I Know It's not all Muscle, but..

albayin

I am genuinely curious about this.

My own experience is this: after 2 years of running, weight training, and other hardcore stuff, my thighs are no longer jiggling when I move. The inner thighs are very firm at touch. And if I flex, I can see the "tones" along the quads, hammie and inner thighs. I know, I know they are not all muscles but what could have contributed to this change?

Fitness newbies often say after a short period of time of exercise, their body appears tighter. I wonder beside water retention what else?

Please don't bash my ignorance. :flowerforyou:

ps. I didn't lose lot weight, maybe some fat but I have never had it officially tested.

tigersword

That's fat loss revealing the underlying muscle.

albayin

That's fat loss revealing the underlying muscle.

Ummm...but I should have seen inch loss as well, right? but I haven't seen it coming...at least not in significant way...

MrsBobaFett

You say you lift weights so chances are that it is a combination of fat loss and muscle gain.

albayin

You say you lift weights so chances are that it is a combination of fat loss and muscle gain.

I was hoping that was the case. But without signicant weight/inch loss, its hard to believe...as people here often tell others that you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same rate...or nearly impossible...

AngieAllTheWay

I was hoping that was the case. But without signicant weight/inch loss, its hard to believe...as people here often tell others that you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same rate...or nearly impossible...

Yes you and I are curious about the same thing! It's the skepticism of gaining muscle & losing fat at the same time and what causes it to happen, if it happens, while maintaining a calorie deficit! I've heard of "calorie partitioning" but am no expert and hoped I'd get some feedback from someone who was knowledgeable.

tigersword

You say you lift weights so chances are that it is a combination of fat loss and muscle gain.

No. You can't build muscle on a calorie deficit, especially not at a 1:1 ratio with fat loss. A woman, eating at a perfect surplus, and training with heavy weights, will put on at most 12 pounds of muscle in a year. At a deficit, it won't happen. Can't build something out of nothing.

rugged1529

well what if your overweight already, can you use the energy from fat to burn fat and feed muscle?

tigersword

No. In order to build muscle, you need protein. When in a calorie deficit, your body burns the protein you eat for energy, saving the bare minimum it needs for maintenance of current muscle and organs. Fat oxidation is a very slow process compared to glucose, and also, you need glucose in order to oxidize fat in the first place.

jwdieter

If she's about the same weight, she didn't run a two-year deficit.

albayin

umm.....I was merely curious what it could be besides muscle (since people already are pretty determined that's not muscle).

AliceDark

How have you been eating over that time? What you're describing sounds like it could be a body recomp, where you eat at maintenence, work out doing cardio and lifting, and lose fat while building muscle. If you're eating at a deficit, you're not building muscle, but you can if you're eating in your maintenence range. The key to a recomp is that it's a SLOW process -- you see results over years, not weeks or months, but you said you've been at it for two years now, so it's possible.

Aaron_K123

Frequent use of muscle can lead to high levels of water retention in those muscles causing them to swell and harden appearing larger in size and firmer. Frequent exercise and a calorically restricted diet can lead to fat loss which will expose the muscle over time giving it more definition again making the muscle appear larger.

The loss of fat could be counterbalanced by the retention of water in the muscles of your thighs due to strenuous activity which would explain no change in diameter.

Of course if your thighs were previously very fat it won't make that much of a difference but if you are talking going from a thin covering of fat to very lean then yes you could have the result where you don't put on muscle, you lose fat and the swelling from water retention makes your thighs the same diameter.


All that said High-five up-top if you are getting lean muscular looking legs, sounds to me like you've got nothing to worry about.

NaturallyandProperly

bump

rybo

So after 2 years of exercise, running & strength training you have nice lean hard legs...but people are claiming it's not muscle????

Aaron_K123

So after 2 years of exercise, running & strength training you have nice lean hard legs...but people are claiming it's not muscle????

