If lifting is the way to get that 'toned' look, then why...?
Replies
-
So 110 @ 20%- 22 pounds of fat.
Vs
110 @ 15% 16.5 fat.
Woman 1: 88 pounds of muscle and bone-
Woman 2: 93 pounds of muscle and bone.
human body is approximately 15% bone.
Woman 1- 75# of muscle.
Woman2 -79# pounds of muscle
So am I understanding you think it's reasonably to drop 5% body fat AND put on 4 pounds of muscle?
Very very very VERY few women are going to be able to get to 15% body fat AND put on 4 pounds of muscle in the same 6 month time period.
Arguably no woman- without the help of injectables.
6 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
yeah no. nothing in the fitness industry takes 3-6 months for what people expect to look like.
That's just laughably inaccurate.
Previous NFL Pro cheerleader, Won her IFBB- procard at her first show, Rated number 1 on Bodybuilding.com for her physique, Featured on the front of Oxygen Magazine, featured winner of "World's Fittest Model competition".
No, no... that's just a matter of cutting body fat! 3-6 months!
it's totally no big deal- it's why everyone is so successful at doing this- because it happens so fast.
Apples to Apples. That wasn't the original picture we saw of Jamie on the previous page and the discussion was based on that picture. She looked kinda like the #2 image on the BuiltLean chart.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)3 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.
No the 1 lb a month of muscle is when eating in a SURPLUS with ideal genetics. Your situation doesn't include eating in a surplus so muscle gain will be much slower.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.
And honestly, I have yet to see women do that. You have realize that the women has to start with a solid foundation for that to occur. So can a person get there, maybe, but most will not. It's not just about body fat. It's about having good body composition in the specific places to have that occur.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.
And honestly, I have yet to see women do that. You have realize that the women has to start with a solid foundation for that to occur. So can a person get there, maybe, but most will not. It's not just about body fat. It's about having good body composition in the specific places to have that occur.
this counts SO much as far as achieving that particular look.0 -
So 110 @ 20%- 22 pounds of fat.
Vs
110 @ 15% 16.5 fat.
Woman 1: 88 pounds of muscle and bone-
Woman 2: 93 pounds of muscle and bone.
human body is approximately 15% bone.
Woman 1- 75# of muscle.
Woman2 -79# pounds of muscle
So am I understanding you think it's reasonably to drop 5% body fat AND put on 4 pounds of muscle?
Very very very VERY few women are going to be able to get to 15% body fat AND put on 4 pounds of muscle in the same 6 month time period.
Arguably no woman- without the help of injectables.
If you're going to disagree with the statistics provided in the link from @jemhh that says 1lb/month is achievable by natural women (initially), shouldn't you provide a more convincing argument than "I don't think so"?
Here it is:Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/0 -
I'd also like to point out- few newbies are going to be fighting for 15% body fat with musculature.
AND
will be "properly" training
it's far more common for people to flail around in the gym without a training program and piss away their newb gains.
The scenario is just so incredibly pie in the sky.2 -
Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.
The woman in picture #3 seems to have significant muscle base. I wouldn't consider her a newbie.
That is like comparing a woman at 22% in the middle or end of her bulk, to someone who has never trained before, very undermuscled at 22%. @psuLemon posted a photo of two different women with the same body fat % but totally different compositions. When the first woman cuts (the bulking one), she may look similar to #2. If the second woman starts training, either continues to cut to lower her BF% or if she recomps (which will most likely take longer than 6 months) at the end she will most likely have more work to do.
1lb per month is for surplus, a typical woman newbie can gain at deficit and maintenance but not very much and not very long, definitely not enough to build a rockin physique like Jamie Eason in 6 months.
Again, I am sure there are exceptions, but they are not the norm.
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
And you are misguided to think that someone would gain as much muscle in a deficit/maintenance as a surplus. Again the 1 lbs month is for a deficit2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
I assure you she doesn't think that.
What she does think is that if this hypothetical woman has a prayer of putting on 1lb of muscle per month, she has to bulk. If she bulks, in order to get back down to 15%BF, she'll obviously have to cut.
Recomp is a thing. It's just a very, very slow process.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
People have told you this already, but I'll try one more time just for any lurkers (and then I'm out)...
1. That article is talking about optimal results in a bulk situation. If you're bulking, you're also gaining AT LEAST 1 pound of fat for every pound of muscle. So at the end of that 6 months, your hypothetical woman has gained at least 11 pounds, 5.5+ of which are fat. She needs to then spend 3-6ish months cutting.
2. Newbies shouldn't bulk until after they've exhausted their newbie gains, so the hypothetical untrained woman we're talking about shouldn't be following the program we're talking about anyway. (http://strengthunbound.com/bulking-complete-guide-for-beginners/)
LOL. No, it's not. Read the article again. It's addressed muscle gain expectations for newbies and clearly said the rate slows down with time and gives maximum lifetime potential. The woman in this scenario IS a newbie. She doesn't need to get fat first in order to accomplish her goal. She's just trying to go from #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean chart and is happy to stay there. And if she trains properly, it's reasonably achievable in 6 months.
The woman in picture #3 seems to have significant muscle base. I wouldn't consider her a newbie.
That is like comparing a woman at 22% in the middle or end of her bulk, to someone who has never trained before, very undermuscled at 22%. @psuLemon posted a photo of two different women with the same body fat % but totally different compositions. When the first woman cuts (the bulking one), she may look similar to #2. If the second woman starts training, either continues to cut to lower her BF% or if she recomps (which will most likely take longer than 6 months) at the end she will most likely have more work to do.
1lb per month is for surplus, a typical woman newbie can gain at deficit and maintenance but not very much and not very long, definitely not enough to build a rockin physique like Jamie Eason in 6 months.
Again, I am sure there are exceptions, but they are not the norm.
Agreed!
From the article (pay attention to bold):Once again, we’re strictly talking MUSCLE, not WEIGHT. Besides actual muscle, weight gained throughout the week could be (and often is) fat, water or glycogen. We’re not talking about any of those here.
And really, this is the rate you can expect under the best possible circumstances. Meaning, an ideal muscle building workout routine and diet, an ideal amount of sleep every night, rest, recovery, consistency, lack of stress, and so on. Basically, when everything is done as perfectly as it could be, this is how fast you can expect to build muscle.
From the comments section, the author's response:So while a weekly 3500 calorie surplus (500 per day, for example) might be perfect for male beginners, and a 1750 weekly surplus (250 per day, for example) might be perfect for male intermediates, the advanced would need to go even lower or possibly better yet use some sort of cyclical approach with surplus/maintenance/deficit days programmed throughout the week.
The "best possible circumstances" he is talking about in the article assumes a surplus. He's not talking about a woman who is underweight and untrained (which is the most likely scenario of being soft/flat at 20%) and wants to eat at maintenance for that underweight state.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
You can only build the optimum amount of muscle when eating in a surplus. Eating at maintenance you will build less, eating at a deficit, small newbie gains then nothing or small losses of lean mass if training optimally.
I don't know why you're so against all of this.1 -
Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
No one is disputing the numbers, but they are for surplus. The numbers are for a surplus, as he states in the article:
"Based on all of this, here’s how fast you can expect to build muscle on average:
Average Natural MAN: between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of muscle per week (or about 1-2 pounds of muscle gained per month).
Average Natural WOMAN: between 0.12 – 0.25 pounds of muscle per week (or about 0.5-1 pound of muscle gained per month).
Once again, we’re strictly talking MUSCLE, not WEIGHT. Besides actual muscle, weight gained throughout the week could be (and often is) fat, water or glycogen. We’re not talking about any of those here. "
He discusses being a newbie and being able to build at the higher end, but nothing about not being in surplus.
Ahh @jemhh you beat me to it !
1 -
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
You don't have enough muscles. It obvious by the lack of period at lower weights that you cannot get leaner without becoming unhealthy. Your runner and yogi friends have bigger muscles than you do. They might not have gotten them from lifting, but they got them from running, doing yoga, living life (carrying groceries, babies, etc).
Besides just looking better, having more muscle is much healthier especially as we age. I'd recommend reading New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women. It explains it much better than I could. Plus it's awesome to be able to actually carry groceries, babies (or even larger children, I can still pick up my 10 year old), open pickle jars (most of the F-ing time), carry boxes, carry bikes, just have the strength needed to live life.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.
Can we be honest with ourselves because it's a bit of a crazy argument? Jamie Eason has been training for a long time to achieve that. People neither have her knowledge, genetics or programming. Using a professional to justify a amateur is going to be a bit short sighted.
All of the clients I have worked with that achieved crazy results, did it over 2 years; they did see results in 6 months, but no where near the level that one would think. That is also consistent when you consider people like hornsby who also took 2 years. And those people either had the knowledge or worked with knowledgeable people to ensure efficient programming and dieting.5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
I assure you she doesn't think that.
What she does think is that if this hypothetical woman has a prayer of putting on 1lb of muscle per month, she has to bulk. If she bulks, in order to get back down to 15%BF, she'll obviously have to cut.
Recomp is a thing. It's just a very, very slow process.
Yes, it's a slow process, just like the article said. 1 lb/month coz she's a noob and is training hard. It will take her six long months to gain those 5.5 lbs. And if she loses 5.5 lbs of fat in the process, boom 15%.0 -
I would not be surprised if Jame Eason has done some "light steroids" in the past.2
-
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
I assure you she doesn't think that.
What she does think is that if this hypothetical woman has a prayer of putting on 1lb of muscle per month, she has to bulk. If she bulks, in order to get back down to 15%BF, she'll obviously have to cut.
Recomp is a thing. It's just a very, very slow process.
Yes, it's a slow process, just like the article said. 1 lb/month coz she's a noob and is training hard. It will take her six long months to gain those 5.5 lbs. And if she loses 5.5 lbs of fat in the process, boom 15%.
No the article did not say that.. the article said 1lb per month at surplus... so she will be gaining BF%... kind of going backwards before she can go forwards. She will not be losing and gaining at the same time in surplus... and if she is recomping, she is not going to be gaining 1lb per month.
Sigh.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.
Can we be honest with ourselves because it's a bit of a crazy argument? Jamie Eason has been training for a long time to achieve that. People neither have her knowledge, genetics or programming. Using a professional to justify a amateur is going to be a bit short sighted.
All of the clients I have worked with that achieved crazy results, did it over 2 years; they did see results in 6 months, but no where near the level that one would think. That is also consistent when you consider people like hornsby who also took 2 years. And those people either had the knowledge or worked with knowledgeable people to ensure efficient programming and dieting.
You're getting stuck on Jamie Eason the person as opposed to her image at a point in time, which is why I started using the BuiltLean Chart so we can just look at the picture and the numbers. No need to complicate it.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.
Jamie Eason, dieted down for a magazine shoot, including years' worth of muscle building, is 5'2", 110 lbs and 15% fat. Your hypothetical woman who is 20% and soft/flat at 110 lbs is not going to be 5'2".0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.
Can we be honest with ourselves because it's a bit of a crazy argument? Jamie Eason has been training for a long time to achieve that. People neither have her knowledge, genetics or programming. Using a professional to justify a amateur is going to be a bit short sighted.
All of the clients I have worked with that achieved crazy results, did it over 2 years; they did see results in 6 months, but no where near the level that one would think. That is also consistent when you consider people like hornsby who also took 2 years. And those people either had the knowledge or worked with knowledgeable people to ensure efficient programming and dieting.
You're getting stuck on Jamie Eason the person as opposed to her image at a point in time, which is why I started using the BuiltLean Chart so we can just look at the picture and the numbers. No need to complicate it.
I guess I currently resemble #3, to get to #2 could it take <6 months? Sure.
However.....
I am not a newbie. I have a decent muscle base as I have been lifting for almost 3 years. That is the difference.1 -
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
As others have already said, it has more to do with your bodyfat percentage (BF%) than weight. A low BF% will result in more muscle definition - somewhat low for the "sculpted" or "toned" look, very low for the "ripped" look.
Take a look at the pictures in this graphic - never mind that some of the women have considerably more muscle mass, just look at the differences in definition (and fat distribution) at different BF% levels:
The pictures might be helpful to some people, but I think they're broscience. I've never seen documentation of how bodyfat was measured in these models, so how can they be used as a valid or reliable visual benchmark? People carry fat in different ways, so what if part of you looks like one picture and part of you looks like another? The lighting. body positions, and camera angles are different, so it's very difficult to identify true differences between one picture and the next level higher or lower. The first three are almost certainly retouched, so how does that help? Whatever.5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
I assure you she doesn't think that.
What she does think is that if this hypothetical woman has a prayer of putting on 1lb of muscle per month, she has to bulk. If she bulks, in order to get back down to 15%BF, she'll obviously have to cut.
Recomp is a thing. It's just a very, very slow process.
Yes, it's a slow process, just like the article said. 1 lb/month coz she's a noob and is training hard. It will take her six long months to gain those 5.5 lbs. And if she loses 5.5 lbs of fat in the process, boom 15%.
No the article did not say that.. the article said 1lb per month at surplus... so she will be gaining BF%... kind of going backwards before she can go forwards. She will not be losing and gaining at the same time in surplus... and if she is recomping, she is not going to be gaining 1lb per month.
Sigh.
You're getting lost in the weeds. The focus of this discussion was simply "how much muscle can a natural woman realistically expect to build". The assumption was that diet/training is on point. If you disagree, with their numbers, post something we can chew on other than "No, she can't"0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.
You're thoroughly misguided if you think you MUST go through a bulk and cut cycle to change your body. And you've yet to give a rationale for disputing the numbers given in the article.
I assure you she doesn't think that.
What she does think is that if this hypothetical woman has a prayer of putting on 1lb of muscle per month, she has to bulk. If she bulks, in order to get back down to 15%BF, she'll obviously have to cut.
Recomp is a thing. It's just a very, very slow process.
Yes, it's a slow process, just like the article said. 1 lb/month coz she's a noob and is training hard. It will take her six long months to gain those 5.5 lbs. And if she loses 5.5 lbs of fat in the process, boom 15%.
Um, no. In weight lifting terms, 6 mos is not 'slow' and the article is assuming ideal conditions, which recomp most certainly is not.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Odds are a 110 pound woman who is soft/flat at 20% is a woman who is very low weight/underweight. That's not a body that is going to go through a 6 month recomp and look like Jamie Eason.
The scenario is preposterous.
She's 5'2". How's that underweight? BMI is 20. Also, once again we were referring to a specific look of the photo posted of Jamie Eason. Context matters. We're not talking about becoming contest ready Jamie Eason.
Can we be honest with ourselves because it's a bit of a crazy argument? Jamie Eason has been training for a long time to achieve that. People neither have her knowledge, genetics or programming. Using a professional to justify a amateur is going to be a bit short sighted.
All of the clients I have worked with that achieved crazy results, did it over 2 years; they did see results in 6 months, but no where near the level that one would think. That is also consistent when you consider people like hornsby who also took 2 years. And those people either had the knowledge or worked with knowledgeable people to ensure efficient programming and dieting.
You're getting stuck on Jamie Eason the person as opposed to her image at a point in time, which is why I started using the BuiltLean Chart so we can just look at the picture and the numbers. No need to complicate it.
And I don't think you understand what the optimal conditions are when it comes to gaining muscle. Those conditions are driven by a calorie surplus, which the OP is not in. Additionally, I dont' think the OP would probably have the level of knowledge to get to those points unless she is employing a coach with a lot of knowledge. And those women on the builtlean chart aren't your average person. How many women do you even know on this forum that are 15% body fat? Do you feel it's easy to get there? Are you there yet? Do you recognize the amount of dedication and tracking to get to those levels? Protein levels? Maybe nutrient timing?
It's not a complicate process... it is complicated to achieve that level. I know less than a handful of women on this board at those level, and NONE of them did it in 6 months.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions