Low Body Fat vs. Cosmetic Surgery

[Barber]

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.......

[John Stone]

Originally Posted by Barber

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.

Originally Posted by Barber

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.

Originally Posted by Barber

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.

Originally Posted by Barber

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".

Originally Posted by Barber

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!

[Foley]

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...

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Foley

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.

[gravityhomer]

Wow, if at 4% body fat you still have an unusual area of fat, that would make me wonder if it is fat. 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?

[John Stone]

Originally Posted by gravityhomer

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.

[chicanerous]

Originally Posted by John Stone

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.

Just 2 cents.

[John Stone]

Originally Posted by chicanerous

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

[chicanerous]

Originally Posted by John Stone

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

[Barber]

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!

[Maya]

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.

Originally Posted by Barber

The fat around my belly does bother me but not enough for me to go under the knife too

Then dont do it

Originally Posted by Barber

...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 but when I can afford it..... I'm all for improvment

[guava]

Originally Posted by Barber

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.

[mgullic]

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.

[tennisball]

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.

Originally Posted by John Stone

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!

[Barber]

Originally Posted by guava

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.....

[Gila Monster]

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?

[chicanerous]

Originally Posted by tennisball

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?

[...]

[Fitness_Wannabee]

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!

[ryang]

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.

[Robert2006]

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?