Woot. Great video, man! It's weird how spot reduction is always so focused on the fat OVER the abs, which doesn't work very well, and doesn't seem to matter very much. You'd think the focus would be on spot-reducing visceral fat, which does seem to work quite well (with good lifestyle, diet, and exercise) and can have a profound impact on health.

Why the two cameras abd bouncing around its driving me nuts 🤣 great video as always

Great content Pak

To save you guys 22 minutes: no, not really.

You can't target fat but you can apply progressive overload to make your abs pop more at higher body fat levels.

I don't think I've ever seen anything on the science side of things, but I've definitely heard loads from bodybuilders and models. I'd be interested in finding out more about how strengthening and improving endurance of the transverse abdominis. The claim is, by doing vacuums, or by having a waist trainer on all day (some say just wearing it, some say it makes it so uncomfortable to relax the gut it makes you suck it in constantly) will reduce your waist size in general. I can see how it 'might' work. a) if the TA is stronger and fitter, and especially if you're used to unconsciously tensing all day, you might slightly hold in your gut while feeling relaxed. b) I'm not sure how much extra energy you're burning, but if you're tensing all day it's bound to be a few hundred calories, so if you don't increase intake you're shifting the balance towards weight loss. c) if performing an actual vacuum, I think it's very likely having a stronger and fitter TA is going to improve your ability, especially if you're practicing vacuums because there's technique involved too.

The first study made me think how there was no information on what usual loss of body fat is and comparison in another part of body. Like I'd be really interested if the whole body's fat was decreasing and if the belly fat decreased more than usual when other fat storages didn't. But then again it was a study from 1965. What you brought up about statistical significance is interesting if we would apply it broadly. How much of the training, nutrition and other practices we would keep doing, or we'd deem rather open to choice, if we only cared about clearly noticeable differences. Not observable but noticeable. How loose on the spectrum would we be about "just go to the gym and eat somewhat reasonably"? At least I've noticed a strong trend (not in just training and nutrition) that there's a lot of optimisation based on the most minor findings and methodologies based in that, and that drips out from the top of the professional world (where you want to make sure you're not by accident leaving anything on the table, even if you can't know it's on the table up for grabs at all). And people have started fretting over and experiencing fear of missing out on things that aren't potentially there or that wouldn't make any difference to them. And spending money on chasing that stress. And not just rather scam gadgets like abtronics, but good stuff too where the belief is on minor scientifically possible findings, or influencing the methods.

I saw another video from jeremy either, another youtuber, i would like to see some of the sources of info you found.

Let’s try to be current please !

Yo where’s the other two guys

For the algorithm

tldr, no

Never understood the appeal of this notion. Why would I want to "spot reduce" one area at the expense of all other areas?

I know SBS is evolving and going through changes....and I know that is a business that needs to be able to justify its existence. But the clickbait video format really turns me off. To be fair the 9 hour audio sessions turned me off too so it's not like I want the opposite. I miss the Podcast with Eric.

I'm on 9:56, can anybody save me 12 minutes of my life and tell me the conclusion of the video?