yes

>>77119353
No, at least not in how it's usually thought of. Spot reduction of fat is not real, unless you're using surgery. Improving the muscularity of a certain area whilst losing weight thus rapidly improving the appearance of target area, that's real. But it's not "spot reduction"

>>77119545
Your body stores fat where it thinks it will be used
So while overall fat loss is for sure what fatties need to hear and do, lean guys with weird fat pockets need to be targeting them specifically

Hip thrusts use your love handles, abs use your lower chest fat as well as the rest in the area, etc etc etc

You can prove this yourself by spamming hip thrusts before your cardio for the next few weeks and your love handles will drop proportionally

>>77119568
Fat is stored and released based on hormones, genetics, sex, and overall calorie balance, not because your body “plans” to use that fat for a particular movement. When you do hip thrusts, your body burns fuel from the bloodstream (fat and carbs coming from all over), not specifically from the love-handle fat sitting above the hips. Training a muscle can make that muscle bigger/stronger under the fat, but it doesn’t decide where fat comes off first. That’s why people often see shape changes (more muscle, better posture) without matching “spot” fat loss. Where you lose fat first/last is largely genetic. Love handles and lower belly are commonly “last to go” for many people, even if those areas are trained hard. If someone’s love handles “drop proportionally” after spamming hip thrusts, the simplest explanation is they lost overall body fat (via diet/activity), and/or posture/muscle changes made the area look different, not that hip thrusts pulled fat from that spot.
>tl;dr: No.
>t. Kinesiology grad student
Bro, you have any idea how much I hate doing DEXA scans and explaining this shit? We can see plainly a spreadout break down of fat. If you saw "spot reduction" its just fatloss combined improved muscle tone in an area that had favorable fat distribution.

>>77119568
>lean guys with weird fat pockets need to
Diet harder... Thats it. Yes your idea can improve the situation, but it is not doing so by removing fat SPECIFICALLY from that area.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10680576/

Spot reduction is real

All of your catecholamines, stimulants don't mean shit if there is poor blood flow to the midsection because A) the hormones won't get to it B) the fats won't leave it even if they get mobilized

So your best bet is old school, 1000 crunches on a fasted stomach in the morning, followed by steady state fasted cardio, and if you have the balls take some yohimbine to block alpha2 receptors and if your balls are made of steel and you shrug off anxiety like a champ, add salbutamol to the mix (none of this is medical advice consult doctor yada yada)

>>77119591
This paper gets waved around like it finally “proved” spot reduction, but it’s weak as shit. If a slacker ass grad student like me can see it I assure you no one is taking this seriously. They had sixteen overweight men total. That’s eight guys per group. Eight. With numbers that small, random chance has way too much influence. One or two unusual responders (or just normal human variability) can swing the average hard. When you run a study that small and you go hunting for a specific “significant” result, you’re basically begging the stats to hand you a fluke and hoping nobody asks follow-up questions. And about those follow-up questions, the groups weren’t really cleanly comparable. The “ab training” group started out with more trunk fat and more total fat on average. The paper says baseline differences weren’t statistically significant, but with eight people a side, “not significant” often means “we don’t have enough power to detect anything,” not “these groups are truly matched.” If you start with more fat in an area, you often lose more there during weight loss anyway. That’s not magic, that’s regression to the mean plus basic physiology. Then there’s the multiple-comparisons problem, which is the scientific version of throwing spaghetti at the wall and bragging that one noodle stuck.
>cont.

>>77119591
>>77119607
They measured a pile of things, regional fat, percent fat, lean mass in different regions, circumferences, fitness metrics, strength metrics… lots of opportunities for one random p-value to dip below 0.05. If you don’t properly correct for doing tons of tests, “we found one significant regional change” isn’t a mic-drop moment. It’s exactly what you’d expect to happen sometimes even if spot reduction is fake. Even the measurement they use doesn’t prove what people think it proves. They talk about “trunk fat,” which is a broad DEXA region, not “the belly fat sitting right over your abs.” DEXA can’t cleanly separate visceral fat from subcutaneous fat, and it can’t tell you “the fat directly adjacent to the worked muscle got preferentially burned.” So even if trunk fat shifts a bit, that still doesn’t demonstrate the local, targeted “I did crunches so my belly melted” story people want. The “energy expenditure was matched” claim is also a lot less comforting than it sounds. The ab group’s workouts were way longer overall and included different types of work. Matching energy burn in real humans isn’t a neat checkbox you tick once; people compensate with appetite, daily movement, fatigue, and recovery in messy ways. Small differences in behavior outside the lab can easily show up as small differences in body composition, especially when the headline result is under a kilogram and the measurements are inherently a bit noisy. They also report the treadmill-only group lost lean mass while the ab group didn’t, which is another warning sign that the interventions weren’t equivalent in how the body adapted. Once you start seeing different lean-mass responses, DEXA compartment estimates can shift around in ways that make a small “regional fat” difference look more impressive than it is. So no, one small study doesn’t “prove” spot reduction.
>cont.

>>77119591
>>77119607
>>77119608
At best, it suggests “maybe something interesting happened in this specific setup, in this specific group, measured in this specific way.” That’s not the same as “do abs to lose belly fat.” If spot reduction were as real and reliable as people want it to be, you wouldn’t need to squint at eight guys per group and celebrate a single regional result that could easily be statistical confetti. This paper is an example of how you can take a tiny sample, run a bunch of measurements, find one shiny p-value, and then act like you discovered a new law of nature. The only thing it really proves is that randomness is undefeated when you give it enough chances to look clever.
>tl;dr: that study is dogshit

>>77119609
I bet you that jeet wont read all that and continue to stink up the hip thrust pads(while hoarding all the smaller 10kg plates for le deep stretch) before hitting the treadmill sweating like a pig

>>77119640
I'm shouting into the void, no doubt.

>>77119640
>>77119657
Post physique

>>77119607
>>77119608
>>77119609
time it took to write all this you could have done some abs and removed fat from that area

>>77119580
>>77119586
>T. Never been single digit bodyfat with an FFMI over 20
I hate when smol bois act like they know what they're talking about lmao

>>77119733
post physique

>>77119568
No it doesn't. The fat gets broken down and the sugar is released into the blood stream. That takes seconds to circulate everywhere so there's no reason to store locally.

Plus local use for the most part would be a fucking nightmare for systemic regulation.

riddle me this riddle me that
if you spam crunches=add heat=add energy to your abs
why would it burn fat off of your back?
checkmate
butter on hot stove evaporates
fat under skin gets broken down locally when adding heat. Same thing. Losing fat from whole body is a different mechanism= body uses energy stored in fat IF there's not enough (energy)from food in guts.
adding energy=braking down substance
simple physics
if you put your ass towards bonfire you'll ass get hot not your face or front of thighs. If you get face lifting face massages you lose fat from face not your belly.

>>77119793
>>77119709
What used to be something you pulled out when someone made a ridiculous boast is now just what retards use to dismiss an argument cause they're feelings are hurt. Frequently used in situations like this when it's a gaggle of jeet shills sucking each other off.

File: 1704483875700428.png (1.7 KB)

1.7 KB PNG

>>77119545
>Improving the muscularity of a certain area whilst losing weight thus rapidly improving the appearance of target area, that's real. But it's not "spot reduction"


....why not
arent u literally reducing the fat in an area

File: israel.jpg (94.3 KB)

94.3 KB JPG

>>77119353
>SPOT REDUCTION.........ISRAEL!!!!!!

>>77119897
>What used to be something you pulled out when someone made a ridiculous boast
something like claiming to be single digit bf% while having an FFMI over 20?
retarded tripnigger

>>77119568
>Your body stores fat where it thinks it will be used
so if I spam bicep curls my body will start storing fat on my biceps? is that what you're saying?

File: file.png (158.3 KB)

158.3 KB PNG

>>77119591
>>77119607
>n=16

>>77121224
>like claiming to be single digit bf% while having an FFMI over 20?
Exactly! Look everyone! Dumbass jeets can learn!

>>77119586
>Diet harder
>loses all muscle
>Bulks to get it back
>regains the fat pockets
IHTFS

>>77119353
What about body recomp?

>>77121477
Brainlets can't understand sample sizes.

>>77119353
No, spot reduction palestine

>>77119353
>start SS
>be a fat faggot
>got muscular legs
>still fat
IT IS REAL DO YOUR ABS WORKOUT YOU FAGGOTS

>>77119897
Interesting thoughts. Would you consider posting your physique so I can affirm my beliefs that you're a small faggot?

>>77120919
You're building muscle not getting rid of fat.