Losing inches but not lbs
haniame
Posts: 97 Member
Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
0
Replies
-
Sounds like you're doing great. I think it's pretty common to lose mass instead of weight due to muscle being more dense than fat. Maybe some of the bigger brains can chime in.5
-
Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????11 -
Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.2 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
BASICALLY, I see a lot of cellulite buildup on my thighs and i just wanna see that gone. Plus I’m 107 @ 5ft1 so that isn’t a low weight. And I want to loose about 2-4 lbs max.0 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
This.0 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
BASICALLY, I see a lot of cellulite buildup on my thighs and i just wanna see that gone. Plus I’m 107 @ 5ft1 so that isn’t a low weight. And I want to loose about 2-4 lbs max.
In that case, start lifting. Adding some muscle mass will help firm up those areas, but continue your healthy diet as this will boost results.2 -
I don't know what the answer is, but my weight frequently remains stable while my clothes seem to get bigger. I try to focus on the weight on the barbell, not the weight on the scale, but damn, it'd be nice to see the scale move, you know?4
-
BABeautifulBadass wrote: »I don't know what the answer is, but my weight frequently remains stable while my clothes seem to get bigger. I try to focus on the weight on the barbell, not the weight on the scale, but damn, it'd be nice to see the scale move, you know?
I know right? Like please what am I sweating like a dog for??1 -
thing is when it comes to cellulite everyone has it. its not easy to get rid of for some. to get rid of cellulite the only thing I know of that works is lipo or cool sculpting both of which are expensive. some cellulite will stay with you no matter what you do weight loss wise. if you want to make it less visible you can try building some muscle. but also you say you want to lose 2-4 lbs. the less you have to lose the slower the loss is going to be. and you have a weight range not just a static number. so even if you were to lose those 4 lbs, it doesnt mean the cellulite is going to go away or that your weight wont fluctuate,which is normal.5
-
Muscleflex79 wrote: »Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
BASICALLY, I see a lot of cellulite buildup on my thighs and i just wanna see that gone. Plus I’m 107 @ 5ft1 so that isn’t a low weight. And I want to loose about 2-4 lbs max.
I'm 4'11 and my goal weight is 135. I spoke to a trainer who thinks I won't get below 140 since my goal is fat loss and muscle gain.
My sister is 5' and about 100lbs. She's skin and bones.
So even for 5'1 107lbs is a low weight.
If your only problem is cellulite then you need to start lifting more and ditch the cardio. That will tone up your legs. But expect the scale to go up with muscle gain.3 -
jennydelgado09 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
BASICALLY, I see a lot of cellulite buildup on my thighs and i just wanna see that gone. Plus I’m 107 @ 5ft1 so that isn’t a low weight. And I want to loose about 2-4 lbs max.
I'm 4'11 and my goal weight is 135. I spoke to a trainer who thinks I won't get below 140 since my goal is fat loss and muscle gain.
My sister is 5' and about 100lbs. She's skin and bones.
So even for 5'1 107lbs is a low weight.
If your only problem is cellulite then you need to start lifting more and ditch the cardio. That will tone up your legs. But expect the scale to go up with muscle gain.
Muscle gain isn't as easy as you think. Not sure how much muscle you expect a woman can gain each month. Hint: leads than 1 lbs when in a surplus and doing a progressive overload training program.5 -
Sorry, what's the problem?0
-
shaunshaikh wrote: »Sorry, what's the problem?
Weight loss.0 -
jennydelgado09 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »Hi all! I am hoping to get a bit of your insight here. I’m a 24 y/o and my height is 5 ft 1 and my weight is 107lbs ( 49 kg). The thing is that I have started intense cardio since the last month and I see visible changes in my body, such as flat abs, tighter hamstrings and glutes, fully toned arms etc. I am also watching my calories, but the weight hasn’t changed, which i find odd. Is there anything that I am doing wrong?
how much weight are you trying to lose given that you are only 107 lbs to start with????
You're seeing all the right changes! Don't worry about the scale. The results you see are the better muscle tone, not a lower scale number. Hopefully you're not trying to lose more than a couple of pounds at a starting weight of 107. So minor water changes due to exercise and sodium and hormones can easily mask any weight change from fat loss. If you focus on the scale number, it's too easy to lose the muscle mass you want to keep.TeacupsAndToning wrote: »You'll only lose weight if you're eating less than you burn.
But at 107 I don't understand why you'd want to lose more weight if you already have "tone."
BASICALLY, I see a lot of cellulite buildup on my thighs and i just wanna see that gone. Plus I’m 107 @ 5ft1 so that isn’t a low weight. And I want to loose about 2-4 lbs max.
I'm 4'11 and my goal weight is 135. I spoke to a trainer who thinks I won't get below 140 since my goal is fat loss and muscle gain.
My sister is 5' and about 100lbs. She's skin and bones.
So even for 5'1 107lbs is a low weight.
If your only problem is cellulite then you need to start lifting more and ditch the cardio. That will tone up your legs. But expect the scale to go up with muscle gain.
Thanks! Then i guess it’s going well. I didn’t have much fat to begin with so i guess the muscle buildup has been a quick process0 -
Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process0
-
Most people say "lose weight" as a proxy for achieving a certain body ideal. Sounds like you are making progress towards that body ideal, so why does the number on the scale matter?shaunshaikh wrote: »Sorry, what's the problem?
Weight loss.
0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
How much muscle do you think you have gained in 2 months?0 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »
Most people say "lose weight" as a proxy for achieving a certain body ideal. Sounds like you are making progress towards that body ideal, so why does the number on the scale matter?shaunshaikh wrote: »Sorry, what's the problem?
Weight loss.
BECAUSE i REALLY liked the way i look when I’m between wee 103-105 lbs.0 -
Also are you lifting?0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Also are you lifting?
Yes lifting! And i got flat abs in 6 weeks (not 6 packs) and back muscles is real strong. Let me also add that my starting weight (before i started lifting) was 48 kg and now im a little over 49 kg and have lost 3 inches over all1 -
The water weight fluctuations you'll be going through due to changes in diet, exercise, and period cycle are greater than the amount you intend to lose. Sounds like you're seeing the progress that really matters so just keep doing what you're doing until you get back to looking the way you want to.1
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.0 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience3 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.
His starting fat percentage was 30%
Mine was 28%0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.
His starting fat percentage was 30%
Mine was 28%
men can build muscle easier than women because they have the testosterone but it still takes a man awhile to build muscle and in a deficit its going to be even harder to build. to see muscle you have to lose fat covering it. so if someone is seeing more muscle while losing weight its because you are losing the fat covering it. when you build muscle you gain fat too unless doing a recomp and that can take more than 6 months to see results
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.
His starting fat percentage was 30%
Mine was 28%
And 3 months later... his BF and weight are?
I'm assuming you had a hydro or dexa scan for those BF estimates.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.
His starting fat percentage was 30%
Mine was 28%
And 3 months later... his BF and weight are?
I'm assuming you had a hydro or dexa scan for those BF estimates.
Yes both of us had that. His bf 30% weight 60 kg0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry but muscle buildup is not a quick process
When i say quick i mean over 2 months.
you don't pack on muscle mass in a month or two...muscle building is a loooong process (especially in women) measured in many months (more than 2) and years, not 8 weeks.
You do understand that i have been in this weight loss field for 5 years now. I have been lifting for 2 months. And i beg to differ because my fiancé did get a visible 6 pack after 3 months of lifting. So talking from experience
Getting a visible 6 pack is 90% fat loss.
His starting fat percentage was 30%
Mine was 28%
And 3 months later... his BF and weight are?
I'm assuming you had a hydro or dexa scan for those BF estimates.
Yes both of us had that. His bf 30% weight 60 kg
Which one?0
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
- 423 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