I was reading John Stone's update today about how he plans to cut down to 4% to get rid of the stubborn belly fat - which troubles many of us. I've also cut down to 8-10% and could not get rid of that area - you know how you use calipers to pinch each area? - triceps, quads, back - these areas were extremely low fat but when it came to my belly area - it was signficant "fatter".

I am a neonatal/pediatric surgeon who contemplated going into Plastic Surgery while ago but after "shadowing" several plastic surgeon, decided it was not for me...I do not judge others who get cosmetic surgery, but for me, the thought of using my 12+ years of training to do "unnecessary" (meaning, not medical needed cosmetic surgery) surgery seemed like a waste (just my personal opinion, no disrespect to the field of cosmetic surgery at all).

So, what i'm saying is, I do not like "short-cuts" when it comes to fitness/fat loss. I believe lifestyle change/dedicated,consistent workouts are the key. However, I thought about cutting down to 4% body fat vs. getting cosmetic surgery to get rid of that last little bit of abdominal fat....What's healthier? a better fix?-

It is unhealthy to get yourself down to 4%, and it is virtually impossible to maintain it - meaning, after you come off the "strict, strict" diet and workout plan, the belly fat will return....so, not a real good long-term fix.

Cosmetic surgery to get rid of that last little bit carries the risk of surgery - although very minor for most healthy individuals. And, the removed fat cells are gone forever. And, i'm not too sure about this, but i'd guess that when you're at 8-10%, that little bit of belly fat will not be there, and it's very reasonable to keep yourself close to that body fat percentage year-round. I think it would be an effective long-term fix.

I'm not advocating getting liposuction...John's daily update today just made me think.......

I am a neonatal/pediatric surgeon who contemplated going into Plastic Surgery while ago but after "shadowing" several plastic surgeon, decided it was not for me...I do not judge others who get cosmetic surgery, but for me, the thought of using my 12+ years of training to do "unnecessary" (meaning, not medical needed cosmetic surgery) surgery seemed like a waste (just my personal opinion, no disrespect to the field of cosmetic surgery at all). That about sums up my POV, too.

So, what i'm saying is, I do not like "short-cuts" when it comes to fitness/fat loss. I believe lifestyle change/dedicated,consistent workouts are the key. However, I thought about cutting down to 4% body fat vs. getting cosmetic surgery to get rid of that last little bit of abdominal fat....What's healthier? a better fix?-Good question, and something I've been wrestling with for awhile now.

It is unhealthy to get yourself down to 4%, and it is virtually impossible to maintain it - meaning, after you come off the "strict, strict" diet and workout plan, the belly fat will return....so, not a real good long-term fix.I agree with the second half of your statement. I've not read anything that leads me to believe that cutting down to 4% (talking about men here) is unhealthy. Certainly maintaining that level of body fat is another thing completely.

I don't plan to maintain 4% (that would drive me insane, health risks aside), so I'm mostly considering it as an experiment to see if I can actually get rid of the fat below my belly button, if only briefly.


Cosmetic surgery to get rid of that last little bit carries the risk of surgery - although very minor for most healthy individuals. And, the removed fat cells are gone forever.For me, that's one of the most compelling "pluses" to having surgery done. Believe me, I've thought about. I'm still not ruling surgery out, but it's really not my "style".

And, i'm not too sure about this, but i'd guess that when you're at 8-10%, that little bit of belly fat will not be there, and it's very reasonable to keep yourself close to that body fat percentage year-round. I think it would be an effective long-term fix.... and that's the other major "plus" that keeps me thinking about surgery. I've been told that what you said is totally true: once those fat cells are gone, fat is no longer stored in that area disproportionatly.

Definitely a lot to think about!

Couldn't you get down to 4%, prove that getting rid of that last bit of fat is doable, and then as you move back up to, say 8%, have it removed, knowing that it went away because of your hard work, but to completely remove it you had no choice but to do cosmetic surgery?

Just a thought... :)

Couldn't you get down to 4%, prove that getting rid of that last bit of fat is doable, and then as you move back up to, say 8%, have it removed, knowing that it went away because of your hard work, but to completely remove it you had no choice but to do cosmetic surgery?

Just a thought... :)

This is just me...but I feel like if you had to do something like that to justify it to yourself, you shouldn't do it anyway.

It's a complicated issue though. Still, you can't achieve perfection, and I feel like it's good to be able to accept that and be happy with what you are able to achieve through your best efforts.

Wow, if at 4% body fat you still have an unusual area of fat, that would make me wonder if it is fat. :confused: although I don't know what the alternative would be.

