How the lose the fat on the side of the waist?

[seiyafan]

After gaining 20 pounds in 3 months of training (mostly muscles in upperbody), I noticed the fat on both side of my waist and upper glute is also getting thicker, but my belly more or less stayed the same, how do you deal with fat in those area?

[Aaron Griffin]

Like any other fat. You can't spot reduce. Just eat less

[Adrien Godet]

The last post is an oversimplification. The consensus is that can't spot reduce by training a specific area.

But fat distribution is clearly linked to some disorders or hormonal imbalances.

There are few knowledgeable people on this topic, and I am not one of them.

Some pointers if you want to research by yourself:

"Testosterone and regional fat distribution."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697064

"Stress-induced cortisol, mood, and fat distribution in men."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10023725

[John Sapinoso]

cut the neolithic carbs

[MH87]

cut the neolithic carbs

^ This.

Like Arnold told Zach Braff, when saying he wanted a body like brad pitt in fight club.

"Eat Carrots".

[itisme]

what are neolithic carbs?

[Julian Aldag]

Mostly Grains.

Cutting out the grains and sugars makes a huge difference on how the body stores fat around the mid section.

Jules

[Joshua Naterman]

I'm going to step in for a second and say this is a half-truth.

It depends on your body, and the grains, and how they are prepared. If you eat freshly cooked wheat berries or sprouted wheat berries (Which you won't, because they are very chewy and not readily available in most places) you'll be fine. The problem is with baked products of all kinds, because they have all been pre-cooked and therefore somewhat pre-digested. The heat breaks starch bonds. So you get all this sugar being released, too much for the moment, and some gets stored as fat. Men, just in general with a few genetic exceptions, add fat in the stomach first and lose it in the stomach/abdominal region last.

Simply switching off of all those pre-cooked carbs and just consuming whole rolled oats, hulled buckwheat, millet, brown rice, quinoa, barley, whatever... the unpolished, fresh whole "grains" (quoted because not all of those are true grains) that you cook will not have the same effect on your fat distribution.

I have found, personally, that buckwheat is by far the best for me. This is probably because it has the lowest GI due to a very, very high amount of fiber found within the buckwheat naturally. I eat 400-500g of carbs per day and I'm quite lean.

You can compensate for this general lack of fiber in foods by sprinkling psyllium husk or whatever your preferred fiber source is, onto your food. It won't change the flavor but will change the rate of energy release. Don't sprinkle too much or you won't get any energy at all. 2-3g per cup of rice seems to be about right.

Also know that added fiber like psyllium husk will almost certainly contain phytic acid in large quantities, and this will prevent magnesium and calcium absorption. Other minerals are unaffected, from what I understand. It's the minerals in the 2nd group on the periodic table, the bivalent minerals, that are bound by phytic acid. In other words, get your calcium and magnesium-rich foods or supplements 1-2 hours before or after you consume true whole grains or fiber supplements. Buckwheat doesn't have this issue, and to my knowledge neither do quinoa or millet or rolled oats.

[Quick Start Test Smith]

How do you eat uncooked buckwheat, Josh? Buckwheat waffles take QUITE a while to eat because they are so chewy. I'm curious if there are faster ways of eating it.

[MH87]

^ Think he cooks it...

Hmm btw 20 pounds in 3 months is probably some fat as well... Which isn't a bad thing if you're trying to put on some weight no matter what.. I'm just saying... If you haven't tried it before - gaining that much weight in this time frame (which I figure since you're asking this question), you'll be surprised once you diet down again and see how much actual muscle you've gained.. 20 pounds isn't THAT much.. But still, a bit.

So you can either 'diet' down, or recomp staying at your current weight, which is totally possible, but takes some time as well.

[Joshua Naterman]

^ Think he cooks it...

Hmm btw 20 pounds in 3 months is probably some fat as well... Which isn't a bad thing if you're trying to put on some weight no matter what.. I'm just saying... If you haven't tried it before - gaining that much weight in this time frame (which I figure since you're asking this question), you'll be surprised once you diet down again and see how much actual muscle you've gained.. 20 pounds isn't THAT much.. But still, a bit.

So you can either 'diet' down, or recomp staying at your current weight, which is totally possible, but takes some time as well.

This is where everyone's head is on backwards.

The end time is the same and often faster to get to a given weight at a given bf%, especially a low one like 7-8%, when you just slowly recompose. All the natural guys know damn well that bulking and cutting doesn't work properly without drugs or lots and lots of "supplements." You end up getting to the same place with much less effort, much less hassle, and much more reliability when you just slowly recompose.

This is the common thread in all successful natural bodybuilding strategies, whether you look at actual bodybuilding or athletes who are simply moving up a weight class and staying dominant, and that isn't going to change.

When you're trying to drop fat, as you get leaner you can drop less and less each month without losing lean mass, so it's totally reasonable to drop from 15% to 12% in 3 months, but you aren't dropping from 12 to 7 in 3 months. That's going to take 6-10 months unless you are on some very interesting chemicals or have unusual genetics. Usually these "genetics" really do come from a bottle, don't believe all the hype. There are virtually no people alive that just naturally drop body fat quickly, they either are lean already as a part of their birthright and perhaps lifestyle or they are somewhat less lean as a result of the same factors. Moving from not lean to lean is not a rapid process for anyone. Everything you see everywhere, for the most part, is bull shit advertising designed to get you to buy a product.

Some work better than others, but I've seen better results in myself with just maintaining energy balance and eating healthy foods than I ever did with the supplement approach.

Same goes for gaining muscle. There are some mutants out there, but for the most part it doesn't pile on ridiculously quickly and the bigger you get, the slower it piles on. For me, I slow down around 225. My body isn't a huge fan of getting bigger than that when I'm really lean. Everyone is different, but in the beginning you get bigger faster. Same when you're younger. As you get older and more experienced with training, you put on muscle slower. There are some supplements that speed this up when used correctly, but again the energy balance thing is the biggest part of that.

For older guys, 7-8g of L-leucine before and after the workout WITH 20-ish grams of protein is the ticket. According to the research this essentially closes the age gap to almost nothing in terms of speed of muscle protein synthesis. Because of the low conversion rate to HMB, it is possible that these two stacked together would make a synergistic combo for a reasonable price.

Creatine works as well. Outside of those, and the research is very conflicted with HMB as are personal experiences, there's nothing legal that works.

Eat, eat at the right time, and work out. That's the key for both adding muscle and losing fat.

[MH87]

Yup, that is good advice. For me I've been at 70-72 kgs since winter, just slowly recomping myself...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a viable option. I know how it works as well.

Still, 20 pounds in 3 months = a lot of fat gain, so he might as well diet off some of that extra weight. By diet, I mean fixing the diet and eating right.