The great weight lifting debate

jmangini

Caloric deficit means you won't gain muscle. You will, however, retain the muscle you have, and shift the proportion of weight lost to fat (instead of muscle), if you lift heavy.

No one said you didn't need to eat at a deficit, but most of us see 1200 as a red flag, especially with intense working out. The odds are usually that you don't need to go that low.

Take a look a Starting Strength or StrongLifts. They're compound workouts and take about 30 minutes to complete. It's a lot easier to do than the complex routine you're trying to do, and you'll likely see better results from it. And yes, it really is that easy. The fitness magazines and whatnot have confused you and you're overthinking it, that's what everyone here is trying to show you.

A "full body" routine does not mean you do lunges and curls and ab twists and and and... (though admittedly, a lot of the people left out the crucial "compound movement" part). Squats get your entire posterior chain and core; bench presses get your arms, shoulders, chest, and to a lesser extent, back; deadlifts get your core, glutes, and thighs. They do it in one movement, in one exercise.

Cardio isn't terrible for weight loss, but it's not great, either, particularly steady state cardio. Cardio is largely just strength training for your cardiovascular system (aka your heart). You don't need cardio to lose weight, and if you do a good, challenging routine like StrongLifts, you'll probably find you need those rest days in between more than you need the cardio.

Also: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

I have been working at a calorific deficit and have still gained muscle, though this is not my primary goal. I guess I go against the odds. I am looking to get slimmer not build up muscle or muscle definition (my body apparently disagrees with my intentions and is building muscle relatively quickly but not shifting fat as fast so I get a spike in weight and then a slow drop).

I think there is some confusion that I am trying to go for Trish Warren,more Kelly Brook.

You don't gain muscle on a deficit. Period. :noway:

B.S.

She's overestimating her gains, almost certainly, and most of what she's seeing is from fat loss, but starting out as untrained? Yea, she's gained some muscle.

I concur. I've done it too. Been involved with a great discussion on this in another post. There are studies proving untrained overweight people added muscle while at a deficit. People who have been lifting for a long time won't necessarily gain any new muscle without adding calories because genetics play a role in how much muscle one can have, so of course the gains will eventually stop. When you look at the cream of the crop physics like Arnold or Stallone - Arnold was essentially the same size for a decade. Stallone for 30 years. And they were jacked up on anabolics. I have found training hard "naturally", the gains you make in one to two years will be the most gains you ever make. Female fitness models training year after year don't get progressively bigger and bigger muscles. Build the muscle and diet to keep it showing and looking good.

MOMXW

Here is one I found about gaining muscle and calorie deficit http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/

neandermagnon

Maybe I am being defensive, but really saying easy peasy to someone who is asking for advise on something they are clearly struggling with can (intentionally or not) be seen as patronisting. Your interpretation is different from mine as you do seem to be at your goal. When you were heavier, if someone said, just do this it is easy peasy and you did not see it as patronising then you are a better woman than I!

In any event, the advise that you are giving is relevant, so moving on: did your 1800 take into account burned calories or is that just what you stuck to irrespective of how much exercise you did? And in relation to heavy lifting do you mean as much as you can carry comfortably or like what some else mentioned (which was useful) to the pint that the last rep is a fight.

I still have a good 80 pounds or so to lose, and losing what I've already lost has been a battle (thanks to medical issues that hinder things). I didn't interpret it as patronizing, but more as "it doesn't have to be hard or take forever to do, you're overthinking it." That said, I can understand how you'd be more likely to jump on the defensive, because it's you who are currently struggling and are frustrated.

When it comes to lifting, "heavy" is defined as "enough that the last few reps in your last set is difficult, and you might sometimes completely fail to lift it."

Don't think about that too much right now, though. Go grab one of the beginner programs. They usually start you off light, in part so that you can learn good form, and increase the weight at regular intervals (as much as every workout session). You'll very soon find where your "heavy" is at, and at that point, you'll start making progress.

Define beginner, because I worked up to the weight I am lifting over the last couple of years. Is it to do with what you have read or what you have learned about your body? (again, not being argumentative, genuine question)

In terms of lifting, you're a beginner until you've reached the end of your noob strength gains. If you haven't done a programme like stronglifts or starting strength or a similar kind of whole body workouts involving compound lifts, where you increase the weight regularly and you're working out in the 1-5 rep range (i.e. if you can do 5 reps for 3-5 sets you increase the weight the next workout), ... and done the programme to the point that you don't see any more strength gains, then you're a beginner/novice lifter. This usually takes a few months.

You're an intermediate lifter when you "graduate" from a progamme like this to one where you don't have a full body 3x a week structure any more, but you have workouts focusing more intensely on specific lifts/body parts - what kind of intermediate programme you do would depend on your goal (strength v physique)

Advanced lifter if you've been doing intermediate type programmes for a couple of years at least.

How long you've been lifting doesn't count for anything if you've been lifting weights that are too light. You're still a noob at heavy

Note: I learned this the hard way. I thought I counted as "intermediate" because i'd been lifting weights for a few months, and that it was only the amount of time lifting that counted.... fact was I was using weights that were too light the whole time, and switching to an intermediate programme did nothing for me, and I wondered why I wasn't making progress. I was also bored to death because the weights were basically too light. I thought I was lifting heavy because the weights I was using were quite a bit heavier than those pink barbie weights,,, but they were not heavy enough to see results............ *then* I did stronglifts.... *then* I got my beginner/noob gains (strength and muscle) and *then* the amount of weight that I could lift increased greatly, I almost doubled the amount I could squat and more than doubled the amount I could deadlift. And my body looked at lot better for it as well (my main goal was strength, but the improved physique comes with the strength gains... which is why stronglifts or a similar programme is an ideal place to start whether your goal is strength or simply to improve how your body looks... it does both. When you get to an intermediate level, you can then decide if you want to go for strength and physique because then it does get a little bit different. But either way, stronglifts is a good place to start.

Also, ignore the meso/endo/ecto body types. I thought I was an endomorph because I gained fat easily, then I realised that I gained fat because I wasn't exercising and I ate too much, which is what will happen to nearly everyone if they do the same. "naturally thin" people are either very active, or they naturally are very good at portion control, or they put a lot of work in behind the scenes to stay thin, that maybe others not aware of. To get thin, you need a calorie deficit. To ensure that you lose just fat and not lean mass while getting thin you need to do a high enough intensity of resistance training. For health, you need a balanced diet.

MOMXW

I think newbie gains are too easily dismissed on here as something that are very gradual and only happen for a few months. That's not the case. The first year can be pretty dramatic. It slows down from there to about year 5 from from what I've read, and that is consistent with my own experience. Just keep training, don't worry so much about the numbers in terms of "oh, I've gained x pounds of muscle" because it's a guestimation game anyway. Just look in the mirror for your results.

Probably so very sound advice!

MOMXW

Some of these are typical responses that I hoped to avoid by giving some background.

I also want to say that 1200 calories is not enough. I would recommend going up to 1400 that way you will still lose a large amount of weight but this way you will not damage your metabolism.

In regards to the 1,200 calories, if say I burn 500 calories working out then I will actually eat 1,700 calories. The 1,200 is a base line. I cannot eat massive amounts of calories as I gain weight very easily. I tried eating 1,500 a day (so this would be 2000 if I burned 500 calories) and I gained weight so the 1,200 limit works for my metabolism which us very slow.


Also, I was not asking if I should or should not lift weights, but if I should lift heavy weight or light weights.

Lift heavy. Try strong curves. I'm hourglass 34 24 36 and the curves are getting even better. I'm not happy unless I'm lifting so heavy my veins pop out and I swear a bit too loudly. I've dropped 10% body fat this way.


By the way, when you upped your calories you gained water, food in the gut, glycogen. You need to make allowances for these things when working out whether you've gained fat or not. You've got your numbers all wrong, and may be under eating and burning muscle instead of fat.

Liking what you're saying, but what do you mean by I have my numbers wrong? Like the calorie calculation? As amazingly awesome ad (and assuming its you in the photo) is, I'm not after a body as toned & defined as yours. I'm more interested in burning fat than building muscle. I thought a calorie deficit was better for that?

albayin

I think newbie gains are too easily dismissed on here as something that are very gradual and only happen for a few months. That's not the case. The first year can be pretty dramatic. It slows down from there to about year 5 from from what I've read, and that is consistent with my own experience. Just keep training, don't worry so much about the numbers in terms of "oh, I've gained x pounds of muscle" because it's a guestimation game anyway. Just look in the mirror for your results.

