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

[djpar]

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.

Right, but it addresses your question on nutrient absorption efficiency and that excess protein is wasted and may even be retained as glucose or fat.

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.)

The point that I was making, and that I thought you agreed with, was that lean muscle mass is good. Developing it should be part of a healthy lifestyle which includes diet and exercise. And, that diet and exercise are important to weight loss (fitness) -- intake vs. output of energy.

If you agree with this, and you accept that protein uptake is limited to 30g a sitting, it follows that eating 30g 5 times a day is better than 75g 2 times a day.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

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).

Uncle Jimmy (I don't know why but I think your name as that) you appear to me a difficult man to please. Four years after losing that 25 pounds I put back on 12 pounds. I'm not looking for a magic pill, even though I might joke about it. I asked this group for suggestions - mainly because many are up on reading all the scientific studies, etc. on weight loss and what works and doesn't work.

What would you suggest I do to modify my behaviour?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Uncle Jimmy (I don't know why but I think your name as that) you appear to me a difficult man to please. Four years after losing that 25 pounds I put back on 12 pounds. I'm not looking for a magic pill, even though I might joke about it. I asked this group for suggestions - mainly because many are up on reading all the scientific studies, etc. on weight loss and what works and doesn't work.

What would you suggest I do to modify my behaviour?

Uncle Jimmy is correct - UncaYimmy is a child's mispronunciation.

I have to run out for a bit, but I wanted to respond quickly to say that I don't mean any offense towards you nor am I intentionally directing anything at you personally. I'm trying to assist you as best I can while at the same time addressing larger cultural issues. I'll elaborate more in a bit, but I just wanted to nip this in the bud.

 

[djpar]

From the abstract....

"Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, but it addresses your question on nutrient absorption efficiency and that excess protein is wasted and may even be retained as glucose or fat.

No it doesn't. Not even close.

ETA: And no, proteins are not magically changed into carbohydrates or fat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the abstract....

"Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly."

Yes. And this says nothing at all about the question of eating less frequent larger portions vs. more frequent smaller portions and nutrient absorption. Nothing at all.

You do recognize that "muscle protein synthesis" is not at all the same concept as nutrient absorption?

ETA: Maybe you're trying to argue that whatever protein ingested isn't used in muscle synthesis must not have been absorbed. That assumption is wrong. Proteins are used for any number of other purposes in the body--including maintenance of existing muscle, building other structures including vascular tissue, making enzymes that have a great many functions in the body (including, interestingly, the enzymes that break down various types of carbohydrates in the GI so they can be absorbed).

Even if you found evidence that ingesting too much protein all at once results in more protein being excreted in the urine (which I think has been proven--also with many vitamins), I would point out that everything in the urine has already been absorbed. The kidneys filter the blood, not the contents of the GI. I would agree that ingesting massive protein supplements, as with taking mega vitamin supplements, is mostly a waste of money, but those nutrients are indeed absorbed.

 

[djpar]

No it doesn't. Not even close.

ETA: And no, proteins are not magically changed into carbohydrates or fat.

What do you think he means here:

"So we're not taking enough protein on board for efficient muscle-building during the day, and at night we're taking in more than we can use. Most of the excess is oxidized and could end up as glucose or fat."

"You don't have to eat massive amounts of protein to maximize muscle synthesis, you just have to be a little more clever with how you apportion it,"

 

[djpar]

Yes. And this says nothing at all about the question of eating less frequent larger portions vs. more frequent smaller portions and nutrient absorption. Nothing at all.

You do recognize that "muscle protein synthesis" is not at all the same concept as nutrient absorption?

Here's what I said: "The reason you eat smaller meals more often is so the body can take in the most amount of nutrients possible that can be used."

It may not have been worded as you would like, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this research disagrees.

Help me out.

 

[djpar]

Maybe you're trying to argue that whatever protein ingested isn't used in muscle synthesis must not have been absorbed. That assumption is wrong. Proteins are used for any number of other purposes in the body--including maintenance of existing muscle, building other structures including vascular tissue, making enzymes that have a great many functions in the body (including, interestingly, the enzymes that break down various types of carbohydrates in the GI so they can be absorbed).

Even if you found evidence that ingesting too much protein all at once results in more protein being excreted in the urine (which I think has been proven--also with many vitamins), I would point out that everything in the urine has already been absorbed. The kidneys filter the blood, not the contents of the GI. I would agree that ingesting massive protein supplements, as with taking mega vitamin supplements, is mostly a waste of money, but those nutrients are indeed absorbed.

Yep. I stated it wrong, but I think you know what I meant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What do you think he means here:

"So we're not taking enough protein on board for efficient muscle-building during the day, and at night we're taking in more than we can use. Most of the excess is oxidized and could end up as glucose or fat."

"You don't have to eat massive amounts of protein to maximize muscle synthesis, you just have to be a little more clever with how you apportion it,"

Again, these statements say nothing about protein--or any other nutrient-- not being absorbed depending on how much you eat at once.

Your earlier statement suggested that unabsorbed protein changed into glucose or fat. That doesn't happen.

Again, the claim I've challenged is that eating smaller amounts more frequently leads to more efficient absorption of nutrients. (Or conversely that eating larger less frequent meals leads to less efficient absorption of nutrients.)

I'm open to the possibility that there is some weight-loss benefit to eating smaller and more frequent meals, and I've even mentioned a few plausible reasons for it (though I reject the one based on the efficiency of absorption).

However, I repeat that we should first demonstrate that eating smaller and more frequent meals actually has a weight loss benefit before we worry much about why it has that benefit. I've yet to see that benefit established.

 

[Dragoonster]

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?

I think I live on about 700 calories a day and that maintains my weight. I'm extremely sedentary though. Kind of curious now, I'll try to record daily calories and see if that's a realistic estimate. Eating about two frozen dinners for 560 total per day leads to a few pounds weight loss over a few weeks (that was a recent experience) so it might be close. My BMI is 25.0, so barely "overweight", at 5'7" 159.

 

[UKBoy1977]

Here's an article that answers your questions about meal frequency:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/re...uency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

Extract:

Perhaps one of the longest standing dogmas in the weight loss and bodybuilding world is the absolute necessity of eating frequently for various reasons. Specific to weight loss, how many times have you heard something along the lines of “Eating 6 times per day stokes the metabolic fire.” or “You must eat 6 times per day to lose fat effectively.” or “Skipping even one meal per day will slow your metabolic rate and you’ll hoard fat.” Probably a lot

Well, guess what. The idea is primarily based on awful observational studies and direct research (where meal frequency is varied within the context of an identical number of calories under controlled conditions) says that it’s all basically nonsense. The basic premise came, essentially out of a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food (TEF) also called dietary induced thermogenesis (DIT) which are the calories burned in processing of the food you eat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks, UKBoy.

I also suspect some of the conversation I'm having with djpar hinges on a lack of understanding of the term "absorption".

 

[djpar]

Again, these statements say nothing about protein--or any other nutrient-- not being absorbed depending on how much you eat at once.

Your earlier statement suggested that unabsorbed protein changed into glucose or fat. That doesn't happen.[/quote]

It was from the article. It was their suggestion, yes.

Again, the claim I've challenged is that eating smaller amounts more frequently leads to more efficient absorption of nutrients. (Or conversely that eating larger less frequent meals leads to less efficient absorption of nutrients.)

I'm open to the possibility that there is some weight-loss benefit to eating smaller and more frequent meals, and I've even mentioned a few plausible reasons for it (though I reject the one based on the efficiency of absorption).

However, I repeat that we should first demonstrate that eating smaller and more frequent meals actually has a weight loss benefit before we worry much about why it has that benefit. I've yet to see that benefit established.

My point was meant to be regarding the creation of lean muscle mass.

I think you know what I was driving at, even if I did not state it 100% correctly.

 

[djpar]

Thanks, UKBoy.

I also suspect some of the conversation I'm having with djpar hinges on a lack of understanding of the term "absorption".

Yep, I've agreed that I misstated my point.

I'll look at what UKBoy posted.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Uncle Jimmy (I don't know why but I think your name as that) you appear to me a difficult man to please. Four years after losing that 25 pounds I put back on 12 pounds. I'm not looking for a magic pill, even though I might joke about it. I asked this group for suggestions - mainly because many are up on reading all the scientific studies, etc. on weight loss and what works and doesn't work.

What would you suggest I do to modify my behaviour?

I want to clear up a few things. First, I stand behind my contention that losing 25 pounds in 8 to 12 weeks is too fast. That you were able to keep half of it off for a few years is a good thing. In the future, though, I would still recommend losing the weight about half as fast.

Second, just looking at pounds lost is not a good approach. The best thing to look at is body fat percentage because ultimately that's really what counts for health. Any weight loss program that doesn't look at body fat is not a very good program unless, of course, you're dealing with the morbidly obese where those measurements become highly impractical.

So, when you talk about "pleasing me" in regards to your weight loss, let me tell you what runs through my mind (nothing personal). If you say you lost 25 pounds, I want to know what your body fat was before and after. I don't know your age, but I'm going to say that 20% to 30% body fat is where you should be. So, if you weigh 150 pounds you should have about 30 to 45 pounds of body fat. Let's say you were at 30% body fat. If you lost 25 pounds of fat and only fat (unlikely it was only fat given that speedy loss), then I would say you lost too much weight. If you were at 40% body fat, then losing 25 pounds would put in you into a healthy range.

