Fat Loss Spot Reduction & The Scientific Fitness Community Downfall
This blog is a continuation from an original video posted on YouTube above. Please watch that video first if you haven’t already.
Why I am writing this article
This article serves two purposes. To call upon the “scientific fitness community” to ACTUALLY be scientific, as well as to offer insight on a useful fat loss tactic known as spot reduction. For years I have talked about the science of fat spot reduction and how real it is. I have helped numerous clients achieve spot reduction. Yet every time I make a video or article covering the topic I am met with comments claiming the science is somehow “bad” and yet the commenters who claim to be scientific provide no data to back-up their claim. Most of these commenters don’t even have access to full papers of peer reviewed scientific data and yet somehow are certain they are scientific because they watch “science based fitness videos” videos on YouTube. In this article I will make my argument for spot reduction (something that has CLEAR scientific backing) while also calling on the science fitness community to… well… actually be scientific and logical.
The Rise of Science in Fitness Culture
I have been coaching elite powerlifting & bodybuilding for 11 years and I have competed at a very high level myself. I have worked with world record holding powerlifters as well as everyday people who will never step foot onto a powerlifting platform in their life. I have helped bikini competitors qualify for nationals as well as helped single moms lose weight post pregnancy. During my time in the fitness community I have seen the culture evolve towards what they claim is a “science based approach”. One only needs to YouTube or google the words “fitness science” and you will curate endless YouTube videos and articles with millions of views/reads.
Yet today I am making a claim stating that while we are collectively more aware of science in the fitness community, we are anything but collectively scientific. When I originally started my personal fitness journey I knew to find a reputable coach. Luckily at the time in 2011 Eric Helms, Alberto Nunez, Jeff Alberts, and Brad Loomis were running team 3dmj and were locals to my area. 3dmj is a team of science based fitness coaches. They were some of the first pioneers to popularize a science based approach to fitness in the mainstream fitness community which at the time was plagued with pseudoscience and scam supplements. Many of you will be familiar with Jeff Nippard and his amazing videos on YouTube covering the science of body composition and fitness training. Jeff was originally coached and inspired by Eric Helms (PhD & CSCS) to start his own journey into the realm of teaching the fitness community science. Luckily I was smart enough to Hire Alberto as my own coach within months of starting my own fitness journey. This launched me into the deep waters of studying biomechanics, exercise science and nutritional science eventually leading to my own coaching business in 2014.
I was proud to be apart of the science based movement in fitness. Anyone who has followed my YouTube journey remembers my early whiteboard videos and podcast interviews covering the science of training and nutrition. I still am proud to be apart of this movement in a small way, however today I am here to say we have swung too far the other way. What originally started out as a counterculture movement towards science based training and nutrition approaches, has led to the abuse of the words “science based”. To summarize my argument in short; there are too many people who simply watch YouTube videos made by science practitioners and will only lightly graze over scientific abstracts all the while asserting they are “science based”.
Spot Reduction Science
Today I really wanted to make another article and YouTube video on the topic of spot reduction. During brainstorming of this idea I realized as usual because my opinion deviates from the collective herd I would be met with resistance. This is what led me to writing this article. However now we can actually dive into the topic at hand, spot reduction and the science behind. For those unaware spot reduction is when you localize lipolysis and fat oxidation (fat burning) to a specific area of the body. For instance if you would like to lose more fat on your abs than in your legs, spot reduction would be the method to preferentially target the abs for fat loss. For years in the scientific community we thought this to be “bro-science”. Yet in 2017 a very amazing study came out:
“Effect of combined resistance and endurance exercise training on regional fat loss” came out.”
Link to study abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28497942/
This study in short showcased two groups of resistance training participants:
Group A: performed only lower body resistance training with 30 minutes of upper body cardio post workout.
Group B: The other group performed upper body resistance training with 30 minutes of lower body cardio post workout.
They purposefully designed the study to only train half the body (lower or upper) and then do cardio based work for 30 minutes after on the opposite part of the body trained. This allows us to see if weight training has specific fat loss effects local to the lower or upper body even when using cardio that utilizes the opposite end of the body post workout.
The researchers found significant localized fat loss in both groups in their respective body parts trained. The lower body group lose fat in the legs and the upper body group lost fat in the upper body. They measured using a DXA scan which is highly repeatable and reliable. These effects could not be incorrectly skewed by gaining localized muscle mass because of the method used for scanning fat.
Previously before this study, all other studies failed to achieve 3 major needs for spot reduction to take place. Thus we never saw a study produced that showcased spot reduction until this study came along with correct methodology.
- High intensity resistance training at 65% loads or higher.
- Subsequent post workout cardio after directly training the body parts desired to lose weight.
- An overall energy deficit.
Spot reduction can only work when a trainee is in a prolonged total energy deficit while also purposefully doing cardio post workout after training the desired muscles groups hard with weight training. Most studies previously have used bodyweight exercises or failed to meet the other requirements.
The way this works mechanistically is through localized lipolysis. Lipolysis is when you mobilize fat out the adipose stores of the body. Blood flow and hormone delivery cause local lipolysis to take place in whatever muscle group is being trained with resistance training. We have known for years this works locally even before this study. However now what most science practitioners believe is happening is that when you mobilize the fat from these stored adipose tissues, you can oxidize that fat as well under the above circumstances. In normal circumstance the fat just stores again if not immediately oxidized with cardio. If you simply train a body part preferably at the end of a workout and preferentiate your cardio around it with an overall energy deficit taking place you can cause spot reduction. How this looks practically is training a muscle hard multiple times per week you wish to spot reduce and then immediately follow that up with post workout cardio (15-30 mins should do) to oxidize the fat. The training mobilizes the fatty acids and the cardio burns it off. The overall energy deficit ensures the fat stays off. If you fail to mobilize and then oxidize the fat with subsequent cardio you won’t effectively spot reduce.
Anecdotally I have done this for years as a coach. The key is realizing that if you do what most do, cardio 3-5x per week and you are training the body in a balanced fashion, then spot reduction won’t take place. You will lose weight evenly throughout the body. What is needed instead is to preferentiate your cardio around muscle groups you want to spot reduce. For our group coaching members I will provide my EXACT method on how I do this in video format. It works well and is something I am currently doing in my own training.
Now it is not just me who is making this claim. Eric Helms PhD & CSCS is quoted in a MASS (making application of science simple) article saying:
“it is plausible that muscular work does indeed increase the mobilization of local adipose tissue stores to a greater degree than adipose tissues stores in other areas of the body.” He goes on to say, “After entering the bloodstream, if fat is not burned off, there is nothing to prevent it from being stored again. However, if one was to perform low-intensity aerobic exercise (which predominantly uses fat for fuel) after getting these “locally grown” free-fatty acids into the bloodstream, they would likely be used to fuel this activity.”
Menno Henselmans is actually the first practitioner who broke this information to me and wrote a thorough article on it years ago here:
https://mennohenselmans.com/science-spot-reduction-myth/
Eric has a cautious take stating “it is plausible” and Menno has a take similar to mine, that spot reduction is indeed real. Regardless of what our personal takes are from this data, we have all read the body of literature and come to our own conclusions. Some other practitioners may disagree with us. I haven’t actually heard anyone else try to refute these claims that actually works in academia or the field of exercise science. HOWEVER, without fail every single time my comment section of a spot reduction video will be littered with “spot reduction is pseudoscience” type comments. These very people will make a claim without citing a paper or the body of research to back it up. They do this simply because of the fact there are so many outdated or misinformed videos on YouTube claiming to be “scientific” that state spot reduction is false.
Collective Thinking is Both a Tool & Danger
What ends up happening is this: Humans outsource their thinking to authority figures who use the word “science” in a content title and never actually read any data themselves. Once the herd has registered something to be “pseudoscience” from enough authority backing, the narrative will remain even in the face of newly emerging data showcasing a change in the literature.
The vast majority of our supposed science based community is anything bus science based. At best they are simply repeating what scientific practitioners have preached. These days I actually don’t consider myself “science based” and have moved away from that term because while I do read science, I am not involved in academia or the actual production of science. This doesn’t mean I can’t be “science based” it just means I feel a little fraudulent making YouTube titles with that term because in actuality there are much more qualified people to speak on these topics.
Furthermore there is a much more insidious phenomena going on here. Group think. It doesn’t matter if it’s science, politics, religion… there are certain topics that just seem to stir group think up. Humans are productivity machines and we outsource our thinking because we SHOULD. We cannot all be scientific experts in every field and thus we must rely on others and trust the information we are getting. However doing so comes with the responsibility of admitting what you know and what you are simply repeating. This article is actually a call above all else to remain open minded. Right now in society we are divided more than ever with every side believing they have the truth. Most of the time these sides in all areas are actually outsourcing their thinking to others and worse they claim it to be their own experiences. Unless you actually have access to full scientific papers, unless you actually read scientific data or at minimum subscribe to resources like MASS, you really shouldn’t say “science says this or that”. Instead we should make an effort to understand how science is evolving because in actuality science never says anything. We read a body of literature and different practitioners or readers formulate their own subjective interpretation of said data. Instead of claiming “that is pseudoscience” if you haven’t actually read the entire body of spot reduction literature (like I have), you should say “I have heard this is pseudoscience, can you provide some more understanding on why you seem to go against what I have heard collectively?”.
I get it, this article is preachy. Trust me I disliked writing the ending of it. However it is much needed. We have to do better as a community and openly admit what we know, what we have simply heard, and what we don’t know. 13 years of professional coaching, mentorship, and reading scientific data has led me to say spot reduction is real. If all you have is a YouTube history and some brief abstracts you glanced over to back your opinion up, then I invite you to lovingly open your opinion up a little more…
Now for my amazing Prime Strength clients, please log into your account and find the spot reduction video listed there! I give recommendations on how to incorporate said spot reduction into the group programs as well as how to best go about this practically!
For our group members please click here for the private guide: