best-damn-cardio-article-period
>>36603781
You know that using ad hominems usually means you're wrong. And in this case you ARE wrong. I don't think you know how burning fat works. Haven't you heard the phrase "feeling the burn"? This is when your muscles heat up and burn fat around them. This is what happens and you can even feel it. Next time do your research before insulting someone.
>>36603810
This. Occam's razor - if you feel you are burning fat and you look in the mirror and see you burnt fat, you probably burnt fat.
You can find studies proving/disproving anything. Citing studies is bullshit - you have to go off your own experience and critical thinking.b
>>36603785
Wrong. Abdominal fat is fat around the abdomen whereas stomach fat is fat around your stomach. Hence why they have different names.
>>36603810
>"feeling the burn"? This is when your muscles heat up and burn fat around them.
Can you link some studies that go along with that theory? I am curious where you get that information from.
>>36603789
Lots of people agree with me >>36603586
>>36603603
just because I don't have links memorised off the top of my head doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>>36603839
are you retarded?
>>36603839
Doesnt matter how many people agree with you in here, if science says otherwise ;)
So? Where are the studies? Wait, you dont have any? Who would have guessed lel.
>>36603810
Lol nice one OP that guy got btfo.
>>36603854
>choosing science over consensus
You are a woman aren't you?
>>36603854
Lol, do you even know how science works? It works by confirming theories by experimenting and those people agreed with me, probably because they have burnt stomach fat with the correlated stomach exercises and it worked.
>>36603871
> choosing a hugbox over facts
You're from reddit, aren't you?
>>36603871
>having to rely on ad hominems
Guess you have nothing more to say then, who would have guessed ;)
I agree with the OP I used to do bicep curls constantly when I was 16 and I noticed that my arms went away but i still had a gut.
>>36603883
>>36603888
>muh ad hominem
>muh Reddit
Incapable of a logical argument, I see. No matter my IQ is far higher than yours (mensa tested at 140) and my conclusions thus more valid.
>>36603875
>Lol, do you even know how science works? It works by confirming theories by experimenting
See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21804427
Thanks for proving my point.;)
>>36603883
>>36603888
Not that guy but he has a point. If you look at things from a scientific standpoint, blacks and women are inferior and Hitler was right in what he was trying to do.
Sometimes science ain't the way to go.
>>36603899
>needing logical arguments
>against ad hominem
>No matter my IQ is far higher than yours (mensa tested at 140) and my conclusions thus more valid.
It is time to stop posting, having a good laugh out of you though.
>>36603899
Well MY IQ is 180, and you can't prove otherwise! So I'M right because I'M smarter!
>>36603902
Again, wrong type of fat.
Please see >>36603894
Disproved
>>36603906
/pol/ pls go and cut the trolling.
>>36603914
Mine actually is 140, though, and I know because I saw the report.
>>36603913
Thus, we conclude that those against spot reduction are trolls with no sense of logic or reason.
>>36603921
Prove me wrong, bitch. I don't feel like finding any links but it is scientifically proven women*/blacks are less intelligent.
Women are more socially intelligent but less logical.
>>36603917
>there are different types of fat tissue
>anecdotic evidence disproves science
gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
>>36603923
Yes, spot reduction indeed is a myth, science backs it up.
>>36603538
0/10
>>36603923
Mine is actually 180, though, and I know because I also saw my report.
Prove me wrong, faggot.
>>36603932
Dude spot reduction is not a myth that's like saying Gravity is a myth. Please just stop trying to misinform people.
>>36603949
>Dude spot reduction is not a myth
I want to know more about that topic, do you have scientific studies to back up your viewpoint?
OP, you're getting two extreme views which both have some basis, but neither of which are completely correct.
Having lifted 3 years, I believe there is a middle ground to strike in this contentious argument.
You CAN spot reduce, but it doesn't affect it as much as you think it would. Also, the feeling of fat burning is not, indeed, fat burning but muscle soreness. The effect is minimal and only works on a negative caloric balance so most people recommend a standard calorie deficit and just focusing on running.
Here is the scientific basis for spot reduction:
When you exercise your abs for example, you create microtears in your muscle. Normally your body repairs these using nutrients and energy from your food. When you lack enough food to do this work, it must use your fat stores for energy. This is simply a law of thermodynamics. Using fat stores from around the body, however, would be inefficient - so evolution resulted in our ability to localize the fat used to provide energy to repair muscles. Fat near the abdominals, thus, are burned with priority, but fat all around your body is still burned.
Essentially, you need a calorie deficit to "spot reduce". And even then, the effect is small since evolution is not perfect. The selective advantage (saved energy) provided by spot reduction was slight, so we did not evolve to be able to do it full-on. But we can still do it.
t. Biochemist
>>36603972
You're too good for this troll anon.
