Spot reduction of fat?

The September 2006 issue of the AJP - Endocrinology & Metabolism reports that a study looked at what happens to subcutaneous adipose tissue (SCAT) when the adjacent muscle tissue is stimulated with exercise. They found:

blood flow and lipolysis are generally higher in SCAT adjacent to contracting than adjacent to resting muscle irrespective of exercise intensity. Thus, specific exercises can induce "spot lipolysis" in adipose tissue.

To open the proverbial can of worms: does this mean that "spot reducing" of fat is possible?

[etothepii]

did they specify the degree of difference of lipolysis in adjacent fat cells comparison to fat loss in other areas?

Fom my understanding blood flow to the exercising leg was about 75% greater and lipolysis was more than 800% greater when compared to the non-exercising leg.

I would love to see the paper even though it would be above my ability to completely understand it.

[Maxgain]

Interesting alright

Interesting that the light weight done initially produced more fat loss than a heavier weight especially as fuel reserves would be depleted thus one would think a greater fat loss.

You actually understood the article? Care to explain it to me? lol

[Lady C]

Iron
Without seeing the full article I am concluding it is not significant (mathematically speaking).
They have huge variances between readings and
Why did they change the test parameters mid test? 30 mins vs. 120? not comparing apples to apples in my eyes.

Line the numbers up and see what you think.
[worked muscle are the first readings vs. non worked muscles]
blood flow
25% Wmax: 6.6 ± 1.0 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 ml 100 g-1 min-1, P < 0.05; worked 30 mins
55% Wmax: 7.3 ± 0.6 vs. 5.0 ± 0.6, P < 0.05; worked for 120 min
85% Wmax: 6.6 ± 1.3 vs. 5.9 ± 0.7, P > 0.05; worked 30 mins
lipolysis
25% Wmax: 102 ± 19 vs. 55 ± 14 nmol 100 g-1 min-1, P = 0.06;
55% Wmax: 86 ± 11 vs. 50 ± 20, P > 0.05;
85% Wmax: 88 ± 31 vs. -9 ± 25, P < 0.05

I don't agree they can make that conclusion. Max work at 85% shows less lipolysis than 25% work. Blood flow was highest at 55% work because you worked the subject 2x longer.

Originally Posted by Lady C

mathematically speaking

And this is where I always get lost. I appreciate the illustration.

I was curious about the increase in work time also. You have some valid questions and I wonder if the whole paper might shed a bit more light on their conclusions. I'll see if they have this particular journal in our library.

[Maxgain]

Yup the full article would be needed to examine the very suspect method and why 2 different groups were not used. Using the same grouos like that introduces too many probllems

[LiftGirl]

If it were possible, would there really be so many guys with beer guts? If it were that easy, it would have been discovered by people already.

[Your_Crazy]

It's just a ploy by the man to sell more Ab-lounges. Have you tried those things. Mine has cup holders and a lazy boy symbol.



Either way its a bunch of whoee. If there is any differance its so negligable that you need machines to actually notice it.