Just a thought.

At that point, if it distresses you, it is hard to see people faulting you for a minor surgery. something like getting a mole removed.

But, also, like it or not, you are a fitness icon John, and will only grow in popularity as time goes on. I don't think you should care about stuff like this, but having your name associated with plastic surgery when you are in the fitness world seems like it could hinder you in the future. Again I don't care, one way or the other. But it would suck to give all the hating jealous people fuel.

In addition to general risk with surgery, do you worry about this aspect?

But, also, like it or not, you are a fitness icon John, and will only grow in popularity as time goes on. I don't think you should care about stuff like this, but having your name associated with plastic surgery when you are in the fitness world seems like it could hinder you in the future. Again I don't care, one way or the other. But it would suck to give all the hating jealous people fuel.

In addition to general risk with surgery, do you worry about this aspect?
Those thoughts have certainly crossed my mind!

I was just talking to Mastover about my idea of possibly going down to 4% body fat, and he made an excellent point: to get that low, a certain amount of muscle loss is unavoidable. He asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice some amount of muscle to do it. I thought that was an important question.

My immediate response was that it would not be worth it, because I would not sustain that level of body fat for long. When I returned to a more sustainable 7-8% body fat, I'd have less muscle--and for what? A week of pictures? No thanks!

So it seems my options are surgery or live with it. It obviously bothers me, but I don't think I'm wiling to go under the knife to correct it.

I was just talking to Mastover about my idea of possibly going down to 4% body fat, and he made an excellent point: to get that low, a certain amount of muscle loss is unavoidable. He asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice some amount of muscle to do it. I thought that was an important question.

My immediate response was that it would not be worth it, because I would not sustain that level of body fat for long. When I returned to a more sustainable 7-8% body fat, I'd have less muscle--and for what? A week of pictures? No thanks!
Keep in mind though that that muscle will come back pretty fast because of muscle memory. A little muscle loss once in a while isn't such a bad thing when you're in it for the long haul. If you're ever going to do it, now is the time, rather than in a few years when you've gotten even older. IMO, I wouldn't do it if the sole reason is to get rid of some stubborn fat, but the extra dedication it takes and the experience in general would make it worth it. Plus, those would be some pretty cool pictures to have. It's not that much lower than 6% anyways. :D

Just 2 cents. :tu:

rather than in a few years when you've gotten even older. :cry:

:lol:

:cry:

:lol:
:D

I'm going to send you a bed-pan for your birthday this year. :whistle:

The fat around my belly does bother me but not enough for me to go under the knife too...some people say once you go under the knife, it can be addictive to some. I have a few friends who do a LOT of cosmetic surgery - i'm gonna ask them and see what their thoughts are and what the follow-up have been like for those individuals who are dedicated to fitness and finally gave in to have the fat cells removed. Either way, I agree that you can't achieve perfection - but you should always strive for it!

I have never had lipo done, but I think if the little fat really bothers you, go for it.
Lipo done properly (when not a lot of fat is removed) and done by a reputable plastic surgeon is a pretty safe precedure.
I know many people that had bad results because they have done it for the wrong reasons (fat loss). Lipo is effective for spot reduction, not for overall fat loss.

There is always a risk of little unevenness though, so talk to few doctors and see whay they tell you.

Personally I think I would choose lipo then maintaining very low BF%
for a long period of time which is unhealthy too.


The fat around my belly does bother me but not enough for me to go under the knife too
Then dont do it ;)

...some people say once you go under the knife, it can be addictive to some. I have a few friends who do a LOT of cosmetic surgery - i'm gonna ask them and see what their thoughts are and what the follow-up have been like for those individuals who are dedicated to fitness and finally gave in to have the fat cells removed. Either way, I agree that you can't achieve perfection - but you should always strive for it!


Is plastic surgery addictive? I think having possibility to be "more perfect" is addictive. Is tha bad?
Honestly... depends how you look at it.
If it makes you happy...why not.
I think its unrealistic to expect perfection, but if you are looking for improvment....again..why not.
I have had plastic surgery done and yes, it did make me happier.
I did it for myself and it was one of the best decisions I have made.
If I had more money I would probably do something else, but Im not gonna go into huge debt to do it, nor I feel unhappy and ugly now :lol: but when I can afford it..... I'm all for improvment ;)

Either way, I agree that you can't achieve perfection - but you should always strive for it!
You can redefine perfection. I like to think of perfection in terms of those things I have control over; my actions, my knowledge, my discipline, my drive; not what other people see visually when they look at me.

Our ideas about beauty/attractiveness are all quite arbitrary.

Women's feet in China were not considered beautiful unless they were impossibly tiny; so small that their foot was broken and bound tightly, such that they could never walk again.

The ideal woman's waist at one point was the same circumference as what is created when a man places his open fingers together - about 16 inches. The only way to achieve this was daily wearing of a corset, which displaced the internal organs up into the chest. Many times the lower-most rib was also removed.

Why is it that a fatless stomach is preferable to a stomach that's covered in a protective layer of tissue?

Whether a body fat percentage of 4% is "healthy" or not isn't the issue, in my eyes. I question what drives a person to want to look a particular way as compared to another equally good (or better?) way.

I am still undecided on the issue of surgery or not, but the other day I saw an ad on a billboard for something called Lipodissolve. I did a little research on it and it is actually quite interesting.

From the information I have gathered so far, you get a series of shots that contain certain fat dissolving enzymes. You then expell the wastes through your urine. From the few before and after pictures I have seen, it appears to work pretty well.

Here is a link to a news report on Lipodissolve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInTV0sD0dE

I am not advocating it or even considering it, but I am curious to see what you think about it.

John,

For what it's worth, there was an article a while back by John Berardi (probably somewhere on t-nation) where he talked about periodically dropping down for a short time to 3-4% every couple years. From what I remember, it was to rid his body of toxins, along with a host of other benefits. (do a search, it was a fairly good article)

I believe he keeps himself around 6-7% year-round, so it is possible, healthy, and probably can be done by sparing quite a bit of lean mass if you do it the right way.





I was just talking to Mastover about my idea of possibly going down to 4% body fat, and he made an excellent point: to get that low, a certain amount of muscle loss is unavoidable. He asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice some amount of muscle to do it. I thought that was an important question.

My immediate response was that it would not be worth it, because I would not sustain that level of body fat for long. When I returned to a more sustainable 7-8% body fat, I'd have less muscle--and for what? A week of pictures? No thanks!

Why is it that a fatless stomach is preferable to a stomach that's covered in a protective layer of tissue?


Pretty wise points of view, guava.
I think, for me (and probably John - correct me if i'm wrong), is that it shows the dedication/perseverance that went into achieving this "fatloss stomach" state....I'm not sure why it is more "attractive"?...like you said, some of it has to do with what "society" has deemed as "attractive" and some of it has to do with what it took to achieve that.

Interesting discussions.....

Great point Guava!

there was an article a while back by John Berardi (probably somewhere on t-nation) where he talked about periodically dropping down for a short time to 3-4% every couple years. From what I remember, it was to rid his body of toxins, along with a host of other benefits.

Does it work the same for women? I am interested in the body purification aspect, but I don't know if dropping BF% very low (say, they 4% equivalent for women) is healthy.
Any thoughts about it?

John,

For what it's worth, there was an article a while back by John Berardi (probably somewhere on t-nation) where he talked about periodically dropping down for a short time to 3-4% every couple years. From what I remember, it was to rid his body of toxins, along with a host of other benefits. (do a search, it was a fairly good article)

I believe he keeps himself around 6-7% year-round, so it is possible, healthy, and probably can be done by sparing quite a bit of lean mass if you do it the right way.
I think this is the article, BTW: http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1150209

Here's the relevant portion:

So Why Should I Follow The Get Shredded Diet?

[...]

4) Calorie restriction may make me healthier

Probably, by this point, some people think I'm off my rocker - especially after the chest pounding and discipline rhetoric above.

So, what if all the chest pounding makes a man unhealthy? What if it compromises his quality of life? Huh, JB. Huh, tough guy?

Well, if it makes a man unhealthy, then it may be a problem — depending on the man, I guess. But let's drop the what ifs, shall we? The Get Shredded Diet isn't unhealthy. In fact, it may actually be just what the doctor ordered.

That's right, for a moment let's consider the potential health implications of short term (6-12 week), infrequent, nutrient dense, energy restriction phases. Wait a second, put that way, the Get Shredded Dietkinda sounds like a calorie restriction diet. And isn't calorie restriction supposed to be very healthy?

Now, let me be clear. I'm not a fan of long-term calorie restriction - for many reasons (that's another article for another day). However, there are some compelling benefits associated with giving the organs an occasional break from the high calorie lifestyles most of us weight lifters tend to lead. So, if the Get Shredded Diet behaves as many calorie restriction diets do in animal models, it might actually boost health and longevity.

