HELP! Belly fat!

Hey all!

I am kind of new to this site and have lost 13 pounds since November! Of course, it would have been more if I hadn't endulged in all those holiday goodies but anyways, I am still off to a pretty good start.

My problem is that I'm noticing my weight coming off from odd areas that I am not really concerned with. I even noticed that rings are looser on fingers! I'm curvy and like my shape but stomach is major problem area. I carry most of weight there. Do you guys have any sugestions to help target that area?

BTW, I'm 23, 5'4" and 200 lbs. with a goal of 145.

Original Post by megs1985:

Do you guys have any sugestions to help target that area?

Liposuction, otherwise you'll just have to accept that the fat is going to come off from where ever it wants.

Just keep losing and the weight will come off of those areas.  It may not come off where you want at first, but it will catch up.  (Okay, maybe not totally -- we can't pick our genes).  

I also noticed the thing with the rings, but that's just your water weight shifting around.  I lost 20 pounds last year and my rings were falling off.  I've put a couple of those pounds back on and am starting back in, but I know I have days when the rings are loose, and others when they are as tight as they were 20 pounds ago. 

Try to do some good exercise so your skin does not hang..I was 236 and now 175+ and its gonna be like you fell that you deflated...skin will hang and it eventually your body will get thinner but I lost from my face, arms and legs before my tummy and i still have loose skin..so either lippo or just do as much ab work as you can...or wear something with lycra it always helps and it more cheaper than a $10,000 job. Good Luck..I know you can do it!

Yeah, I'd like to avoid any surgery! I work on my ab excercises and just be patient! Thanks for all the advice. Sometimes its hard to just let it come off. I wish I had a magic wand I could wave over myself and be insta-skinny! haha! Anyways, thanks again!

yay for curves, its too bad society does not appreicate them more!

Im right there with you, i gained muscle in the stomach and now i think i look heavier there than anywhere else. But i still have legs of steel from horseback riding all the time. oh well **shrugs**

I have started my crunches routine, and when i get a few extra bucks I'm going to get a ball from target. They will help my back out a little. and you have some give so you can go forwards AND backwards to work all of your abs....not just the ones in the front.

yoga is also awesome for working your belly in all different ways. low impact too.

Yes, YAY FOR CURVES!

A few years ago l had a trainer tell me not to do weights until after l lose weight. He emphasized cardio, well l did exactly as l was told and when l started losing weight l had lose skin everywhere, so l quit trying to lose weight because l hated to have the bat wings and loose skin on my thighs, stomach and even on my face.

In November l started losing again and this time, l am lifting weights, heavy weights and even though l have lost weight more than 30lbs, there is no loose skin in sight, stomach is still flabby but no loose skin. l don't know how lifting weights tightens the skin on my face but it does.

running always seems to help EVERYTHING. i duno if you already do that, but if not, it definatly could help out.

Okay so im replying again becuase i found something that worked pretty well for me.

Cut out all the gluten in your diet for two weeks. Gluten being bread of any kind, pasta, cereal, rice, etc. I also cut out cheese...which was beyond difficult. I dropped 2lbs in about 3 days. It was a nice little jump start to get me over the first little bump in the road.

so what did you eat?

fresh fruit, basmati rice which is gluten free, jello, yogurt, eggs, turkey bacon, salads with chicken, dried cranberries....lots of good stuff.

I just read an artical in Fitness RX magazine that cited a study that concluded that to see any significant loss in belly fat from exercise a person needs to burn a minimum of 3000 calories per week from exercise. That's running for an hour 6 days a week.

i can burn 3000 calories in a day depending on what im doing. usually its every saturday.

Original Post by sybil878:

I just read an artical in Fitness RX magazine that cited a study that concluded that to see any significant loss in belly fat from exercise a person needs to burn a minimum of 3000 calories per week from exercise. That's running for an hour 6 days a week.

Does the article go on to explain how the body knows the difference between "exercise" and just being active?

And I've definitely lost belly fat without ever running. Between this and "you have to workout 3-5 hours to burn fat" I'm a tad suspecious of your sources, sybil.

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Original Post by sybil878:

I just read an artical in Fitness RX magazine that cited a study that concluded that to see any significant loss in belly fat from exercise a person needs to burn a minimum of 3000 calories per week from exercise. That's running for an hour 6 days a week.

Does the article go on to explain how the body knows the difference between "exercise" and just being active?

And I've definitely lost belly fat without ever running. Between this and "you have to workout 3-5 hours to burn fat" I'm a tad suspecious of your sources, sybil.

 For one, I was just relaying what I had read - I have no idea as to the validity of the study and wasn't interested in trying to follow up.

