Looking to see if I can lose weight by weightlifting

Options
2»

Replies

  • Sarah4fitness
    Sarah4fitness Posts: 437 Member
    Options
    If you're aiming only for the pound goal, go for it. Run your *kitten* off and eat at a deficit. You'll look soft and flabby and have loose skin when you're done, but have a great time.
    If you actually care about your SHAPE, and want muscular definition in addition to losing fat and dropping size, then listen to your trainer and lift weights in addition to your diet and cardio plan. Everyone who says stop worrying about the pound number and worry more about how you feel after training is RIGHT. In my profile pic, I'm BARELY under 140, but I was strong as hell and loved how I looked, and how I looked in clothes.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    Yeah, there is the skinny fat problem. If you lose that many pounds and don't lift, you might not look the same at your goal weight as you did before, especially if you lose them very quickly.

    Lift to keep the muscle while dieting, and you won't gain enough muscle (if any at all) to change your goal weight much, I bet. It depends on your deficit, too. The bigger the deficit, the less the chance of putting on new muscle. If you like running, you'll probably run a big deficit as long as you keep track of your diet, too.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    Options
    Eat at a deficit, lift heavy weights, save lean body mass while losing fat, and look hot.
  • threadmad
    threadmad Posts: 190 Member
    Options
    Been reading these posts with great interest and would like to add another question. I've always been told that inches are more important than pounds because muscle weighs more than fat. I used to dance professionally and that's what coaches always said. Is that true? When I weighed 135 I looked good and felt great, had lots of energy, lots of muscle.

    Then I got pneumonia and lost 5 lbs, and everyone thought I was dying because I looked too thin. It took several weeks of practicing an extra 2 hours a day to gain the weight back, build muscle, and feel energetic. I had the same inches throughout.

    I no longer dance, and gained 55 pounds. I've lost 11, but as I get closer to 135, should I forget the scale and focus on inches? (Oops, that's 2 questions). I'm rehabbing from acl reconstruction, have PT 2x per week, and work with personal trainer 2x per week to build upper body & core strength.
  • MommyL2015
    MommyL2015 Posts: 1,411 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    Muscles take up more room than fat,Fat takes up more room than muscles, yes, but a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same as a pound of feathers. :)


    ETA: D'oh.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    Muscle is more dense than fat. One pound of fat takes up more space than one pound of muscle. That's where the inches over pounds thing comes from. As you get closer to your goal inches matter more but I can't tell you the exact tipping point. It varies from person to person but I would say by the time you're within 10-15 pounds of your goal (for an average height person) inches start to matter more.
  • threadmad
    threadmad Posts: 190 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    "Fat takes up more room than muscles, yes, but a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same as a pound of feathers. :)"

    Umm, yup, I did say that totally backwards!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,020 Member
    Options
    MommyL2015 wrote: »
    Muscles take up more room than fat,Fat takes up more room than muscles, yes, but a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same as a pound of feathers. :)


    ETA: D'oh.

    If you get to argue that "a pound of muscle and a pound of fat [each, presumably] weigh the same as a pound of feathers," then I get to argue that a cubic meter of muscle and a cubic meter of fat each occupies the same volume as a cubic meter of feathers.
    Ergo, fat does not take more room than muscle.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    MommyL2015 wrote: »
    Muscles take up more room than fat,Fat takes up more room than muscles, yes, but a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same as a pound of feathers. :)


    ETA: D'oh.

    If you get to argue that "a pound of muscle and a pound of fat [each, presumably] weigh the same as a pound of feathers," then I get to argue that a cubic meter of muscle and a cubic meter of fat each occupies the same volume as a cubic meter of feathers.
    Ergo, fat does not take more room than muscle.

    21TDqDLxfIKU8.gif
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    johnnyr24 wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    johnnyr24 wrote: »
    I weigh 200 lbs. I use to weight 140 lbs once upon a time. I have struggled with my weight for a long time. My goal is simple- to get back down to the 140 lbs I used to weigh. I am highly motivated to get this done and I will continue on my journey until I have reached my goal.

    Well I was meeting with a trainer at the gym who insists that weight training is the way to go. He told me that although I love running (and I run a lot) that when I lose all the weight I will eventually gain it all back because I am not weightlifting and he says weightlifting helps keep the fat off. I assured him that my only goal here is to get down to 140 lbs and that I will do whatever it takes to do that. But he says weightlifting can actually make you weigh more so although I will look better from lifting weights he doesn't know that I will get the scale down to the 140 lbs I was talking about.

    So I ask- How does one lose weight and get to their goal weight by lifting weights? Can it be done? It's been 2 days now of me doing weight training but I also mix in some cardio (treadmill) with it. I just hope there is a way I can meet my goal.

    Any physical activity burns calories. Weight loss is a matter of eating fewer calories than you burn. Lifting weights is a physical activity that burns calories, which can help you get the caloric deficit you need in order to lose weight.

    I am a big believer in doing both cardio and weights. Cardio is good for lung/hear health and weights make you strong, build muscle that burns a few more calories, and will make your physique look better. You might lean more toward one or the other and even that may change with the seasons (e.g., you might lift twice a week during the summer when the weather is nicer for running and then switch to 3-4x/wk when running weather gets rough) but I really like a mix. I definitely would not drop the running if you love it. For now, actually, I would just start with a 50/50 mix. A full body weight plan 3 days a week and running on the in between days. Then as you go along you could adjust in either direction if you'd like.
    Yes but that doesn't tell me if I can get down to my 140 lb weight goal by lifting weights. I'm trying to find out if the trainer was right or not when he said he didn't think I would get down to 140 by weight lifting. Because if the answer is no that I can't reach that goal I might as well ditch the weights and stick to my running which has already helped me lose the last 10 lbs I lose along with my better diet and eating choices.

    No...no, that trainer is not correct. That's not how it works.

    You need to eat less calories to lose weight.

    You can weight lift and/or run to your heart's content, but if you don't eat less calories than you burn then you won't lose weight. In fact, a few years back when I was running, I gained weight because I ate too much food. :)
  • brdnw
    brdnw Posts: 565 Member
    Options
    I lost 85lbs by weight lifting AND changing my diet.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    Why in the world would you want to weigh 140 as a man? How tall are you?

    Granted I'm used to taller than average men, so may this isn't that unrealistic if you're on the shorter side, but I look at guys like Mark Wahlberg who isn't very tall (5'6" - 5'8" -- I've met him in real life and he's much closer to 5'6") and at his lightest he was 160-165. And when he was the most beefy in 2012 when he packed on 40 lbs of muscle for a role, he was 205. He says he likes to stay 180-185. He's a beast and I know not everyone can pack on the muscle like he can, but still...140? Why?
  • MommyL2015
    MommyL2015 Posts: 1,411 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    MommyL2015 wrote: »
    Muscles take up more room than fat,Fat takes up more room than muscles, yes, but a pound of muscle and a pound of fat weigh the same as a pound of feathers. :)


    ETA: D'oh.

    If you get to argue that "a pound of muscle and a pound of fat [each, presumably] weigh the same as a pound of feathers," then I get to argue that a cubic meter of muscle and a cubic meter of fat each occupies the same volume as a cubic meter of feathers.
    Ergo, fat does not take more room than muscle.

    Maybe I didn't say what I said quite good enough. A pound of fat will take up more volume than a pound of muscle, but both weigh the same. That was my point, sorry if I was not clear.

    but, yes, a pound is a pound is a pound, whatever you're weighing.

Categories