Facts and Fallacies of Fitness – Fat Loss – The Myth of Spot Reduction
The issue of exercise of one body region to promote fat reduction locally in that area would appear to have been settled by research: local reduction of excess fat is not possible. Studies have examined the effects of electrical stimulation or low resistance, relatively high repetition exercise on certain body parts such as the trunk and the upper thighs and found that they exert an insignificant effect on fat deposits. But is this the end of the saga?
In accepting the results of research one always has to closely examine the experimental procedure, the subjects, the controls, the existence or absence of double-blind studies, the goals and prejudices of the specific researchers, the size and duration of the study, the statistical techniques and analysis of the results, and comparison with studies in the same or related fields. The realm of fitness and strength training is especially rife with limited and highly specific studies that are applied far too generally by workers or instructors who see nothing wrong in extrapolating findings to methods with very tenuous links to the original research.
Thus, over a 10 week period, ‘untrained’ subjects using a resistance training routine with free weights may be compared with another group of ‘untrained’ subjects following another routine with variable resistance machines. Changes in strength and muscle endurance may then be measured on an isokinetic dynamometer to conclude that machine training on machine X produces superior gains in endurance to free weight training, but no significant change in strength. This information is presented at some conference or published in a journal, to be intercepted by some instructor who uses it to justify that his machine training program in a circuit gym is superior to any free weight training.
Little does he realise that the experimental findings, even if correct, cannot be extended across such a broad base. Most likely he does not appreciate that the experiment is faulty in some respects. For example, training is so specific that isokinetic testing cannot be used to assess functional changes in strength and endurance; training programs of a few weeks’ duration more likely produce neuromuscular than hypertrophic changes; closed chain weights exercise in several planes cannot accurately be compared with open chain machine exercise in one plane; there is not one form of strength or muscle endurance; most isokinetic devices do not measure changes in eccentric or explosive strength.
If so much doubt may be cast on laboratory experiments, does this mean that they should be ignored? Certainly not, because meticulously designed experiments can be of enormous benefit to the furtherance of knowledge. It is just vital that one carefully examines all research findings before religiously quoting or applying them, especially in the light of the most extensive practical experience in the same fields.
If we wish to assess the validity of research into local spot reduction, we must simultaneously examine the experience of the most competent practitioners. In body shaping and conditioning, we are fortunate that bodybuilding and weightlifting have provided an enormous base of experiential findings with which to evaluate research. For example, all bodybuilding competitors carry out a concentrated phase of training for definition or ‘cuts’ for several weeks before contests. Not only do they measure their food intake very carefully, but they concentrate on certain body regions to ‘get ripped’ in those deficient areas which appear to carry a little too much fat. What do they do? They do set upon set of high repetition medium resistance training which targets the offending areas. One can find their ‘ripping’ or ‘cutting’ programs in every bodybuilding magazine or book and physiques of their authors, usually prominent bodybuilders, certainly show that their programmes do work.
In other words, bodybuilders rely on training regimes both to enhance muscle mass and to increase definition (i.e. to spot reduce!), but research indicates otherwise. Is this possible? Isn’t the difference in results between bodybuilders and ordinary gym clients who try spot reduction routines due to the restricted dieting of the former. Not necessarily, because the average client may be on an even more meagre diet. The difference may lie in the fact that bodybuilders do not simply execute unweighted sit-ups for defining the abdominals, but do them with much more concentrated effort to failure, plus other resisted routines using supersetting, forced reps, negatives and other techniques to ensure that sufficient metabolic demands are placed on the working muscles. On top of that, the bodybuilders use progressively planned programmes with each phase aimed to produce a different result, such as hypertrophy, definition and strength.
It would be interesting to undertake further research using the very demanding definition routines of serious bodybuilders to ascertain if spot reduction really works to some extent or not. The experiential observation remains that bodybuilders may have developed routines that may cause some local decrease in bodyfat, though this surely would be far less than is implied by those marketing all of those futile “fast fix” abdominal exercising devices.
For more Facts and Fallacies of Fitness get the book from here
Facts and Fallacies of Fitness
www.twitter.com/supertraining_1
