• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

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.

Yes, but that was the first post and I don't see anything in there that you have disagreed with. Shouldn't you have been quoting the other one where I did say "I imagine"? You know, the one where I took your bait? :)

No offense taken, btw.

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.

Fair enough, but I didn't ask for that. Your explanation for the 95% has been pretty clear.

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.

I have no problem with this.

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.

Accepted.

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'm all for it.

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

They seem to go hand in hand, no? If you maintain a healthy lifestyle, doesn't that include eating healthy foods?

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. :)

This was my question. Maybe it would be helpful to have the data on this?


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

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.

Yeah, I guess we should differentiate between those of us who are obese and need to lose actual weight and those of us who may not fluctuate in weight so much as they exchange lost muscle mass for added fat.

Thanks for the information. You have succeeded in opening my eyes to an extent.

I'm glad that for me it only requires effort on maintaining a healthy lifestyle and I hope for those who require it a magic pill is in the making.

If they make a magic pill that will make you train hard, I'll be especially thankful.
 
Not Quite the Magic Pill

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/...sial+weight+loss+technique/2603584/story.html

"A controversial new weight-loss technique has tongues wagging — and feeling tender.


The medical procedure involves stitching a small piece of polyethylene mesh onto a patient's tongue, making it painful to ingest solid foods and forcing a low-calorie, liquid diet."

****
...But does it get rid of cellulite :-) I think I'll stick to my treadmill.
 
I am always amazed, in discussions like these, that people feel the need to point out there are no fat people in famines. Are we seriously suggesting that a permanent state of famine is a desirable thing?

I know people who have to keep themselves on an intake lower than the UN definition of starvation just in order not to gain. I sure can't imagine what that would be like, but I do know that if _I_ gained weight like that there is no way in hell I would accept having to live on the brink of starvation for the rest of my life and I can't say that this is what they ought to do because I haven't walked a mile in their shoes.

My little cousin was born fat, was a fat kid and a fat teen. When she was fifteen she made an effort on her own by swapping all her snacks for fruit. She gained weight. There must be more going on
here than simple in-out. Like biology perhaps.

I am also nonplussed whenever people discussing this topic refers to the laws of physics, as if the energy _must_ be either absorbed or used just because it can't be destroyed. It doesn't seem to be a possibility that some people poop out a lot more of the calories ingested than others do. Or that some people lose energy as more heat than others do. Or that there are people who can be on a huge calorie surplus without gaining - but it seems to be impossible that there would be others who function the opposite way.

When we reach the intake levels where everyone, including those with really slow metabolism, will definitely lose body fat - then we are at a level that at least I would be uncomfortable demanding that someone else live on. Would I do it myself? Would I accept that I had to live on 400kcal/day for the rest of my life? I'm not sure I would.

I have had not one, but three, people with eating disorders in my life - both family members and partners - and it frakking sucks. The simplistic way that weight loss is portrayed through received knowledge isn't helping.

As S.G says, a lot seems to point to the most important bit being not to gain it in the first place.

Fat people aren't stupid, and I fail to believe that so many people are "just too weak willed". I am less able to resist the carrot cake and the PBJs than my fat friend. By every account my will is weaker than hers. Yet somehow I go free, just because it doesn't stick. That's not fair, and I wish people would try to be a little more nuanced about it.

As a parallell to this mindset: I suffered for several years from really bad acne. I went through all the otc and then all the prescription treatments.

For some reason, people who had not been born with the gene for acne really thought that they were doing something right that I was doing wrong and they didn't want to talk about anything else. Nosirree, they couldn't wait to tell me what I was doing wrong.

The worst bit was those who started out with "You have to cleanse" as if I didn't wash. They told me I must become vegetarian - so I was, for six years. Did nothing, I only kept it up out of habit (until I got so mad at one JREF poster's sanctimonious attitude that I went out and got me some bacon) - no matter their own personal life style, that was the solution for me and if it didn't work, I obviously didn't implement it well enough. That drove me absolutely bonkers and near on suicidal. It was as if I was nothing more than pimply skin holding together a bunch of bad habits that these paragons of self restraint (in their own eyes) did not have, because "drinking plenty of water" is somehow superior to the heaviest stuff the dermatologist could prescribe.

Going against your own body is what we usually describe as a "Tulip-Rose" - easy to say, harder to do.

I don't think we do any overweight or obese people any favours if we try to pretend like it's easy, or that the requirements that are enough for other people will necessarily be enough for them.