For two, you've misinterpreted what I was saying - the study was referring to trying to lose specifically belly fat as opposed to just losing fat overall. Of course if you lose weight you'll lose belly fat - that's a no brainer.  I was just using running as an example of how much exercise burning 3000 calories a week is for a reality check - very, very few people exercise this much. I think your distinction between exercise and active is just semantics - the point the study was making was that you had to burn 3000 calories more than you normally would.

Geesh. Sorrrrrry for trying to point to something I read relating to a question that is asked every single day on these boards.  If you want to know what the artical goes on to say then go buy the magazine and read it yourself.

Oh, and as for my sources on my statement about your body not actually using your fat cells for fuel for about 3 - 5 hours - it's physiology, my source is every physiology book.  You should read the links I post before passing judgement. Your body holds up to 2000 calories of glycogen ready to burn - this is what it uses for energy when you exercise. After the 2000 calories is used up your body has to go to it's fat stores for energy.

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen

[edit] Glycogen debt and endurance exercise

Due to the body's inability to hold more than around 2,000 kcal of glycogen,[citation needed] long-distance athletes such as marathon runners, cross-country skiers, and cyclists go into glycogen debt, where almost all of the athlete's glycogen stores are depleted after long periods of exertion without enough energy consumption. This phenomenon is referred to as "hitting the wall". In marathon runners it normally happens around the 20 mile (32 km) point of a marathon, where around 100 kcal are spent per mile,[citation needed] depending on the size of the runner and the race course. However, it can be delayed by a carbohydrate loading before the task.

When experiencing glycogen debt, athletes often experience extreme fatigue to the point that it is difficult to move.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology (online May 8, 2008) suggests that when athletes ingest both carbohydrate and caffeine following exhaustive exercise, their glycogen is replenished more rapidly.[4][5]

In case one source isn't enough for you:

http://www.answers.com/topic/glycogen

The main role of muscle glycogen is to provide fuel for the muscle's own contraction during exercise. In fact muscle glycogen cannot be broken down to glucose and so cannot be used to raise blood glucose concentration directly. However, in some circumstances, when their metabolism is partly anaerobic, skeletal muscles produce lactic acid from glycogen. When this lactic acid passes into the blood it is taken up by the liver, where it is converted into glucose; thus it can be used indirectly to raise blood glucose. The major stimulus causing the breakdown of muscle glycogen is contraction of the muscles. Thus, the onset of exercise is accompanied by the initiation of glycogen breakdown. The extent to which the muscles continue to use their glycogen store depends on the intensity of the exercise. With low intensity exercise (such as slow walking, cycling, or swimming) the muscles do not use much glycogen as they are able to take up fat from the blood as a source of energy for contraction. However, with higher intensity exercise (jogging, brisk uphill walking, running) the muscles need to use glycogen or glucose from the blood to support the higher rate of energy expenditure (see figure). A well-nourished person will have enough glycogen in their muscle to enable them to exercise for 1-2 hours at approximately two-thirds of their maximum capacity for aerobic exercise. However if people consume a very high carbohydrate diet, especially for at least three days after first depleting their muscle glycogen levels, it is possible to double this normal glycogen content, ensuring that a longer period of exercise can be sustained before it is used up. This is known as carbohydrate loading, or glycogen supercompensation, and is often used by distance — especially marathon — runners before an important race.

— I. A. Macdonald

This whole idea of exercising at a lower level to burn fat is not talking about burning the fat on your butt/thighs/stomach/whatever - it refers to burning tryglycerides in your blood. Burning tryglycerides in your blood has nothing to do with removing the fat cells from your behind. Bottom line - exercise harder, burns more calories, which reduces more fat off your arse when diet is constant because it creates a higher calorie deficit = more weight loss.

Any other questions on my souces?

Original Post by sybil878:

Oh, and as for my sources on my statement about your body not actually using your fat cells for fuel for about 3 - 5 hours - it's physiology, my source is every physiology book. 

Wikipedia is a physiology book now? when did that happen? Maybe you could consult your physiology book/user generated web encyclopedia and figure out how in the world FloggingSully, who's never exercised for 3 strait hours in his life, has lost fat? or how the woman on that show Ruby is losing fat without hours and hours of exercise? 

Original Post by sybil878:

When experiencing glycogen debt, athletes often experience extreme fatigue to the point that it is difficult to move.

So, you're saying that the only way to lose fat is to exercise to the point where it's difficult to move? It must be really hard to lose much fat since by the time you start burning it you can't move enough to burn any more calories.

Original Post by sybil878:

In case one source isn't enough for you:

http://www.answers.com/topic/glycogen

With low intensity exercise (such as slow walking, cycling, or swimming) the muscles do not use much glycogen as they are able to take up fat from the blood as a source of energy for contraction.

Wait, I thought you said you only used glycogen until it was all gone? Now you're posting links to articles that say you use a fuels other than glycogen for exercise? Maybe you can go back to wikipedia and do some more reading and come back when you make up your mind.

I will say this...With out getting into an argument.  There is absolutely no way to spot reduce fat.  Unfortunately your body will take the fat off in various areas in various amounts, and it is all due to genetics.

Perhaps you should read the entire artical. Sorry that I don't know of any physiology books that are published online - if you know one, I'd be happy to look up the same thing in it.

Please pay attention, I will only explain this once more and then I'm done ... there are none so blind as those who won't see.

The thread that was being referenced was on the 'fat burning zone' and is it better to work out in the 'fat buring zone' that is listed on your machine or at a higher intensity. No one has said that you won't burn calories if you exercise at a lower intesity, you just burn less calories. My point is that the whole 'fat burning zone' is misleading to the average exerciser who is trying to lose weight. Yes, if you exercise at a low intensity you will burn some calories and if that creates a caloire deficit you will lose weight. The question was if it was BETTER to stick to the 'fat burning zone' or the 'cardio zone'.

A CALORIE IS A CALORIE IS A CALORIE. Create a calorie deficit and you will lose weight - I thought that everyone here knew that.

I am not saying that the only way to lose weight is to run for 3 hours - duh. I'm saying that if you think your body is burning the FAT off your butt in the FAT burning zone, you are mistaken. Your body is burning tryglycerides - AKA fatty acid - not fat cells in the 'fat burning zone'. Understand it? It's not the fat as in the fat that causes celulite that the 'fat burning zone' burns. But again - A CALORIE IS A CALORIE IS A CALORIE. Create a calorie deficit and you will lose weight - any exercise is good, the question was which was BETTER. If you want to lose more weight you need to burn more calories = work harder.

What I am trying to dispell is the idea that low intensity exercise is better at reducing the cellulite (fat) on your body. These boards always have a post that someone wants to lose FAT. A CALORIE IS A CALORIE IS A CALORIE. If you want to lose more weight (fat) you need to burn more calories.

Oh, and yes your body burns glucose (glycogen= glucose molecules stuck together) always and forever, amen. Fatty acids are converted into GLUCOSE for use by your muscles. Your body wants to have energy stores, both in glycogen reserves and in tryglycerides - deplete either one of them by burning CALORIES and your body will replenish them either through the food you eat, or if it's not avaialbe in the incoming food, by accessing your FAT STORES. The more depleted they are - meaning the more CALORIES you have burned, the more they will need from either your fat stores or your incoming food supply to replenish.

If you choose not to believe it - I really don't care. All I was trying to do was help members understand that it's better to work out at a higher heart rate because the 'fat burning zone' is not burning the fat that any of us care about.  In order to make your body directly burn off it's fat STORES (cellulite) you must first burn through all of the available energy - which is around 200 calories. (And yes, even when your body burns fat stores, it still has to convert them to glucose first).  If you want more sources - go take a class in physiology. 

Whoa, note to self - never ever question sybil's authority. On anything.

You might have the best intentions, but the way you are presenting the information is very confusing to say the least.

For instance, from the fat zone thread (and we agree - it isn't better to workout at the lower intensity "fat burning zone" and I believe all those stickers should be removed from machines because they are VERY misleading), you wrote:

So the question you really want to know is at what point does your body stop burning the glycogen that is free floating in your blood stream, stored in muscles, etc and start burning the fat cells that are sitting around your belly/butt//thighs ... unfortunately the answer is somewhere between 3 and 5 hours of continuious aerobic exercise depending on how intense the workout is and how trained the individual is.

But that really isn't the question we want to know. In fact, I couldn't care less at what point my body stops burning glycogen, because I'm never going to reach that point. I doubt I will ever engage in an activity for long enough or hard enough to reach that wall - I'm not running any marathons, I'm sure. What I care about is how hard should I work out - should I be holding back to stay in that "fat burning zone"? I know the answer is no, but others don't, so it gets asked a lot.

The way you are discussing it, it makes it sound like you can't lose fat until you have passed that wall, and of course that isn't the case. And several posters who responded on that thread seemed equally mystified by your post.

So sorry to question your all-knowingness, but if you throw out broad, unexplained statements like "it takes 3-5 hours of exercise to burn fat" and "it takes 3000 calories from exercise per week to burn belly fat," you can't expect that a few eyebrows won't be raised.