old fat vs. new fat

[derekisdman]

I was wondering something. As you add fat the new fat is built on top of old fat right? So is it true that as you burn more fat it will continually get more hard to lose since the stubborn layers have been there the longest? I don't know if i'm clear but I don't know how to put it...I thought I heard something like the longer you've had fat the worse the circulation is to that area so it's harder to be burned and used as energy or something.

 

[OceanDude]

Originally posted by derekisdman
I was wondering something. As you add fat the new fat is built on top of old fat right? So is it true that as you burn more fat it will continually get more hard to lose since the stubborn layers have been there the longest? I don't know if i'm clear but I don't know how to put it...I thought I heard something like the longer you've had fat the worse the circulation is to that area so it's harder to be burned and used as energy or something.

From what I have read and speculated I have come to believe that it is harder to lose the older fat than it is the newer fat. I think there are a few different reasons though. I would be interested in hearing others ideas too.

1) The older fat is harder to get to since it is physiologically ???distant??? from the body???s circulation systems and in areas with less capillary density.

2) I have speculated that as fat ages and is covered over by newer fat it becomes isolated and becomes less able to be oxidized due to physical occlusion and possibly even chemical changes (like becoming hardened due to less moisture content etc.)

3)On a weight loss program your body tends to exponentially want to preserve fat as that fat store becomes more fully depleted as a result of evolutionary programming. It will tend to want to reduce energy load by consuming muscle especially when it can not efficiently ???get to??? or convert the remaining older fat (due to reason 2).

 

[Fit Freak]

Not sure but there could be a lot of speculation happening here...any other comments people....

 

[OceanDude]

Yes FF, I am speculating a lot here and drawing upon a lot of my own theories. Core to some of my theories is the observation that the human body is very consistent in wanting to shed anything that requires excess energy or ???effort??? to maintain. This is the old ???use it or lose it??? model of human physiology and it seems to ring true for everything BUT fat loss (i.e. muscle, intellectual levels, flexibility, speed, endurance, cardiovascular efficiency, etc. etc.). So I am heavily speculating that as the body starts into an obese lifestyle the original layers of fat that provided the initial front line defense against hunger become systematically delegated to secondary energy stores as more fat is deposited. As this progresses I am speculating that the body no longer finds it ???worthwhile??? to maintain a dense capillary matrix in these deep adipose regions since they are never used. In other words fat seems to be a ???last in first out queue??? and the old capillaries are considered unnecessary metabolic overhead to maintain so they are left to perish (as a consequence of being less accessible) and new capillaries are routed to the outer fat layers through normal minor lipid demands. In essence the old fat becomes less a energy store and for all practical purposes becomes a new "organ" whose primary purpose is transformed from energy storage to one of thermal insulation and protective tissue. I wish I had the time and money to perform the research on this theory because I am very confident that something like this is going on and that major new fat loss products could be developed to invert or modify the priority of this natural mechanism. Some of the topical fat gel products (if they work) seem to get close to attacking the concept I am embracing here.

So again, I am stating this as PURE speculation in the hope that someone else has some ideas to share on my idea.

 

[Mudge]

Re: Re: old fat vs. new fat

Originally posted by OceanDude
1) The older fat is harder to get to since it is physiologically ???distant??? from the body???s circulation systems and in areas with less capillary density.

Could be that older fat becomes stubborn fat, hmm. Since sustenance requirements are low for fat, probably poorer blood flow in older fat stores than newer, so it sounds good to me.

This is part of why I think its important not to get fat in the first place, because it does seem harder for people to allow it to happen at all (I myself had not watched my belly like I should have for a few years).

 

[kdwa1]

Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth here.When I was akid kid I eat it all and some so always had a gut problem and still need to fight it hard.From no control to total control but still cant seem to shake the handles completely,very low carb and no junk so I think ocean guy is right about the old fat hangin out.Anyone in these threads ever do liposuction? Believe me Ivé thought about it.Some fat just seems permanent unless we are starving vegetarians.Actually,most of our parents pumped us full of full fat cows milk so we started looking like one.It's though to get lean and mean with an utter.

 

[ArduousMeister]

This is a very interesting thread! It reflects some of my own thoughts on stubborn fat such as "love handles". I was a heavy kid and though my teens as well, now that I am in my 20s I live a healthier life style and am more aware of what I am putting into my body. I have know people that have put on fat as an adult and have taken it right back off as quick. But for people like myself which have always had the spare tire for many years it is harder to shed. Now it seams that the only areas of my body that have fat is around my mid-section.

 

[OceanDude]

Mudge, I agree. It is 1000% better to NEVER get more than about 10 lbs overweight. It takes an incredible amount of will power and work to get fit when you get beyond these levels of fat. This is why I speculate that fat loss is intrinsically exponential in form if one were to plot body fat % as a function of time on graph paper. If true this means that a majority of fat would come off rather quickly but at about 1 half life (i.e. the time it took to lose half the fat) the shape of the curve becomes very flat and slowly tapers toward a zero rate at around 3 half lives. I have no data to prove this but it tracks well with what a lot of people have personally experienced. I was sustaining over 2 lbs per week of fat loss for 5 months then it suddenly dropped off to about 1.2 lbs now its down to about 1/3 ??? ½ lbs per week.

Kdwa1, I here you it is tough to get lean and mean with a belly slowing you down. When I first started fat loss I could not even do much abdominal work since it was uncomfortable to bend forward all the way against the fat. Also, it feels unnatural to run fast when the fat belly is bouncing around. As I lost weight it was much easier to run faster and do better exercises and increase intensity.

 

[ZECH]

I think most of it has to do with metabolism and cortisol.

 

[derekisdman]

Ocean dudes theory certaintly makes sense. It's pretty much what I was thinking. I am still pretty young, only 18 and never really put on much fat; so I think i've caught it in time. But the main thing I was thinking was to diet hardcore now and get very lean before bulking so hopefully once I start another cut after bulking the fat will be that much easier to come off and will do so much easier than if I were to bulk with old stubborn fat still around.

 

[Fit Freak]

Ocean...your fat loss is slowing likely because your metabolism is slowing...your body is adjusting to learn to function on fewer calories and therefore what you once ate will no longer yield the same results. Not to mention that as you lose weight your BMR also declines also resulting a lower caloric needs.

Physiologically I am not a supporter of the speculation taking place here.....you may be able to speculate based on anecdotal evidence but none of this evidence is scientifically (experimentally) supported in medical journals.

Sorry to play devil's advocate...I just feel there a lot of theorizing without the science to back it up.

Sorry again...JMHO

 

[Jim1954]

Fit Freak,

Well, he did say he was just speculating, and personally
I would hope his theory holds no merit.
I think the science of diet and weight training is
light years from where it was 20 years ago.

I've never been lean enough to see my abs,
and I trully believe with the right diet, and
work out habits it can be done by anyone, if
they are willing to put forth the effort.

Think I am on the right track, once I get this
diet thing figured out it will happen.

 

[ZECH]

Originally posted by Fit Freak
Ocean...your fat loss is slowing likely because your metabolism is slowing...your body is adjusting to learn to function on fewer calories and therefore what you once ate will no longer yield the same results. Not to mention that as you lose weight your BMR also declines also resulting a lower caloric needs.

Physiologically I am not a supporter of the speculation taking place here.....you may be able to speculate based on anecdotal evidence but none of this evidence is scientifically (experimentally) supported in medical journals.

Sorry to play devil's advocate...I just feel there a lot of theorizing without the science to back it up.

Sorry again...JMHO

I think I said that

 

[OceanDude]

Originally posted by Fit Freak
Ocean...your fat loss is slowing likely because your metabolism is slowing...your body is adjusting to learn to function on fewer calories and therefore what you once ate will no longer yield the same results. Not to mention that as you lose weight your BMR also declines also resulting a lower caloric needs.

Physiologically I am not a supporter of the speculation taking place here.....you may be able to speculate based on anecdotal evidence but none of this evidence is scientifically (experimentally) supported in medical journals.

Sorry to play devil's advocate...I just feel there a lot of theorizing without the science to back it up.

Sorry again...JMHO

FF, I am still doing the 6-7 meals per day thing and I have much more lean mass now than I had before I started - almost 20 lbs more. What science would lead me to expect my BMR set point to swing downward with more mass to support?

I appreciate the honest critique on my ideas - frankly I am hoping I am wrong too. Could I ask if you know of any scientific evidence that does NOT support what I am speculating. The big problem with the science is there has to be a motivation to do the research and few will pay to do it unless they are payed by some sponsor to check out theories. I am postulating a theory without doing an exhaustive cross check on the scientific papers and would welcome any insight that were to say anything close to refuting my thoery. For example a research paper that positively indicted that deep and older adipose tissue is equally able to be utilized as is newer fat. There must be a reason why the body used a last in first out queueing mechanism. If it is not some kind of locality principal or mobility principal it has to be due to something like being chemically less active or less available. I am suspecting circulation and chemical/enzyme properties.

Thanks for you inputs.

