# belly fat



## woot (Jan 30, 2007)

Will working out a persons stomach reduce the amount of fat around it or will it just harden your stomach muscles under a layer of fat?  Would a person need more cardio instead?


----------



## fnorfurfoot (Jan 30, 2007)

It would harden the muscles under the fat.  Cardio and weight training along with a proper diet is the only way.  The frustrating thing about burning fat is that you can't choose where you loose it first.  Fat comes off in the reverse from how it was put on.  In other words, as you are gaining weight, if you start putting weight on in your stomach, then your butt, and then your arms, when you start dieting, you will loose it from your arms first, then you butt, and your stomach last.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jan 30, 2007)

It will not get rid of the fat in that area. I wish it worked that way!

The big problem with the "beer gut" isn't the subcutaneous fat, but the fat hanging from the stomach called the omentum.  This is where a lot of fat gets stored in reserve, especially when one is under stress.  It not only makes someone have a gut, but also interferes with many other things, such as breathing and digestion.  Also, most heartburn and acid reflux are caused by this as when the stomach gets pushed up, it moves the valve that keeps you bile from traveling up your esophagus.  

Probably more info than you were looking for!

Jeff


----------



## MJS (Jan 30, 2007)

I agree with Jeff. I wish it was that easy!  Unfortunately, hard work, ie: lots of cardio and a good diet in conjunction with working out is the only way to be able to see the definition in the ab area.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 30, 2007)

woot said:


> Will working out a persons stomach reduce the amount of fat around it or will it just harden your stomach muscles under a layer of fat?  Would a person need more cardio instead?




No, it will just harden the muscles under it.  The fat around the stomach isn't for the stomach muscles use exclusively no more than fat on the thighs is used for the thighs only.  

I wouldn't necessarily say that one would need more cardio either, that may or may not be the case.  What really needs to happen is to burn more calories than one takes in.  When the body burns fat, it pulls from the fat stores everywhere.

Diet and exercise is the best way.


----------



## exile (Jan 30, 2007)

JeffJ said:


> It will not get rid of the fat in that area. I wish it worked that way!
> 
> The big problem with the "beer gut" isn't the subcutaneous fat, but the fat hanging from the stomach called the omentum.  This is where a lot of fat gets stored in reserve, especially when one is under stress.  It not only makes someone have a gut, but also interferes with many other things, such as breathing and digestion.  Also, most heartburn and acid reflux are caused by this as when the stomach gets pushed up, it moves the valve that keeps you bile from traveling up your esophagus.
> 
> ...



Good info, Jeff!

A lot of people still seem to believe in the possibility of `spot reduction'. It just doesn't work that way. The body taps into fat reserves for energy on a non-local basis:  whether your aerobic exercise targets your arms, legs, or anything else, fat comes off from all over the body, not just the place you were working. And anaerobic exercise burns very little in the way of fat (what it does do, though, is cause the addition of muscle tissue, which unlike any other type of tissue `runs' constantly and hence can boost your `resting' metabolism to some extent). 

Belly fat is apparently quite dangerous. Excessive amounts of it seem to be particularly correlated with the likelihood of plaque deposits in blood vessels sloughing off and triggering heart attacks.


----------



## bydand (Jan 30, 2007)

I watch late night TV though, it isn't your fault don't you know.  For $157 a bottle we'll send you a product that will defy the laws of physics and nature to strip that fat away with out breaking a sweat, probably while eating a donut at the same time (Drac gets pie due to donut intolerance).  

Ok I paraphrased it the best I can remember.  Diet and excersise is the only way to do it.  there is no magic pill out there that will turn your own body into a fat burning machine except good old hard work dieting and excersising.


----------



## exile (Jan 30, 2007)

bydand said:


> Diet and excersise is the only way to do it.  there is no magic pill out there that will turn your own body into a fat burning machine except good old hard work dieting and excersising.



Amen. But people will never give up hope that there's a magic bullet somewhere out there that will make calorie expenditure unnecessary. And as long as enough people think that, someone, somewhere is going to be able to coin money from that hope...


----------



## crushing (Jan 30, 2007)

fnorfurfoot said:


> It would harden the muscles under the fat. Cardio and weight training along with a proper diet is the only way. The frustrating thing about burning fat is that you can't choose where you loose it first. Fat comes off in the reverse from how it was put on. In other words, as you are gaining weight, if you start putting weight on in your stomach, then your butt, and then your arms, when you start dieting, you will loose it from your arms first, then you butt, and your stomach last.


