disproving stupid debloat and starve/leanmaxx propaganda

[stufftodo]

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.

isn't that what i said.... kids should eat normally and exercise

 

[straightheadandrew]

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.

facts, starving and trying to leanmaxx too early only messes with your face and muscle growth. hollow cheeks come with age as fat distribution changes, not from forcing it in your teens. focusing on muscle growth, good diet, and consistent training is the real way to get that defined look. don’t chase shortcuts, the right way takes time and patience

 

[wesgibbins300]

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

its primarily genetic so we'd never know but studies show that fat compartments vary between people and are genetically resistant to overall fat loss. facial fat primarily stops mid 2 late twenties around ages 25-30 so significant natural changes to facial structure or hollowing rarely happen without drastic weight fluctuations or aging-related volume loss. you never know

 

[stufftodo]

its primarily genetic so we'd never know but studies show that fat compartments vary between people and are genetically resistant to overall fat loss. facial fat primarily stops mid 2 late twenties around ages 25-30 so significant natural changes to facial structure or hollowing rarely happen without drastic weight fluctuations or aging-related volume loss. you never know

o gotchu, thanks for the input

 

[kazama]

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

Everyone understands this, and everyone has it to some extent. There is a surgery called Buccal Fat Removal u've probably never seen it because u only talk water???The more weight you lose, the more of this fat you lose. It's something simple and used by natural athletes (because it's not just in the face that this fat exists). THIS IS SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND. FAT—THE FAT WE BURN GOES AWAY. There are different types of fat, and if its the type ure referring to, then Im right.
Good zygos + fat loss + hollow cheeks. Dont take ur anger out on topics, my man. And no, Im not going to read it, because u probably read it wrong theres no way. JFL.

 

[kazama]

its primarily genetic so we'd never know but studies show that fat compartments vary between people and are genetically resistant to overall fat loss. facial fat primarily stops mid 2 late twenties around ages 25-30 so significant natural changes to facial structure or hollowing rarely happen without drastic weight fluctuations or aging-related volume loss. you never know

I understand, so the fat we accumulate doesnt go away??? Like, I can make my face fat but I cant do the opposite. Now I understand JFL, u only talk water man

 

[kazama]

facts, starving and trying to leanmaxx too early only messes with your face and muscle growth. hollow cheeks come with age as fat distribution changes, not from forcing it in your teens. focusing on muscle growth, good diet, and consistent training is the real way to get that defined look. don’t chase shortcuts, the right way takes time and patience

thats why the deficit shouldnt exceed 600 and u should do this by hitting all ur macros

 

[straightheadandrew]

thats why the deficit shouldnt exceed 600 and u should do this by hitting all ur macros

a 600 calorie deficit isn’t too extreme if you’re still hitting all your macros and focusing on muscle growth. you need to support your body with proper nutrition, especially if you’re training hard. starving or going too low with your deficit is only going to slow down your progress and mess with your hormones. focus on a balanced approach, where you prioritize muscle gains and fat loss slowly, without sacrificing your face or overall health.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

a 600 calorie deficit isn’t too extreme if you’re still hitting all your macros and focusing on muscle growth. you need to support your body with proper nutrition, especially if you’re training hard. starving or going too low with your deficit is only going to slow down your progress and mess with your hormones. focus on a balanced approach, where you prioritize muscle gains and fat loss slowly, without sacrificing your face or overall health.

Nutrition isn’t only about calories. People here who are aware about diet, and know that it should be focused around animal foods, most likely get more nutrition in 1500 calories worth of it, than the average normie who eats 3k a day. You can eat 10k calories of glyslop and still be malnourished, because your eating fuck all nutrients. It’s not about calories, it’s about nutrients also. Nothing wrong with a calorie deficit, 600 calorie deficit is just a normal deficit, no where near extreme. 1500+ is where I would consider it an aggressive deficit, and even they have their benefits of being able to shed body fat rapidly to allow you to get back to maintenance or a calorie surplus much faster, which is my preferred method. One month of that causes no harm long term (continuing more than 4-6 weeks however is retarded)

 

[kazama]

a 600 calorie deficit isn’t too extreme if you’re still hitting all your macros and focusing on muscle growth. you need to support your body with proper nutrition, especially if you’re training hard. starving or going too low with your deficit is only going to slow down your progress and mess with your hormones. focus on a balanced approach, where you prioritize muscle gains and fat loss slowly, without sacrificing your face or overall health.

No one should go from a bulk to a deficit in 24h it takes 2/3 months, cutting 50 kcal at a time. In reality, u only stay in a 600 deficit for 2)3 months, and the rest is just gradual cutting. Not to mention carb cycling, and its proven that u can build muscle in a deficit. U just cant be doing 3x12 with the same weight for three years straight. A deficit doesnt apply to everyone ure right in a way.

 

[straightheadandrew]

Nutrition isn’t only about calories. People here who are aware about diet, and know that it should be focused around animal foods, most likely get more nutrition in 1500 calories worth of it, than the average normie who eats 3k a day. You can eat 10k calories of glyslop and still be malnourished, because your eating fuck all nutrients. It’s not about calories, it’s about nutrients also. Nothing wrong with a calorie deficit, 600 calorie deficit is just a normal deficit, no where near extreme. 1500+ is where I would consider it an aggressive deficit.

yeah, nutrition is way more than just calories. animal foods are packed with nutrients that support muscle growth, hormones, and overall health, but it’s still about balance. you can’t just focus on getting your macros right, you gotta get enough calories to fuel muscle growth too. a 600 calorie deficit can work if you're still hitting your macros and eating nutrient-dense foods, but if you’re not getting enough total calories to support your activity, you’re not gonna make real progress. a healthy deficit is about sustainability, not just cutting down. agree though, the quality of food matters way more than just the number of calories.

 

[straightheadandrew]

No one should go from a bulk to a deficit in 24h it takes 2/3 months, cutting 50 kcal at a time. In reality, u only stay in a 600 deficit for 2)3 months, and the rest is just gradual cutting. Not to mention carb cycling, and its proven that u can build muscle in a deficit. U just cant be doing 3x12 with the same weight for three years straight. A deficit doesnt apply to everyone ure right in a way.

true, jumping straight from a bulk to a deficit isn’t ideal, gradual cuts are better for preserving muscle and keeping your metabolism in check. carb cycling can definitely help with energy and performance while in a deficit. muscle gain in a deficit is possible, but it’s all about managing training intensity and ensuring you're still getting enough protein to support growth. keeping the deficit moderate, like 600, and focusing on muscle retention with progressive overload is key. you’re right, a deficit isn’t one-size-fits-all—it’s about finding the right balance and not rushing it.

 

[wesgibbins300]

Everyone understands this, and everyone has it to some extent. There is a surgery called Buccal Fat Removal u've probably never seen it because u only talk water???The more weight you lose, the more of this fat you lose. It's something simple and used by natural athletes (because it's not just in the face that this fat exists). THIS IS SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND. FAT—THE FAT WE BURN GOES AWAY. There are different types of fat, and if its the type ure referring to, then Im right.
Good zygos + fat loss + hollow cheeks. Dont take ur anger out on topics, my man. And no, Im not going to read it, because u probably read it wrong theres no way. JFL.

first, "talk water"? what does that even mean? second, ur misunderstanding the concept completely. Yes, there's surgery called buccal fat removal, specifically because that fat doesn't respond to regular fat loss and it's genetically resistant / doesn't significantly diminish just from losing body fat. The existence of the surgery literally proves you're wrong: if facial fat simply disappeared with weight loss, the surgery wouldn't even exist.

I understand, so the fat we accumulate doesnt go away??? Like, I can make my face fat but I cant do the opposite. Now I understand JFL, u only talk water man

ONCE AGAIN u misunderstand. ofc you can lose fat in your face by reducing overall body fat. But certain FFP compartments (i.e: buccal fat adiposity pads) are genetically resistant which mean they WONT fully disappear even at very low body fat levels if YOUR genetics dont allow for it. This doesn't mean you can't lose fat at all; it just means genetics dictate how much you'll lose and where from. You're still confusing water retention with actual genetically predetermined facial fat storage.

people who starve themself sub 200 calories with a dangerous ED have no muscle and lose copius amounts of fat, they might look disturbing and LIKE a skeleton, but are they a bodying depiction of an actual skeleton? no. because basic anatomical science proves that your body has a fixed resistant of which your facial fat caps at after losing X amount of weight/fat

 

[kazama]

true, jumping straight from a bulk to a deficit isn’t ideal, gradual cuts are better for preserving muscle and keeping your metabolism in check. carb cycling can definitely help with energy and performance while in a deficit. muscle gain in a deficit is possible, but it’s all about managing training intensity and ensuring you're still getting enough protein to support growth. keeping the deficit moderate, like 600, and focusing on muscle retention with progressive overload is key. you’re right, a deficit isn’t one-size-fits-all—it’s about finding the right balance and not rushing it.

Not to mention that it depends a lot on body composition. Most of the time, a maximum deficit of 300 to 400 is necessary, but yes, eating "clean" alone would make many people lose weight.
The more fat a person has, the more water they tend to retain.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

yeah, nutrition is way more than just calories. animal foods are packed with nutrients that support muscle growth, hormones, and overall health, but it’s still about balance. you can’t just focus on getting your macros right, you gotta get enough calories to fuel muscle growth too. a 600 calorie deficit can work if you're still hitting your macros and eating nutrient-dense foods, but if you’re not getting enough total calories to support your activity, you’re not gonna make real progress. a healthy deficit is about sustainability, not just cutting down. agree though, the quality of food matters way more than just the number of calories.

I usually take the unbalanced approach and works extremely well. Usually about 1500 calorie deficit for 4-6weeks. Ofcorise it is not sustainable, nor is it meant to be. The goal is simply rid of as much fat as possible in a short amount of time to allow you to get into a maintenance or building stage faster. I have done it a few times and works perfectly provided you actually stick to it. Metabolism slow down is cope and happens regardless if any deficit your on. It ends up being ketogenic since always cut carbs before fats and protein. It’s imperative that your training remind top tier otherwise you will be guaranteed to suffer muscle loss on such deficits. I managed to maintain strength throughout the whole time so didn’t suffer muscle loss. It’s much better than a prolonged catabolic state in my option.

 

[straightheadandrew]

I usually take the unbalanced approach and works extremely well. Usually about 1500 calorie deficit for 4-6weeks. Ofcorise it is not sustainable, nor is it meant to be. The goal is simply rid of as much fat as possible in a short amount of time to allow you to get into a maintenance or building stage faster. I have done it a few times and works perfectly provided you actually stick to it. Metabolism slow down is cope and happens regardless if any deficit your on. It ends up being ketogenic since always cut carbs before fats and protein. It’s imperative that your training remind top tier otherwise you will be guaranteed to suffer muscle loss on such deficits. I managed to maintain strength throughout the whole time so didn’t suffer muscle loss. It’s much better than a prolonged catabolic state in my option.

cutting at 1500 calories for 4-6 weeks? yeah, it's extreme but I get the point of stripping down fat fast to hit maintenance or a building phase quicker. but let’s be real, it’s not sustainable long-term and it can definitely mess with muscle retention if you're not on point with training and recovery. slow and steady is usually the better approach for keeping muscle while leaning down, plus it keeps your metabolism intact. ketogenic-style cuts work for some, but you’re risking more than just fat loss—protein and strength need to stay a priority if you’re pushing this extreme.

 

[kazama]

first, "talk water"? what does that even mean? second, ur misunderstanding the concept completely. Yes, there's surgery called buccal fat removal, specifically because that fat doesn't respond to regular fat loss and it's genetically resistant / doesn't significantly diminish just from losing body fat. The existence of the surgery literally proves you're wrong: if facial fat simply disappeared with weight loss, the surgery wouldn't even exist.

ONCE AGAIN u misunderstand. ofc you can lose fat in your face by reducing overall body fat. But certain FFP compartments (i.e: buccal fat adiposity pads) are genetically resistant which mean they WONT fully disappear even at very low body fat levels if YOUR genetics dont allow for it. This doesn't mean you can't lose fat at all; it just means genetics dictate how much you'll lose and where from. You're still confusing water retention with actual genetically predetermined facial fat storage.

people who starve themself sub 200 calories with a dangerous ED have no muscle and lose copius amounts of fat, they might look disturbing and LIKE a skeleton, but are they a bodying depiction of an actual skeleton? no. because basic anatomical science proves that your body has a fixed resistant of which your facial fat caps at after losing X amount of weight/fat

You're simply taking these fats and comparing them to the fat we accumulate. Obviously, having 10% body fat won’t remove everything—because it's 10%, you still have some.

The distribution is obvious; it’s not randomly placed anywhere.

"You're still confusing water retention with actual genetically predetermined facial fat storage."

No, man, I'M TALKING ABOUT FACIAL FAT LOSS.

The fat we store CAN be burned, LOL. You're bringing up something that isn't even relevant to the context.

 

[kazama]

first, "talk water"? what does that even mean?

U are saying something useless that is on the site and was already discussed in 2019

 

[chadisbeingmade]

cutting at 1500 calories for 4-6 weeks? yeah, it's extreme but I get the point of stripping down fat fast to hit maintenance or a building phase quicker. but let’s be real, it’s not sustainable long-term and it can definitely mess with muscle retention if you're not on point with training and recovery. slow and steady is usually the better approach for keeping muscle while leaning down, plus it keeps your metabolism intact. ketogenic-style cuts work for some, but you’re risking more than just fat loss—protein and strength need to stay a priority if you’re pushing this extreme.

Not at 1500 calories. 1500 calorie deficit a day. Yes it’s not a sustainable diet, nor should anyone try to sustain it. If your having problem with energy or training hard then yes it’s absolutely not worth it. You will lose too much muscle, it’s not a diet for everyone. I usually have carbs only before the gym to allow me to
lift properly and not feel sluggish in the gym which is extremely important to retain muscle. If your unable to train hard and with good intensity on such deficit then yes for sure slow is a much better approach.

protein and strength need to stay a priority if you’re pushing this extreme.

Rhis is the key point. If you can’t do this, then don’t bother

 

[wesgibbins300]

cutting at 1500 calories for 4-6 weeks? yeah, it's extreme but I get the point of stripping down fat fast to hit maintenance or a building phase quicker. but let’s be real, it’s not sustainable long-term and it can definitely mess with muscle retention if you're not on point with training and recovery. slow and steady is usually the better approach for keeping muscle while leaning down, plus it keeps your metabolism intact. ketogenic-style cuts work for some, but you’re risking more than just fat loss—protein and strength need to stay a priority if you’re pushing this extreme.

if hes past the age of messing up any nutrients that target hormone development, and hitting his protein / nutrient goals. i wouldnt see how a 1500 deficit is bad. studies show that short term agro cuts (around op's 1500/day remark) works for rapid fat loss and wont significantly harm muscle loss.

i recommend reading https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5470183/, what they say aboutt VLED is pretty cool

 

[chadisbeingmade]

if hes past the age of messing up any nutrients that target hormone development, and hitting his protein / nutrient goals. i wouldnt see how a 1500 deficit is bad. studies show that short term agro cuts (around op's 1500/day remark) works for rapid fat loss and wont significantly harm muscle loss.

i recommend reading https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5470183/, what they say aboutt VLED is pretty cool

based. I do not recommend the diet to anyone under age of 18 realistically which l should have mentioned, even if it’s for such a short period like a month.

 

[wesgibbins300]

You're simply taking these fats and comparing them to the fat we accumulate. Obviously, having 10% body fat won’t remove everything—because it's 10%, you still have some.

The distribution is obvious; it’s not randomly placed anywhere.

"You're still confusing water retention with actual genetically predetermined facial fat storage."

No, man, I'M TALKING ABOUT FACIAL FAT LOSS.

The fat we store CAN be burned, LOL. You're bringing up something that isn't even relevant to the context.

THE FAT WE STORE CANT ALWAYS BE BURNED ESPECIALLY FACIAL ADIPOSITY. the fact you purposely misunderstand the anatomy of fat storage to ragebait is once again beyond me. confusing general body fat with genetically isolated facial fat compartments like buccal fat pads. FF compartments are anatomically distinct and genetically programmed (CANNOT BE CHANGED OR "BURNED"), resistant to standard caloric deficits or exercise (YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT )

Even at extremely low bfp's, certain paids persist, making your ignorant "just burn fat" argument scientifically retarded and incorrect. im begging you to educate yourself instead of confidently misunderstanding basic biology.

stop bringing up water if you're talking about facial fat loss then lol you sound very retarded

 

[kazama]

THE FAT WE STORE CANT ALWAYS BE BURNED ESPECIALLY FACIAL ADIPOSITY. the fact you purposely misunderstand the anatomy of fat storage to ragebait is once again beyond me. confusing general body fat with genetically isolated facial fat compartments like buccal fat pads. FF compartments are anatomically distinct and genetically programmed (CANNOT BE CHANGED OR "BURNED"), resistant to standard caloric deficits or exercise (YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT )

Even at extremely low bfp's, certain paids persist, making your ignorant "just burn fat" argument scientifically retarded and incorrect. im begging you to educate yourself instead of confidently misunderstanding basic biology.

stop bringing up water if you're talking about facial fat loss then lol you sound very retarded

Ure annoying as hell man JFL
the fat we store from overeating CAN be burned no one is talking about changing distribution or anything like that. Fat in certain areas (UEE/AEYGO SAL) doesnt completely burn away with weight loss Im not disagreeing with u. Im just saying u jumped the gun. Dont reply to me anymore. U still dont get what the hell Im saying.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

THE FAT WE STORE CANT ALWAYS BE BURNED ESPECIALLY FACIAL ADIPOSITY. the fact you purposely misunderstand the anatomy of fat storage to ragebait is once again beyond me. confusing general body fat with genetically isolated facial fat compartments like buccal fat pads. FF compartments are anatomically distinct and genetically programmed (CANNOT BE CHANGED OR "BURNED"), resistant to standard caloric deficits or exercise (YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT )

Even at extremely low bfp's, certain paids persist, making your ignorant "just burn fat" argument scientifically retarded and incorrect. im begging you to educate yourself instead of confidently misunderstanding basic biology.

stop bringing up water if you're talking about facial fat loss then lol you sound very retarded

Ure annoying as hell man JFL
the fat we store from overeating CAN be burned no one is talking about changing distribution or anything like that. Fat in certain areas (UEE/AEYGO SAL) doesnt completely burn away with weight loss Im not disagreeing with u. Im just saying u jumped the gun. Dont reply to me anymore. U still dont get what the hell Im saying.

IDK how hard it is to understand. You lose fat you lose fat from everywhere, face, back, arms etc etc. The place you lose fat from first or last is completely genetic, so you may have to lose a lot more fat than someone else to have a significant facial impact. There is fat in your face that is stubborn/resistant/doesn’t get lost just by losing fat. Starving won’t change that. (or your bone less and no amount of fat loss will give you facial definition)

 

[wesgibbins300]

Ure annoying as hell man JFL
the fat we store from overeating CAN be burned no one is talking about changing distribution or anything like that. Fat in certain areas (UEE/AEYGO SAL) doesnt completely burn away with weight loss Im not disagreeing with u. Im just saying u jumped the gun. Dont reply to me anymore. U still dont get what the hell Im saying.

is this the 4th misunderstanding we've had? lol, crazy. they didnt teach physiology in like year 8?

You're conflating generalized fat loss with predetermined facial adiposity (genetics btw hope you understand what genetics are) TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT biological studies.

BFPS are isolated compartments highly resistant to reduction regardless of how low overall body fat becomes. bcz even at single digit bf, said compartments stay significantly due to genetics (it's isolated, because its genetic. if it wasnt isolated, you'd be able to change it. hope this helps you fucking idiot!). so saying "just burn fat bro trust " is literally so ignorant when it comes to genetically dictated structure. The science and PMID studies directly disproves your simplistic retard take.

"the fat we store from overeating CAN be burned no one is talking about changing distribution or anything like that."

correct, excess fat which isnt isolated can be burnt.

"Fat in certain areas (UEE/AEYGO SAL) doesn't completely burn away with weight loss."

yes, correct. certain isolated compartments like i said above are resistant to loss even after reducing ur total bfp

so what do you not understand? are you just ragebaiting?

 

[lovinsummrz]

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.

I’m 16 so I should just be eating good everyday? Not like junk but eating a lot?

 

[wesgibbins300]

IDK how hard it is to understand. You lose fat you lose fat from everywhere, face, back, arms etc etc. The place you lose fat from first or last is completely genetic, so you may have to lose a lot more fat than someone else to have a significant facial impact. There is fat in your face that is stubborn/resistant/doesn’t get lost just by losing fat. Starving won’t change that. (or your bone less and no amount of fat loss will give you facial definition)

yessss, i dont get whats so difficult to grasp.

go on a deficit, you lose fat. but every human has an isolated amount of fat they can lose, lets call this an X value. Jim and bob go on a deficit with the same limit/time, at the end, jim has different facial adiposity from what he started with, because the unisolated cheek-fat is gone because his genetics allow that. bob on the other hand, remains unchanged because his genetics preserve that fat compartment despite losing fat elsewhere. This is fundamental physiology.

jim and bob may both lose fat overall, but genetics control how much their facial structure visibly changes. some compartments (like buccal pads) are anatomically isolated and resistant to full depletion, even at extremely low body fat percentages

 

[kazama]

is this the 4th misunderstanding we've had? lol, crazy. they didnt teach physiology in like year 8?

"just burn fat bro trust "


correct, excess fat which isnt isolated can be burnt.



yes, correct. certain isolated compartments like i said above are resistant to loss even after reducing ur total bfp

so what do you not understand? are you just ragebaiting?

1: Idk, maybe Im jeql in class

2: I didnt say JFL

3: Thats literally what Im saying and what u tried to "Refute"

4: That answers it. I literally didnt disagree with u on that.

Stop stating the obvious bb, we already know

 

[kazama]

IDK how hard it is to understand. You lose fat you lose fat from everywhere, face, back, arms etc etc. The place you lose fat from first or last is completely genetic, so you may have to lose a lot more fat than someone else to have a significant facial impact. There is fat in your face that is stubborn/resistant/doesn’t get lost just by losing fat. Starving won’t change that. (or your bone less and no amount of fat loss will give you facial definition)

and where did I say the opposite? Thats why for some people less bf is better or more bf is better lol

 

[wesgibbins300]

I’m 16 so I should just be eating good everyday? Not like junk but eating a lot?

yes, eat well. you are young. eating well and building muscle is the top 1-2 best things you can do while in that phase of hormonal growth & development/puberty. keep an open-mind about what you eat, dont restrict yourself, eat what you want but make sure atleast 70-80% of your daily meals contain micronutrients and whole proteins.

if ur obese at 16, gradually reduce ur calories on a weekly basis and make sure ur nutrients/protein are PROPERLY HIT. it might take more time but long-term you'll be thankful you didnt completely fuck up ur hormones

 

[chadisbeingmade]

and where did I say the opposite? Thats why for some people less bf is better or more bf is better lol

More body fat is never better.

 

[lovinsummrz]

yes, eat well. you are young. eating well and building muscle is the top 1-2 best things you can do while in that phase of hormonal growth & development/puberty. keep an open-mind about what you eat, dont restrict yourself, eat what you want but make sure atleast 70-80% of your daily meals contain micronutrients and whole proteins.

Only sane person on this website thank you for the advice bro

 

[kazama]

yessss, i dont get whats so difficult to grasp.

go on a deficit, you lose fat. but every human has an isolated amount of fat they can lose, lets call this an X value. Jim and bob go on a deficit with the same limit/time, at the end, jim has different facial adiposity from what he started with, because the unisolated cheek-fat is gone because his genetics allow that. bob on the other hand, remains unchanged because his genetics preserve that fat compartment despite losing fat elsewhere. This is fundamental physiology.

jim and bob may both lose fat overall, but genetics control how much their facial structure visibly changes. some compartments (like buccal pads) are anatomically isolated and resistant to full depletion, even at extremely low body fat percentages

They have functions, that's why people who remove them look horrible lol, Im saying to lose the accumulation, can u understand that????

 

[kazama]

More body fat is never better.

Im not telling u to be fat

 

[wesgibbins300]

They have functions, that's why people who remove them look horrible lol, Im saying to lose the accumulation, can u understand that????

by losing accumulation, i assume you mean losing accumulated (excess) bf.

buccal fat removal isnt good, you might look better. sure, but your genetics stop at the X value i said above for a reason. don't think you cant lose that chub for no reason. people's genetics who allow for a higher X value compensate with internal tissuing

 

[kazama]

by losing accumulation, i assume you mean losing accumulated (excess) bf.

Yes

buccal fat removal isnt good, you might look better. sure, but your genetics stop at the X value i said above for a reason. don't think you cant lose that chub for no reason. people's genetics who allow for a higher X value compensate with internal tissuing

I just have one question, is this fat accumulated or are we born with it (or does it have some function?)

 

[wesgibbins300]

I just have one question, is this fat accumulated or are we born with it (or does it have some function?)

buccal pads are a deep tissue from birth, it's like a bone or bone tissue. im not sure on function but afaik it just provides shape/volume while bf provides fullness. fat pads just have a limited response to fatloss bcz its possessed from genetic nature

so you cant really help it if you lean down hella and still have that "bloated" look most people refer to on this forum. you either gotta pray ur surronding structures change as you grow older resulting in better facial aesthetic (stops at 25-30)

 

[kazama]

buccal pads are a deep tissue from birth, it's like a bone or bone tissue. im not sure on function but afaik it just provides shape/volume while bf provides fullness. fat pads just have a limited response to fatloss bcz its possessed from genetic nature

so you cant really help it if you lean down hella and still have that "bloated" look most people refer to on this forum. you either gotta pray ur surronding structures change as you grow older resulting in better facial aesthetic (stops at 25-30)

In a way, they have a function, just like muscles (I believe they support something), so they are not literally fat (at least not the fat I was referring to).
And I don't think they make you look puffy they only give that effect if ur bone structure is bad, which is what most people complain about (distribution also plays a role, but that changes with age, I think). It's like the buccinator muscle it doesn’t add volume because it’s simply a small and thin muscle.
So yeah, that’s it. I like u bhai

 

[wesgibbins300]

In a way, they have a function, just like muscles (I believe they support something), so they are not literally fat (at least not the fat I was referring to).
And I don't think they make you look puffy they only give that effect if ur bone structure is bad, which is what most people complain about (distribution also plays a role, but that changes with age, I think). It's like the buccinator muscle it doesn’t add volume because it’s simply a small and thin muscle.
So yeah, that’s it. I like u bhai

i get wym by it not literally being fat, it is fat but it isnt stored energy which is what you mean. unlike regular fat which is subcutaneous; bfp's act as like a glide mechanism between ur facial muscles.

but yeah the puffy / bloat look just depends on genetics and how dense or weak ur muscles actually are, weak structure = rounder look with no definition and vice versa. it's main "function" i guess is to blend your face to look natural

you can tell if you have a high x value (more buccal fat) but greater muscle density by cheekbitting (not looking uncanny) or stretching out ur face downwards and appealing better.

(distribution also plays a role, but that changes with age, I think)

yea ur correct surronding compartatments in ur face, elasticity, bone structure can all change as you mature

ur a cool guy

 

[kazama]

i get wym by it not literally being fat, it is fat but it isnt stored energy which is what you mean. unlike regular fat which is subcutaneous; bfp's act as like a glide mechanism between ur facial muscles.

but yeah the puffy / bloat look just depends on genetics and how dense or weak ur muscles actually are, weak structure = rounder look with no definition and vice versa. it's main "function" i guess is to blend your face to look natural

you can tell if you have a high x value (more buccal fat) but greater muscle density by cheekbitting (not looking uncanny) or stretching out ur face downwards and appealing better.


yea ur correct surronding compartatments in ur face, elasticity, bone structure can all change as you mature

ur a cool guy

I think we have reached a consensus, can I pm u to ask u a few questions? U look older than me