No I don't think anyone said its not muscle. It is clearly muscle.

albayin

How have you been eating over that time? What you're describing sounds like it could be a body recomp, where you eat at maintenence, work out doing cardio and lifting, and lose fat while building muscle. If you're eating at a deficit, you're not building muscle, but you can if you're eating in your maintenence range. The key to a recomp is that it's a SLOW process -- you see results over years, not weeks or months, but you said you've been at it for two years now, so it's possible.

if deduction works here, I would say I have been eating at maintenance at least given I have not lost much on the scale, nor inches? I honestly have not been loyal to food logging.

albayin

Frequent use of muscle can lead to high levels of water retention in those muscles causing them to swell and harden appearing larger in size and firmer. Frequent exercise and a calorically restricted diet can lead to fat loss which will expose the muscle over time giving it more definition again making the muscle appear larger.

The loss of fat could be counterbalanced by the retention of water in the muscles of your thighs due to strenuous activity which would explain no change in diameter.

Of course if your thighs were previously very fat it won't make that much of a difference but if you are talking going from a thin covering of fat to very lean then yes you could have the result where you don't put on muscle, you lose fat and the swelling from water retention makes your thighs the same diameter.


All that said High-five up-top if you are getting lean muscular looking legs, sounds to me like you've got nothing to worry about.

I am a peared shape person. My thighs are always bigger and they used to jiggle a lot. Now they are still not near where I want to be size wise but I do notice the change of firmness and slight improvement of the over shape of my legs...but nothing so tangible that I could tell you that I lost one pant size or something in that category. But thank you for the detailed explanation. :flowerforyou:

Aaron_K123

If you have noticed that your thighs are considerably firmer and have definition now where previously they were just sausages then that is definite progress and you should be proud of that. I guess the question is do you want legs that look fit (ie muscular and trim) or do you want stick legs. If you want stick legs you might be on the wrong track with all this working out running and eating right stuff but if you want to look fit sounds like you are on the right track to me.

albayin

If you have noticed that your thighs are considerably firmer and have definition now where previously they were just sausages then that is definite progress and you should be proud of that. I guess the question is do you want legs that look fit (ie muscular and trim) or do you want stick legs. If you want stick legs you might be on the wrong track with all this working out running and eating right stuff but if you want to look fit sounds like you are on the right track to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head...I wanted thinner legs, maybe not stick thin but really thin...2 size smaller than what I got now. But then when I start appreciating muscles...I am kinda in dilemma now: what I am doing apparently is not give what I want, but what I like what I got so far and don't want to give up. LOL sorry about the confusion...

bcattoes

umm.....I was merely curious what it could be besides muscle (since people already are pretty determined that's not muscle).

I bet it's muscle.

Aaron_K123

If you have noticed that your thighs are considerably firmer and have definition now where previously they were just sausages then that is definite progress and you should be proud of that. I guess the question is do you want legs that look fit (ie muscular and trim) or do you want stick legs. If you want stick legs you might be on the wrong track with all this working out running and eating right stuff but if you want to look fit sounds like you are on the right track to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head...I wanted thinner legs, maybe not stick thin but really thin...2 size smaller than what I got now. But then when I start appreciating muscles...I am kinda in dilemma now: what I am doing apparently is not give what I want, but what I like what I got so far and don't want to give up. LOL sorry about the confusion...

Appearance is subjective, health isn't. I personally prefer the muscled and fit look myself but others may not including yourself. I don't judge on that or I try not to anyways but I will say you are healthier from what you are doing than if you had just ate at a deficit and not worked out at all and lost both the fat and the muscle in your legs as a result.

albayin

If you have noticed that your thighs are considerably firmer and have definition now where previously they were just sausages then that is definite progress and you should be proud of that. I guess the question is do you want legs that look fit (ie muscular and trim) or do you want stick legs. If you want stick legs you might be on the wrong track with all this working out running and eating right stuff but if you want to look fit sounds like you are on the right track to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head...I wanted thinner legs, maybe not stick thin but really thin...2 size smaller than what I got now. But then when I start appreciating muscles...I am kinda in dilemma now: what I am doing apparently is not give what I want, but what I like what I got so far and don't want to give up. LOL sorry about the confusion...