 
Not only that, but according to a show I watched the other day 'Eating 33,000 Calories a Day' (or whatever it was called) as you gain fat, you add fat cells.  That's would seem obvious, right?  Well, those fat cells then also enlarge as you pack on the pounds.  Well, when you start losing the fat, you don't every lose those gained fat cells, the fat cells just get smaller.

At least that is the way I understood what they were saying.

There were some absolutely huge people on that show.


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 30, 2007)

All I know is this my belly fat is still here and I have lost over 35 pounds in my *** and legs and firmed up alot but the gut still needs to go bye bye someday over the rainbow


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 30, 2007)

Also, when you work out the muscles get tighter and are not just hanging out all relaxed.  In the case of the abs, this can have a slimming effect.  This may contribute to the 'spot reduction' myth.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 30, 2007)

exile said:


> Good info, Jeff!
> 
> A lot of people still seem to believe in the possibility of `spot reduction'. It just doesn't work that way. The body taps into fat reserves for energy on a non-local basis: whether your aerobic exercise targets your arms, legs, or anything else, fat comes off from all over the body, not just the place you were working. And anaerobic exercise burns very little in the way of fat (what it does do, though, is cause the addition of muscle tissue, which unlike any other type of tissue `runs' constantly and hence can boost your `resting' metabolism to some extent).
> 
> Belly fat is apparently quite dangerous. Excessive amounts of it seem to be particularly correlated with the likelihood of plaque deposits in blood vessels sloughing off and triggering heart attacks.


Good information.


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Jan 31, 2007)

Simply increasing the overall volume of your current training is a good start.  If you don't mind doing "cardio" then by all means, but don't get trapped, necessarily, in the moderate intensity, long duration dogma.  Working with intervals is also effective, more pertinent to your training goals (most likely) and not so godforsakenly boring.  There is something to be said for higher intensities of training for many people, more than they think.

Good Luck.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jan 31, 2007)

crushing said:


> Well, when you start losing the fat, you don't every lose those gained fat cells, the fat cells just get smaller.



That would be correct!


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 31, 2007)

I've found diet to be a huge factor as well.
Cut out soda/coke etc. Drink more water, eat fruits, drop the fries.
Just by eating more healthy and those above, i've dropped 45 from the same places as Terry. And I have that dang 'chest protector' er stomach padding thing I'm so longing to see go away too ;p.
It's definitely not a quick road, that one back to that college body.


----------



## exile (Jan 31, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Also, when you work out the muscles get tighter and are not just hanging out all relaxed.  In the case of the abs, this can have a slimming effect.  This may contribute to the 'spot reduction' myth.



You could well be right about that, Cory.



			
				Shirt Ripper said:
			
		

> Simply increasing the overall volume of your current training is a good start. If you don't mind doing "cardio" then by all means, but don't get trapped, necessarily, in the moderate intensity, long duration dogma. Working with intervals is also effective, more pertinent to your training goals (most likely) and not so godforsakenly boring. There is something to be said for higher intensities of training for many people, more than they think.



Intervals is what I do pretty much exclusively so far as cardio is concernedhigh intensity, low volume (the same as my weight workout routine, in that respect). The advantage of intervals: you spend way less time than in the moderate/steady routines, and you get better results. If you do a moderate jog for fifty seconds and an all-out sprint for the last ten seconds of that minute, then your hearbeat _stays_ elevated for a good chunk of the next minuteas much as half of it. By the time you've done this for five minutes, you're in the `red zone' for virtually the entire next minute even if you're just doing moderate jogs. So it's win/win: you recover while you do the jog, but your heart doesn't quite know that that's what you're doing, and it stays in the high range for most of the next minute; then you sprint ten seconds and guarantee a high burning rate for the next minute and so on. After twenty minutes, you'll find that your heart rate stays elevated for a good long time after the workout's over. And exercise physiologists are of one mind on the long-term results: your metabolism (NB: metabolism, not heart rate) stays in an elevated mode for 24-36 hours after the workout. 

The one problem with intervals: they are very, very unpleasant physically. You are working in the pain zone, no way around it. I can usually only do two sessions a week. It's a bitter prospect too, unless you're in a very outgoing, almost aggressive frame of mind. Intervals make you _pay_ for all those benefits I mentioned...