I hear this every day...from people who do like 100 sit-ups a day or working with a pair of 3 pounds dumbbell 20 minutes, and they are losing scale weight, too..:frown:

MOMXW

Here is one I found about gaining muscle and calorie deficit http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/

Did you read that link? It's basically telling you the same thing people have already been telling you here

I did. It was an FYI. I am not trying to gain muscle. There have been two different responses to the calorie deficit question in this thread that was not really linked to my initial question. I came upon the article & thought I would share.I'm not here to argue or fight with anyone just share experience / information. Part of the learning process is a change in mindset.

MOMXW

I think newbie gains are too easily dismissed on here as something that are very gradual and only happen for a few months. That's not the case. The first year can be pretty dramatic. It slows down from there to about year 5 from from what I've read, and that is consistent with my own experience. Just keep training, don't worry so much about the numbers in terms of "oh, I've gained x pounds of muscle" because it's a guestimation game anyway. Just look in the mirror for your results.

I hear this every day...from people who do like 100 sit-ups a day or working with a pair of 3 pounds dumbbell 20 minutes, and they are losing scale weight, too..:frown:

Hate em already! Lol (before anyone gets offended, it is a joke)

albayin

I think newbie gains are too easily dismissed on here as something that are very gradual and only happen for a few months. That's not the case. The first year can be pretty dramatic. It slows down from there to about year 5 from from what I've read, and that is consistent with my own experience. Just keep training, don't worry so much about the numbers in terms of "oh, I've gained x pounds of muscle" because it's a guestimation game anyway. Just look in the mirror for your results.

I hear this every day...from people who do like 100 sit-ups a day or working with a pair of 3 pounds dumbbell 20 minutes, and they are losing scale weight, too..:frown:

Hate em already! Lol (before anyone gets offended, it is a joke)

Gotcha...

I normally don't argue with people about how they feel or look at themselves but this does gets me a little bit irritated from time to time...While I am lifting so hard for nothing, these "lucky" suckers could just do that? huh? :bigsmile:

pinkyslippers

That work out is for a mesomorph, not an endomorph like me. I am obese, limiting the amount of cardio I do is not recommended. That is weight loss 101.

I have a body type that easily gains weight then cardio everyday is essential. If you are going to give standard advise that is not taking into account my body type, then I appreciate your time but it is not advice that is useful.

Your body type is irrelevant.

Please read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

Thanks so much for posting that link! It is a really great article.

albayin

Here is one I found about gaining muscle and calorie deficit http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/

Did you read that link? It's basically telling you the same thing people have already been telling you here

I did. It was an FYI. I am not trying to gain muscle. There have been two different responses to the calorie deficit question in this thread that was not really linked to my initial question. I came upon the article & thought I would share.I'm not here to argue or fight with anyone just share experience / information. Part of the learning process is a change in mindset.

Not sure what you try to prove by replying to every response...I think you got pretty clear picture here and you know it

Eat less and lifting heavy. I didn't believe this or rather I couldn't do this not until this past month my hard work started paying off. My pants finally feel looser and I dropped one size the whole body. I look lot leaner and defined. My scale weight is still the same. This didn't happen over night but rather 2 years of constant experiments with different combo of worktout/calorie intake and frustration, of course. Good luck~:flowerforyou:

albayin

Another thing I become to notice is from a friend of mine's own experience. She loves cardio, like kickboxing, tabata...She recently dropped a few pounds. Her muscle tone is more noticeable but she also is weaker...because she said she went backward on pull-up, with bigger assistant band now comparing to when she was heavier...I think she's perhaps lost some muscle strength...but it's hard to tell because she looks leaner...

jmangini

Another thing I become to notice is from a friend of mine's own experience. She loves cardio, like kickboxing, tabata...She recently dropped a few pounds. Her muscle tone is more noticeable but she also is weaker...because she said she went backward on pull-up, with bigger assistant band now comparing to when she was heavier...I think she's perhaps lost some muscle strength...but it's hard to tell because she looks leaner...

It is natural to lose strength when you lose weight and vice versa. That is why body weight exercises are usually used as the measure with lifting. For instance if you can bench pressing double your bodyweight is super impressive, but if you are 200 pounds and drop to 180, double your body weight would be less.

Also, strength in not indicative of muscularity. Training for Strength and training for muscularity are two different things. It depends on your goals. Look at the Strong Men vs Bodybuilders. The Bodybuilders are aesthetically more developed where Strong Men are very bulky with a lot more body fat.