And before the Pub Med ninjas get all huffy and assert how 3% or 6% bodyfat is sooo unhealthy, remember the fact that the Get Shredded Diet only takes you down to that fat % for short periods of time. No one's saying that we have to get down to 3% for life. Rather, I'm saying get lean every 2 years and after you reach your goal, slowly transition back to normal eating and a more manageable body fat %.

5) Bodyfat removal and detoxification

For those of you that don't know, adipose tissue is a major storage depot for various toxins. Studies have shown that when some individuals go on a fat loss program, there is an acute release of toxins into the bloodstream.

In fact, one study from the 90s showed that a group of middle-aged individuals losing large amounts of body fat had high blood levels of certain pesticides that hadn't been used in commercial farming since the 70s! Crazy!

So, what if we were to rapidly increase our rate of fat turnover and drop a good amount of body fat every two years? Wouldn't that GET RID of the toxins? And wouldn't that be healthy to get rid of all those toxins every so often?

Now, sure, rapid fat loss CAN lead to a large, unhealthy increase in blood levels of toxins. But, in conjunction with a solid exercise program, an appropriate intake of dietary antioxidants, supplemental vitamin and mineral co-factors, a sufficient amount of protein and amino acids to assist detoxification systems, a large water intake for toxin dilution, and a natural detoxifying blend like Greens+ Daily Detox — wouldn't the Get Shredded Diet be, like, the ultimate detoxification plan?

[...]

Wow, I didn't even think about the toxic properties of fat! Makes me even more determined to redouble my fat-loss efforts!
Thanks chicanerous!

It is possible that at 6-8% bodyfat the lower abdominal fat you are talking about is actually lose skin due to the loss of weight in a short time (i am refering to the 2003 original programme) there is a gream that bodybuilders use in this case for tightening lose or excessive skin after weight loss. it is called PREPERATION H, its original purpose is for the lose skin caused by hemmoriods but it does the job.

If fat stores toxins then isn't it a potentially bad thing to have the fat release the toxins into your body? Years of build up suddenly entering your blood stream over a couple of months?

I know a trade off will exist for people dropping a lot of weight. But what are the health trade offs for people already at healthy weight dropping even more fat? Will the toxin release be a benefit overall?

I think this is a very worthwhile discussion, and it covers a lot of territory. I linked to it in today's update (http://www.johnstonefitness.com/news/feb_2007_news_archive.php#02232007).

I also talked a little bit about the so-called "health vs. aesthetics" issue that came up here. That has always been a bit of a hot button subject for me. :)

I don't think I'm wiling to go under the knife to correct it.

I don't think that "correct it" is really the correct term. If you correct something that means there was something wrong to begin with.

Perception

I say once you're down to 6-7% bodyfat, "we" talk about this. Sure at 12-14% it's going to drive you nuts, you're at the highest bodyfat percentage you are used to being at, and thus probably hold extra fat in that area. Once you've cut down to where you plan to maintain, see if the problem area is so much of a "problem". I know you've been to 8% and still been upset about it, but your body is different this time around, so I say, wait and see.

Also, while not in the same area, my chest is like your lower abdomen. Whether I'm 12% or 8% bodyfat, there is still this stubborn fat around my chest that drives me insane. However, a) when I'm over 10% it's much more noticeable than when I'm around 8% and b) while I think I need to head over to Victoria's Secret to get fitted for a bra, 99% of people who look at me say they don't see an ounce of fat.

In other words, as BG said... perception is everything. And we all know that we're our own worst critics.

Regarding the "toxins" that can be stored and released by fat. Both good and bad things are stored and secreted by fat. Hope this isn't off-topic.
Here is a portion of a Discover article from February. It talks about all the substances and chemicals that have been discovered, since 1994, to be stored and released by fat. And the fat around the organs in the mid section is the most active. Which is what makes it the most damaging. Not all fat is created equal, the fat stored around the mid section (Visceral fat) is much more harmful than fat stored on the butt and thighs. Good news for women, bad news for men. Skip to the last paragraph for some of the bad things.

I always thought of fat as something passive just sitting there, but apparently not. Since it does both good and bad things, it may be hard to predict what simply removing the fat will do to the rest of the body. Something to think about. And are you removing the right fat?

I've attached the whole article, which you can get by signing up for a free membership at Discover.


Killer Fat
Not all fats are equal.
By Mariana Gosnell
DISCOVER Vol. 28 No. 01 | January 2007 | Medicine

So what is it about abundant fat deep inside the belly that inclines a person to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and other ills? Why should having a beer belly be so much worse than having humongous hips, thunder thighs, a well-padded bottom, loglike arms, or an opera-singer bosom? Until recently, adipose tissue was considered passive and inert, simply a place to store energy. Anatomy books often didn't even show fat because it obscured the view of the structures underneath. That changed in 1994 with the discovery of leptin, an appetite-inhibiting hormone, and with the revelation that it is secreted by fat. The following year Philipp Scherer and others discovered adiponectin, a hormone that is protective against diabetes, also secreted by fat.

Since then investigators have found dozens of biologically active substances that are released by fat cells or by cells residing in fat. The list includes immunomodulators, coagulation factors, hormones and prohormones, inflammatory and proinflammatory markers, enzymes, and lipids. Together these substances "have a profound effect on the whole system," Scherer says. Fat is now considered to be an active, complex endocrine organ, like the pancreas.

Of the fat depots, visceral fat is the most active—"very lively," Després says—secreting and mobilizing substances in the greatest quantity. It releases a lot of fatty acids (breakdown products of fat) into the bloodstream through the portal vein and liver, a phenomenon that until recently had been thought of as the major reason why fat promotes insulin resistance. Lately, though, the focus has shifted to fat's link with inflammation.

"When people get older or more obese," Hamdy says, "some of the visceral fat cells mature and become large, lazy, and dysfunctional." As people continue to eat and the fat pads expand, some cells get too full and rupture. Immune cells called macrophages, the janitors of the body, invade the site to clean up. In the process they induce inflammation; the cells also secrete other inflammatory chemicals, like interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha, which are known to adhere to the endothelium of the blood vessels, an early event in atherosclerosis.

my chest is like your lower abdomen. Whether I'm 12% or 8% bodyfat, there is still this stubborn fat around my chest that drives me insane.

That's pretty ironic, because when I'm down below about 16% body fat, there's this stubborn lack of fat around my chest that drives me insane. :whistle: Nothing in Victoria's Secret would be small enough for me. :lol:

Interesting.

I say once you're down to 6-7% bodyfat, "we" talk about this.

I concur with the above comment. First, hit the 6% goal and then re-evaluate to see where to go from there.

I would think even at 6-8%, some muscle loss is inevitable. When you're in single digits, there has to be a fine balancing act to prevent your body from using muscle glycogen for fuel/energy because there isn't much fat to burn from.

:gl:

I have never had lipo done, but I think if the little fat really bothers you, go for it.
Lipo done properly (when not a lot of fat is removed) and done by a reputable plastic surgeon is a pretty safe precedure.
I know many people that had bad results because they have done it for the wrong reasons (fat loss). Lipo is effective for spot reduction, not for overall fat loss.

There is always a risk of little unevenness though, so talk to few doctors and see whay they tell you.

Personally I think I would choose lipo then maintaining very low BF%
for a long period of time which is unhealthy too.


Then dont do it ;)




Is plastic surgery addictive? I think having possibility to be "more perfect" is addictive. Is tha bad?
Honestly... depends how you look at it.
If it makes you happy...why not.
I think its unrealistic to expect perfection, but if you are looking for improvment....again..why not.
I have had plastic surgery done and yes, it did make me happier.
I did it for myself and it was one of the best decisions I have made.
If I had more money I would probably do something else, but Im not gonna go into huge debt to do it, nor I feel unhappy and ugly now :lol: but when I can afford it..... I'm all for improvment ;)

I pretty much agree with all of that!

So it seems my options are surgery or live with it. It obviously bothers me, but I don't think I'm wiling to go under the knife to correct it.

John, you may find you can get rid of that stubborn bit of flab this time around. 1) Your nutrition has never been as good as it is now and 2) You've never had as much muscle as you do now, therefore your testosterone is probably as high as it was as a teenager.

Also, although your body fat was very low back in 2003, you didn't have that "muscle metabolism" you've got now.

Consider this:
If your body fat was 6% at 160lbs as you suspect, that was 9.6lbs of fat on a frame with 150.4lbs of lean mass. This time at 6% body fat you'll have 12.5lbs of fat on a frame with 195.7lbs of lean mass (that's assuming you don't lose any muscle dropping down to 6%).

2.9lbs of fat more than in 2003, but 45.3lbs of extra lean mass. Since you're generally a lot bigger now than in 2003, something tells me that 6% is going to spread itself pretty thinly over your entire, larger frame. That's just my opinion anyway. If you still have the problem area at 6% this time, you can bet you'll have some RIDICULOUSLY deep cuts everywhere else.