			
				David Leverich said:
			
		

> I've found diet to be a huge factor as well.
> Cut out soda/coke etc. Drink more water, eat fruits, drop the fries.
> Just by eating more healthy and those above, i've dropped 45 from the same places as Terry. And I have that dang 'chest protector' er stomach padding thing I'm so longing to see go away too ;p.
> It's definitely not a quick road, that one back to that college body.



Terry, I suspect you've actually lost quite a bit of body fat, and David too. The problem is, you don't actually get to see it so much, because you're working away at both the `external' subcutaneous abdominal fat and the intramuscular abdominal fat, and both show. Even when you've worked off the fat under the skin layer, the fat within the muscle layers starts expanding out, since the outer fat layer isn't there to suppress it. I've never really gained any weight since I was in college except muscle growth from heavy lifting  (the down side is that muscle growth incredibly slow and painful for me, a classic hardgaining ectomorph), but I know, from friends' experience, that in the abdominal area, you don't actually see the benefit of serious exercise and diet programs till you've lost almost all the stored fat there, both the outer and the inner layerswhich isn't true of other parts of the body.

Keep at it. It seems to happen overnight. One day you will wake up and bang, you'll look and feel _lean_. The problem people have with both strength training and weight reduction isn't physiological; our bodies will do right by us, 100% of the time, if we do right by them. The real problem is one of morale: people get discouraged and give up. They think it hasn't worked for them, but the real problem, every time, is that they gave up too soon...


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 31, 2007)

I hear you!
They're going the right direction, after a few years of this I'm definitely way more happy with where I'm at, and where I'm going doesn't seem so far off.

It's amazing what desk job and too much crap food can do in 10 years.

We had a thread called 'Fit to Fight: week 1' etc on a board called Legacy (invitation type MA board), that seemed to help greatly. ... until people stopped posting that is, but 18 weeks or so it was a good morale boost.

Essentially it was just a post of measurements, weight, etc. ALthough that'd be a bit tough to get people to do on a board with this many members.


----------



## exile (Jan 31, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> I hear you!
> They're going the right direction, after a few years of this I'm definitely way more happy with where I'm at, and where I'm going doesn't seem so far off.
> 
> It's amazing what desk job and too much crap food can do in 10 years.
> ...



When you think about it, though, it's quite astonishing how good the body is at recovering from neglect if you give it half a chance. 

Take that 10 years you mention and figure that, in a pretty-bad-case scenario, somone has gained sixty-to-eighty lbs of body fat over that 10 year periodnot an unrealistic estimate. If you can cut back 250 calories a daythat's like two slices of bread and some changeand do some serious aerobic exercise for half an hour, say, every dayyou can wind up with a 500 calorie a day deficit, which in 7 days means 3500 calories off your default intake, i.e., a lb. of body weight. And if you do the right kind of exercises at the right combination of paces, most of that 3500 calories will be storied fat, especially at the beginning. Keep on that program for 18 months and you've basically undone the effect of the decade of neglect you mention in your post. If you put a bit more aggressive effort into it, you could probably do it in a single year. One year to undo the bad work of ten years? Sounds pretty good to me! 

I think it really helps people to have a structured environment for doing this. That's the missing link in a lot of cases. I have never used or needed a personal trainer, but for most people, another person whose approval they wish to gain is an invaluable crutch to keep them going even when they don't feel like it. A lot of people try to do it on their own, and find they can't, and then give up. Good intentions will only take most people so far...


----------



## Dave Leverich (Feb 1, 2007)

You know, put it that way... 60-80 pounds seems horrendous heh. But, I've gone from nearly 260 down to 220 (wavering 5 lbs each side of that ;p), of course that's been about 2 years now as I've cleaned up my eating habits a ton, increased my physical regiment, dropped nasty soda etc. 

I'm curious though, thinking long-term, what about arterial build-up? Anyone have a set of nano-bots I can send on a seek-n-destroy? hehe. Find out of place cell, remove cell. Resistance is.. sorry 

I think for me, simply eating better and such has made world of difference in how I feel. Long road, many steps ahead.


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> You know, put it that way... 60-80 pounds seems horrendous heh. But, I've gone from nearly 260 down to 220 (wavering 5 lbs each side of that ;p), of course that's been about 2 years now as I've cleaned up my eating habits a ton, increased my physical regiment, dropped nasty soda etc.



That's just my point: if you say to someone, hey, you should lose 40lbs., their immediate response will almost certainly be bleak despair. But the time is going to go by, whether you're losing body fat or not. If you multiply even a very small fraction by a very big number, the result can still be respectable. And the more muscle mass you can add, the more that muscle tissue does some of the work _for_it's metabolically active even when you're at rest, unlike other kinds of tissue. So there's kind of a positive feedback set up: the more muscle you gain, the more fat comes off, which means you look still leaner. 

It's only hard if you look to far ahead. Most people can lose a lb. a week. That's four lbs a month, if you're dedicated. Best case, lose 40 lbs. in a year. But there's always backsliding and plateaus, so double the time to be on the side of caution and, voila, two years, 40lbs., just what you accomplished in that time.



			
				 Dave Leverich said:
			
		

> I'm curious though, thinking long-term, what about arterial build-up? Anyone have a set of nano-bots I can send on a seek-n-destroy? hehe. Find out of place cell, remove cell. Resistance is.. sorry



Depends on the individual. I've heard there are certain foodsapples, oatmeal porridge and a few otherswhich contain compounds that help unclog arterial plaque. Some people though have an unfortunate genetic condition which results in very massive plaque buildups. A colleague in my department has thathad to have a quadruple bipass about ten years ago, and it's all over his family.



			
				 Dave Leverich said:
			
		

> I think for me, simply eating better and such has made world of difference in how I feel. Long road, many steps ahead.



True, but it sounds like you're doing really well!


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 1, 2007)

Another thing to consider is that you really shouldn't be worried to much about weight.  I've seen a lot of people not really lose any weight but become trimmer 'cause muscle is much denser than fat.  Concentrate on waist size instead.

Jeff


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2007)

JeffJ said:


> Another thing to consider is that you really shouldn't be worried to much about weight.  I've seen a lot of people not really lose any weight but become trimmer 'cause muscle is much denser than fat.  Concentrate on waist size instead.
> 
> Jeff



Yeah, excellent point, Jeffthe way I once heard it put, the way your clothes fit you is a much better guage of your body composition than what the scale tells you. People who go on starvation or other crazy diets often lose weight, but not very much _fat_instead, they lose muscle tissuethe worst thing you can do! The flip side is the cases you're talking aboutpeople gain muscle mass, actually gain weight, but they're much leaner (and leaner-_looking_) because even though they gained weight, they lost body fatthe weight gain was muscle tissue, which always makes people look (and function) better, male or female.

One problem is, I think, that people on diet/exercise programs check their progress too frequently. They weigh themselves or run a tape measure around their waists every day. Progress is too gradual to show up on a daily basis, so they get discouraged and think they aren't getting anywhere. If they only weighed themselves twice a month, they'd see dramatic progress (as long as they stuck to their programs), and would be really encouraged. Best thing is probably to work on it, but not think about it too muchjust check in occasionally and be very pleasantly surprised by how much progress you've made since last time you checked...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 1, 2007)

exile said:


> Yeah, excellent point, Jeffthe way I once heard it put, the way your clothes fit you is a much better guage of your body composition than what the scale tells you. People who go on starvation or other crazy diets often lose weight, but not very much _fat_instead, they lose muscle tissuethe worst thing you can do! The flip side is the cases you're talking aboutpeople gain muscle mass, actually gain weight, but they're much leaner (and leaner-_looking_) because even though they gained weight, they lost body fatthe weight gain was muscle tissue, which always makes people look (and function) better, male or female.
> 
> One problem is, I think, that people on diet/exercise programs check their progress too frequently. They weigh themselves or run a tape measure around their waists every day. Progress is too gradual to show up on a daily basis, so they get discouraged and think they aren't getting anywhere. If they only weighed themselves twice a month, they'd see dramatic progress (as long as they stuck to their programs), and would be really encouraged. Best thing is probably to work on it, but not think about it too muchjust check in occasionally and be very pleasantly surprised by how much progress you've made since last time you checked...


Excellent point!  When I couldn't exercise for a while because of injuries and surgery this past summer, I put on quite a bit of weight.  At first I checked my weight and waist almost every day when I could exercise again.  That is very demoralizing,  Every two weeks at the most.  I ended up going with checking myself monthly.  It made a huge difference.

Jeff


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2007)

JeffJ said:


> When I couldn't exercise for a while because of injuries and surgery this past summer, I put on quite a bit of weight.  At first I checked my weight and waist almost every day when I could exercise again.  That is very demoralizing,  Every two weeks at the most.  I ended up going with checking myself monthly.  It made a huge difference.
> 
> Jeff



Once a month is really ideal&#8212;but most people can't seem to accept checking that infrequently! If you can, though, the reward is, as you say, _huge_...


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 12, 2007)

The question to the original post is, well, yes.  There's no such thing as spot reducing.  When you lose fat, it comes off evenly over your whole body, just like it was put on.  Doing sit-ups will not reduce the amount of fat on your midsection, it will only strengthen the rectus abdominus muscle, which will still be obscured by fat.  The way to lose fat is to either A) build lean muscle mass, primarily by lifting weights, which increases your basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories your body burns while you are not exercising) or B) increase cardio activity, or C) decrease excess carbohydrate consumption, which tends to lend itself well to weight gain.  I am a Licensed Acupuncturist, so I have some knowledge about health.  I hope I helped in some way.

Lior Avni, L.Ac


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2007)

One perpetuated myth is that cardiovascular training will burn fat.  It will burn some fat, but cardio is targeted to train your heart and lungs for endurance.

You don't have to raise your heart rate very much to burn fat.  So what you *really* need is to eliminate white/firm fats in your diet, introduce healthier fats in lower amounts, and engage in fat-burning activity for longer periods every day.

Brisk walking - NOT POWERWALKING - is one good way to burn fat - you can walk a little faster than a stroll for 45 minutes and burn fat.

Consider ditching butter and oleomargarine and try to opt for extra-virgin olive oil for cold oil applications (like salad dressing and bread spreads) and Grape seed oil for heated oil applications (cooking).  There is a wonderful product on the market called Take Control which will not only help you burn the fat you have but will reduce your bad cholesterol and raise your good cholesterol.

TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY OF THESE CHANGES - I'M TYPING WHAT WORKED FOR ME WHEN I WAS TRAINING HARD.  *gotta start again*


----------



## Dave Leverich (Mar 12, 2007)

Great stuff, thanks Shesulsa!


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 12, 2007)

I have one comment: Ever see a fat marathon runner?


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm just saying, cardio is part of the fat-loss scheme.  I'm not trying to offend.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I'm just saying, cardio is part of the fat-loss scheme.  I'm not trying to offend.


Like I said ... cardio training will burn some fat.  And I'm willing to bet you marathon runners are in such great cardiovascular shape that they have a lower heart rate at a jog than most have at a slow run.  But you just don't have to run like a marathoner to burn a lot of fat.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 13, 2007)

I agree that you do not need a lot of running to lose bodyfat.  

By the way, shesulsa, what do you think of a rice-based diet?  I think it helps people stay slim.  Over 50% of the world eats a rice-based diet.  

And people in America eat way to many junk carbohydrates (soda, juice, candy, white bread, pasta, doughnuts, iced tea, etc...)  But I do think that a grain based diet, especially if rice is your staple, is very healthy.  What is your opinion?

Lior


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I agree that you do not need a lot of running to lose bodyfat.
> 
> By the way, shesulsa, what do you think of a rice-based diet?  I think it helps people stay slim.  Over 50% of the world eats a rice-based diet.
> 
> ...


I think a  lot depends on a person's genetic make-up.  As it applies to those of white European descent, it appears that clean carbs (brown rice, wild rice, supergrains) when not combined with a meat source seem to serve us well, as does combining animal source food with vegetables and refraining from combining animal source food with starch of any kind.  That's another thing I did when I was training hard that helped me build muscle well, build endurance and lose fat.

Don Roley made a post on another thread about the problem of the poor in America being fat - which is mostly because of a diet with a lot of simple carbohydrate foods, mainly because they're cheap.

But you asked about rice specifically, so I assume you're comparing rice to other American staples of wheat and corn and yes, I agree that rice is a good alternative to these.  I don't often hear of rice allergies, though I hear about gluten intolerance (celiac disease) and corn allergy/intolerance _all the time_.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 13, 2007)

Disclaimer:  The following opinion may be offensive to some

Rice is the ideal staple, in my opinion.  But I do not believe in trophology as much as you do.  I try to base my nutritional knowledge on observation of large groups of people rather than scientific theory.  

Most people worldwide eat a rice-based diet, and eat meat and grain at the same meal.  Most people throughout recorded history had no knowledge of combining or separating foods, nutritional values, or the latest scientific evidence.  People ate what was seasonal, such as eating fruits and vegetables during the summer because that is what grows during the summer, and meat and grain during the winter.  Obiously, as man moved to colder climates, the need for meat and stored grain increased.  Why? Grain is either amylose or amylopectin, and breaks down into glucose, the fuel of the human body. One can grow a huge crop of grain in the summer, harvest it, and store it in graineries indefinately.  Meat is an obvious choice during the winter too because there is very little plant matter growing during the winter, and meat increases the body temperature as well as makes use of all the condensed, stored nutrition in the muscle tissue of the prey species, such as sheep or cattle or whatever.  

My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning.  Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.    

I think that is a valid opinion.  Please reply, if you will.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Disclaimer:  The following opinion may be offensive to some
> 
> Rice is the ideal staple, in my opinion.  But I do not believe in trophology as much as you do.  I try to base my nutritional knowledge on observation of large groups of people rather than scientific theory.



I think that's an interesting response, since my reply was based on the observation of a large group of people, white European Americans.  So I'll take my point further in response.  Your observation of rice-based diets must be applicable to those whom have been doing this for centuries if not millenia.  Africans have eaten African grains, some rice.  Middle easterners have eaten some rice but more of other grains and beans and are mostly vegan.  The grain staple of Native Americans has mostly been corn, though according to our local museum, some rice and oats have been noted in the diet, though not nearly as much rice as oat and corn.  Then there's our southern neighbors, Mexican natives relied much on corn.  These were combined with whatever could be had, of course, according to the season before refrigeration was a common reality.



> Most people worldwide eat a rice-based diet, and eat meat and grain at the same meal.  Most people throughout recorded history had no knowledge of combining or separating foods, nutritional values, or the latest scientific evidence.  People ate what was seasonal, such as eating fruits and vegetables during the summer because that is what grows during the summer, and meat and grain during the winter.  Obiously, as man moved to colder climates, the need for meat and stored grain increased.  Why? Grain is either amylose or amylopectin, and breaks down into glucose, the fuel of the human body. One can grow a huge crop of grain in the summer, harvest it, and store it in graineries indefinately.  Meat is an obvious choice during the winter too because there is very little plant matter growing during the winter, and meat increases the body temperature as well as makes use of all the condensed, stored nutrition in the muscle tissue of the prey species, such as sheep or cattle or whatever.


Indeed.  However, you are ignoring the use of perserving in some cultures - drying vegetables and fruits, canning (glass jars), etcetera, though I do acknowledge that the main staples in the winter were indeed grains and meat.  But then one must also enterain that life expectancies were nearly half of what they are now and one must wonder if this was because of disease, accident, or starvation.  And then, we must ask 'what kind of disease?'  I wonder how much we really understood about diabetes and other blood-sugar related diseases 100 years ago, though there is little question and much documentation as to diahrrea and tuberculosis.  *I* wonder how many of these cases were mis-diagnosed according to medical limitations.
 



> My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning.  Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.





> I think that is a valid opinion.  Please reply, if you will.


Of course your opinion is valid as is mine and we can never really know because, again, of the limited medical testing technology of the times.  Who's to say people didn't die of celiac disease or irritable bowel?  They were likely more slender because people actually got off their butts and WORKED all day - the simple axiom of burning more calories than you consume will burn calories no matter what you eat, though it is clearly still very important to fuel our bodies correctly.

Then we must also take other things into account, such as the bioengineering of our food supply, the alteration of our genetic structure through vaccination and medication, the seemingly undiagnosed epidemic of gut peptide imbalances and gut flora inadequacies (demonstrated by the inundating need by so many of antacids, acid blockers, etcetera).

I think it's misguided and romantic to assume that a return to ancient eating habits is a panacea for belly fat accumulation and good health.  Too much has happened to us as a species and our food supply and distribution in the last 100 years, hell the last 10 years, so make this assumption accurately.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 13, 2007)

I thank you for responding.  

First of all, I am conversing with you, not necessarily on belly fat, but on general health, and in order to get _your _opinion.

Also, I simply use rice as an example because it is currently the majority of the world's staple.  I realize that there are many grains out there, and that practically everyone, including Europeans and Americans eat a grain based diet, even if it is white bread or pasta or rye bread or whatever.  

I realize there were ways of preserving fruits and vegetables for consumption during the cold season, but what I am trying to say is it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of years to form epidiological evidence, it takes merely a few generations to establish which population groups are healthier and slimmer than others.  I realize the past was not a Golden Era, but neither is the present day, when men live to 75 years on average (80 in Okinawa and Japan).  But men of prior ages were much stronger and more robust, even if they died of infectious disease in what is now relatively youth.  To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of.  All of the chronic, degenerative conditions that plagues modern man has come about in the modern era, or the past two hundred years or so, with things getting worse all the time.  Diabetes used to be called, 'the rich man's disease', because few could afford to be overweight until the past fifty years.  (Like you said earlier, the poor are fat because they eat cheap, refined carbohydrate foods instead of nutritious basic foods, such as rice and seasonal vegetables.)  It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4).  Maybe it is wishful thinking, to dream of the past and tradition, but it is almost certain that men of antiquity were slimmer and stronger than us, and I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.  

I respect your knowledge and opinion.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 13, 2007)

crushing said:


> Not only that, but according to a show I watched the other day 'Eating 33,000 Calories a Day' (or whatever it was called) as you gain fat, you add fat cells.  That's would seem obvious, right?  Well, those fat cells then also enlarge as you pack on the pounds.  Well, when you start losing the fat, you don't every lose those gained fat cells, the fat cells just get smaller.
> 
> At least that is the way I understood what they were saying.
> 
> There were some absolutely huge people on that show.





Bigshadow said:


> That would be correct!



No, that would be a theory, and one I expect to see fading.

http://www.health.drjez.com/Dietary Strategies/Fat Cell Numbers.htm


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning.  Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.




Even what you consider traditional is even dated.  For instance grains were not necessarily the staple food of early man.  Grains weren't really part of the diet as I understand things until man started farming (coming from hunter/gatherers to farmers).  Most grains take processing to make them palatable.  Where the most basic foods don't require any processing at all.  Oats, wheat, rice, etc require some form off processing and cooking.  I believe the earliest diets didn't include grains for the most parts.  I think they were vegatables, meats, and seeds (those that could be eaten without much prep).


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I thank you for responding.
> 
> First of all, I am conversing with you, not necessarily on belly fat, but on general health, and in order to get _your _opinion.



I'll respond to your general health discussion shortly, but the emphasis of this thread is on belly fat and we should continue the discussion on belly fat, as we don't like to let threads wander too far from topic here - it's a general posting rule. 
 


> I realize there were ways of preserving fruits and vegetables for consumption during the cold season, but what I am trying to say is it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of years to form epidiological evidence, it takes merely a few generations to establish which population groups are healthier and slimmer than others.  I realize the past was not a Golden Era, but neither is the present day, when men live to 75 years on average (80 in Okinawa and Japan).



You might also take into consideration another major diet difference there, which would be fish - MUCH more fish in the diet than the white European and WEDA (white european descent american) which group has relied heavily on porcine and bovine food sources as well as eggs as the main protein sources.  It is not hard to find research on the effects of consuming wild-caught fish on lipids and lipid balances in humans versus the effects of consuming the former.



> But men of prior ages were much stronger and more robust, even if they died of infectious disease in what is now relatively youth.  To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Diabetes used to be called, 'the rich man's disease', because few could afford to be overweight until the past fifty years.  (Like you said earlier, the poor are fat because they eat cheap, refined carbohydrate foods instead of nutritious basic foods, such as rice and seasonal vegetables.)


And there is another VERY common misconception about diabetes - that it is caused by obesity.  One does not need to be overweight to be diabetic and not all obese people are diabetic.  Type I diabetes is life-long diabetes - essentially (in my words) a birth defect of the pancreas; the pancreas cannot produce insulin, hence the need for supplementation.  Type I diabetics are often rail-thin (Mary Tyler Moore is a Type I diabetic).  Type II diabetes can be arrived at by poor diet plus exercise or a diet with excessive protein plus overtraining.  Obesity itself is not the sole cause for Type II diabetes.  In fact, I believe I read in a medical trade journal (boy I'll have a heck of a time finding that source since most are not published on the internet) that there has been some consideration of splitting Type II diabetes into two sub-types because of this problem.  I've met a couple handfuls of bodybuilders and athletes who have developed Type II diabetes from ill-informed dietary advice from personal trainers; advice they followed to gain muscle mass and lose weight (usually belly fat) quickly, yet whom had never been overweight and did not have Type I Diabetes.



> It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4).


Again, even the most respected medical researchers today will caveat that it is impossible to know how many people died of cancer 70 and + years ago because of inadequate testing and barely standardized allopathic medicine.



> Maybe it is wishful thinking, to dream of the past and tradition, but it is almost certain that men of antiquity were slimmer and stronger than us, and I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.


Actually, I think it wise to look at what worked and what didn't.  We know that a diet which is exclusive of vegetables and fruits regularly can lead us into cancer territory.  That's not to say that we should stop eating meat, though we should examine the quality of our animal food sources and their industrialization.

The best way to do this, I think, is to take notice of each person's individual needs and this is best done by keeping a meticulous dietary journal and by the elimination diet.

There are clearly people who do quite well on mixing meat and rice, however it is unquestionable that others do not.  We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater when we're looking at our dietary intake and individual health.

So back to belly fat ... it has been postulated that in *some people* the different peptides which are required to digest starches and proteins sometimes don't mix well within the stomach of *some people* and the theory is that because of this, digestion is limited.  The first things to come out in the digestive process are simple carbohydrates and fats.  So if digestion is halted mid-process, it stands to reason that the majority of the calories absorbed with this food combination in *some people* will be sugar and fat, taxing the pancreas and the gallbladder which will ultimately tax the spleen additionally.  Then we have the issue of undigested food passing through the intestines which, in my son's case, can cause a whole host of other problems.  So we have attempted and possibly incomplete digestion of fats and sugars which goes into where? Fat stores, usually the first place that goes is where? The belly.

It's a theory and the experience of many I've spoken with and it is my course for dietary recovery.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 13, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of.




Obesity and diabetes are not explicitly related.  Obesity can affect diabetes but one does not have to be obese to have diabetes.  Part of it is genetic and the other is likely diet.  Of course the United States is the largest consumer of refined sugar on this planet.  I think there is a  direct correlation between refined sugar and the rates of diabetes.   It is in far more than candies and soda-pop.  You would be surprised where you will find sugar listed in the first 3 ingredients.





Freestyler777 said:


> All of the chronic, degenerative conditions that plagues modern man has come about in the modern era, or the past two hundred years or so, with things getting worse all the time.




That is a little presumptuous.  There are many things they didn't know 200 or 300 years ago that we know today and so the causes of death we know of the past is probably a little vague at this point.  Some causes of death were simply false.  A prime example is someone who died of an an overdose of morphine or some other (at that time legal) drug.  Often it was  reported as they died of pneumonia or some other ailment.





Freestyler777 said:


> It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4).




It is all about the money.  No amount of health knowledge is going to help when one has longer weeks than paychecks and mouths to feed.  It boils down to economics.  The bad stuff is cheaper to produce and cheaper to buy and it fills the tummies of hungry kids.  It is sad but true!




Freestyler777 said:


> I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.




That is true!  Who would want to live for years and not be happy.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 13, 2007)

rutherford said:


> No, that would be a theory, and one I expect to see fading.
> 
> http://www.health.drjez.com/Dietary Strategies/Fat Cell Numbers.htm



If that is true, it is a good thing!  There are alot of theories out there.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Mar 13, 2007)

You guys are good, I've got to commend you on that.  

I know diabetes is not _caused_ by obesity, and I know the difference between Type 1 and Type 2.  And I agree they should completely separate the diseases, since Type 1 is largely an autoimmune disease and type 2 is a disease of lifestyle.  Not everyone who has Type 2 diabetes is overweight, obviously.  But if you have diabetes and you go to your doctor, the first thing he'll tell you is 'lose weight!'.  While American medicine is in the dark compared to progressive medicine in Socialist countries in Europe, there is some validity in calling Diabetes Mellitus (Sweet Urine literally) the rich man's disease.  Also, you cannot deny that cancer is far more prevalent now than 100, 200, 500 or many more years ago (I realize many died in what is now considered youth and there was no knowledge of what cancer was let alone diagnostic methods of detecting it).  

All I am saying is, the best way to determine which diet is best for human health is by observing the eating and lifestyle patterns of populations of healthy people!  It's rather simple.  For example, there is NO significant population that eats brown rice as their staple (excluding Zen monks in Japan).  The majority of the rice eaten today is sticky, jasmine, basmati, parboiled, or converted (the American version of parboiled).  

I'm not a betting man, but I'd be almost sure that there is less obesity (and flatter stomachs) in the Orient, India, Senegal, and  Spain (the 3rd longest lived people) than in America and Canada.  

Also, there is a growing problem of childhood obesity in Japan as youngsters drift away from fish and rice and seasonal vegetables and opt for hamburgers and soda and other 'western' delights.

It's not proof, but it is visible evidence that something about traditional diets keeps people slim and healthy, and conversely, something about the modern diet makes people sick (and have fat bellies).  

But that is my opinion.


----------