Appearance is subjective, health isn't. I personally prefer the muscled and fit look myself but others may not including yourself. I don't judge on that or I try not to anyways but I will say you are healthier from what you are doing than if you had just ate at a deficit and not worked out at all and lost both the fat and the muscle in your legs as a result.

I used to want to look like one of the Victoria Secret Models, but now I think I prefer Athleta models.

skullshank

So after 2 years of exercise, running & strength training you have nice lean hard legs...but people are claiming it's not muscle????

its not new muscle.
the loss of fat will reveal what was there, but if OP is on a deficit, beyond slight noob gains, it will be the muscle that she already had.

lindsey1979

I think it is possible to gain muscle in a deficit, but it is very rare to gain lean body mass while in a deficit. The two exceptions I've seen of this are in the extremely obese and as a result of newbie gains (when you first start heavy lifting). You can also have regional muscle gain in a deficit. So, although your lean body mass may be the same or reduced overall, you can have greater muscle in certain areas -- such as when a previously untrained individual starts lifting heavy and will see increased muscle in certain areas (oftentimes the upper body or back).

bshot1

So after 2 years of exercise, running & strength training you have nice lean hard legs...but people are claiming it's not muscle????

its not new muscle.
the loss of fat will reveal what was there, but if OP is on a deficit, beyond slight noob gains, it will be the muscle that she already had.

Pretty much this. There may be water retention and increase blood circulation giving that nice pumped firm muscular look, but you aren't breaking the laws of physics.

skullshank

I think it is possible to gain muscle in a deficit, but it is very rare to gain lean body mass while in a deficit. The two exceptions I've seen of this are in the extremely obese and as a result of newbie gains (when you first start heavy lifting). You can also have regional muscle gain in a deficit. So, although your lean body mass may be the same or reduced overall, you can have greater muscle in certain areas -- such as when a previously untrained individual starts lifting heavy and will see increased muscle in certain areas (oftentimes the upper body or back).

say what now?

are you maybe thinking of strength gains?

laurynwithawhy

So after 2 years of exercise, running & strength training you have nice lean hard legs...but people are claiming it's not muscle????

its not new muscle.
the loss of fat will reveal what was there, but if OP is on a deficit, beyond slight noob gains, it will be the muscle that she already had.

Pretty much this. There may be water retention and increase blood circulation giving that nice pumped firm muscular look, but you aren't breaking the laws of physics.

This. It's definitely muscle - the muscle that you already had. When we have a lot of fat and don't exercise, the muscle is weak, underdeveloped, and can even have fat marbled through it (think steak). Exercise, drop some of the fat, work the muscle, and it becomes more developed and appears and feels harder. You can't gain muscle WEIGHT on a deficit, but you can improve the muscle tone and quality with exercise.

lindsey1979

I think it is possible to gain muscle in a deficit, but it is very rare to gain lean body mass while in a deficit. The two exceptions I've seen of this are in the extremely obese and as a result of newbie gains (when you first start heavy lifting). You can also have regional muscle gain in a deficit. So, although your lean body mass may be the same or reduced overall, you can have greater muscle in certain areas -- such as when a previously untrained individual starts lifting heavy and will see increased muscle in certain areas (oftentimes the upper body or back).

say what now?

are you maybe thinking of strength gains?

Nope, not just strength gains. I don't have the studies handy at the moment, but Lyle talks about it here in his "overfat" beginners or those returning to strength training after a lay-off. I'll see if I can find the studies on regional increases.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

Here's one that shows increases in lean body weight in the case of obese, untrained women who were dieting and lifting heavy. Not much, but it's there. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf

I also know I've seen a study where the women just worked their quads/hamstrings and they found region increases there but overall reduction in lean body mass while in a caloric deficit.

I can't find the text of the original study on any free cites, but here's a summary from an atkins site (titled Effect of a Hypocaloric Diet, Increased Protein Intake and Resistance Training on Lean Mass Gains and Fat Mass Loss in Overweight Police Officers): http://www.atkins.com/Science/Articles---Library/Activity---Exercise.aspx

ottermotorcycle

It's been two years... this hasn't happened over weeks or months but years... sounds like a recomp to me.

DopeItUp

Toning is for real!