If you look good and muscular and you are doing it for looks, then it doesn't really matter. If you are training for athletic performance or similar purposes, then you don' t necessarily want your body fat to get too low. It's difference between the look of a sprinter vs the look of a long distance runner. Two similar activities but with two very different looking bodies.

albayin

Another thing I become to notice is from a friend of mine's own experience. She loves cardio, like kickboxing, tabata...She recently dropped a few pounds. Her muscle tone is more noticeable but she also is weaker...because she said she went backward on pull-up, with bigger assistant band now comparing to when she was heavier...I think she's perhaps lost some muscle strength...but it's hard to tell because she looks leaner...

It is natural to lose strength when you lose weight and vice versa. That is why body weight exercises are usually used as the measure with lifting. For instance if you can bench pressing double your bodyweight is super impressive, but if you are 200 pounds and drop to 180, double your body weight would be less.

Also, strength in not indicative of muscularity. Training for Strength and training for muscularity are two different things. It depends on your goals. Look at the Strong Men vs Bodybuilders. The Bodybuilders are aesthetically more developed where Strong Men are very bulky with a lot more body fat.

If you look good and muscular and you are doing it for looks, then it doesn't really matter. If you are training for athletic performance or similar purposes, then you don' t necessarily want your body fat to get too low. It's difference between the look of a sprinter vs the look of a long distance runner. Two similar activities but with two very different looking bodies.

I think you were right...She only cares about her look...muscular but thin...I guess she's doing ok, then. I am jealour...as I gain strength and still look fat...I do care about my look, too

SezxyStef

Caloric deficit means you won't gain muscle. You will, however, retain the muscle you have, and shift the proportion of weight lost to fat (instead of muscle), if you lift heavy.

No one said you didn't need to eat at a deficit, but most of us see 1200 as a red flag, especially with intense working out. The odds are usually that you don't need to go that low.

Take a look a Starting Strength or StrongLifts. They're compound workouts and take about 30 minutes to complete. It's a lot easier to do than the complex routine you're trying to do, and you'll likely see better results from it. And yes, it really is that easy. The fitness magazines and whatnot have confused you and you're overthinking it, that's what everyone here is trying to show you.

A "full body" routine does not mean you do lunges and curls and ab twists and and and... (though admittedly, a lot of the people left out the crucial "compound movement" part). Squats get your entire posterior chain and core; bench presses get your arms, shoulders, chest, and to a lesser extent, back; deadlifts get your core, glutes, and thighs. They do it in one movement, in one exercise.

Cardio isn't terrible for weight loss, but it's not great, either, particularly steady state cardio. Cardio is largely just strength training for your cardiovascular system (aka your heart). You don't need cardio to lose weight, and if you do a good, challenging routine like StrongLifts, you'll probably find you need those rest days in between more than you need the cardio.

Also: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

I have been working at a calorific deficit and have still gained muscle, though this is not my primary goal. I guess I go against the odds. I am looking to get slimmer not build up muscle or muscle definition (my body apparently disagrees with my intentions and is building muscle relatively quickly but not shifting fat as fast so I get a spike in weight and then a slow drop).

I think there is some confusion that I am trying to go for Trish Warren,more Kelly Brook.

You don't gain muscle on a deficit. Period. :noway:

B.S.

She's overestimating her gains, almost certainly, and most of what she's seeing is from fat loss, but starting out as untrained? Yea, she's gained some muscle.

Everything needs a disclaimer around here. O.k. you are not gaining muscle in a deficit except for newbie gains. :yawn:

So sorry for pointing out the mantra repeated so often on here and adding "Period" as if you're giving absolute advice from on high, is utter and complete B.S. Train more. Read more. Talk less.

Actually she is not getting newbie gains...she herself said she's been lifting for 2 years so that 11kg she gained...not newbie gains.

SunofaBeach14

Caloric deficit means you won't gain muscle. You will, however, retain the muscle you have, and shift the proportion of weight lost to fat (instead of muscle), if you lift heavy.

No one said you didn't need to eat at a deficit, but most of us see 1200 as a red flag, especially with intense working out. The odds are usually that you don't need to go that low.

Take a look a Starting Strength or StrongLifts. They're compound workouts and take about 30 minutes to complete. It's a lot easier to do than the complex routine you're trying to do, and you'll likely see better results from it. And yes, it really is that easy. The fitness magazines and whatnot have confused you and you're overthinking it, that's what everyone here is trying to show you.

A "full body" routine does not mean you do lunges and curls and ab twists and and and... (though admittedly, a lot of the people left out the crucial "compound movement" part). Squats get your entire posterior chain and core; bench presses get your arms, shoulders, chest, and to a lesser extent, back; deadlifts get your core, glutes, and thighs. They do it in one movement, in one exercise.

Cardio isn't terrible for weight loss, but it's not great, either, particularly steady state cardio. Cardio is largely just strength training for your cardiovascular system (aka your heart). You don't need cardio to lose weight, and if you do a good, challenging routine like StrongLifts, you'll probably find you need those rest days in between more than you need the cardio.

Also: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

I have been working at a calorific deficit and have still gained muscle, though this is not my primary goal. I guess I go against the odds. I am looking to get slimmer not build up muscle or muscle definition (my body apparently disagrees with my intentions and is building muscle relatively quickly but not shifting fat as fast so I get a spike in weight and then a slow drop).

I think there is some confusion that I am trying to go for Trish Warren,more Kelly Brook.

You don't gain muscle on a deficit. Period. :noway:

B.S.

She's overestimating her gains, almost certainly, and most of what she's seeing is from fat loss, but starting out as untrained? Yea, she's gained some muscle.

Everything needs a disclaimer around here. O.k. you are not gaining muscle in a deficit except for newbie gains. :yawn:

So sorry for pointing out the mantra repeated so often on here and adding "Period" as if you're giving absolute advice from on high, is utter and complete B.S. Train more. Read more. Talk less.

Actually she is not getting newbie gains...she herself said she's been lifting for 2 years so that 11kg she gained...not newbie gains.

2 years? Yea, I stand by what I said

SezxyStef

Actually she is not getting newbie gains...she herself said she's been lifting for 2 years so that 11kg she gained...not newbie gains.

2 years? Yea, I stand by what I said

I am not disbuting newb gains...but 11kg...in less than a year for a woman? no way...esp since she had an operation and after that is when she gained the weight.

She may have some...but not even close to the weight she gained which is over 25lbs...and she is eating 1200 calories with very few carbs due to gluten intolerance and she does the same lifts at the same weights each time...not a progressive load program...

ETA: if after 2 years of lifting a woman can gain muscle as newb than I in theory should still be gaining muscle...

I lift 3x a week, get in lots of protien, use a progressive load lifting program and haven't done weights in over 15 years...prior to that is was 20 years (ex military) and have been eating on average 1800 calories a day and still losing about 3/4 lb a week...but based on my BF% which has been said to be anywhere between 25-30% my LBM has remained pretty constant through my whole 10 months of lifting...

Dragonwolf

Caloric deficit means you won't gain muscle. You will, however, retain the muscle you have, and shift the proportion of weight lost to fat (instead of muscle), if you lift heavy.

No one said you didn't need to eat at a deficit, but most of us see 1200 as a red flag, especially with intense working out. The odds are usually that you don't need to go that low.

Take a look a Starting Strength or StrongLifts. They're compound workouts and take about 30 minutes to complete. It's a lot easier to do than the complex routine you're trying to do, and you'll likely see better results from it. And yes, it really is that easy. The fitness magazines and whatnot have confused you and you're overthinking it, that's what everyone here is trying to show you.

A "full body" routine does not mean you do lunges and curls and ab twists and and and... (though admittedly, a lot of the people left out the crucial "compound movement" part). Squats get your entire posterior chain and core; bench presses get your arms, shoulders, chest, and to a lesser extent, back; deadlifts get your core, glutes, and thighs. They do it in one movement, in one exercise.

Cardio isn't terrible for weight loss, but it's not great, either, particularly steady state cardio. Cardio is largely just strength training for your cardiovascular system (aka your heart). You don't need cardio to lose weight, and if you do a good, challenging routine like StrongLifts, you'll probably find you need those rest days in between more than you need the cardio.

Also: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

I have been working at a calorific deficit and have still gained muscle, though this is not my primary goal. I guess I go against the odds. I am looking to get slimmer not build up muscle or muscle definition (my body apparently disagrees with my intentions and is building muscle relatively quickly but not shifting fat as fast so I get a spike in weight and then a slow drop).

I think there is some confusion that I am trying to go for Trish Warren,more Kelly Brook.

You don't gain muscle on a deficit. Period. :noway:

B.S.

She's overestimating her gains, almost certainly, and most of what she's seeing is from fat loss, but starting out as untrained? Yea, she's gained some muscle.

Everything needs a disclaimer around here. O.k. you are not gaining muscle in a deficit except for newbie gains. :yawn:

So sorry for pointing out the mantra repeated so often on here and adding "Period" as if you're giving absolute advice from on high, is utter and complete B.S. