The most common question in every gym. Instead of a comfortable definitive answer, we'll give you what the evidence actually says — including the part that recently changed.
The traditional position
"Spot reduction is a myth — we can't control where the body loses fat." It is supported by a 12-week randomised clinical trial that found no greater reduction in abdominal fat among those who added an abdominal resistance programme to dietary change, compared with the diet-only group[1].
But newer evidence complicates the picture
The debate over whether spot reduction exists has run for half a century. A randomised controlled trial published in 2023 found that trunk fat mass fell more in the abdominal-exercise group (1170 ± 1093 g, 7%) than in controls[2]. Notably, that trial combined treadmill running at 70% of maximum heart rate with abdominal crunches and torso rotation, four days a week for ten weeks[2].
(resistance + diet)
trial (aerobic + abs)
scientific debate
How to read the contradiction
The evidence is equivocal, and it is noted that earlier studies did not apply aerobic training matched for energy expenditure until the more recent trials[2]. Meaning the effect — if it exists — is small and conditional on aerobic activity and a calorie deficit, not on isolated ab work.
What this means for your training
- You will not get a defined midsection from a thousand daily crunches without a calorie deficit — that hasn't changed.
- But don't drop ab work: core muscles matter for your back, balance and performance regardless of the spot-reduction debate.
- The correct order: calorie deficit (calculate it) → adequate protein → full-body resistance → aerobic activity → then core work.
- Fat loss follows a genetic order: some areas respond late — that's normal, not failure.