Is there a different type of fat? I see some people that gain weight and the fat is solid not flabby and then there is the kind of fat gain I see that is more flabby. Is there a difference and is one worse then the other? Is one harder to lose then the other?
[quote]ThisIsMyRifle wrote:
Is there a different type of fat? I see some people that gain weight and the fat is solid not flabby and then there is the kind of fat gain I see that is more flabby. Is there a difference and is one worse then the other? Is one harder to lose then the other?[/quote]
I think you’re referring to subcutaneous fat which is under the skin and visceral fat which is around the organs and produces the solid round belly often seen in heavy beer drinkers… in a nutshell. I don’t have the information in front of me, but visceral fat is VERY unhealthy. I don’t know if one is generally easier to lose, but my viscerally fat belly disappeared in six months.
If the “Fat” if solid then it’s not fat, they added muscle along with their fat.
It’s common practice to do when adding lean body mass to add fat too, but lots of muscle underneath.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
If the “Fat” if solid then it’s not fat, they added muscle along with their fat.
It’s common practice to do when adding lean body mass to add fat too, but lots of muscle underneath.[/quote]
Sorry Ghost22, I don’t agree with that I know many people who have the (solid) look and have never seen the inside of a gym…So I dont think that is correct.
Just because you are not in the gym does not me you can’t be ‘solid’ or have muscle.
I would say the more solid just carry their fat better, and most likely have more muscle than the less solid fat people.
Visceral fat is the main cause of the hard fat belly. From what I’ve read, it is harder to lose than the subcutaneous fat. It is also a prime indicator of an impending heart attack. The fat surrounds your muscles and organs.
Subcutaneous fat is softer, and in theory easier to lose, and my understanding is that while it is unsightly it is not a big of a risk factor as the visceral fat.
[quote]Modi wrote:
Visceral fat is the main cause of the hard fat belly. From what I’ve read, it is harder to lose than the subcutaneous fat. It is also a prime indicator of an impending heart attack. The fat surrounds your muscles and organs.
Subcutaneous fat is softer, and in theory easier to lose, and my understanding is that while it is unsightly it is not a big of a risk factor as the visceral fat.[/quote]
Thank you for answering my question!!
As others have said, there is subcataneous fat, which is underneath the skin, and visceral fat, which is surrounding the organs in the body.
While subcutaneous fat looks worse, at least IMO, there’s little negative health risk associate with, as far as I’m aware.
Visceral fat is VERY unhealthy. Before thinking about bulking or cutting, I think a person should first lose any visceral fat they may have.
Unlike a poster above, I’ve read that visceral fat is relatively easy to lose (which is you see some people lose inches off their waist rather quickly), and subcanteous is harder to burn. Most people who are flabby with love handles tend to keep them for life, even if they slim down a great deal. They have to get REALLY lean to lose their pockets of subcutaneous fat.
subcutaneous fat accounts…for an AVERAGE healthy person about 3-8 % of their body mass…(athletes can have lower)
visceral fat is everything else.
this is a generalization. Say if you DID have 25% BF and lost some you may have higher visceral fat than what i am saying.
im being very brief as imn @ work right now but important to note:
subcuatneous fat is more or less ESSNTIAL
visceral is UNHEALTHY
the solid fat guys just have more muscle underneath than the flabby fat guy 
The hard fat is from someone in heavy weight gain or someone heavily overweight. The fat is packed together very tightly and so huge men sometimes feel solid. When i was heavily overweight i was very firm feeling but as i lost it i got more flabby.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
As others have said, there is subcataneous fat, which is underneath the skin, and visceral fat, which is surrounding the organs in the body.
While subcutaneous fat looks worse, at least IMO, there’s little negative health risk associate with, as far as I’m aware.
Visceral fat is VERY unhealthy. Before thinking about bulking or cutting, I think a person should first lose any visceral fat they may have.
Unlike a poster above, I’ve read that visceral fat is relatively easy to lose (which is you see some people lose inches off their waist rather quickly), and subcanteous is harder to burn. Most people who are flabby with love handles tend to keep them for life, even if they slim down a great deal. They have to get REALLY lean to lose their pockets of subcutaneous fat.[/quote]
So you are saying that if I have love handles, I would have to get super lean to lose them?
[quote]ThisIsMyRifle wrote:
So you are saying that if I have love handles, I would have to get super lean to lose them?
[/quote]
Yes. It sucks, but it’s true.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Unlike a poster above, I’ve read that visceral fat is relatively easy to lose (which is you see some people lose inches off their waist rather quickly), and subcanteous is harder to burn. Most people who are flabby with love handles tend to keep them for life, even if they slim down a great deal. They have to get REALLY lean to lose their pockets of subcutaneous fat.[/quote]
tGunslinger,
Actually, you may be right. After reading your post, I did a little searching and while I couldn’t find any specifics, it did seem that many of the fat loss studies indicated a greater loss (pound for pound) in visceral fat than subQ. I’m not sure if that was simply because the participants had more visceral fat to start with, and what the exact ratios were.
I would be interested to have someone more knowledgable on the subject than I provide a link to some good evidence.
[quote]ThisIsMyRifle wrote:
So you are saying that if I have love handles, I would have to get super lean to lose them?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, yes. Blame this on your parents. But it doesn’t mean it isn’t achievable, you are just going to have to work hard at it. At least you have an advantage over skinny people in times of famine.
Does it make a difference if you have been really lean before and just got fat and now trying to get lean again…Does the once a love handle always a love handle apply?
[quote]ThisIsMyRifle wrote:
Does it make a difference if you have been really lean before and just got fat and now trying to get lean again…Does the once a love handle always a love handle apply?[/quote]
That’s a tricky question. If you have been very lean before, there is a very good chance that you can get there again. If you simply gained a little weight, and in the process added some love handles, you should be able to lose them through a clean diet and exercise. Odds are you simply stored more fat in the fat cells you already have.
If, however, you gained a large amount of weight over a fairly short period of time, your body may have added fat cells to store the excess fat. If that is the case, then it will be harder to get rid of the handles. There is no way (short of a biopsy) to tell whether or not you have gained additional fat cells, or if you simply stored more fat in the ones you already had.