 

[ProtoFuze]

I am really not sure if this pertains to the who scenario, but OD's theory interests me in my own sense and I wanted to just get some ideas, even if the theory is incorrect. I'm pretty young right now, ust coming up on 17 and always was a very very scrawny kid, could see all the bones, lol, and short too, and ate like a horse, so a really crazy metabolic rate and always active as well. Because of side effects to certain medicines I put on damn near 100 pounds in 4 years (Started when I was 11 or so, and all of it was fat). Now with alot of exercise and weight training, and getting better eating habits, I've lost about 60 or 70 pounds of that fat and put on about 50 lbs of LMM, yet I still have difficulty getting rid of the fat aorund my midsection and sides, and lower chest, do you think that even with a still very high metabolic rate, if this whole theory does have any merit, that stubborn fat is moved so far back physically that it does become increasingly hard to deplete, even if at all?

 

[OceanDude]

Proto, I don???t know how to answer your question. I was very skinny at your age ??? 6??? 135 lbs with absolutely no fat to speak of. I had a super high strength to weight ratio and raging metabolism. But of course I was hyper active at that age. I loved school so much I use to run there everyday 3 miles and then back to play ball with by buddies after it was over. Not to mention doing all the P.E. and intramural stuff during school. I personally only started gaining fat when I started drinking coffee heavily later in life and eating junk food and having poor nutrition and super heavy job stress (life and death kind of job). From there it spiraled out of control and I became pre-diabetic and somewhat insulin insensitive. As it stands now I have the same problem as you ??? just some small amount of fat around the mid section, sides and back. It???s not real bad but it spoils an otherwise good physique since I can???t quite get the 6-pack out. Like you, in my case the lower chest was stubborn too ??? but I see that it is now mostly all hard and I only have a little fluid in the nipple area. In my case this is probably estrogen related (due to age) and correctible with supplements.

I am betting you developed at least a partial insulin resistance too from the prior obese condition. Many fitness sources say that if you are otherwise skinny and only have fat at the sides/mid-section this is a pretty good indicator of it. Weight training will help improve sensitivity but you must eat the slow carbs for the majority of your meals. The good thing in your case is you are so young and will be able to do more intense workouts and recover faster. In essence you can also largely outgrow a lot of this remaining fat with more muscle.

 

[ProtoFuze]

Thyanks for the tips, you sure know alot! Yeah, I was always big into intramurals and all that, but medicines can be a pain, now that I'm back into it though I'm hoping to burn off those extra midsection parts, and sounds like you are doing good too, and I'd bet you'll get them off soon enough. Thanks for answering my question as well! Have agood one. By the way, I've heard of a few slow carbs from Jodi, but what are they? Types of food and all.

 

[ZECH]

OD, I agree with FF. I figure your metabolism has slowed also. It is a problem that plagues many. Jodi has spoken of a metabolism reset. If I'm correct, it is where you adjust calories one way or the other to get the metabolism guessing again. You can't stay at any one point too long without hitting a plateau.

 

[OceanDude]

Originally posted by dg806
OD, I agree with FF. I figure your metabolism has slowed also. It is a problem that plagues many. Jodi has spoken of a metabolism reset. If I'm correct, it is where you adjust calories one way or the other to get the metabolism guessing again. You can't stay at any one point too long without hitting a plateau.

Proto - thanks for the kindly words. Examples of complex slow carbs are unrefined foods like oatmeal, whole wheat stone ground bread, veggies etc.

dg, are you suggesting I try a "zig zag" diet to trick my metabolism into higher gear or something like that?

 

[kdwa1]

Slow carbs,fast carbs,no carbs,What a dilemma.And of course it depends on age and metabolism etc.5 years ago I ate tons of white rice,trained hard and swam alot with no stomach.Now I train hard and still swim but if I eat white rice and other refined carbs I feel like a blowfish.What really upsets me about fat is that it never seems to go to other places than gut.So I'm eating 50 g's of carbs or less per day and do a moderate load every three or four days with oatmeal,sweet potatoe,banana,brown rice.It's a real balancing act.I know a thin guy at the club who eats over 500 gm's of carb daily and doesn't gain a pound.What do you guys think about a fairly heavy carbo load every week on a low carb diet,like say a few hundred g's?Will it go strait to the stomach or burn off during the week.Ivé always wanted to get to the ideal waist and do some solid loads but tough without fat gains.Possible?

 

[OceanDude]

I pesonally do not believe in carb loading to that severe of a degree - but then again I am not an expert. In my opinion its only good to do amoderate carb load AFTER a workout with no more than about 500 calories at a time. Any mroe than that then you risk putting it into fat. Basically carb loading is a "zig zag" kind of diet which sounds like a very legitimate approach to me - as long as you don't over do the calories in any one carb up meal.

 

[ZECH]

Originally posted by OceanDude
dg, are you suggesting I try a "zig zag" diet to trick my metabolism into higher gear or something like that?

Yeah, I think that might be a good idea. Check with Jodi. She can give you more info on this than I can! I am talking calories, not carbs.