Cellulite Fat - Forever or can it be dieted/exercised off?

[djpar]

This sounds like you should do the opposite of what you recommend. You should only eat a few really big meals so that you don't absorb most of the nutrients. If what you're saying is true (and I doubt it very much), then you would lose weight by overeating so that you excrete most of the food as "waste".

Look at it in the context that you are burning more calories than you take in, you want the nutrients that are being provided.

Ah-I see. Sort of like breakfast cereal x will improve your heart health if it's part of a well-balanced diet combined with a good exercise program.

I don't think your theory is true (that overeating results in less efficient absorption of nutrients). But if it were, it would argue the other way around as a recommendation for weight loss.

I'll look and see if I can find anything to support this.

As an aside, I was watching a documentary the other night on the areas in the world where people live the longest. One of the common practices was that they all had some sort of method or ritual for stopping eating before they were full (smaller portions).

 

[djpar]

I guess I'll find out if exercising will help to reduce the look of cellulite and I will share the results at some point. I've taken my measurements and weight (no - I will not share those stats) and in a couple of months I will post if I've lost any inches and/or pounds. I had a physical a couple of months ago the test results were all good. So, I'm not trying to lower blood pressure or cholesteral (sp) - all of those were in low (normal) range).

In the meantime - if anyone has more suggestions/advice...or happens upon a "magic" pill please let me know.

Debaroo, Good luck. I hope you get the results you want.

 

[Richard Masters]

From my understanding of the research I've read, SG is correct that the body tries to maintain its weight at a set-point, which probably has a genetic component. In some severely obese people this mechanism appears to be broken.

This is my understanding and my experience, too. I used to eat whatever I wanted (though my body would tell me when I should stop eating), and not gain much weight. It tended to stay at a certain point.

5 years ago something happened, and my new set point is about 15-20 pounds higher. I can temporarily reduce my weight to what it used to be through daily exercise, but I tend to get really hungry and if I stop exercising for a couple of days, I can tell I'm gaining weight again.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I guess I'll find out if exercising will help to reduce the look of cellulite and I will share the results at some point. I've taken my measurements and weight (no - I will not share those stats) and in a couple of months I will post if I've lost any inches and/or pounds. I had a physical a couple of months ago the test results were all good. So, I'm not trying to lower blood pressure or cholesteral (sp) - all of those were in low (normal) range).

In the meantime - if anyone has more suggestions/advice...or happens upon a "magic" pill please let me know.

On a side note, I have to say I have no idea why people, usually women, are so sensitive about the numbers. What you look like is what you look like. I, like everyone else who sees you, will find your attractiveness level to be somewhere between 0 and 10. That evaluation won't change if I know how much you weigh or your hip measurement. It just makes no sense to me.

Anyway, what type of additional advice are you looking for? The answer to the subject is simple. Increase your exercise level and control your food intake. The fat will come off. It will stay off as long as you are diligent about monitoring your exercise level and food intake.

Beyond that, any advice would need to be specifically tailored to you, and that advice would be more about modifying behavior. For my ex-wife, vanity was her primary motivator. Looking in the mirror was important. She also liked frequent feedback, so charting her bodyfat measurements weekly as well as tracking her reps/weight worked for her. She also did better by switching from one exercise program to another when she got bored rather than feeling "guilty" for buying the "best deal" and not using all the classes.

For me, vanity is a non-issue. I do better when I have an athletic purpose in mind or to recover from an injury. I prefer substituting bike rides for driving to get my aerobic activity. I hate gyms and prefer to work out alone. When I'm working heavily with weights, I chart my progress so I can improve my strength.

Only you know what works for you. Just remember that every bit of exercise helps as does every bite you don't eat. Figure out what motivates you and use it. If and when that fizzles out, find something else that motivates you.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

On a side note, I have to say I have no idea why people, usually women, are so sensitive about the numbers. What you look like is what you look like. I, like everyone else who sees you, will find your attractiveness level to be somewhere between 0 and 10. That evaluation won't change if I know how much you weigh or your hip measurement. It just makes no sense to me.

Right - that's why I didn't share my stats with this group. I took them for myself and will share the results (not my actual measurements), just in case anyone is interested. I took my measurements for me - a way to gauge my progress.

Anyway, what type of additional advice are you looking for? The answer to the subject is simple. Increase your exercise level and control your food intake. The fat will come off. It will stay off as long as you are diligent about monitoring your exercise level and food intake.

I was asking about cellulite fat and what I can do to try and control it/lose it. Suggestions have been to exercise - and I've acknowledged that. I was simply asking if there was anything more I could do.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Right - that's why I didn't share my stats with this group. I took them for myself and will share the results (not my actual measurements), just in case anyone is interested. I took my measurements for me - a way to gauge my progress.

I don't get it, though. Are you willing to say you had a 10% reduction in your hip measurement but are not willing to actually reveal what that measurement is? If so, that's what I don't get.

BTW, as far as measuring progress, the best thing you can do measure your body fat using calipers (actually, you'll need someone to assist). There are a few different formulas, but basically the ones with more measurements are the most consistent. Forget using electronic devices that you step on - they are horribly unreliable. Next to submerging yourself in water, the calipers are the best way to go. See this site: http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

What's fascinating is that you'll see how your body stores fat. My ex-wife had an 8-pack on her belly while I had a nice layer of blubber. At the same time her thigh and triceps fat measurements were much bigger than mine. All things considered, I actually had a lower body fat percentage. Her distribution of body fat just made her look thinner. Of course, at the time we were both in excellent shape, so who cares about minor numbers?

I was asking about cellulite fat and what I can do to try and control it/lose it. Suggestions have been to exercise - and I've acknowledged that. I was simply asking if there was anything more I could do.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the formula is simple: expend more energy than you consume without allowing your energy consumption to fall too low. That's it. Period. What's a bitch is actually doing it because it means modifying behavior. I'm asking if you need recommendations in that regard and offered a few ideas that I know have worked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem to be inconsistent in your usage of the term. Biological drive to over eat is like the biological drive to over breathe.

OK, so it appears you don't understand the range of biological drives that we have.

Do you call the drive to have sex, a biological drive, or do you have another name for it?
Do you think we have a biological drive to eat? To drink?
Are you convinced all biological drives fit our current world, or do you think it is possible evolution is slower than environmental changes that might eventually affect natural selection pressures?

Your concept of what a biological drive is, how weak or strong such drives are, and how well adapted said drives are to the current environment vs past environments these biological processes developed in, seems insufficient. I suggest you consider the range of biological drives humans have.

The second problem you are having here is the fact mechanisms of these drives are not as simple as you think. For example CO2 controls respiratory rate in healthy persons. Hypoxia leads to rapid breathing. The thing is, these mechanisms, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, blood vessel constriction and dilation are all involved here. The physiology which results in how the biological drive to breathe is expressed is incredibly complex.

When it comes to appetite, there are even more complicated factors which result in the biological drive to eat or stop eating. That doesn't mean such mechanisms are all under conscious psychological control. What the research is showing is that there is no biological mechanism that prevents weight gain the same way there is one that prevents losing weight. There are a number of mechanisms which trigger satiation, (meaning you feel full and stop eating), but this differs from a mechanism that prevents weight gain.

There does seem to be some people in the population who genetically do become uncomfortable when consuming enough calories to gain weight. This is different than the mechanisms of satiation I mentioned which make one feel full.

Appetite controls are also different from the mechanisms which lead to original weight gain. Not everyone gains excess weight and not everyone gains it at the same times throughout their lives. I haven't gotten into the mechanisms which cause people to gain weight initially because this is such a complex subject and because it is a separate issue from the biological drive which kicks in when people shed pounds.

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2008/12/slender_yield_from_fat_gene_st.php



If the biological drive is to MAINTAIN current weight, then why are people getting more and more fat?

Hopefully repeating myself again and again will eventually register with you. The evidence suggests there is a biological drive which resists weight loss. This differs from what you are picturing as the mechanism which results in maintaining one's weight. (Maybe my use of the term, maintain weight, has been confusing because I've used it mostly to refer to not losing weight rather than using it to mean maintaining one's weight, neither going up or down.)

It is very common for people to maintain a certain weight set point for long periods of time. There are complex factors which result in this set point changing. The vast majority of the time the result is weight gain. But there are rare times people lose weight like when depression suppresses your appetite.

These mechanisms are not magic little switches like a simple neurotransmitter in a synapse. Instead a number of feedback loops and complex interactions of chemical messengers and nerve pathways are involved. Scientist thought they found a single 'switch' when they discovered Leptin. But it turned out Leptin was only a small part of the entire system.

The fact the system is complex doesn't negate the fact the evidence supports the conclusion one of the pieces in the system is a biological drive to prevent weight loss. It has been described as having a gas pedal but no brakes. In most people there is not the same mechanism preventing weight gain as is triggered when there is weight loss.


You need to verify your belief which I am telling you the evidence does not support. Have you even looked at much weight loss science recently? Why not see if you can't support your belief since you are so convinced I am wrong?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not a belief. It is a fact that behavior, IE, what one eats is what plays the largest role in weight management.

That is not what the research supports.

No one is arguing one gains weight when calories in exceed calories expended. But the studies looking at different diets like the South Beach Diet and the Atkins diet don't show any more success with one over the other.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure I'm following you... you said: "Do you have any hypotheses as to why so few people are able to just eat right and exercise?"



Maybe you missed it in this post

I quoted the post I was replying to. But no worries, mate. Like I said, I merely noted the difference between an hypothesis and evidence supporting it. There was nothing personal intended.

As for my hypotheses as to why so few people are able to lose weight, it is that biological drive I've been discussing. And it is consistent with the evidence.

When people try to lose weight, most can do so temporarily. But in ~95% of those people who lose weight, they not only cannot maintain the weight loss, they very often gain more back than they lose.

We know metabolism actually slows with caloric restriction. But it also seems there is a reaction to the weight loss that triggers craving for high calorie foods. And it also appears that trigger often overshoots the original weight set point.

The reason this is such an important consideration in counseling people about weight loss, is losing weight risks a one step forward, two steps back outcome. You don't want to end up worse off than where you started.

Right now there are promising magic pills in the pipeline, but none have so far been developed. Surgery is successful for some people but it has serious risks so one should not undertake that decision unless one's weight is also a serious health risk.

In the meantime we need to continue collecting the data. That's why the successful diet registry is so important. It's actual hard data.

I did not know that exercise and healthy eating were not supported by the evidence nor did I know that willpower was a complete illusion. How do you think the few that are able to stay exceptionally fit do it?

Don't confuse a healthy lifestyle with a diet that will result in sustained weight loss.

I can see that. I agree with you to a great extent, but I hope you don't think that willpower or desire is not a factor at all. Ideally, people hit their target body weight/composition and then they change their approach to maintaining rather than losing weight (maybe even gaining weight in lean muscle mass).

What one might look at here is the smoking cessation model. Of course one needs first to be motivated. But from there the two problems diverge in outcome. People are more successful quitting smoking than they are at losing weight. It's an interesting finding. I don't think many ex-smokers will tell you it was easy to quit.

If they can get to that point, is the biological drive still operating with the same intensity? Does it ever stop or do you just keep wanting more and more?

We don't really know yet why the 5% are successful. They have some things in common. If I recall they weigh themselves daily and they fidget.

I see what you are saying and I agree. My only real suggestion on how to achieve better looking, healthier body was what you wrote above (in bold).

Again, I'm not suggesting people motivated to live a healthier lifestyle will have a biological drive to fail.

I go through spells where I change eating and exercise habits. I like to drink wine and eat good food. Recently, I got caught up in something that took a lot of my time and that was very frustrating and for 6 months I slipped back into doing what I knew was going backwards for me health wise (that is if you really count the loss of a visible 6pack and the small amount of liver and brain damage that resulted)

Point is, I know I am just as susceptible to what you are describing. In my case -- the biological drive for fats, sugars, alcohol combined with laziness on the exercise front.

If you haven't yet gained excess weight, it should be easier to maintain a healthy weight. It's losing that is the more difficult problem.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's some of the data from the registry

These averages, however, hide a lot of diversity:
Weight losses have ranged from 30 to 300 lbs.
Duration of successful weight loss has ranged from 1 year to 66 years!
Some have lost the weight rapidly, while others have lost weight very slowly--over as many as 14 years.

We have also started to learn about how the weight loss was accomplished: 45% of registry participants lost the weight on their own and the other 55% lost weight with the help of some type of program.
98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight.
94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.

78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.

I bolded that one part just to point out an example of what you read/hear (that rapid weight loss is a problem) just isn't supported by the data.

There's a link from the page to the published studies based on the data.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Look at it in the context that you are burning more calories than you take in, you want the nutrients that are being provided.

I think you're confused. Do you think calories come from something other than nutrients?

If, as you claim, overeating causes less absorption of nutrients, it should be recommended for losing weight. But alas, that's not the case!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Anyway, what type of additional advice are you looking for? The answer to the subject is simple. Increase your exercise level and control your food intake. The fat will come off. It will stay off as long as you are diligent about monitoring your exercise level and food intake.

Except your "simple" answer leaves out the complexity of the real problem.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Not to beat a dead horse, but the formula is simple: expend more energy than you consume without allowing your energy consumption to fall too low. That's it. Period. What's a bitch is actually doing it because it means modifying behavior. I'm asking if you need recommendations in that regard and offered a few ideas that I know have worked.

Since you at least noted your "simple" solution was a bitch, I'll refrain from

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is no universal diet but there is some logic behind eating small meals throughout the day. As you pointed out, the psychological effect and as discussed in the article you linked, it's a matter of not waiting till you are ravenous to eat. Calling even 5 small meals a day, through WW standards is still a bit inaccurate. They don't recommend sitting to eat 5 or 6 times a day; the recommend keeping healthy snacks available so you don't crash and over eat to compensate.

I understand. They're recommending something for which there is no evidence of effectiveness.

When you say "there is some logic behind" it, what you mean is there is a possibly plausible explanation for the effectiveness of eating more frequent, smaller portions.

I agree with that, but as I said, I would rather see evidence of that effectiveness first before I worry about explaining why it's effective. (In other words, if it's not in fact effective, no explanation is needed.)

I don't recall saying anything about over-eating causing less efficient absorbtion of nutrients so I am going to assume that is not towards me.

You are correct. That was in reference to what djpar said. (See my post number 82). Sorry if it sounded like I was attributing it to you.

This thread keeps moving along quicker than I can keep up with, and I assumed everyone else had just read what I had just read.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That is not what the research supports.

Yes it is. How one can successfully can change their behavior for long periods of time is where the debate is. If a person doesn't eat more calories than they burn, they will maintain weight. If they eat less, they will lose weight. Calories burned and taken in are due to our behaviors, unless one is being force fed and immobilized.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Except your "simple" answer leaves out the complexity of the real problem.

The solution is simple. Simple does not mean easy.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Apologies if this has already been posted, skimmed the thread and didn't see it, from Stephen Barret @ QuackWatch:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cellulite.html

"Cellulite" is not a medical term. Medical authorities agree that cellulite is simply ordinary fatty tissue [1]. Strands of fibrous tissue connect the skin to deeper tissue layers and also separate compartments that contain fat cells. When fat cells increase in size, these compartments bulge and produce a waffled appearance of the skin. Many years ago, Neil Solomon, M.D., conducted a double-blind study of 100 people to see whether cellulite differed from ordinary fat. Specimens of regular fat and lumpy fat were obtained by a needle biopsy procedure and given to pathologists for analysis and comparison. No difference between the two was found.

The Bottom Line

The amount of fat in the body is determined by the individual's eating and exercise habits, but the distribution of fat in the body is determined by heredity. In most cases reduction of a particular part can be accomplished only as part of an overall weight-reduction program. Endermologie may temporarily improve the appearance of dimpled areas, but the procedure is time-consuming and expensive. Liposuction may permanently help in some cases.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yes it is. How one can successfully can change their behavior for long periods of time is where the debate is. If a person doesn't eat more calories than they burn, they will maintain weight. If they eat less, they will lose weight. Calories burned and taken in are due to our behaviors, unless one is being force fed and immobilized.

I am amazed about how this simple fact gets lost in all the complexity.

You don't see fat people in famines. The Second Law of Thermodynamics leads us to expect that.

This doesn't stop me from accepting that people may have a genetically set weight-point that their physiology tries to maintain.

I can even accept the idea that an inappropriate dietary composition can lead to weight gain via preferential deposition of fat that leads to an increase in demand for food, which can seem a bit 'cart before the horse' until you actually read the argument in detail.

But, really, isn't what all this is about is that people want to lose weight and not feel hungry? And that modern societies have access to easy calories that our ancestors had to work to obtain, potentially while hunger gnawed at them.

In my veterinary world, it's dead simple. You feed dogs less; they lose weight. Dogs that don't lose weight have owners who cheat on their behalf, like the little fat poodle whose broken leg I fixed last week, broken merely because it fell of its elderly owner's lap. Regularly fed a highly calorie-restricted food for a long time, but when the carer brings the dog to me she tells me how much the little dog likes her slices of bread and butter. So, 6kg poodle weighs 9.8kg and has a broken leg.

There is a huge industry set up around the idea that weight loss is somehow nothing to do with absolute food intake and which tries to blur the hard truths. Companies have a major financial incentive to make their weight-loss programme sound like anything but- "go hungry, lose weight".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

A chapter of the book I was reading last night was about gastric bypass surgery. What I found particularly interesting was that a significant minority of patients who undergo this radical procedure fail to maintain their initial weight loss, despite the fact that eating anything but a small amount of food at a time becomes painful and induces nausea. They get round the reduction in the volume of food they can comfortably eat at any one time by consuming calorie dense foods little and often. Their subjective reports are that they still feel hungry all the time.

For those patients for whom the surgery is successful they report feeling satisfied after eating, sometimes for the first time in their lives. Even more curious is that they develop the ability to stop themselves eating food they may desire, but know is probably not good for them.

 

[djpar]

I think you're confused. Do you think calories come from something other than nutrients?

If, as you claim, overeating causes less absorption of nutrients, it should be recommended for losing weight. But alas, that's not the case!

I'm not confused, although I may be wrong about the absorption rate of nutrients.

I looked around and I could not find anything to support this, so I am willing to admit the idea that the body can only absorb so much in a given time and the rest is wasted is erroneous.

Perhaps there are other reasons why smaller portions are better.