I was reading John Stone's update today about how he plans to cut down to 4% to get rid of the stubborn belly fat - which troubles many of us. I've also cut down to 8-10% and could not get rid of that area - you know how you use calipers to pinch each area? - triceps, quads, back - these areas were extremely low fat but when it came to my belly area - it was signficant "fatter".

My question is ... why? Does it matter? Who cares?

I mean ... what is it about that little bit of fat?

Is it unhealthy? Show me anywhere that someone who trains hard and eats healthy is unhealthy. I'm going to guess that even 12 - 14 percent with some flap is pretty darned healthy.

So why the obsession with cutting it?

Have we lost sight of the fat that the body has fat cells and stores fat for a reason? No, it's not just a cushion in times of famine ... it's part of the process.

One thing to consider ... your subcutaneous fat is fat for energy. Most of your visceral (internal, around the organs) fat is functional - it cushions and insulates the organs. Having excess fat internally does raise a lot of risks, but cutting it down is also dangerous and part of the reason why starvation becomes fatal ...

So I guess my question is, if there is a little there .... why does it have to go?

I've become comfortable with not seeing my abs. I used to have a distorted self image and feel like if I wasn't shredded, I was a fat blob. Now I realize that's not the case. Everywhere I go, on business or pleasure, when I meet people, they comment on how slim and in shape I am. No one says, "Wow, you're kind of fat because I can't see your abs."

Just taking an alternate view. I'm always striving for new goals and pushing the limits in different areas, and getting to low body fat for me was definitely something that helped evolve my character and taught me about accomplishing a new level of excellence in my pursuits.

I really do admire and respect the people who constantly raise the bar with their physique ... I am amazed at how someone like SwoleCat and John Stone for example can build so much mass and stay so lean and create an awesome physique. But I also can accept that it's not my choice to go down that path ... while I know many people who could care less about running 50 miles (is that "healthy" ... it's definitely not NECESSARY for good health).

So my point is simply this ... as a goal for higher achievement, cutting to 4% sounds like a great challenge. But surgery? What is the point of surgery? What does that accomplish? How does it change anything? You're not going to raise your risk of cardiovascular disease because you have a little fat at 4% ... it's like the 50 miles ... I could drive it, but so what? The challenge is running it. I can understand the lofty goal of building a lean physique through hard work and dedication, and I can understand the people who have various reasons they struggle or are not able to lose weight or simply don't understand the power they have to do it and so they opt for surgery, but right now it is beyond my comprehension why anyone with a healthy, lean, muscular physique would want to take a knife to their body just to remove some fat that, in my opinion, doesn't mean a thing except in the mind of the person who is criticizing themselves over it.

Of course, others won't understand why I shaved my head or have tatoos, either, so it's all relative. Interesting discussion.

Jeremy

IHonestly... depends how you look at it.
If it makes you happy...why not.
I think its unrealistic to expect perfection, but if you are looking for improvment....again..why not.
I have had plastic surgery done and yes, it did make me happier.
I did it for myself and it was one of the best decisions I have made.
If I had more money I would probably do something else, but Im not gonna go into huge debt to do it, nor I feel unhappy and ugly now :lol: but when I can afford it..... I'm all for improvment ;)

This is a great perspective and while I don't see it the same way, I certainly respect yours, Johns, and others opinions.

For me, I was teased for having freckles as a child. I also have gynemastecia, although it doesn't show as much now that I'm fitter (ironically, it was this condition that gets me the occassional hate mail from some "expert" pointing out that I've juiced and my "man boobs" prove it). When I met my wife, I would not go to the pool or beach because it was too embarassing to take my shirt off.

I could have opted for surgery for this, but I took a different route. I focused on being happy with ME, and liking me for who I am. And the crazy thing was, I found out something along the way ... my friends like me for who I am, my family does, and I do. So I became happy with that, and now I can handle having gynemastecia or freckles or anything else.

My concern when people take corrective action for aesthics to "be happy" is that those things ultimately go away. What happens when you're 60? 70? 80? How much surgery or correction does it take to stay happy?

Versus the alternative - loving you for you, not having to have something change about your appearance to feel accepted or good about yourself. It is possible and I've seen many people do it, and then they don't have to correct anything and even if their physique changes as they get old, they continue to be happy.

I have mentioned before that I have a good friend who was burned badly as a child - the majority of his skin is damaged. For him, it's not even an option to have surgey to "make it go away" ... he has been through dozens of surgeries and they keep getting it better but there will probably always be scarring, etc.

In the philosophy that "correcting the physique makes me feel better" he'd be S.O.L. I guess, because that's not an option. But does the universe really work that way? Some people have the option to purchase happiness by modifying their appearance, but others don't have the right? In my universe, I don't believe it one bit ... and it certainly hasn't stop him. His personality shines so strongly that I forget that he looks any different than anyone else. He doesn't play the victim or dwell on it or feel any less. He has not had any issue making friends or dating (he is now happily married with a child on the way) or enjoying life. One time we were in the mall and suddenly a little child came over and pointed and asked him what happened. I was confused at first because I didn't understand what the child was pointing at, and it took a moment to realize, "Oh, he's looking at the scars." My friend just smiled and said, "This is why fire is dangerous so be careful around flames." And we went on our way.

So that is a different perspective. It's not judgemental because I have far too many flaws of my own to judge anyone else. We all do things for whatever reason - for example, perhaps it was the need to be accepted or feel better that drove me to get my tattoos when I was younger, I certainly can't say someone jabbing ink into my skin is far different than someone having some fat removed or anything else. It's all a scale and certainly if other people want to make these changes they are adults and it is their prerogative. I just personally don't understand connecting my happiness with my appearance ... I've felt in my life that I felt ugly when I was unhappy, and when I chose to live happy and feel good, that's when I also felt attractive and others around me felt I was attractive as well - that's how I met my wife even when I was 60 pounds overweight ... I went through a change and for me, I started taking my shirt off and getting comfortable BEFORE I lost the weight. It was a major breakthrough and once I realized everoyne was not judging me for how I looked, it empowered me to lose the weight and have that opportunity to turn heads when I was shredded.

Jeremy

I think there are alot of reasons why people think it´s wrong to focus on low bf% or fitness in general.

Some that are "politically correct" and leftists belive that people that are obsessed with the way they look and low bf% are victims. That they are being exploited by commercial interests and that the evils of capitalism must be blamed .

Other people that are "moralists" think that to much focus on how you look must be considered vanity and might make you forget other important qualitys and virtues in life. Perhaps some would even think that it´s not a moral way to live.

People like that would probably think surgery is worse...

Personally I do not agree with any of that. I think anything that makes you happy is OK as long as you dont hurt other people. I think people are individuals with different needs and preferences. And that we must all respect that fact.

I would probably be prepared to do surgery to remove fat if I really needed it and could afford it. If I can get the job done with only training and diet I will always prefer that.
If you really have fatcells that are almost impossible to get rid of I think surgery is a good choice. As far as I know it´s not very dangerous and there is no reason to be worried...

My concern when people take corrective action for aesthics to "be happy" is that those things ultimately go away. What happens when you're 60? 70? 80? How much surgery or correction does it take to stay happy?


This was the most poignant thing you could say, Jeremy. It really points out how fleeting the obsession with vanity really is. It's quite possible, in this situation, to remove the stubborn fat under the knife, but how long will it be before something else in your body fails? Age spots, wrinkles, balding, etc? At what point do you decide to quit the obsession?

It's not to say that naturally cutting bodyfat isn't a lofty and good goal- I would say it teaches one a lot about themselves, and can really have a strong disciple benefit. But personally, I could only imagine getting surgery in this case if I were getting paid a hefty sum for my physique (aka model, etc).

This was the most poignant thing you could say, Jeremy. It really points out how fleeting the obsession with vanity really is. It's quite possible, in this situation, to remove the stubborn fat under the knife, but how long will it be before something else in your body fails? Age spots, wrinkles, balding, etc? At what point do you decide to quit the obsession?

It's not to say that naturally cutting bodyfat isn't a lofty and good goal- I would say it teaches one a lot about themselves, and can really have a strong disciple benefit. But personally, I could only imagine getting surgery in this case if I were getting paid a hefty sum for my physique (aka model, etc).
I don't think people who get cosmetic surgery are "obsessed" with vanity. I think they just have a tendency to view their unique physical characteristics as flaws, instead of viewing them as natural variations among a wide range of differently attractive body shapes.

I don't think people who get cosmetic surgery are "obsessed" with vanity. I think they just have a tendency to view their unique physical characteristics as flaws, instead of viewing them as natural variations among a wide range of differently attractive body shapes.

But you can't discount the media bombardment of all these male models with perfect physiques. They all have perfect washboard abs. It's a lot of pressure.

I'd like to avoid a debate in nature vs. nurture, but I do want to ask: who taught someone that these unique physical characteristics are flaws? This really gets to the heart of this discussion. To actually decide to consult with a plastic surgeon, to pay a (usually) large sum of money, and to undergo cutting and reshaping and suctioning and nipping and tucking and all the rest to alter an otherwise benign condition borders slightly on obsession, or at the very least a mild preoccupation with self-distortion caused by some external factor. And you're right guava- where did it go from "flaw" to "natural variations among a wide range of differently attractive body shapes"?

I don't mean to judge, and it sure sounds like I am, so I apologize to anyone who feels that cosmetic surgery is right for them and they may feel offended. And surgery well may be a correct route. But I do agree with Jeremy that it goes to a deeper, internal struggle that someone is dealing with. And thankfully, I'm neither a psychologist nor a plastic surgeon (although I would be a lot richer if I were!).




I don't think people who get cosmetic surgery are "obsessed" with vanity. I think they just have a tendency to view their unique physical characteristics as flaws, instead of viewing them as natural variations among a wide range of differently attractive body shapes.

But you can't discount the media bombardment of all these male models with perfect physiques. They all have perfect washboard abs. It's a lot of pressure.

Yes, but...every individual must decide if they want to try to get washboard abs or not. And most people dont try. Probably less than 1% learn how to train and eat to get washboard abs. And even fewer actually do it.

I really doubt this is a problem. It´s easy to blame companys and media. But really I think people should be more responsible and more in control. People in general must understand that if they want better health they must do something about it. Work hard and have reasonable goals. If they want to look better it´s also up them and every individual can also decide what he or she think "looks better". And decide when it´s good enough.

I think it´s very flawed thinking and very wrong when people think they are victims and always blame others. If they eat to much they blame the food industrie...If they train to much and get sick from a bad fatloss-diet they blame the fitness industrie, male models on TV and so on. If they do to much plastic surgery others must be blamed...

The large number of girls starving themselves literally to death aren't worried about learning to eat or train. It's no different with the growing number of boys who are going the same way.

They don't calculate BMR or figure out the best work out. They try and find somebody to split a peanut with.

It's nice to say it's a personal responsibilty but if the same number of kids were jumping off bridges people would be screaming that something should be done.

To me it sounds like you are labeling the media etc victims. Why shouldn't they take responsibilty for themselves? Much of what they do is no different then firing an automatic weapon in the middle of a room. Then saying "Hey people should have worn bullet proof armor. Not our fault"

The large number of girls starving themselves literally to death aren't worried about learning to eat or train. It's no different with the growing number of boys who are going the same way.

They don't calculate BMR or figure out the best work out. They try and find somebody to split a peanut with.

It's nice to say it's a personal responsibilty but if the same number of kids were jumping off bridges people would be screaming that something should be done.

To me it sounds like you are labeling the media etc victims. Why shouldn't they take responsibilty for themselves? Much of what they do is no different then firing an automatic weapon in the middle of a room. Then saying "Hey people should have worn bullet proof armor. Not our fault"

I also think it´s terrible when young girls or boys are starving themselves to death. But I dont think the real reason is models they watch on TV or food or fitness companys.

People that do that are very unhappy and starving is a way to punish themselves and forget/not think about the real reasons why they are unhappy. Or it might be a "scream for help" so that other can recognize that they are unhappy and desperate.

The big picture is very complicated and the problems can not be solved by actions/rules/laws/restrictions targeted at companys and media.

Also someone that is living a bad unhappy life is often looking for a way to get happy or to improve that life. And if they feel that way they will find something, a goal, something to look forward to. But whatever they find or start doing is not the real problem...even if it might be something really bad and selfdestructive.

There are no easy ways to fix this and blaming/attacking media etc will not help much and not be enough. And , IMO, it would also be unfair.

I was enjoying reading this thread until it got off on the "media" versus "troubled individuals" track... LOL.

What I would be interested to find out is how prevalent lipo is among the fitness industry. Personally, I have no problem with it if you've exhausted your other options. To me, it's not nearly the same as having a nose job or implants to change your body structure.

I think I would turn to lipo before turning to most of the fatloss supplements out there. At least lipo probably wouldn't give you a heart attack.

I believe from a mental standpoint lipo or any other cosmetic surgery could be very effective and a viable option for a person who is not satisfied with thier appearance. It's a personal decision that really doesn't affect anyone else, so my opinion is if something is troubling you enough to cause undue stress, such as fat around the middle, tiny titties, ect., do whatever you feel is necessary to make you feel better/more positive about you. Just make sure you are educated about the options available before you jump in with both feet.