Mesomorphs; do you feel blessed to be able to build muscle easily?

13»

Replies

  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    You started lifting this year in June?
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    You probably aren't gaining as much muscle as you would like to think

    I think I'm gaining at about .75 lbs of muscle per month, so no I don't think I'm underestimating it. For a female, that's very good.
    Not to burst your bubble, but if a 20 year old male gained 10lbs of muscle in a year, that would be excellent. You're speaking of gaining more than that.
    How are you determining that you're gaining that much?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    how much do they gain in your exprience?
    A female over 40 gaining a couple of pounds in a year would be excellent. Realize that to build muscle, hormones have to be involved (mainly testosterone) and from about 35 on, testosterone levels decreases not increases (unless artificially done). Since females don't have much to begin with, aging females have a less likely hood to gain more muscle than their male counterparts. And I have done recomp and building with many males over 40 and 3-8lbs of muscle in a year would be deemed excellent.
    The other factor here is doing it in deficit. Building muscle in deficit isn't that easy or fast. Building muscle requires adding mass and adding mass on a deficit isn't mathematically easy at all.

    On the flip side, would you say it's quite possible to appear more muscular as one loses body fat while in a deficit? Which, along with strength increases due to neuromuscular adaptation, could make one believe they're putting on muscle?

    Yup, the quickest way gain 10lbs of muscle is to lose 10lbs of fat.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    serapel wrote: »
    seeing muscle can be because you lost body fat over that muscle,it doesnt mean you have gained any. Im not saying you haven't. the only way to know is getting an dexa scan before and after..it will be a lot more accurate than what you can see with the naked eye.

    again, no. I started with 19% body fat and have gained 6 lbs since June. My body fat looks about the same as when I started.

    What is with the ppl here trying to down talk my achievements? No offense, but I am doing this.

    Seeing comments like this just makes me more determined to prove to ppl that women over 40 can in fact make some great gains and not to let their age stop them.

    rant over :wink:

    if you comprehended what I stated I said "im not saying you havent" that is NOT down talking your achievements.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    serapel wrote: »
    You probably aren't gaining as much muscle as you would like to think

    I think I'm gaining at about .75 lbs of muscle per month, so no I don't think I'm underestimating it. For a female, that's very good.

    A woman can hope to gain 1lb of muscle a month if she is untrained and has optimum diet and training. If you have an athletic past, I doubt you are gaining anywhere near that much.
  • mgalovic01
    mgalovic01 Posts: 388 Member
    Everybody jelly of the mesos lol
  • lkpducky
    lkpducky Posts: 17,640 Member
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    The__Wolf wrote: »
    While genetics may give some people some advantages, its never "easy" to do something that, by definition, requires hard work.

    definitely working hard. got that part down. if I've only gained 2 lbs of muscle, I'm officially depressed. :-1:

    I bulked last winter, running a strength/hypertrophy program in a surplus of calories. I gained about 15lbs and assumed that maybe I gained 3lbs of muscle. Not depressed. It's a decent amount of muscle on a female. It's hard going.

    3 lbs of muscle: in what timeframe? thanks!
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    You started lifting this year in June?

    I have been working out since age 22; 23 years ago..but I never lifted more than 40 lbs or so. Now I'm lifting 200 plus pounds and taking it very seriously.

    I hired a PT in April of this year and finally began working on proper form and working up to lifting heavy weights. I have been lifting seriously since June. Doing bar bell hip thrust in June with just the bar (45 lb) and now doing a hip thrust of 205 lbs; among other exercises.

    I can also bench press 65 lbs now.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    I demand an autopsy. It's the only way you know :bigsmile:
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    edited December 2016
    I'll just be regurgitating stuff I've read to make it clear I'm nothing special :) and I have no doubt I'll be corrected :)

    Even with a previous fitness history you could say you've maximised on potential newbie gains...particularly and assuming, prior to a PT you didn't have a goal specific lifting program (Lyle McDonald I think). Steve Troutman (who is around MFP), mentions in one of his articles that sometimes the gains when new to lifting (with decent programming) can look like the work of "wonky voodoo", they seem to initially defy all theory in building muscle (even at a calorie deficit which you aren't doing?) but I think Aragon/McDonald said that after a period of time everyone averages out to something closer to theoretical expectation - and I think that's regardless of whether or not you have genetic predisposition. Just letting you know what's coming.

    2lbs, 4lbs, 6lbs whatever, whomever's opinion - If you're committed, in love with the process, listening to and evolving with feedback loops then what does it matter the number? You showed up and then some and it's evident. Awesome!

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html/

    Worth looking up:
    Lyle McDonald
    Alan Aragon
    Layne Norton

    ETA: there's also on here "Eat, train and progress" group you can join. Run by Sidesteel. And Stroutman has a couple of groups on here you can join too.








  • lemmie177
    lemmie177 Posts: 479 Member
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    Interesting info!
    Going by this, OP's gains are well-within the realm of possible, conservative even; considering that females can expect "10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training" according to Lyle.
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    Interesting info!
    Going by this, OP's gains are well-within the realm of possible, conservative even; considering that females can expect "10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training" according to Lyle.

    Cheers for highlighting that!
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,571 Member
    Katenextou wrote: »
    The #blessed got me

    :D
  • richln
    richln Posts: 809 Member
    serapel wrote: »
    How would one explain this study?

    "University of Oklahoma researchers compared people of different ages who followed the exact same program for eight weeks. They found that guys between 35 and 50 years old built just as much muscle as those between 18 and 22 years old."

    http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-muscle-over-40

    Need a link to the actual study; I'm not willing to take Men's Health's interpretation of the results as a source. My google ninja skills led me to this, which looks like it may be the study in question, but I can't find the full article.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387379
    Abstract leaves too many questions unanswered. Were all the subjects untrained? Were some of the subjects previously trained, and had become detrained? What was their initial bodyfat, and their initial energy balance going into the study? What were their diets like? Were their calories monitored? Standard deviations are large, indicates to me this may have been a "don't alter your current diet" study.

    Anyway, if you are making noticeable progress towards your goals, then what difference does it make exactly how many pounds of muscle you have gained?
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    I'll just be regurgitating stuff I've read to make it clear I'm nothing special :) and I have no doubt I'll be corrected :)

    Even with a previous fitness history you could say you've maximised on potential newbie gains...particularly and assuming, prior to a PT you didn't have a goal specific lifting program (Lyle McDonald I think). Steve Troutman (who is around MFP), mentions in one of his articles that sometimes the gains when new to lifting (with decent programming) can look like the work of "wonky voodoo", they seem to initially defy all theory in building muscle (even at a calorie deficit which you aren't doing?) but I think Aragon/McDonald said that after a period of time everyone averages out to something closer to theoretical expectation - and I think that's regardless of whether or not you have genetic predisposition. Just letting you know what's coming.

    2lbs, 4lbs, 6lbs whatever, whomever's opinion - If you're committed, in love with the process, listening to and evolving with feedback loops then what does it matter the number? You showed up and then some and it's evident. Awesome!

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html/

    Worth looking up:
    Lyle McDonald
    Alan Aragon
    Layne Norton

    ETA: there's also on here "Eat, train and progress" group you can join. Run by Sidesteel. And Stroutman has a couple of groups on here you can join too.








    Thank you! This post is incredibly kind!!! Very thoughtful.
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    Interesting info!
    Going by this, OP's gains are well-within the realm of possible, conservative even; considering that females can expect "10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training" according to Lyle.

    Thank you. I appreciate the support.
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    richln wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    How would one explain this study?

    "University of Oklahoma researchers compared people of different ages who followed the exact same program for eight weeks. They found that guys between 35 and 50 years old built just as much muscle as those between 18 and 22 years old."

    http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-muscle-over-40

    Need a link to the actual study; I'm not willing to take Men's Health's interpretation of the results as a source. My google ninja skills led me to this, which looks like it may be the study in question, but I can't find the full article.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387379
    Abstract leaves too many questions unanswered. Were all the subjects untrained? Were some of the subjects previously trained, and had become detrained? What was their initial bodyfat, and their initial energy balance going into the study? What were their diets like? Were their calories monitored? Standard deviations are large, indicates to me this may have been a "don't alter your current diet" study.

    Anyway, if you are making noticeable progress towards your goals, then what difference does it make exactly how many pounds of muscle you have gained?

    true dat. my bum is looking a lot better.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    serapel wrote: »
    richln wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    How would one explain this study?

    "University of Oklahoma researchers compared people of different ages who followed the exact same program for eight weeks. They found that guys between 35 and 50 years old built just as much muscle as those between 18 and 22 years old."

    http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-muscle-over-40

    Need a link to the actual study; I'm not willing to take Men's Health's interpretation of the results as a source. My google ninja skills led me to this, which looks like it may be the study in question, but I can't find the full article.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387379
    Abstract leaves too many questions unanswered. Were all the subjects untrained? Were some of the subjects previously trained, and had become detrained? What was their initial bodyfat, and their initial energy balance going into the study? What were their diets like? Were their calories monitored? Standard deviations are large, indicates to me this may have been a "don't alter your current diet" study.

    Anyway, if you are making noticeable progress towards your goals, then what difference does it make exactly how many pounds of muscle you have gained?

    true dat. my bum is looking a lot better.

    Must resist urge to creep profile for pics of said bum...
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    FWIW a friend at the gym who's doing her PhD in kinesiology told me that it is absolutely possible and likely that I've gained between 3-4 lbs of muscle in 6 months due to newbie gains and amount of weight I am currently lifting compared to 6 months ago.

    Anyway, it's all up for debate and I didn't get a dexa scan before I started...dang it!!! Should a dun the dang dexa!!!!



  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited December 2016
    serapel wrote: »
    FWIW a friend at the gym who's doing her PhD in kinesiology told me that it is absolutely possible and likely that I've gained between 3-4 lbs of muscle in 6 months due to newbie gains and amount of weight I am currently lifting compared to 6 months ago.

    Anyway, it's all up for debate and I didn't get a dexa scan before I started...dang it!!! Should a dun the dang dexa!!!!



    If you are happy (and you should be), that is what matters. My only point was to give yourself the credit you deserve for all your hard work.
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    FWIW a friend at the gym who's doing her PhD in kinesiology told me that it is absolutely possible and likely that I've gained between 3-4 lbs of muscle in 6 months due to newbie gains and amount of weight I am currently lifting compared to 6 months ago.

    Anyway, it's all up for debate and I didn't get a dexa scan before I started...dang it!!! Should a dun the dang dexa!!!!



    If you are happy (and you should be), that is what matters. My only point was to give yourself the credit you deserve for all your hard work.

    Thank you
  • serapel
    serapel Posts: 502 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    richln wrote: »
    serapel wrote: »
    How would one explain this study?

    "University of Oklahoma researchers compared people of different ages who followed the exact same program for eight weeks. They found that guys between 35 and 50 years old built just as much muscle as those between 18 and 22 years old."

    http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/build-muscle-over-40

    Need a link to the actual study; I'm not willing to take Men's Health's interpretation of the results as a source. My google ninja skills led me to this, which looks like it may be the study in question, but I can't find the full article.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387379
    Abstract leaves too many questions unanswered. Were all the subjects untrained? Were some of the subjects previously trained, and had become detrained? What was their initial bodyfat, and their initial energy balance going into the study? What were their diets like? Were their calories monitored? Standard deviations are large, indicates to me this may have been a "don't alter your current diet" study.

    Anyway, if you are making noticeable progress towards your goals, then what difference does it make exactly how many pounds of muscle you have gained?

    true dat. my bum is looking a lot better.

    Must resist urge to creep profile for pics of said bum...

    Oh do take a look
This discussion has been closed.