Losing belly fat at 1.85 m and 74 kg: when the scale isn't the problem

Losing fat at 1.85 m and 74 kg: the problem isn't the weight

A man who is 1.85 meters tall and weighs 74 kilos says all his excess fat is concentrated in his abdomen. It's no small contradiction: with that body mass index, any standard calculator puts him in the normal-weight range, and yet the problem exists. The explanation he gives himself is the key to the whole issue: four months ago he was training up to seven days a week, was below 10% body fat, and then a back injury left him sitting almost all day. Within two to four weeks he gained ten kilos of fluid and fat, reaching 80, and although he later lost some of it, the distribution changed completely.

The case sums up a pattern that comes up again and again in discussions about body composition: total weight says little, and the belly says a lot. The discussion moved on to specific methods — intermittent fasting, the ketogenic diet, a calorie deficit — and to a detail almost nobody considers: what happens when the problem isn't overeating, but having stopped moving.

Intermittent fasting: from 12 to 23 hours without eating

The method that gets the most support in the conversation is intermittent fasting. One participant says he lost 30 kilos through a gradual pogre: first 12 hours, then 14, 16, 18 and up to 20, drinking at least two liters of water a day and turning to water whenever hunger appeared. He now does 23-hour fasts and claims his body is redistributing mass, slimming down especially around the belly.

That last point is the most contested. Anecdotal evidence doesn't allow claiming that prolonged fasting selectively reduces abdominal fat, and the account itself acknowledges the process required months of adaptation. What does come through clearly is the side effect nobody mentions: someone fasting 23 hours eats once a day, and that requires an organization not everyone can sustain.

The ketogenic diet: it works until it stops working

The second dominant approach is keto. Some defend it without nuance: eating fish, meat, eggs and good fats in whatever amount you like, cutting carbs to a minimum and, by this calculation, losing 10 kilos of fat in three months. Others warn that this way you lose weight, but not necessarily fat.

The specific case that opens the discussion adds the most interesting nuance. He admits keto is what has worked best for him, without counting calories and without going hungry, but it now puts him off: he waits until he's very hungry to sit down and eat, and when that moment comes, what he craves are carbs. His temporary solution — a rationed plate of rice, eating as little as possible and three or four spoonfuls of dessert — is proving very hard. The question he raises, whether it should be made more gradual, gets no definitive answer in the conversation.

The protein calculation when you can't train

The most concrete contribution comes in the thread about the injury. At 74 kilos with activity reduced to nearly zero, the recommendation being discussed is consuming between 111 and 148 grams of protein a day, that is, between 1.5 and 2 grams per kilo, with a simplified target of 130 grams daily. The reasoning is that, with the muscle stimulus gone, protein is the main tool to keep the body from breaking down muscle for energy.

Alongside that, other suggestions appear: a deficit of 500 to 700 calories on weekdays with one or two days of culinary freedom, walking an hour a day — which can burn about 400 calories — prioritizing rest with at least seven hours of sleep, and working the core with calisthenics to strengthen the area. The full calculation, with the breakdown per meal and adjustments based on training, would fill a spreadsheet that doesn't fit here.

The underlying problem: stopping moving

The most striking agreement isn't about the method, but the diagnosis. The man himself puts it clearly: I do intermittent fasting because I don't feel like eating, but I'm very tired and my back is injured, so I barely move and still don't lose weight. And he adds the suspicion that sums up the blockage: whatever little I lose seems to be muscle, and the belly is still there.

That's the crux of the matter. When calorie restriction is combined with forced inactivity, the body doesn't choose where to take from. The discussion reaches no consensus on whether to stick with the deficit, change strategy, or wait to get back to activity, and there it ends.

How much of that abdominal fat is a consequence of the injury, and how much would have peine anyway with the passing years?