And I for one am not ready to request people to live a lifestyle I myself am not comfortable with. If I want them to do an hour of exercise every day, then I should first be ready to do that. In their shoes.
 
I think an averaged sized adult who claims he or she can live on 400kcal/day long term is either deluded or a lier, and quite possibly mentally ill.

In fact, I think it would qualify to win the million if a suitable test could be devised.
 
Perhaps there are other reasons why smaller portions are better.

Perhaps--and I've agreed with the one sgtbaker offered as being plausible and suggested one of my own.

Or perhaps smaller, more frequent portions isn't a better eating strategy for weight loss, and no reason is necessary.

As I've said, I think we should establish whether it's so first before we worry about why it's so.
 
Apologies if this has already been posted, skimmed the thread and didn't see it, from Stephen Barret @ QuackWatch:
<snip>Barret explaining that cellulite is not a medical term and is just regular fatty tissue</snip>
Good point. I think that's what I was trying to say with my first couple of posts on this thread. You don't get to choose what fat comes off first. You can't target weight loss to an area.


I think an averaged sized adult who claims he or she can live on 400kcal/day long term is either deluded or a lier [sic], and quite possibly mentally ill.

In fact, I think it would qualify to win the million if a suitable test could be devised.

Sounds like breatherianism-lite. . . er, so to speak.
 
As already mentioned, cellulite is simply body fat so it is simply a problem of how to lose bodyfat. However in the case of cellulite it is complicated by the fact that some body fat stores are harder to shift than others - so called 'stubborn' body fat - for a number of physiological reasons.

Have a read of this for a brief explanation of these reasons:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-is-stubborn-fat-stubborn.html
 
I am always amazed, in discussions like these, that people feel the need to point out there are no fat people in famines. Are we seriously suggesting that a permanent state of famine is a desirable thing?
No. I don't believe anyone here has suggested that. (There are people, though, who think extreme longevity can be achieved by living on a borderline starvation diet. But I haven't seen anyone here promoting that idea.)

I think the point of such observations here is that the simple fact is that if you burn up more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. If you lose enough weight, the "cellulite" will go away.

For myself, I have pointed out that in the real world, genetics plays a big role. And for a "thin" person whose body stores fat in such a way as to give the appearance of "cellulite", getting rid of that "cellulite" is very difficult indeed.

My little cousin was born fat, was a fat kid and a fat teen. When she was fifteen she made an effort on her own by swapping all her snacks for fruit. She gained weight. There must be more going on
here than simple in-out. Like biology perhaps.
The laws of thermodynamics aren't subordinate to "biology". I'm certain that your cousin still took in more calories than she burned when she was gaining weight.

However, as several have pointed out genetics has a lot to do with how difficult it can be to modify that simple in-out ratio.


I am also nonplussed whenever people discussing this topic refers to the laws of physics, as if the energy _must_ be either absorbed or used just because it can't be destroyed. It doesn't seem to be a possibility that some people poop out a lot more of the calories ingested than others do. Or that some people lose energy as more heat than others do. Or that there are people who can be on a huge calorie surplus without gaining - but it seems to be impossible that there would be others who function the opposite way.

These are valid notions, but really they just quibble with the definition of how many calories are taken in and how many calories are burned. I think the differences between people has more to do with a sort of set-point body weight (as has been mentioned) that has to do with how easily a person feels satiated than it does with the things you mention (at least on the intake side--I think there is huge variation on how many calories differen people burn even at rest, but that figure is still the total calories burned).

When we reach the intake levels where everyone, including those with really slow metabolism, will definitely lose body fat - then we are at a level that at least I would be uncomfortable demanding that someone else live on. Would I do it myself? Would I accept that I had to live on 400kcal/day for the rest of my life? I'm not sure I would.
I mostly agree here. However, I'd point out that people who've had gastric bypass do indeed go into a pretty extreme calorie debt when they shed prodigious amounts of weight. The goal of course, is to reach a new goal, and then get to a diet and lifestyle that doesn't run a deficit or surplus.

Fat people aren't stupid, and I fail to believe that so many people are "just too weak willed". I am less able to resist the carrot cake and the PBJs than my fat friend. By every account my will is weaker than hers. Yet somehow I go free, just because it doesn't stick. That's not fair, and I wish people would try to be a little more nuanced about it.

