I agree, and I think women carry additional essential gender-specific fat in the boobs, pelvis, hips and thighs. This fat is biologically important for child bearing and other hormone related functioning. Women just carry more fat than men. I think it’s possible that lower levels of fat may impair a females health.
I carry most of my “padding,” in my stomach and hips…
I just got a body comp done on Monday, and it is apparent that I am losing equally every where!! 
[quote]BUSHMASTER wrote:
The people here that said that the fat insulates your organs, your right but you don’t need more than 3%BF to do that for a male and 10% for a female.[/quote]
That is not entirely true.
As for fat loss in certain areas, I think it has to do with a number of factors, of which blood flow is an important one.
it sucks, im at 15% right now still losing fat but 14% of my fat is def just on my abs
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
I think fat is lost from all over at the same time, you just notice it in your extremities first and trunk last because generally there is more fat around the trunk than the extremities.[/quote]
I think this is true.
not necessarily,
i know people(men) who gain weight all over their body evenly, and better yet, people who get more of a BELLY than PUDGE.
A belly obviously looking more like a pregnant dude
Pudge looking more like a little life preserver ring of fat around your navel/hips
[quote]markdp wrote:
tw0scoops2 wrote:
I think fat is lost from all over at the same time, you just notice it in your extremities first and trunk last because generally there is more fat around the trunk than the extremities.
I think this is true. [/quote]
So you’re saying you lose fat that way because you gain it that way? 
That is a little bit circular, no?
So to summarize, it seems as though the pattern of belly → trunk → extremities is not uniform for everybody. Even within the same sex, you don’t see this pattern unequivocally.
Looks like hormones play a pretty big role in the order of fat loss. Charles Poliquin may be on to something with his biosignature theories.
To keep this discussion moving forward, let’s speculate on the physiological basis for the order of fat loss. The evolutionary theories are quite interesting, and certainly make a lot of sense. Now, let’s shift our attention to the physiological aspects of this.
bump
My body holds the majority of its adipose tissue in my torso. I have visible vascularity in my biceps, triceps, quads, and hams in a completely relaxed state, but I still have a spare tire and soft pecs. It’s maddening, but I just have to keep working at my diet and cardio.
[quote]debraD wrote:
markdp wrote:
tw0scoops2 wrote:
I think fat is lost from all over at the same time, you just notice it in your extremities first and trunk last because generally there is more fat around the trunk than the extremities.
I think this is true.
So you’re saying you lose fat that way because you gain it that way? That is a little bit circular, no?
[/quote]
Sure why not?
The rule of thumb tends to be: first on, last off.
Men put weight on their abdomens first, and it is the hardes to lose weight on our abdomens.
Women tend to put weight on their hips/thighs first, and that is where they tend to lose last.
I don’t have any scientific statement but I do know that abdominal fat is one of the symptom for low Testosterone.
I am on HRT, and this is one of the first thing my doctor told me.
Also, my personal trainer told me that reducing the abs fat may increase level of T, he read that in a medical journal.
[quote]heretorock wrote:
I don’t have any scientific statement but I do know that abdominal fat is one of the symptom for low Testosterone.
I am on HRT, and this is one of the first thing my doctor told me.
Also, my personal trainer told me that reducing the abs fat may increase level of T, he read that in a medical journal.[/quote]
That’s a possibility. But I think the majority of people who have fat on their lower abs is a result of improper diet.
dunno about all you guys but i been losing weight for a while now, i now have a small waist lean looking legs with lots of definition,
but i have most fat around my belly area mainly lower belly, i can feel solid muscle right close to the surface on the top half of my stomach (upper abs),
when i lose fat it comes off my legs, waist then arms shoulders and neck, chest upper abs and finally lower abs all in all where i want it gone most…it stays haha,
but im making quite a bit of progress so hopefully with in four months it will all be gone haha
When I’m moderately lean (~10%), I have a visible 4-pack with love handles, and a decent amount of fat on my thighs. As I get leaner (~8%), the love handles disappear, but my abs become one solid mass, ie you can see the outline of my abs, but no differentiation between them individually. I have to get really lean (~<7%) to have a distinct 6-pack and lose the fat around my thighs.
I also remember CT saying, I wanna say in his Thib’s zone about 2 months ago, that predisposition to storing fat in certain areas has to do with specific hormonal imbalances. He then lists the bodyparts and what they supposedly mean. I personally dont think one stubborn pad of fat is enough to indicate hormone problems, but he is the guy with the experience. Good luck digging through his thread and finding it though…
[quote]spadesofaces wrote:
I also remember CT saying, I wanna say in his Thib’s zone about 2 months ago, that predisposition to storing fat in certain areas has to do with specific hormonal imbalances. He then lists the bodyparts and what they supposedly mean. I personally dont think one stubborn pad of fat is enough to indicate hormone problems, but he is the guy with the experience. Good luck digging through his thread and finding it though…[/quote]
I remember him saying the same thing. I also remember Poliquin saying this, and in fact, his entire biosignature certification is based on this idea. I don’t think that CT and CP meant that extra fat in one particular area means there are clinical problems, but more like imbalances, that aren’t too clinically significant (yet, anyway). This is what got me curious. Now it’s starting to be questionable whether spot reduction really is impossible.