Spinning class will bulk up legs?

mehv2

Hey so has someone taken spin classes for a long period of time? I'm thinking about spinning 3-4 times a week and I have thick thighs which I want to slim down not bulk up. And I have heard from people that it could bulk up your legs. What do you think is that true. Please tell me what your results were if you ever took these classes

MY GOAL IS TO LOSE WEIGHT.

jemhh

New exercise programs can cause a bit of water retention. Your muscle retain water in order to help with muscle repair. This is normal and you have to wait it out. As long as you are eating in a deficit, you will continue to lose fat and, overall, your body dimensions will decrease. You will not bulk up while eating in a deficit.

Sharon_C

I'm assuming you are female? It is extremely difficult for a female to "bulk up". We simply don't have the testosterone to do so. Those females that have muscles like that have taken years to get to that point and they require a very structured eating plan and workout routine.

Go for the spin class.

kk2fun

I've been spinning for just over a year and my legs have not bulked up at all. My legs are definitely firmer but I'm also finally losing weight. I carry my weight in my middle so my legs have always been thin but my calves are no larger and my quads are firmer if I flex them but they are not any bigger around. I hope that helps!

cwolfman13

Lol...no...

Oinst440

I attend spin classes 3 – 4 times a week and have found my legs have gotten smaller, not larger. I started MFP in mid-October and I’m down 40 lbs thus far. My goal was to lose weight without muscle loss so I also lift about 4 times per week. Unfortunately, I thought the spinning would keep the lean muscle mass in my legs and I focused on upper body lifting more than legs. I’m now adding leg lifting since I see a noticeable reduction in my legs.

GauchoMark

I've never done it for any length of time, but I can't possibly see how spinning would make your legs much bigger if any. The point is lighter resistance where you can maintain 80 rpm for long periods of time. Even while eating at a surplus, I don't think it would be conducive to size gains. The muscle might get denser, but not really bigger.

Furthermore, if your legs are "thick" then losing weight is going to make them smaller than any muscle gain you are going to see, even if you were doing squats. It is likely that you would need to train for a long time intentionally trying to get bigger to get bigger muscular legs than fat legs.

Go spin and don't worry about it. Would you worry about making your legs bigger going for a walk?

TavistockToad

If you want to lose weight you need to eat in a calorie deficit

Chadxx

Lance Armstrong does not have bulky legs. Enough said.

akoivisto

I took a spin class once; I went from squatting 185lb to squatting 585lb. Now my legs are thick like oak trees. I can't find jeans that fit anymore, and truth be told I just walk around with out pants 80% of the time due to any quick movements tensing my muscles so quickly pants simply explode off of me in a fit of primordial strength due to the intense bulking I experienced! I also have some land in FL for sale in you are interested...

smotheredincheese

I used to go spinning twice a week and lost fat all over - my legs slimmed down along with the rest of me.
After a few months I did notice that I had developed large muscles above my knees (no idea what the name for that muscle group is) but they were probably muscles I had all along that only became visible when I lost the fat covering them.
Maybe people who think it makes them bulky experience the same thing, or lose fat in other areas of their bodies first creating the illusion of bulkier legs?

Rincewind_1965

Just to prove a point, here's a pic of some female cycling pros.



Obviously no bulked legs, to be precise: They don't even need high-heels to have beautifully shaped calves.

goldthistime

I can't imagine what it would take for me to have huge thighs. Certainly a spin class wouldn't do it. I would probably need steroidal assistance (in addition to an aggressive progressive heavy lifting program). But still I'm here to defend the OP's question. I've had a couple women leading spin class with massive thighs. Like, "how does that even happen?", thighs. Still I would agree with the other posters here OP, that if you are eating at a deficit, you're going to slim down not bulk up.

jemhh

smotheredincheese wrote: »

I used to go spinning twice a week and lost fat all over - my legs slimmed down along with the rest of me.
After a few months I did notice that I had developed large muscles above my knees (no idea what the name for that muscle group is) but they were probably muscles I had all along that only became visible when I lost the fat covering them.
Maybe people who think it makes them bulky experience the same thing, or lose fat in other areas of their bodies first creating the illusion of bulkier legs?

That's pretty much it. Your quads (muscle on front of upper leg) may look bigger once you lose fat because muscle looks bigger when you can see it in detail rather than seeing it covered up by fat. You can definitely get a pump in that area and retain a bit of water there so they can feel bigger at times but if you actually take tape measurements you'll see that your leg size goes down over time.

trigden1991

Detritus_1965 wrote: »

Just to prove a point, here's a pic of some female cycling pros.



Obviously no bulked legs, to be precise: They don't even need high-heels to have beautifully shaped calves.

Give it a few minutes before someone posts a picture of a track cyclist with 38" quads

kshama2001

smotheredincheese wrote: »

I used to go spinning twice a week and lost fat all over - my legs slimmed down along with the rest of me.
After a few months I did notice that I had developed large muscles above my knees (no idea what the name for that muscle group is) but they were probably muscles I had all along that only became visible when I lost the fat covering them.
Maybe people who think it makes them bulky experience the same thing, or lose fat in other areas of their bodies first creating the illusion of bulkier legs?

Those are your quads/quadriceps muscles

I lift regularly and my biceps seem bigger to my lying eyes, but they are actually an inch smaller than when I first measured them July 2015.

kshama2001

goldthistime wrote: »

I can't imagine what it would take for me to have huge thighs. Certainly a spin class wouldn't do it. I would probably need steroidal assistance (in addition to an aggressive progressive heavy lifting program). But still I'm here to defend the OP's question. I've had a couple women leading spin class with massive thighs. Like, "how does that even happen?", thighs. Still I would agree with the other posters here OP, that if you are eating at a deficit, you're going to slim down not bulk up.

Maybe they squat?

vanmep

I don't do spin class but I ride my bike a lot in the summer. I was worried about my legs getting huge. But this winter I pulled out my nice boots for work which were usually a bit tight on the calves and I actually had to tighten the buckle as they were too loose. So I am more muscly, but smaller. Presumably that would also apply to the thighs, though I don't have any actual measurements there.

jemhh

kshama2001 wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

I can't imagine what it would take for me to have huge thighs. Certainly a spin class wouldn't do it. I would probably need steroidal assistance (in addition to an aggressive progressive heavy lifting program). But still I'm here to defend the OP's question. I've had a couple women leading spin class with massive thighs. Like, "how does that even happen?", thighs. Still I would agree with the other posters here OP, that if you are eating at a deficit, you're going to slim down not bulk up.

Maybe they squat?

+ eating enough to build muscle on purpose.

cwolfman13

goldthistime wrote: »

I can't imagine what it would take for me to have huge thighs. Certainly a spin class wouldn't do it. I would probably need steroidal assistance (in addition to an aggressive progressive heavy lifting program). But still I'm here to defend the OP's question. I've had a couple women leading spin class with massive thighs. Like, "how does that even happen?", thighs. Still I would agree with the other posters here OP, that if you are eating at a deficit, you're going to slim down not bulk up.

Genetics...my wife's trainer is very lean and fit...six pack and all of that and also a cyclist. She is "pear" shaped so has bigger hips with bigger thighs and a booty.

My wife has an athletic build and is genetically predisposed to having larger legs...her calves are magnificent, though she hates them.

I have a friend who has had a long fitness/weight loss journey who is a spin instructor...she still has some fat to lose and she is also pear shaped so her thighs and behind look bigger, particularly with still needing to lose some fat.

It's not the spinning...they're genetically predisposed to that body shape.