Anyone else have this?

ninthnote · 05-20-2011, 12:00 PM

Yes, of course I do have stomach fat, but mine is something of an odd thing...
I have the stomach fat below the belly button, but it's the stomach fat ABOVE the belly button that protrudes the most ...as in, 2-3 inches further out than the stomach fat below the belly button.
Does anyone else have/had this problem? I've tried doing research and my best guess is this is visceral fat...do others agree?
I know we cannot spot exercise, but I'm hoping it will just go down the more I eat healthy and exercise...
It just seems so weird to me and very abnormal. I haven't had a physical in years, so I haven't asked my doctor.
I really just would like to know if anyone else has or had this...
P.S. If I'm in the wrong forum for this, I would appreciate recommendations for where I should have posted this! Thank you.

MiZTaCCen · 05-20-2011, 12:53 PM

So what your saying is your stomach isn't fat all around the same, some area's are bigger then the other? I think thats what you're saying and I've seen some woman have that where they are huge on the bottom of their belly, but also have a bigger upper part. I don't know what causes that? maybe it's your rolls? extra skin? or I just don't get what you are trying to say. But proper diet and excerise would do the trick to losing all of that. Maybe ask your doctor instead cause I think I might have confused myself more then you did to me. LOL

FitGirlyGirl · 05-20-2011, 01:05 PM

I have no idea what causes it, but you aren't alone, my tummy is the same. It wasn't like that when I was fatter, but I seem to be losing more quickly below the belly button. I HATE it, it looks goofy and strange to me. I too am hopeful that it will even out as I lose more weight.

TooManyDimples · 05-20-2011, 01:08 PM

I think I understand what you're saying. My stomach is kind of like that. It was a lot worse when I was in the 260's and 270's. So yeah, mine is going down. I'm sure yours will too.

astrophe · 05-20-2011, 01:09 PM

My guess is years of pant/shorts wearing. While the waist gets nipped in and the bottom part of the stomach is "held" by the pants, the top part spills over without any encumbrance. The fabric of a light t-shirt shirt is not as restrictive as jeans!

I've got the waist thing going on and I think my stomach would only smoothly sticky outy if I always wore dresses with nothing at the waist. But because I spent 90% of my life in shorts or jeans, I get the waist dent.

I have also worn glasses since I was 6, and I have "dents" from the arms of the glasses on my ears that you can feel.

I bet ring wearers have finger dents.

Just keep working at it and as you lose fat overall it should shrink accordingly.

HTH!
A.

Beach Patrol · 05-20-2011, 01:11 PM

I think it's just a specific body-type. While I don't have that problem, I know others who do. It's like any other part of the body...thighs, upper arms, etc. I've seen/known women who are "normal sized" from belly button up... but their hips/thighs are just outrageously bigger. And women who have nicely shaped hips/thighs, but big stomachs and flappy bat wing upper arms. I, myself, have flappy bat wing arms...

My hips/upper thighs are larger than I'd like them to be, and I do have a protruding tummy - but I have a smaller waist. Even when I am at my happy weight, I still have a poochy little tummy.

BTW, did you know that sucking in your gut is actually good for the stomach muscles?

shishkeberry · 05-20-2011, 01:15 PM

I have the same stomach dent that pp is talking about. It's embarrassing. I hope mine goes down, too.

kaplods · 05-20-2011, 01:30 PM

I don't agree that it's visceral fat. Visceral fat, is fat inside the abdominal cavity, packed in between organs - it's the fat you can't see (as in the pic).

If you have a lot of visceral fat, it can give you a waist larger than your hips and a pregnancy-like belly, but subcutaneous fat (with or without a lot of visceral fat) can do the same thing.

They say an apple shape (having a waist larger than hips) is associated with more visceral fat than the pear shape (larger hips than waist and smaller breasts) or the hourglass shape.

I have always had a small waist in comparison to my hips, but I have a weird pattern of abdominal fat. In a slim-fitting t-shirt I looked like I had three pairs of breasts. My real breasts and two pair of smaller pseudo boobs stacked underneath, the second set right below the real ones, and the third set right below those, which where right above my waist (and formed my muffin top over jeans). I called them "my six pack" because in a weird way, that's what they looked like.

Since losing weight, I've lost the top set, and the bottom set has gotten smaller. Small enough now that I don't have to wear empire waist tops to cover it.

Beach Patrol · 05-20-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

My real breasts and two pair of smaller pseudo boobs stacked underneath, the second set right below the real ones, and the third set right below those, which where right above my waist

OMG kap!!!!

Thanks for the giggle!!! "smaller pseudo boobs"... you are so funny!!!!

runningfromfat · 05-20-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaplods

I don't agree that it's visceral fat. Visceral fat, is fat inside the abdominal cavity, packed in between organs - it's the fat you can't see (as in the pic).

If you have a lot of visceral fat, it can give you a waist larger than your hips and a pregnancy-like belly, but subcutaneous fat (with or without a lot of visceral fat) can do the same thing.

They say an apple shape (having a waist larger than hips) is associated with more visceral fat than the pear shape (larger hips than waist and smaller breasts) or the hourglass shape.

I have always had a small waist in comparison to my hips, but I have a weird pattern of abdominal fat. In a slim-fitting t-shirt I looked like I had three pairs of breasts. My real breasts and two pair of smaller pseudo boobs stacked underneath, the second set right below the real ones, and the third set right below those, which where right above my waist (and formed my muffin top over jeans). I called them "my six pack" because in a weird way, that's what they looked like.

Since losing weight, I've lost the top set, and the bottom set has gotten smaller. Small enough now that I don't have to wear empire waist tops to cover it.

Actually, I kind of wonder if it IS visceral fat. I think a good test would be how hard the OP's belly feels. DH and I have drastically different stomachs. After having a kid mine is very, very floppy and I can basically grab a huge handful of it and wad it up, nice, right?

While DH's stomach is hard as a rock but he has the total beer bell look (and he carries it much higher whereas mine is all in my lower belly).

One reason I'd guess it IS visceral fat is because your waist size (i.e. your natural waist size that's measured 1-2" above your belly button for women) plays a much larger role in determining your health risks than BMI. Since visceral fat also is the more dangerous kind than it makes sense that if you're measuring at your natural waist you're making an estimate of your visceral fat vs. if you were measuring at your lower belly where you might get more subcutaneous (whew, had to look up the spelling on that one!). If that wasn't the case you'd think that researchers would be looking more at lower belly fat... Now it could just be a convention and that's why they look at your natural waist line, I'm not a researcher in weight loss so I couldn't tell you for sure.

kaplods · 05-20-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningfromfat

Actually, I kind of wonder if it IS visceral fat. I think a good test would be how hard the OP's belly feels. DH and I have drastically different stomachs. After having a kid mine is very, very floppy and I can basically grab a huge handful of it and wad it up, nice, right?

While DH's stomach is hard as a rock but he has the total beer bell look (and he carries it much higher whereas mine is all in my lower belly).

One reason I'd guess it IS visceral fat is because your waist size (i.e. your natural waist size that's measured 1-2" above your belly button for women) plays a much larger role in determining your health risks than BMI. Since visceral fat also is the more dangerous kind than it makes sense that if you're measuring at your natural waist you're making an estimate of your visceral fat vs. if you were measuring at your lower belly where you might get more subcutaneous (whew, had to look up the spelling on that one!). If that wasn't the case you'd think that researchers would be looking more at lower belly fat... Now it could just be a convention and that's why they look at your natural waist line, I'm not a researcher in weight loss so I couldn't tell you for sure.

I didn't realize there was a way to tell visceral fat from subcutaneous fat without a CT-scan or MRI, or that visceral fat was "harder" than subcutaneous fat.

shannonmb · 05-20-2011, 09:16 PM

I'm going to go with visceral fat, and I agree to see how "hard" it feels. If below the belly button is wiggly jiggly and above the belly button feels a little squishy but harder underneath, then my guess would be visceral fat. And I also agree that losing weight with healthy habits will make it go away!

runningfromfat · 05-21-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaplods

I didn't realize there was a way to tell visceral fat from subcutaneous fat without a CT-scan or MRI, or that visceral fat was "harder" than subcutaneous fat.

I'm sure a CT-scan or MRI would be more effective but I've always heard that hard fat = visceral fat and subcutaneous fat=softer. Also, I was just making an educated guess due to the waist measurement findings and waist-to-hip measurements. I think a lot would depend on the reason the waist measurement is taken above our belly button (if it's just convention or if it IS because it's a semi-effective measurement of visceral fat).

Quillie · 05-21-2011, 05:05 PM

Because visceral fat is under the muscles between the organs you can't feel it. If you tense your stomach muscles, the floppy fat above is subcutaneous.

NTexas · 05-21-2011, 06:12 PM

My stomach appears to be the last to give up the fight. I have had 2 children and still look 5 months pregnant (and my youngest turns 6 in July) unless i consciously suck it in. But it was worse - I used to look 6-7 months pregnant! I put on an empire waisted dress and I can rub my budda stomach, lol. Seriously, my hips and thighs could fit into size 12 jeans with ease, but my darn waist insists on size 14 so I have puckering material in those areas while my waist is nice and tight because I refuse to wear pants that leave me with a muffin top. Sigh.
I think carrying big babies (both well over 8 pounds despite being born upwards of 3 weeks early) has broken my abs. Oh, I can grab big handfuls off my jiggly belly so I am in the subcutanous camp, whew!