>>36603972
Oh yes I forgot to mention about micro tears that's what I meant though. You see, this guy knows what he's talking about. That other guy is just plain stupid.
>>36603999
It's not a troll. Anyone who understands evolution and thermodynamics should be able to see why spot reduction is possible.
>>36604002
>>36604029
What I was saying is, you could spot reduce to a minimum but it is not effective as just running.
So your concern in your first post in wrong nonetheless.
Running burns more fat in and around your stomach than crunches.
>>36603999
Trips of Truth don't lie
>all this shitflinging
not OP, but could I lose belly fat by running?
>>36604042
Yes. End of story.
>>36604042
No, you cant lose fat while burning energy.
It is impossible.
>>36604040
Running burns more fat only if it causes you to have a greater caloric deficit.
Someone at a 500 calorie deficit will burn more fat in the abdomen by doing crunches rather running.
This usually isnt case though because runners tend to have a higher deficit and thus burn more fat overall.
>>36604042
You can but basically it's better to do crunches with a deficit
>>36604051
>Someone at a 500 calorie deficit will burn more fat in the abdomen by doing crunches rather running.
No, someone at a 500kcal will burn more fat in the abdomen while running since he as a higher deficit after all.
That's what it comes down to effectively.
Also some anon linked a study to that topic, which shows it.
>>36603972
>>36604051
Also, there are studies which suggest spot reduction may not be true, but let me point out how they are flawed.
They either
1)didn't measure spot reduction during a deficit, which is when it only occurs
Or
2)didn't control for the same caloric deficit resulting in the phenomenon in >>36604051
>>36604069
How dense are you? If both have a 500 calorie deficit then neither have a higher deficit. I don't mean to insult you but come on...
>>36604079
>If both have a 500 calorie deficit then neither have a higher deficit. I don't mean to insult you but come on...
Except the runner has no 500kcal deficit, since he can burn more energy while running, thus leaving him with a higher deficit and bigger fat loss.
>>36604079
Running creates a much higher additional deficit than crunches do.
>>36604084
>>36604101
I think he meant like, taking into account both of their exercises, at the end of the day, the deficit is the same.
Like Person A does 500cal deficit worth of running, Person B does 500cal deficit worth of crunches.
>>36604084
>>36604101
>>36604111
I didn't think this would be a difficult concept to understand but let me illustrate:
Person A burns 2000 calories/day normally but runs so he burns 2300 instead. He eats 1800 calories.
Person B burns 2000 normally as well, but does crunches so he burns 2050. He eats 1550 calories.
They both have a 500 calorie deficit.
>>36603810
>tfw Feeling the Bern
>>36604111
That's possible but still a dumb and uneffective thing to do, why would I do a much longer crunching workout if I can lose faster fat while running?
>>36604124
That would be a dumb way of applying the principle but you could also run and do crunches. Or do crunches only but eat less. That way you lose more abdominal fat than if you would have just run.
>>36604124
Dude, I dunno. I'm just explaining what I believe was that guy's thought process.
I'm fat at the moment and seeing pretty good weight loss week-on-week just by doing a brisk hour-long walk on the treadmill that's at an incline.
Like yeah, I know those losses will drop as I get fitter, but for now, they're doing the trick.
>>36604133
Of course I do both, I want to build my ab muscles as long with running and losing fat faster.
I think nobody on here just does one thing.
>>36604138
That wasn't really my thought process. Let me try to streamline everything I've explained.
In >>36603972, I lay down the scientific basis for why spot reduction is possible.
Then in >>36604079, I explain why running is usually still better for weight loss.
It's only because running burns more calories. Period. But if two people have the same deficit, but one runs and the other does crunches (which is possible as I explain in >>36604120 and >>36604133), the one doing crunches will lose more abdominal fat.
>>36603810
I dont think you know what ad hominem means
>>36604664
>this fucking thread
I guess I should just leave 4chan and come back tomorrow.
>>36603948
IQ scales don't go up to 180 so your opponent may not have a 140 IQ but you certainly don't have a 180 IQ
>>36604029
>Anyone who understands evolution and thermodynamics
>from a self-proclaimed biochemist
Explains it all, really
>>36603586
>>36603603
>>36603779
>>36603810
>>36603839
>>36603871
>>36603875
And especially:
>>36603972
>>36603626
Because it's exercising while sitting
>>36603538
i think you people are fucking retarding working your asses off trying to spot reduce fat when you can just buy a TENS machine and have it do the work for you. i had a beer gut last year and now maintain at 10% bf while doing nothing but playing CS all day
>>36603972
Fat is liberated into the blood, not the interstitial fluid, so it doesn't matter where it comes from. Biochemist my ass.
>>36605023
Gj anon, you uncovered the truth behind this entire thread. Way to go! You're not among the group of 3 people who fell for the troll!
>>36603538
6/10 OP you have successfully triggered me