As you can see, it's just not possible with so little information to judge your accomplishment from a health standpoint. You could have taken yourself from healthy to unhealthy, unhealthy to healthy, very unhealthy to unhealthy or morbidly unhealthy to morbidly unhealthy (25 pounds might be a drop in the bucket).

If you're interested in my opinions about modifying your behavior, I'd say the first thing to do is to figure out your body fat percentage. Do what it takes to keep it in the healthy range, preferably through increased exercise since more than anything else that's what we humans tend to lack. Track this number and you can pretty much ignore your absolute weight.

When it comes to your concerns about your physical appearance, I suggest that you keep your health a priority. Beyond that, understand that body fat distribution is a genetic issue. If you have a healthy amount of body fat, it may end up being distributed in places you don't like. Ideally, most women would prefer it in their boobs and ass, but not everyone is born that way. It's going to go where your body's genes tell it to go, and short of entering into unhealthy low levels of body fat, you may not be get the figure you want. Accept that. Also accept that cellulite is really just the appearance of fat, and like distribution, there doesn't seem to be anything you can do about that either.

I don't mean to say that women are cars, but when evaluating how good the paint job looks on a car (dings, scratches, luster), it's a good idea to take one step away per year the paint/car has been around. For women up until around age 16, contrary to what Sol Invictus and other physics geeks might argue, gravity and photons have no effect on the tissue in the breasts and buttocks. It's not so much that breasts begin to "sag" it's really that as time goes on, more and more particles transform and become susceptible to gravity. It's an overlooked field in physics.

My point is that as you get older, it's just not a good idea to look at your legs or ass too closely or in too harsh of a light. Take a few steps back when you look in the mirror. Tight bodies with smooth skin belong to the young and genetically gifted. Be realistic about what your genetics and age will allow and keep your health first and foremost.

On a side note, this advice tracks with my stance on weight problems in children and young adults. We should look more closely at them when it comes to body fat because the older you get, the harder all of this stuff is to deal with. Being a "little chubby" at young age and into the teens is a very bad thing. It's like a rocket being a "little off" at launch. It may not seem much at first, but after a while the rocket will be way off target. Likewise, if you're having problems being overweight at a time when the only weight issue should be being too skinny, your future health is in jeopardy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your earlier statement suggested that unabsorbed protein changed into glucose or fat. That doesn't happen.

It was from the article. It was their suggestion, yes.

No it wasn't. The article doesn't say anything about absorption. Absorption is when nutrients pass from the small intestine into the blood stream.

Nor does the article say anything about weight loss.

Those two things are not outcomes that were measured in the study the article described. The measured outcome was muscle synthesis.

My point was meant to be regarding the creation of lean muscle mass.

I think you know what I was driving at, even if I did not state it 100% correctly.

I don't know what you were driving at other than what you said. (As an aside. . . does the body create non-lean muscle mass?)

I disagreed with the assertion that eating larger, less frequent meals causes less efficient absorption (a point you have backed off of). I also pointed out that if it did, for purposes of weight loss (again--didn't this start because Weight Watchers recommends smaller and more frequent meals for the purpose of weight loss?), then the advice should be the other way around.

You then asked me to respond to the article (presumably wrt to either the claim about less efficient absorption or about weight loss), and I pointed out that the study says nothing about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Typical of people to mix posts up. I'm the one who brought up the whole magic pill discussion and I did so because that is what science is on the verge of producing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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).

You are just making this stuff up. Women can't put on muscle mass? Are you serious?

Why should anyone believe anything you've posted here?

 

[Uncayimmy]

You are just making this stuff up. Women can't put on muscle mass? Are you serious?

Why should anyone believe anything you've posted here?

I wrote, "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." Nowhere did I say that women "cannot" put on muscle mass. I didn't even imply it since I explicitly referred to her putting on at least some.

Do you disagree that putting on muscle mass is hard? It takes a lot of effort. It's also virtually impossible to put on only muscle - some new fat is going to come along for the ride. If you're trying to lose fat at the same time you're trying to put on muscle, it's going to be even harder. Finally, the muscles in the areas she asked about (ribs and clavicles) are not that prominent to begin with. It's doubtful she'll gain enough muscle to make any changes in the appearance of those areas.

Of course, I didn't mention that while "upper body" training may reduce how prominent the clavicles are, it's not going to do a thing for the ribs. That's another beast altogether.