I appreciate this and mostly agree with it. I think the responses you've seen in this thread were to specific ideas and questions that promote untrue ideas (like the idea that you can lose weight selectively on certain body parts, or that you can gain weight even if you're burning more calories than you take in, or that eating frequent and smaller meals has been proven to be an effective weight loss technique).

From what I've seen, no one has been dissing fat people as "just too weak willed" or stupid. (As a rule of thumb, if you have to invent quotations that no one actually said, you're probably arguing against a straw man.)

But there is a huge multi-billion dollar weight loss industry that is rife with absurd and untrue claims. I think part of the mission of JREF (the "E" part) is to clear up at least some of the most egregious misconceptions.
 
Spot Reduction

I can say first hand that spot reduction is not possible. In 2006 I put myself on a low calorie diet. I wrote down everything I ate and allowed myself to consume 1200 calories a day. I allowed myself to binge on Fridays. I dropped 25 pounds in about 2-3 months. I kept that off until the spring of 2009 and since sping 2009 I have put back on 12 pounds. Why? Because I stopped recording everything I put in my mouth and obviously ate more than I was expending.

However, when I do lose weight I tend to lose it on my upper body and it becomes quite skeletal - I can count all my ribs and my clavicals stick way out. I look very guant. But the bottom half...while it was smaller overall the cellulite was still there.

This body look is genetic in my family on the maternal side. All of my first generation female cousins and my sister have this same body shape. Interestingly, the female cousins on my paternal side are all scrawny. Truth be told - I prefer my curves to that.

While I doubt I will ever rid myself of the cellulite and I am hopeful that I can at least lessen it somewhat with exercise and at the same time improve overall fitness. I am not interested in going back on a starvation diet plan - that was no fun. All I could think about was food.

I thank all who have posted for their input.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps--and I've agreed with the one sgtbaker offered as being plausible and suggested one of my own.

Or perhaps smaller, more frequent portions isn't a better eating strategy for weight loss, and no reason is necessary.

As I've said, I think we should establish whether it's so first before we worry about why it's so.

So what do you think about the link that Modified provided?:

http://www.physorg.com/news175785901.html
 
....

However, when I do lose weight I tend to lose it on my upper body and it becomes quite skeletal - I can count all my ribs and my clavicals stick way out. I look very guant. But the bottom half...while it was smaller overall the cellulite was still there.....
Now I'm going to break my own rule and offer a suggestion purely from logic (and what we know about exercise and muscle mass) and not from weight loss research.

I suggest you concentrate your exercise on your upper torso. Building up muscle mass would solve the 'gaunt' look you are describing.

In the end, however, we are subject to the genetics which determine many features of our physical selves.
 
I am always amazed, in discussions like these, that people feel the need to point out there are no fat people in famines. Are we seriously suggesting that a permanent state of famine is a desirable thing?
The reason things like that are pointed out is to establish that when people are forced to modify their behavior and have no avenue for cheating, they don't get fat. In developed nations, most people can easily afford excess calories (maybe not the healthiest, but still). Likewise, they can afford to use other fuel sources (electricity, gasoline) to do work that otherwise their bodies would have to do.

Energy consumption and energy expenditure are for the most part choices. It's important that this remain at the center of an discussion about weight control.

I know people who have to keep themselves on an intake lower than the UN definition of starvation just in order not to gain.

For this to be true, it would have to mean that the vast majority of the population is horribly inefficient at extracting energy from food and/or uses energy very wastefully. On top of that these people would be in a constant struggle to maintain nutrition, which would mean lots of supplements at the very least.

I posted a study in another thread, but the gist of it was that a scientist devised a method for getting reliable estimates of food intake and exercise without his subjects knowing. Turns out they underreported food intake and overreported exercise. When he made them aware that he could verify their answers, the reports began to match the objective data. I've also assisted people in losing (and gaining) weight. Invariably the heavier people ate more than they realized and exercised less. The skinny people were the reverse.

My little cousin was born fat, was a fat kid and a fat teen. When she was fifteen she made an effort on her own by swapping all her snacks for fruit. She gained weight. There must be more going on here than simple in-out. Like biology perhaps.
The laws of physics don't bend for biology.

Why do you think eating fruit instead of a "snack" should make her lose weight? Fruit has calories. Now, had she substituted a brisk walk around the block for each snack, what do you think would have happened?

I am also nonplussed whenever people discussing this topic refers to the laws of physics, as if the energy _must_ be either absorbed or used just because it can't be destroyed. It doesn't seem to be a possibility that some people poop out a lot more of the calories ingested than others do. Or that some people lose energy as more heat than others do. Or that there are people who can be on a huge calorie surplus without gaining - but it seems to be impossible that there would be others who function the opposite way.
Sure, there are going to be differences from person to person. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. In fact, I and others have talked about ways to alter your metabolism. But at the end of the day each person needs to tailor their energy intake and output to their own body.

When we reach the intake levels where everyone, including those with really slow metabolism, will definitely lose body fat - then we are at a level that at least I would be uncomfortable demanding that someone else live on. Would I do it myself? Would I accept that I had to live on 400kcal/day for the rest of my life? I'm not sure I would.
This "really slow metabolism" stuff is pretty much a myth as best as I can tell. Who are these people living on 400 calories per day to avoid getting fat? Do they exercise ever?

Fat people aren't stupid, and I fail to believe that so many people are "just too weak willed". I am less able to resist the carrot cake and the PBJs than my fat friend. By every account my will is weaker than hers. Yet somehow I go free, just because it doesn't stick. That's not fair, and I wish people would try to be a little more nuanced about it.
So, are you arguing that everything about the two of you is equal except for the occasional slice of carrot cake? Really? You're the same size with the same muscle mass? You exercise the same amount every day? You walk the same amount? You consume exactly the same number of calories?

I already know the answer to that is no, because your friend is fat and you say that it doesn't stick to you. That means that for an extended period of her life, your friend consumed excess calories and stored it as fat. These days you may consume similar amounts of food and exercise similar amounts. Or maybe you eat a little bit more and because you're in better shape, you burn off the excess calories. Basically, what you're saying is that these days you both maintain your weight! What you're missing is that your friend has to run a deficit for a long period of time to undo the weight gain.

As a parallell to this mindset: I suffered for several years from really bad acne. I went through all the otc and then all the prescription treatments.
We don't need an analogy to understand body composition. If we did, acne would not be a good one.

I don't think we do any overweight or obese people any favours if we try to pretend like it's easy, or that the requirements that are enough for other people will necessarily be enough for them.
Who said it was easy? Nobody in this thread, that's for sure. Simple does not mean easy. It's simple to pull a car with a rope tied around your waist, but it ain't easy. And we've all said it varies by individual.

I'll tell you what doesn't help overweight or obese people: Moving the focus away from individual choices. The difficulty in making those choices will vary by person, but that's no reason to pretend they are no longer choices.

And I for one am not ready to request people to live a lifestyle I myself am not comfortable with. If I want them to do an hour of exercise every day, then I should first be ready to do that. In their shoes.
Who's "requesting" people to live certain lifestyles? If you want to lose weight, you need to do what you personally need to do. If you don't, you'll suffer health problems and a lot of people will find you physically unattractive. Some people will judge your moral character for choosing more food and less exercise than your body requires, especially in light of the negative consequences already described. That's just life. It's not a "request" that people behave a certain way.

From my perspective people ask for help but don't like the answers. Even in this thread the OP was holding out for a "magic pill" or something.
 
From my perspective people ask for help but don't like the answers. Even in this thread the OP was holding out for a "magic pill" or something.

I never asked for a "magic pill" in my OP. I asked for suggestions as I had googled about cellulte fat and found many different opinions ranging from diets to rub on lotions. The "magic pill" came up through the course of this thread and not by me. I am under no illusions that a pill exists at this time nor am I holding out for one.
 
I can say first hand that spot reduction is not possible. In 2006 I put myself on a low calorie diet. I wrote down everything I ate and allowed myself to consume 1200 calories a day. I allowed myself to binge on Fridays. I dropped 25 pounds in about 2-3 months. I kept that off until the spring of 2009 and since sping 2009 I have put back on 12 pounds. Why? Because I stopped recording everything I put in my mouth and obviously ate more than I was expending.

However, when I do lose weight I tend to lose it on my upper body and it becomes quite skeletal - I can count all my ribs and my clavicals stick way out. I look very guant. But the bottom half...while it was smaller overall the cellulite was still there.

This body look is genetic in my family on the maternal side. All of my first generation female cousins and my sister have this same body shape. Interestingly, the female cousins on my paternal side are all scrawny. Truth be told - I prefer my curves to that.

While I doubt I will ever rid myself of the cellulite and I am hopeful that I can at least lessen it somewhat with exercise and at the same time improve overall fitness. I am not interested in going back on a starvation diet plan - that was no fun. All I could think about was food.

