Probably typed on a phone. Once you go with a spelling, it gets added to the dictionary and your device will suggest it in the future.

Here is a professor of kiniseology who disagrees....
“It packs in and around organs like your liver and pancreas and they just don’t function well when that happens,” says Stuart Phillips, a professor of kinesiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

This doesn’t mean you should try every ab workout on Instagram to eliminate ab flab, though. Research shows that ab exercises do little to actually get rid of abdominal fat. “Spot fat reduction is a total myth,” says Phillips. In other words, no matter how many series of crunches, oblique twists or side planks you do, you’re not really targeting the fat around your middle”

https://www.chatelaine.com/health/ta...abdominal-fat/

Don't do crunches, they're bad for your spine.

Yeah, targeted exercises don't do a thing to reduce belly fat. Ask any heavyweight boxer or MMA fighter who comes in overweight but still has rock hard abs... under the flab. Nobody ever put down Big George Foreman with body shots, not when he was young a chiseled, not during his comeback in his 40s when he looked like the Michelin Man some fights. Despite looking overweight Foreman was known to be diligent about training and was tough as a tank under that fat.

Insulin and cortisol appear to have some influence on stubborn belly fat. Insulin can be controlled to some degree with diet. Observers of bodybuilding have described differences between Schwarzenegger's era and today, noting that more bodybuilders today have more belly fat. This has been attributed to the deliberate misuse of insulin. And it's not just subcutaneous fat but interstitial fat around the intestines. Very difficult to get rid of.

Cortisol is trickier and it appears to be linked to stress. It may be difficult to lose belly fat, even for otherwise fit and slender folks, if they have a lot of stress for whatever reason. And if the body feels "stressed" by efforts to lose weight -- changes in diet and training, including fasted rides to provoke burning fat -- it's possible the body compensates by hanging onto belly fat.

I found it relatively easy to lose 50 lbs with sensible changes in diet and exercise, nearly eliminating beer and alcohol, cutting way back on sugar and junk carbs. But the remaining 3-5 lbs of belly fat is stubborn stuff. I'd have to go full keto and switch my bike training to almost exclusively low and slow, zone 2 stuff endurance rides, including fasting rides as much as I could tolerate. I'm not sure I'm motivated enough just for 3-5 lbs. I'm not really training for anything, just trying to stay fit and improve a bit. But if I get serous about time trials again, I'll consider those changes in diet and exercise.

Indeed. Keto is just about the only way to reduce belly fat.

This is false.

Definitely false. But I'm curious as to why this guy only seems to show up when there's some way he can preach that Keto is some sort of miracle diet. Do you think he makes money off of it somehow? What's with the obsession?

Aw, we've had keto obsessives on here for years. It's a religion. Most of them have either backed off it or simply gone away. If it were a money thing, there'd be a link or a reference to the money guy/guru. It's always a guy.

Lol wut

Most people hear the word vegan, and they think of an emaciated waif who just left a concentration camp. What do vegans eat? Carbs. 🤯
​​​​​​
​​​​​​There's no type of food that's fattening or slimming. Overeating is fattening. Moderation is slimming.

Yeah, I make a million dollars every time somebody mentions keto.

what's the beer intake?

have you talked to your doctor about allergies/gluten/dairy sensitivities?

You sure about that? Because researchers aren't. Got any citations to studies that negate the theories about insulin resistance and metabolic disorders?

Caloric balance (i.e. calories in vs calories out) is the bedrock of nutrition science. There isn't anyone reputable who disputes this.

They why do you do this? You're posting:
on a bicycling forum. The sport of professional cycling is full of people who have virtually no belly fat and yet follow a diet that is virtually the opposite of Keto. Do you actually expect anyone to believe you when they are all very familiar with evidence that clearly proves you wrong?

The science of nutrition and training is changing in interesting ways. Years of low fat high carb propaganda starting with Ancel Keys has gone out the window with the revelation that a keto type diet
not only helps people to lose weight more quickly and keep it off, but can cure metabolic syndrome and diabetes. It takes along time to overcome entrenched habits and thinking, and the cycling world has been slow to adapt.
I urge people to do their own due diligence, if I post links I will be accused of being a shill.

As mentioned you cannot target fat loss.

It doesn't matter what kind of targeted exercise you do. Everyone looses fat in different places first.

For me, it's my arms, followed by legs, followed by face, then stomach, and glutes last. Someone else might loose it first somewhere else. Also as mentioned, any fast weight loss is going to be water weight. No way to get around that.

Not sure the order for me but I know my ass and legs are dead f'in last!
Look like a death camp survivor in a pair of jeans.

And yet virtually every elite endurance athlete has very little belly fat and follows a diet that is at least moderately high in carbs. Those that have tried Keto have generally abandoned it and the consensus is that it isn't appropriate for high intensity endurance performance.

Had you simply said "I've had success with Keto, perhaps you should consider it" no one would argue with you. But you never miss an opportunity to say it's the only way, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

If you post links to peer-reviewed studies, you will never be accused of shilling. Quacks who make money off one's clicks are another story. I've read a host of studies on this subject. Every study of keto shows that eating more fat causes one to feel satiated longer and thus eat fewer calories - for a while. Long term studies show no caloric superiority. Studies which assign equal calories to various diets show no weight variation between them. The folks I know who have tried to eat keto for years are all fat, just like folks who overeat carbs. Why? Because folks who are driven toward keto for weight loss have a problem with diet and exercise: they eat too much and exercise too little.

Eating less and exercising more is always the correct answer for weight loss. All the medical societies and heart specialists agree that these diets are superior for longevity, usually in this order: Med, DASH, MIND. Look it up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805074/
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/2018...t-diet-of-2019

in a word, no

must lose all over and stubborn areas go last

What we're saying about weight being controlled by how much you eat doesn't negate anything about insulin resistance or diabetes, any more than riding a bike negates the germ theory of disease.

If you become insulin resistant, your body will have trouble metabolizing carbohydrates. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a lot of skinny people eat a lot of carbs.

They didnt even consider keto. Shame on them.

Bacl to the OP. You can't spot reduce. I think some upper body strenght training would be helpful and keto diet to lose fat. Eventually the belly fat will be gone, but it may be the last to go.
Maybe hire a diet coach to help. Good luck.

For what it's worth, the people who enjoy the longest lives, and the longest health, all eat a lot of carbs. Look up "blue zones." Eating very low carb increases your chance of getting some cancers, possibly because the lack of fiber is back for your "gut bacteria." Everybody gets to make their own choices in life, but this one seems pretty obvious for healthy people. For cyclists, it's even more obvious because you need carbs for anerobic energy, to give it your all.

To the contrary, they did consider keto, in fact it made the list for short term weight loss, but didn't make any of the "good diet" lists simply because it's a very unhealthy diet with poor results over the long term. The Standard American Diet didn't make the list either. I've been eating the same Med diet, though minus the dinosaurs and mammals, for over 50 years. I've had very good results, very good health numbers, still skiing bumps, still climbing mountain passes, backpacking, all that good stuff, not that different from 50 years ago, just a bit slower. Time has borne out the diet preferences of the medical societies.

I do full body strength training, but not at the expense of cycling training. With age, one has to stress the muscles more than is necessary for a young person. But burning calories over many hours per week of aerobic exercise while keeping portion sizes down is the way to lose weight. And "aerobic exercise" doesn't mean piddling along or doing rhumba. If your legs aren't hurting after 3 hours on the bike, you should be going harder. Unless of course it's a 10 hour ride, in which case you should be keeping the effort just below the pain threshold for most of the ride.

A caution though: A younger friend of ours, who's been doing rhumba 2 hours/week and thought that meant she was in shape, went snowshoeing and had a cardiac event which put her in the hospital. The doctor said she'd just overworked her heart, which couldn't supply enough blood to keep her tissues alive, just walking uphill on snowshoes. My wife and I had done this same trip the previous week and nothing to it. So work up to aerobic stuff gradually if you haven't been doing it. The heart is the last thing to get into good shape. Skeletal muscles are much more responsive to training.