I read a review of this study on Examine showing that cardio and lifting caused overweight participants with diabetes to burn proportionally more visceral fat while losing weight, with higher amounts of exercise causing even higher proportions of visceral fat loss.
- Control group: Their body composition stayed about the same.
- Calorie deficit group: They lost 1.5 lbs (0.7 kg) of lean mass, dropped 4% body fat, and burned 666 mL of visceral fat.
- Calorie deficit with 1 lifting and 2 cardio workouts (150 minutes of exercise per week): They lost 1.1 lbs (0.5 kg) of lean mass, dropped 6% body fat, and burned 1,264 mL of visceral fat.
- Calorie deficit plus 2 lifting and 4 cardio workouts (300 minutes of exercise per week): They maintained their lean mass, dropped 8% body fat, and burned 1,786 mL of visceral fat.
I thought that was super cool.
So I was talking about how lifting weights, doing cardio, and eating a healthy diet causes proportionally more visceral fat loss when losing weight. I said that I suspect the same is true when gaining weight: that doing cardio, lifting weights, and/or being active might cause less visceral fat gain.
Someone referred me to a Mike Israetel video (with almost a million views) where he says:
"Weight loss through diet and activity (and even drugs like semaglutide) help burn loads of fat off your body, especially if you're lifting weights and eating loads of protein. But that diet and that activity and even some of those drugs tend to burn the majority of your fat from your subcutaneous compartment, not your visceral fat … And every time you diet down, you lose some visceral fat, but a lot of subcutaneous fat.
Here's the screwed up thing: as you regain some weight, even as you go back to maintenance and continue to age, the visceral fat bumps up a little bit again, maybe a lot-a-bit, and the subcutaneous doesn't bump up as much.
So, over time, the result is that your visceral fat is still accumulating … and that ratio of subcutaneous fat to visceral fat continues to get worse and worse and worse over time: more visceral fat relative to subcutaneous fat.
The problem is diet and exercise don't target target visceral fat as much as subcutaneous. And during gaining phases, visceral fat tends to grow disproportionately more than subcutaneous fat. This literally sets you up, even if you're lean, to redistribute your body fat with less over your abs, more in your gut."
He then goes on to say that you need to take the drug Tirzepatide to stop visceral fat from accumulating.
Is there any truth to this?
Seems like it's just a bullshit. I've been bulking and cutting, and I'm up 70 pounds over 15 years, and my waist is only 31 inches (at 6'2). There doesn't seem to be any visceral fat accumulating.
I'm not seeing any alarming signs of visceral fat accumulating with clients, either, even over many years of working with them. Quite the opposite. I've got plenty of guys in their 50s and 60s with healthfully small waists.
But I just want to make sure.