I thank all who have posted for their input.

Losing 25 pounds in 8 to 12 weeks is too fast in my opinion. You're better off losing weight at about half that rate or less. I'm assuming you didn't take body fat measurements. That's really the key. If you lose too much muscle, which happens with rapid weight loss, then your metabolism will be slower than it should be when you've reached your goal. You should monitor your weight loss in terms of body fat lost. Do you know what your body fat percentage is right now?

Skeptic Ginger's advice about working out the upper body is probably not going to help much if at all. It's very hard to put on muscle (especially for women), and it's doubtful you'll put on enough to change your upper body appearance that much if at all. Of course, it can't hurt working out the upper body, but if you're pressed for time, work out the largest muscle groups. If you have time for one exercise with weights, do squats with free weights. By far it's the biggest bang for the buck.

You also need to be realistic about your body. The appearance of the fat on your body as cellulite may be difficult to affect. Reducing fat will help, but you may be stuck with it. That's how women look without the aid of creative lighting, photo retouching, and serious devotion to appearance (along with healthy dose of good genetics).
 
Now I'm going to break my own rule and offer a suggestion purely from logic (and what we know about exercise and muscle mass) and not from weight loss research.

I suggest you concentrate your exercise on your upper torso. Building up muscle mass would solve the 'gaunt' look you are describing.

In the end, however, we are subject to the genetics which determine many features of our physical selves.

You would think wouldn't you. I will use my sister as an example (we are very similar in body shape). She spends her summers throwing around 40 pound bales of straw (for the horses). She has a very taunt upper torso - and like me when I am somewhat lighter, her bones are quite prominent. Her muscle definition is very good - yet, she struggles with the same issues as me in regards to her bottom half. She exercises far more than me and probably 15 pounds lighter (and 5 years older).

This doesn't mean I'm going to go "WTF" and give up though.
 
I never asked for a "magic pill" in my OP. I asked for suggestions as I had googled about cellulte fat and found many different opinions ranging from diets to rub on lotions. The "magic pill" came up through the course of this thread and not by me. I am under no illusions that a pill exists at this time nor am I holding out for one.

I didn't say you asked for it in your OP but that you, the Original Poster, did when you wrote, "In the meantime - if anyone has more suggestions/advice...or happens upon a "magic" pill please let me know."

That you ask for further advice and, even jokingly, refer to a magic pill is evidence that people don't like the answers:
Weight control is a matter of matching energy intake and output. Weight gain is always a matter of energy intake exceeding energy output. Weight loss is always a matter of energy output exceeding energy intake. Fat is lost on a last in, first out basis. Individuals will vary marginally in the details, but these laws will not be violated.

Any further requests for advice after being told the above should center around, "What strategies can I adopt to succeed in changing my behavior?"
 
So what do you think about the link that Modified provided?:

http://www.physorg.com/news175785901.html

I think it doesn't address the question of whether more frequent, smaller meals is effective in weight loss. It focused on quantity of protein and building muscle mass.

My own take on that issue is that the need for protein in adults is often exaggerated. (In the interests of full disclosure: I'm a vegetarian, and people frequently claim you can't get enough protein without eating meat or taking some kind of protein concentrate. But they're wrong. I'm very fit and enjoy great health.)
 
I think it doesn't address the question of whether more frequent, smaller meals is effective in weight loss. It focused on quantity of protein and building muscle mass.

My own take on that issue is that the need for protein in adults is often exaggerated. (In the interests of full disclosure: I'm a vegetarian, and people frequently claim you can't get enough protein without eating meat or taking some kind of protein concentrate. But they're wrong. I'm very fit and enjoy great health.)

I'd say that the article in question exemplifies why so much misinformation is out there. Part of this study seemed to involve reducing muscle loss in the elderly as well as just looking at the effect of protein intake on normal body functions. However, the lead for the article talks about athletes putting on muscle mass. How the body reacts to strength training by athletes is very different than your average Joe (no offense, Joe) going about his daily routine. Athletes can draw nothing reliable from this information.

And without seeing the study, it's hard to say how accurate their recommendations are about when to eat the protein. One could make the argument that the body does most of its "repair work" while you're sleeping. Makes sense - why try to build muscle while it's in use? So, do you really need the extra protein when you wake up or do you need it before you rest? I'm not saying I have the evidence either way, but the recommendations didn't seem to be based on the data provided.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom