If lifting is the way to get that 'toned' look, then why...?
Replies
-
Traveler120 wrote: »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"
Again. I do not disagree with his numbers. You are the one bringing BF% and time into all of this. It is not possible to gain muscle and lose fat at that rate he indicated.. and the author makes no such claims.. but you seem to be.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.
Valid point. And a lot of them don't show thighs. I look a lot skinnier when I crop out my thighs too.2 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »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.
Valid point. And a lot of them don't show thighs. I look a lot skinnier when I crop out my thighs too.
And they all seem to carry their body fat in their lower body... Gotta love dem genetics.2 -
This one is a little better, showing the same hypothetical individuals. But "she" doesn't have much muscle. 25% with muscle is going to look better than 25% without. And everyone is different. My upper body looks like the 20% gal, but my legs look like the 40% version.
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.
Ah..then in that case, you should have an even easier time than our hypothetical coz all you have to do is drop the fat while maintaining your current muscle.0 -
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.
I've wondered that sort of thing myself, especially as some of those photos are clearly posed and others seem to be just snapshots of random women on vacation! And to my inexperienced eye, the woman at 30% looks leaner than the one at 25%, but that could be partly due to lighting and so on. The difference between 40% and 45% is considerable - does a small percentage of fat make that much difference at a higher weight, or does that also depend on genetics and composition?
(Also, I can't help feeling that the OP might have been scared away by the ongoing argument by now, but maybe they'll come back this evening!
) 4 -
Traveler120 wrote: »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/
wow- no wonder this is so difficult for you- reading comprehension and goal post moving for you is totally a thing. I was agreeing with her.
no one is putting on SIX POUNDS of muscle in month and losing 5% body fat without the use of steroids. not happening.5 -
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.
This tangent was not in relation to the OP? It hasn't been for 3 pages. There was a hypothetical woman involved.0 -
I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.2
-
Traveler120 wrote: »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.
This tangent was not in relation to the OP? It hasn't been for 3 pages. There was a hypothetical woman involved.
Hypothetical situations are not beneficial to the OP. At least I am speaking from several N=1's I have trained. Hypotheticals assume there is already a solid foundation, which I don't think the OP has.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »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/
wow- no wonder this is so difficult for you- reading comprehension and goal post moving for you is totally a thing. I was agreeing with her.
no one is putting on SIX POUNDS of muscle in month and losing 5% body fat without the use of steroids. not happening.
Now who's failing reading comprehension. No one said that. The rate was 1lb/month for 6 months which is what our hypothetical was shooting for. Nothing more.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »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.
This tangent was not in relation to the OP? It hasn't been for 3 pages. There was a hypothetical woman involved.
Hypothetical situations are not beneficial to the OP. At least I am speaking from several N=1's I have trained. Hypotheticals assume there is already a solid foundation, which I don't think the OP has.
It's my fault for going off on a tangent. My apologies to the OP. Nice day everyone.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »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/
wow- no wonder this is so difficult for you- reading comprehension and goal post moving for you is totally a thing. I was agreeing with her.
no one is putting on SIX POUNDS of muscle in month and losing 5% body fat without the use of steroids. not happening.
Now who's failing reading comprehension. No one said that. The rate was 1lb/month for 6 months which is what our hypothetical was shooting for. Nothing more.
6 pounds in 6 months- you know what I meant.
I laid it out in a pretty mathematical fashion.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
...
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
I'm a guy, not a gal.
That out of the way, I was talking about this very thing at the gym this morning with a couple of guys. Back in my early 20's, I had no clue what I was doing in the gym. I was there almost every day for a few months. As I had no idea what I was doing, I had no idea what to realistically expect. After about 3-4 months of busting my butt (doing mostly the wrong things
), I was asking, "where are my gainz?" Duh. If only I had one single clue back then...
0 -
I keep reading that the only way to get that sought-after 'lean, tight, toned' look is in fact to lift heavy and that muscles cannot be 'toned' or 'tightened,' they can only get bigger. But if this is true, then why do the women who lift that I know have bulging arm muscles, big thighs (muscular, but still), big butts, etc, while the runners and yogi and dancer women I know who have never touched weights have the lean, tight, toned look I want, and a completely different look altogether--narrow hips, thin legs, etc? Their muscles don't look big, they just look tight. Even if they aren't particularly thin...they have visible muscles, but not boxy ones like the lifters. We can't deny that the type of exercise you do matters--it's obvious that swimmer bodies are different from, say, runner bodies. So why do people claim that lifting is the only way to get that look?
You are absolutely correct. You can achieve a leaner or bulkier physique with weights, but must develop a specific lifting program for this. Ex. Emphasizing balanced, multi-muscle group movements, more reps with lighter weights vs fewer reps with heavier weights, etc.
Yoga and swimming are also awesome training tools for developing strength and a leaner physique. Note that many competitive swimmers also incorporate weight training into their programs, but their routines are geared toward helping to improve swimming performance and are different than weight training programs adopted by athletes in other disciplines like body building, football, soccer, etc.0 -
nods*cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
...
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
I'm a guy, not a gal.
That out of the way, I was talking about this very thing at the gym this morning with a couple of guys. Back in my early 20's, I had no clue what I was doing in the gym. I was there almost every day for a few months. As I had no idea what I was doing, I had no idea what to realistically expect. After about 3-4 months of busting my butt (doing mostly the wrong things ), I was asking, "where are my gainz?" Duh. If only I had one single clue back then...
Like I said earlier- most people flail around for quite some time before realizing what they need to do. Odds are just so low for a newb to make maximum gains right out of the gate.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".
So do it. Come back in 6 month and post results.6 -
in to see the 6 months results pics4
-
Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".
So now women who've been doing this *kitten* for years are just making excuses? Okay.
Really- what's the whole point of this now besides trolling? because at this point you seem to be argumentative simple to be argumentative.2 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".
So do it. Come back in 6 month and post results.
Yeah, I think that would be a fun project. With before and after DEXAs and photos. Challenge accepted.2 -
Lots of great comments here that I agree with. Genetics and what/how much you eat are the biggest factors in what you will look like, I believe.
My profile photo is pretty much what I look like right now… I lift heavy 4 times per week and do some running, walking and high-intensity interval cardio. My calories are not very high, but I am only 5'3", 118lbs and 50 years old. I would be larger if I ate to gain muscle.
Interestingly, I was the same weight and look when I was doing Ironman triathlons with mostly endurance cardio.
This is just genetics and who I am. Certainly not bulky!
just for s&g, what is your calorie / macro range? i'm your height and about 10 pounds heavier (due to body fat, probably similar lean muscle mass). I'm curious what you maintain on.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".
I'm basing this knowledge on both training myself AND training many other women as this is my profession. If it could be done in 6 months then a fit woman's physique would be nothing special and everyone be walking around with amazingly fit bodies right now.
i've trained for over 5 years; for the first two as the others have also confirmed not on any sort of real plan and not having any idea what the hell i was doing. Even under the right training conditions, even as a newbie, even with the right plan, those are not realistic results.
you're welcome to try, but that doesn't mean it's a reality.
2 -
Further anecdote. I have a friend who is now a fitness competitor. She came from a dance background. But it still took her two years of very specific training to achieve her physique. She also started with a pretty low BF%. And she is still working on further improving.
But I'll be interested to see the results of the anyone can do it 6 months of training.2 -
Nutrition factors in as well though. Someone on a 1000 calorie deficit ISN'T going to add that in 6 months with the possible exceptions of being obese or a returning athlete after a long layoff.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Please, when you've done this as long as I have and have people ask to do this that are noobs, the probability of having it happen are pretty much NIL. Can it be done? Probably, but it would have to be such ideal situations and we're talking REGULAR people here with jobs, lives to lead and possibly family to care for.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%.
If you want to argue for argument's sake, have fun. I'll be more realistic with people based on years of experience actually doing it with clients.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Don't forget, you can't weigh more either. Do a live weigh in when you start and a live weigh in 6 months.Traveler120 wrote: »BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I've been in and out of gyms most of my life and I've seen both men and women make some really incredible progress over the course of several months...I have yet to see anyone, male or female obtain an elite physique in a matter of months.
No one was suggesting the goal was an elite shredded stage ready physique. Just a woman going from image #3 to #2 on the BuiltLean Chart.
Not talking about show ready...#2 on that chart is still a pretty elite fitness physique...besides, it's not like #3 hasn't been putting some time in the gym either...that's a pretty rockin' physique as well.
You're talking about basically going from zero to looking like you've been training in one way or the other for years in a matter of months, and I've never seen that happen...ever.
Right now, i look like #3 and would like to be a #2. I'm physically fit and have been exercising consistently for 2 years and lost excess body fat but haven't done any serious resistance training so I'm a newbie. I don't see what the fuss is about given the difference between the 2 looks is not so drastic as to be unachievable in 6 months.
All I'm hearing is women making excuses like
...it's really complicated and really really hard...
...most people are doing it wrong...
...I don't know anyone who's ever done it...
...the average woman doesn't look like #2...so what? Yeah, 70% of US is obese or overweight, so no surprises there.
None of these excuses translate to "it can't be done".
So do it. Come back in 6 month and post results.
Yeah, I think that would be a fun project. With before and after DEXAs and photos. Challenge accepted.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »This one is a little better, showing the same hypothetical individuals. But "she" doesn't have much muscle. 25% with muscle is going to look better than 25% without. And everyone is different. My upper body looks like the 20% gal, but my legs look like the 40% version.
How do you determine the body fat of a drawing?0
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