disproving stupid debloat and starve/leanmaxx propaganda

[wesgibbins300]

preface: hollow cheeks
I hope this helps anyone who thinks that if they don’t have hollow cheeks when they’re younger, they’ll never have them—that’s far from the truth. In reality, hollow cheeks tend to become more noticeable with age as facial fat distribution changes and overall body fat decreases. A lot of people expect to have sharp facial features early on, but puberty isn’t the stage where hollow cheeks typically develop. It’s actually more common for them to start showing later in life as your face naturally loses fat and your bone structure becomes more defined.



fat distribution
A lot of people mistake poor fat distribution for being “fat” or “bloated” when, in reality, they just have low muscle mass and aren’t giving their body what it needs to develop properly. Where your body stores fat is largely genetic, and some areas—like the face, stomach, and thighs—tend to hold onto fat more stubbornly. This doesn’t mean you’re overweight; it just means your body composition isn’t ideal. The issue isn’t the presence of fat itself but the lack of lean muscle underneath to create a more structured look.



actually helping yourself
Starving yourself or going on extreme calorie deficits at a young age isn’t the answer—it only deprives your body of the nutrients it needs to build proper bone structure and muscle tone, which are key for achieving a more defined look later on. If anything, focusing on a balanced diet with enough protein and training consistently will set you up for better fat distribution and more prominent facial features as you age. I learned this the hard way, so don’t wreck your body trying to force results that will come naturally with time.

If anyone disagrees with this, I'll be more than happy to debate them and go into a scientific argument on how I'm right and they're wrong. Everything here is researched and properly written, so yeah.

 

[iblamemandible7]

You said an extreme calorie deficit is bad, what do you think of a 500 calorie deficit as a skinny fat 17 year old?

 

[wesgibbins300]

You said an extreme calorie deficit is bad, what do you think of a 500 calorie deficit as a skinny fat 17 year old?

NO! you do not need to be in a calorie deficit if you’re “skinny fat.” To determine the right approach, you first need to understand the root cause of being MONW (which is an imbalance between body fat and lean muscle mass). This occurs when the body lacks sufficient muscle tissue, leading to metabolic inefficiencies that promote excess fat storage as compensation

The solution isn’t to restrict yourself but to prioritize muscle gain. Focus on progressive overload while training, make sure ur consistently challenging growth. Your diet should be high in protein to support muscle hypertrophy, while consuming maintenance overall calories. OT, this shift in body comp will naturally reduce excess tissue while improving metabolic efficiency (ur currently fucked up MBR), leading to a leaner and more defined physique. Instead of focusing on cutting, think of it as recomping


I’ve seen so many fitness influencers preach about how you need to be in a calorie deficit if you’re skinny fat. They haven’t done the research. They don’t understand what Metabolically Obese Normal Weight (MONW) actually is, how fat deposition and redistribution work, or how to properly fix it. All you need to do is eat at maintenance calories and train as much as you can to build muscle. Eating in a calorie deficit will only mess up your hormones even more, significantly reduce your nutrient intake, and actually decrease your chances of fixing your “skinny fat” look. So please, just eat at maintenance. I don’t believe anyone should ever go into a calorie deficit unless they are clinically obese or are already at a high level of muscle mass and looking to cut for peak definition.

 

[Snowskinned]

Just get to 12% body fat. Yea, no wonder your cheeks are made of fat. Just lose it and you'll get them hollow

Also, fat distribution, despite being genetic, also depends on your hormones. So just blast Test for better distribution

 

[wesgibbins300]

Just get to 12% body fat. Yea, no wonder your cheeks are made of fat. Just lose it and you'll get them hollow

Also, fat distribution, despite being genetic, also depends on your hormones. So just blast Test for better distribution

That’s such an oversimplified and ignorant take that it’s almost laughable. “Just get to 12% body fat” as if body fat percentage is the only factor in facial structure. most will never get hollow cheeks even at 10% body fat because their bone structure, fat distribution, and facial musculature aren’t built for it. Genetics and overall body composition play a much bigger role than some arbitrary body fat percentage.


the whole “just blast Test for better fat distribution” cope? more just reckless and completely missing the point. Hormones absolutely influence fat distribution, but throwing exogenous testosterone into the mix isn’t some magic fix but will do more harm than good (i.e; endocrine system) messing with natural hormone regulation, and can even cause worse fat retention if mismanaged. You don’t “fix” poor fat distribution by taking shortcuts. this entire forum is pure retardistry

 

[Snowskinned]

That’s such an oversimplified and ignorant take that it’s almost laughable. “Just get to 12% body fat” as if body fat percentage is the only factor in facial structure. most will never get hollow cheeks even at 10% body fat because their bone structure, fat distribution, and facial musculature aren’t built for it. Genetics and overall body composition play a much bigger role than some arbitrary body fat percentage.


the whole “just blast Test for better fat distribution” cope? more just reckless and completely missing the point. Hormones absolutely influence fat distribution, but throwing exogenous testosterone into the mix isn’t some magic fix but will do more harm than good (i.e; endocrine system) messing with natural hormone regulation, and can even cause worse fat retention if mismanaged. You don’t “fix” poor fat distribution by taking shortcuts. this entire forum is pure retardistry

You're just a low T soyboy, scared of any risk and trying to hide your cowardice behind logic
You can not not get hollow cheeks if you have low bf% and low water retention. Legit impossible and I haven't seen any proofs. Only retards at 15-20% bf saying they are at 8%

 

[wesgibbins300]

You're just a low T soyboy, scared of any risk and trying to hide your cowardice behind logic
You can not not get hollow cheeks if you have low bf% and low water retention. Legit impossible and I haven't seen any proofs. Only retards at 15-20% bf saying they are at 8%

It’s always the least informed people on this forum who resort to calling others “low-T soyboys” the moment they get publicly disproved and humiliated. If you seriously believe that facial anatomy and bone structure don’t play the biggest role in determining how you’ll look as you age especially when your fat pads naturally dissolve; you’re completely out of your depth. It’s embarrassing to debate someone who lacks even a basic understanding of human physiology.


btw if you don’t know that water retention is not the same as facial fat, and that it fluctuates due to multiple factors like which i’ve stated here multiple times, then you have no business discussing this topic. Subcutaneous fat is what actually contributes to facial fullness, not temporary fluctuations in water weight.

So no, it is absolutely possible to have low body fat and still not have hollow cheeks, and the idea that it’s “legit impossible” is nothing but incel-tier cope from someone who doesn’t understand even the basics of physiology or thermodynamics.

i’ll be sitting here knowing i’m smarter than you in every way, enjoy reflecting ur insecurity

 

[Snowskinned]

It’s always the least informed people on this forum who resort to calling others “low-T soyboys” the moment they get publicly disproved and humiliated. If you seriously believe that facial anatomy and bone structure don’t play the biggest role in determining how you’ll look as you age especially when your fat pads naturally dissolve; you’re completely out of your depth. It’s embarrassing to debate someone who lacks even a basic understanding of human physiology.


btw if you don’t know that water retention is not the same as facial fat, and that it fluctuates due to multiple factors like which i’ve stated here multiple times, then you have no business discussing this topic. Subcutaneous fat is what actually contributes to facial fullness, not temporary fluctuations in water weight.

So no, it is absolutely possible to have low body fat and still not have hollow cheeks, and the idea that it’s “legit impossible” is nothing but incel-tier cope from someone who doesn’t understand even the basics of physiology or thermodynamics.

i’ll be sitting here knowing i’m smarter than you in every way, enjoy reflecting ur insecurity

Sounds like cope tbh

Just get lean, you’re fat and that’s the reason you look fat. Not cuz “meh bone structure”

JFL at trying to use irrelevant smart words to not look like a midwit

 

[wesgibbins300]

Sounds like cope tbh

Just get lean, you’re fat and that’s the reason you look fat. Not cuz “meh bone structure”

JFL at trying to use irrelevant smart words to not look like a midwit

no ur just obviously retarded use science to backup ur statement (you can’t, as ur proven wrong). my fault you can’t understand what i’m saying so u rebut with “irrelevant words” anecdotal evidence also proves just because ur lean doesn’t mean you instantly unlock cheekbones. i’m not using my defence for the entirety of looking fat just for face structure

 

[Snowskinned]

no ur just obviously retarded use science to backup ur statement (you can’t, as ur proven wrong). my fault you can’t understand what i’m saying so u rebut with “irrelevant words” anecdotal evidence also proves just because ur lean doesn’t mean you instantly unlock cheekbones. i’m not using my defence for the entirety of looking fat just for face structure

You have provided 0 scientific evidence and have thrown a bunch of irrelevant words
"Thermodynamics"

Losing fat = less fat. Seems like a very hard concept for you to understand

 

[wesgibbins300]

You have provided 0 scientific evidence and have thrown a bunch of irrelevant words
"Thermodynamics"

Losing fat = less fat. Seems like a very hard concept for you to understand

“Losing fat equals less fat” is such an embarrassingly simplistic take that it completely ignores how fat distribution actually works. Fat loss happens across the entire body, not just in specific areas, which means you don’t get to pick where you lose fat first or last. Genetics play a huge role in where your body holds onto fat, and for a lot of people, facial fat is one of the last things to go.


You’re acting like bone structure and fat distribution aren’t a thing, which is just straight-up ignorance. Scientific research on adipose tissue distribution has already confirmed that people store and lose fat at different rates depending on their genetics. Not everyone is going to have hollow cheeks just because they hit a certain body fat percentage. Some people naturally have thicker facial fat pads, different zygomatic structures, and varying muscle-to-fat ratios in their face, which all affect how their face looks when they lean down.



And as for anecdotal evidence? There’s plenty. There are guys who drop to single-digit body fat and still don’t have hollow cheeks because their facial structure just doesn’t allow for it. If losing fat was the only thing that mattered, every single lean person would have the same facial definition, which clearly isn’t the case.


The fact that you’re dismissing basic physiology, endocrinology, and genetics just to push this brain-dead “just get lean” argument proves you don’t actually understand how the human body works. I’m not throwing around “irrelevant words.” I’m using actual scientific terminology that you clearly don’t have the capacity to grasp. Instead of projecting your ignorance onto others, maybe read a basic study on fat distribution and facial adiposity before embarrassing yourself any further.

want me to throw a bunch of studies that prove exactly what I’m talking about?

 

[chadisbeingmade]

NO! you do not need to be in a calorie deficit if you’re “skinny fat.” To determine the right approach, you first need to understand the root cause of being MONW (which is an imbalance between body fat and lean muscle mass). This occurs when the body lacks sufficient muscle tissue, leading to metabolic inefficiencies that promote excess fat storage as compensation

The solution isn’t to restrict yourself but to prioritize muscle gain. Focus on progressive overload while training, make sure ur consistently challenging growth. Your diet should be high in protein to support muscle hypertrophy, while consuming maintenance overall calories. OT, this shift in body comp will naturally reduce excess tissue while improving metabolic efficiency (ur currently fucked up MBR), leading to a leaner and more defined physique. Instead of focusing on cutting, think of it as recomping


I’ve seen so many fitness influencers preach about how you need to be in a calorie deficit if you’re skinny fat. They haven’t done the research. They don’t understand what Metabolically Obese Normal Weight (MONW) actually is, how fat deposition and redistribution work, or how to properly fix it. All you need to do is eat at maintenance calories and train as much as you can to build muscle. Eating in a calorie deficit will only mess up your hormones even more, significantly reduce your nutrient intake, and actually decrease your chances of fixing your “skinny fat” look. So please, just eat at maintenance. I don’t believe anyone should ever go into a calorie deficit unless they are clinically obese or are already at a high level of muscle mass and looking to cut for peak definition.

Eating in a small deficit doesn’t affect your growth stop the cope. You will still get all the nutrients you need. Skinny fat is too much fat mass and too little muscle. 500 deficit resolves both.

 

[wesgibbins300]

Eating in a small deficit doesn’t affect your growth stop the cope. You will still get all the nutrients you need. Skinny fat is too much fat mass and too little muscle. 500 deficit resolves both.

200-500 is fine, but science proves it isn’t needed.

 

[badexilw]

You said an extreme calorie deficit is bad, what do you think of a 500 calorie deficit as a skinny fat 17 year old?

u are just killing ur self

 

[looks>books]

preface: hollow cheeks
I hope this helps anyone who thinks that if they don’t have hollow cheeks when they’re younger, they’ll never have them—that’s far from the truth. In reality, hollow cheeks tend to become more noticeable with age as facial fat distribution changes and overall body fat decreases. A lot of people expect to have sharp facial features early on, but puberty isn’t the stage where hollow cheeks typically develop. It’s actually more common for them to start showing later in life as your face naturally loses fat and your bone structure becomes more defined.



fat distribution
A lot of people mistake poor fat distribution for being “fat” or “bloated” when, in reality, they just have low muscle mass and aren’t giving their body what it needs to develop properly. Where your body stores fat is largely genetic, and some areas—like the face, stomach, and thighs—tend to hold onto fat more stubbornly. This doesn’t mean you’re overweight; it just means your body composition isn’t ideal. The issue isn’t the presence of fat itself but the lack of lean muscle underneath to create a more structured look.



actually helping yourself
Starving yourself or going on extreme calorie deficits at a young age isn’t the answer—it only deprives your body of the nutrients it needs to build proper bone structure and muscle tone, which are key for achieving a more defined look later on. If anything, focusing on a balanced diet with enough protein and training consistently will set you up for better fat distribution and more prominent facial features as you age. I learned this the hard way, so don’t wreck your body trying to force results that will come naturally with time.

If anyone disagrees with this, I'll be more than happy to debate them and go into a scientific argument on how I'm right and they're wrong. Everything here is researched and properly written, so yeah.

What do you have to say about these

 

[stufftodo]

younger people can still lose weight if they exercise and eat normally. fasting just one time a week for adults also work as a caloric deficit. this is water ngl...

 

[stufftodo]

View attachment 3564247
View attachment 3564248

What do you have to say about these

different fat storage and face composition. basically means they're boneless and lowk fat faces by default

 

[looks>books]

different fat storage and face composition. basically means they're boneless and lowk fat faces by default

Then ratios are still valid youd say?

 

[stufftodo]

Then ratios are still valid youd say?

wha ratios

 

[looks>books]

wha ratios

Like salt potassium

Or just lose weight

 

[stufftodo]

Like salt potassium

Or just lose weight

oooo

yeah diet does matter, but realistically if your fat distribution is average being skinny would give you enough of an effect. debloating and everything is just for when you really need that extra boost

 

[wesgibbins300]

View attachment 3564247
View attachment 3564248

What do you have to say about these

nothing, if anything this proves what my argument with Snowskinned above.
fat deposition patterns, particularly facial adiposity such as buccal fat pads which are shown in the pic are mostly influenced by already defined genetic predisposition. "skinny fat" physiques who maintain low lean muscle mass despite having normal or low bmi are shown to have excess facial fullness due to genetically predetermined fat distribution rather than simply body composition.

buccal fat pads or for the sake of the reply, bfp, are stubborn to changes in total bf%, owing to their own characteristics.

(PMID: 23358089) describes the buccal fat pad as a distinct adipose tissue compartment encapsulated by connective tissues, resistant to generalized fat loss.
(PMID: 19033370) says that facial adiposity is more influenced by hereditary (internal) factors than external influences such as caloric deficits (which are glorified on tiktok fitness) or physical/ exercise (cardio). Genetics MAINLY determines fat% distribution independent of total adiposity, explaining the ratio observed in facial leanness among equally lean people.

hollow cheeks/facial hollowing, cheekbone prominence, average "blackpilled" won't be guaranteed by leaning urself, it's all genetic lottery. predisposition is a hellish nightmare

 

[wesgibbins300]

younger people can still lose weight if they exercise and eat normally. fasting just one time a week for adults also work as a caloric deficit. this is water ngl...

PMID: 16469988: caloric restriction during adolescence negatively impacts bone density and long-term bone health


PMID: 25092545: restrictive dieting in adolescents increases risks of developing eating disorders and psychological distress.


PMID: 19166676: calorie restriction during growth stages impairs normal physical development, leading to potential metabolic and endocrine disturbances.


simply no, said studies support the stance that young, non-obese youth should never calorie restrict themselves; it's stupid and comes at a bigger cost than most people think.

 

[wesgibbins300]

oooo

yeah diet does matter, but realistically if your fat distribution is average being skinny would give you enough of an effect. debloating and everything is just for when you really need that extra boost

i don't know what you mean by this, if ur arguing that simply being skinny ("low bf") is enough to achieve desired facial aesthetics, it's plain wrong. genetics target facial fat distribution, and buccal fat pads (adiposity) are there to stay even at low bfp. debloating (which is just a silly term made by copecels who hit the genetic nightmare), primarily targets temporary water retention (showing 0 and negligible/noticeable effect on genetically determined facial structures).

 

[wesgibbins300]

Like salt potassium

Or just lose weight

please stop with the salt and potassium bullshit its all cope, read the pmid studies above which support what im saying.

 

[kazama]

less stress and 10% bf, thats all

 

[kazama]

please stop with the salt and potassium bullshit its all cope, read the pmid studies above which support what im saying.

controlling ur retention cope?

 

[RapeAllFemales]

Water retention is ideal then do carnivore if you wanna debloat fast

 

[wesgibbins300]

less stress and 10% bf, thats all

HAHAHAH, no.

• PMID: 23358089: – facial fat compartments like buccal pads are anatomically isolated and resistant to body fat changes.
• PMID: 19033370: – facial adiposity depends on genetics, NOT simply lower body fat.
• PMID: 19166676: – caloric restriction or stress reduction won’t significantly alter genetically predetermined facial fat distribution.
• PMID: 26452502: – even extreme fat loss does NOT uniformly affect facial aesthetics; genetic factors dominate.
• PMID: 25092545: – simplified advice like "10% body fat" is insufficient, ignoring genetic realities and potentially harmful.

Your "less stress and 10% body fat" oversimplification is scientifically unsupported nonsense.

 

[wesgibbins300]

controlling ur retention cope?

i'm sorry? what does this mean? al im saying is that blaming facial fat or poor facial aesthetics on salt or potassium balance is bullshit. The science clearly shows it's genetic:

• PMID: 23358089 – buccal pads adiposity is genetically predetermined and resistant to dietary manipulation.
• PMID: 19033370 – fat deposition strongly influenced by heredity, not dietary mineral fluctuations.
• PMID: 26448499 – sodium/potassium balance primarily impacts temporary fluid shifts, not genetic facial structures.

stop conflating minor water retention with permanent genetic fat distribution.

 

[kazama]

HAHAHAH, no.

• PMID: 23358089: – facial fat compartments like buccal pads are anatomically isolated and resistant to body fat changes.
• PMID: 19033370: – facial adiposity depends on genetics, NOT simply lower body fat.
• PMID: 19166676: – caloric restriction or stress reduction won’t significantly alter genetically predetermined facial fat distribution.
• PMID: 26452502: – even extreme fat loss does NOT uniformly affect facial aesthetics; genetic factors dominate.
• PMID: 25092545: – simplified advice like "10% body fat" is insufficient, ignoring genetic realities and potentially harmful.

Your "less stress and 10% body fat" oversimplification is scientifically unsupported nonsense.

So I should just continue being a stressed out fat guy and not try to get better?

 

[wesgibbins300]

So I should just continue being a stressed out fat guy and not try to get better?

no. you said that being "unstresed and not fat" equals to automatic facial aesthetic, wrong. losing fat = less fat, which is right. but most people (including you which it seems like) dont get that even when you lean out to single digit bf fat deposition (adiposity) retains on your face, predetermined by your genetic structure. 23358089, 19033370, and 21496567 all support this.

 

[kazama]

i'm sorry? what does this mean? al im saying is that blaming facial fat or poor facial aesthetics on salt or potassium balance is bullshit. The science clearly shows it's genetic:

• PMID: 23358089 – buccal pads adiposity is genetically predetermined and resistant to dietary manipulation.
• PMID: 19033370 – fat deposition strongly influenced by heredity, not dietary mineral fluctuations.
• PMID: 26448499 – sodium/potassium balance primarily impacts temporary fluid shifts, not genetic facial structures.

stop conflating minor water retention with permanent genetic fat distribution.

"stop conflating minor water retention with permanent genetic fat distribution."

Everyone here, except for some grey users who didnt get it, knows this. ITS OBVIOUSLY GENETICS. Ure not some genius revolutionary for stating the obvious. But saying that losing retention and fat doesnt matter is just dumb. And what about the people who ascend?? If I cared about what you say, Id try to find a study. But nah, too much stress to reply to something so obvious.

 

[kazama]

no. you said that being "unstresed and not fat" equals to automatic facial aesthetic, wrong. losing fat = less fat, which is right. but most people (including you which it seems like) dont get that even when you lean out to single digit bf fat deposition (adiposity) retains on your face, predetermined by your genetic structure. 23358089, 19033370, and 21496567 all support this.

My bad bro, I thought all the fat on my body would come off, right? Wow, that was my mistake LOL

 

[wesgibbins300]

"stop conflating minor water retention with permanent genetic fat distribution."

Everyone here, except for some grey users who didnt get it, knows this. ITS OBVIOUSLY GENETICS. Ure not some genius revolutionary for stating the obvious. But saying that losing retention and fat doesnt matter is just dumb. And what about the people who ascend?? If I cared about what you say, Id try to find a study. But nah, too much stress to reply to something so obvious.

Your argument oversimplifies and misunderstands the biological reality. Recognizing “genetics” superficially isn't enough and buccal fat pads (facial adiposity) specifically remain largely unaffected by temporary water shifts or even significant reductions in overall body fat, due to their genetic and anatomical isolation (PMID: 23358089). people who ascend after losing body fat are genetically predisposed to favourable facial fat distribution (PMID: 19033370), meaning that losing retention or body fat alone won't guarantee improved facial structure for everyone. Your anecdotes don't challenge established scientific understanding.

 

[kazama]

Your argument oversimplifies and misunderstands the biological reality. Recognizing “genetics” superficially isn't enough and buccal fat pads (facial adiposity) specifically remain largely unaffected by temporary water shifts or even significant reductions in overall body fat, due to their genetic and anatomical isolation (PMID: 23358089). people who ascend after losing body fat are genetically predisposed to favourable facial fat distribution (PMID: 19033370), meaning that losing retention or body fat alone won't guarantee improved facial structure for everyone. Your anecdotes don't challenge established scientific understanding

u typed all this for me? ure a nice guy

 

[kazama]

Your argument oversimplifies and misunderstands the biological reality. Recognizing “genetics” superficially isn't enough and buccal fat pads (facial adiposity) specifically remain largely unaffected by temporary water shifts or even significant reductions in overall body fat, due to their genetic and anatomical isolation (PMID: 23358089). people who ascend after losing body fat are genetically predisposed to favourable facial fat distribution (PMID: 19033370), meaning that losing retention or body fat alone won't guarantee improved facial structure for everyone. Your anecdotes don't challenge established scientific understanding.

No matter what studies u cite or what u say, I still think you're wrong. Of course, everything depends on your genetics.Its so obvious that many cases are just like the ones you mentioned. But logically, dont we lose fat all over the body?? So should I just give up on my looksmax? So many threads read just for u to refute everything. Why did’t u do this earlier, man???

 

[trench]

Your argument oversimplifies and misunderstands the biological reality. Recognizing “genetics” superficially isn't enough and buccal fat pads (facial adiposity) specifically remain largely unaffected by temporary water shifts or even significant reductions in overall body fat, due to their genetic and anatomical isolation (PMID: 23358089). people who ascend after losing body fat are genetically predisposed to favourable facial fat distribution (PMID: 19033370), meaning that losing retention or body fat alone won't guarantee improved facial structure for everyone. Your anecdotes don't challenge established scientific understanding.

whole lotta nothing

 

[kazama]

whole lotta nothing

I really didnt understand anything

 

[trench]

I really didnt understand anything

cuz he just spat a bunch of useless chat gpt ramblings

 

[wesgibbins300]

cuz he just spat a bunch of useless chat gpt ramblings

prove im wrong then loool im waiting

 

[kazama]

cuz he just spat a bunch of useless chat gpt ramblings

Seriously???? Thats why this mf ignored the thermogenic law, how to block users? Im still greycel

 

[trench]

Seriously???? Thats why this mf ignored the thermogenic law, how to block users? Im still greycel

cant block just click on his avi and ignore him

 

[kazama]

prove im wrong then loool im waiting

u are a traitor, I thought I could trust u. I loved u man

 

[wesgibbins300]

whole lotta nothing

lemme dumb it down then lol. ur face shape, (hollow cheeks), depends on genetics. Even if you lose weight or get rid of water from your body, fat areas in your face (like buccal fat - adiposity) usually stay the same because they're controlled by gene structure. So, losing weight or "debloating" won’t change how your face looks.

 

[trench]

lemme dumb it down then lol. ur face shape, (hollow cheeks), depends on genetics. Even if you lose weight or get rid of water from your body, fat areas in your face (like buccal fat - adiposity) usually stay the same because they're controlled by gene structure. So, losing weight or "debloating" won’t change how your face looks.

water

 

[wesgibbins300]

lemme dumb it down then lol. ur face shape, (hollow cheeks), depends on genetics. Even if you lose weight or get rid of water from your body, fat areas in your face (like buccal fat - adiposity) usually stay the same because they're controlled by gene structure. So, losing weight or "debloating" won’t change how your face looks.

the fact this is literally preached on this forum and basic sense but people still like to argue against this is beyond me

 

[kazama]

the fact this is literally preached on this forum and basic sense but people still like to argue against this is beyond me

no, ure just talking water, so much so that even tiktokcels get it. Nothing groundbreaking, we all know bone structure is what defines this the most. But yeah, facial fat goes away regardless of ur bone structure or genetics. Theres no way to lie about that, and dont cite studies I cant even read try telling that to a 2019 user. And deficits dont mess up ur hormones if u know what ure doing. This could’ve been a good debate if it wasnt just about water, something thats been on BOTB since 2018 lol.

 

[wesgibbins300]

what? facial fat, especially in areas like the buccal pad doesn't fully disappear by losing weight because these pockets are set by your genetics and won't easily respond to dieting (extracted from the study you're too oblivious to read). Even people with very low bfp still keep their composition if said genes determine they store fat there, no matter how lean they become (once again, from one of the pmids you cant read). like most people who argue against this u mix up temporary water retention with permanent, genetic facial fat distribution.

THIS IS SO EASY to understand, i don't know whats so hard to get .

lean ≠ hollow cheeks
debloat ≠ hollow cheeks
lean + debloat ≠ hollow cheeks

 

[stufftodo]

i don't know what you mean by this, if ur arguing that simply being skinny ("low bf") is enough to achieve desired facial aesthetics, it's plain wrong. genetics target facial fat distribution, and buccal fat pads (adiposity) are there to stay even at low bfp. debloating (which is just a silly term made by copecels who hit the genetic nightmare), primarily targets temporary water retention (showing 0 and negligible/noticeable effect on genetically determined facial structures).

most people have enough of a face structure and fag distribution to have at least hollowish cheeks at low body fat i think?