Talk:Spot reduction

New developments

2009-10-15: I'm adding some info about a study performed in Copenhagen which suggests that spot reduction may actually be possible.

2010-04-16: I'm going to remove that study unless you can provide at least one other source to back it up. I can cite dozens of studies that say the opposite, and it's really just unfair to tell readers that spot reduction is possible because one source claims it is. Individual studies are prone to error unless critically analyzed by the scientific community. Greggor88 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than censoring (e.g., deleting) the Copenhagen article, I'd like to hear whether or not the researchers are reliable. That is, is the scientific journal peer-reviewed, is there fact-checking, does it have a reputation for accuracy. If so, this tangential support for spot reduction should stay in. Greggor88, if you have studies that say the Copenhagen study is flawed, then please provide. Otherwise, if the source meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources criteria, then it should stay in.--S. Rich 10:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

2010-05-25: Srich32977 - According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Summarize_scientific_consensus, we have a duty to accurately represent the scientific consensus. Individual studies can be flawed.
I quote: "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud..."
"Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus... Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported..."

There was a study somewhere (that I can't find) regarding tennis players. The short summary is that while the theory of spot reduction would predict that there would be less adipose tissue along the dominant arm in an active tennis player, there is no difference in fat tissue prevalence between the dominant and sedentary arms while, in contrast, there is a significant difference in muscle tissue size in the dominant arm.
According to another 2007 study, the conclusion given by the Copenhagen study is dubious at best. http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=07000&article=00020&type=abstract I don't have to heart to go hunting for more articles to fight off the single, lonely, unimpressive source that claims spot reduction is a reality. The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that spot reduction is a myth. Greggor88 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Greggor88, please cite your source that claims that "The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that spot reduction is a myth." This article only mentions fitness experts. There's no mention of the scientific community. Traal (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Greggor88, the 2007 study does not claim that spot reduction is a reality. See the first paragraph of the article's Discussion section, which instead claims that "Specific exercises can induce spot lipolysis" but does not claim any spot reduction: "it cannot be foreseen if specific exercises can induce spot reduction, since triacylglycerol (TG) stores could be fully replenished or even supercompensated between exercise sessions." The last paragraph of this page is currently (2016-09-15) an improper synthesis of the 2007 publication, by incorrectly labeling the claims about "spot lipolysis" as "spot reduction" while adding conclusions about the triviality of the amounts measured that are not contained in the cited source. Moreover, the differences in lypolysis measured were considerable; for the three Wmax groups the differences were: 102 vs. 55, 86 vs. 50, and 88 vs. -9. While considerable, these differences were only marginally statistically significant but the current wording does not convey this at all. 2605:A601:402:C700:87E:287D:AD8D:7781 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Greggor88,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Regional+body+composition+in+professional+tennis+players

I believe this is the article you were referring to. (I am not absolutely sure this is the right one because, while every fitness webpage talks about it, none have been able to cite it. After several days worth of searches this is the only one that made sense) Unfortunately, there is actually no mention in the final results whether or not there was a difference in fat placement between right and left arms. They do mention a difference in lean mass and a difference in total mass (lean mass+fat mass) between arms that does not exist in the control group.  I like to point out that they only used 9 tennis playing subjects making for a rather small sample size. 

I am interested in the dozens of other studies you could cite however, as I am doing a dissertation on the topic and cannot find any studies that conclude spot reduction is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RowingSportsmedicine (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing "New Developments"

I found a study that criticized the methodology in the 2007 study listed above and reported contrary findings in their own research. To summarize concisely, the 2007 study relied on participants who exercised both legs while the authors of this study claim that the correct methodology would be to perform unilateral exercises while leaving the other body part untrained. Unfortunately, in the 2007 study, the researchers had their subjects perform 25% intensity for 30 minutes on one leg, then 55% intensity for 120 minutes on the other leg, then 85% intensity for 30 minutes on the first leg. This skewed the results. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the 2007 study in question admits in its own text that the amount of additional triacylglycerol broken down in the affected leg amounted to 0.6 to 2.1 milligrams per 100 grams of adipose tissue. While this amount may be statistically significant, the contribution to spot reduction is negligible at best. For example, in a subject experiencing typical results from this study, a body part containing 11.1lbs (10kg) of fat would experience 1lb of additional fat breakdown (spot reduction) only following 2,220-6,660 hours of exercise on exclusively that part. Assuming 30 minutes of exercise per day, that rounds out at approximately 12 years. But let's not forget that this is a best case scenario assuming that the results seen in this study are typical and representative of actual spot reduction taking place.

Therefore, for the reasons above, I'm removing the paragraph detailing the minority view per Wikipedia:MEDRS#Summarize_scientific_consensus. As a reminder, the scientific consensus on spot reduction is emphatic: the effects are little to none.

I think it's finally time to put this frankly inane issue to bed. Greggor88 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

This article makes a convincing case for spot reduction and lists several citeable sources: https://mennohenselmans.com/science-spot-reduction-myth/

These are the sources listed in the article, which claim that spot reduction is possible under certain circumstances https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00215.2006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28497942 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10671188.1965.10614676 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10671188.1968.10616592?needAccess=true

75.71.251.181 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Weighted Crunch (behind-head).gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The lede should state that the concept is considered disproved

While the rest of the article states that spot reduction is a myth, I think the lede is too neutral on this.

I'm not sure whether the claim should be described as false, unfounded, disputed or disproved, but I'll go with disproved.

I don't expect much activity on this entry, so I'll be bold and change it now. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)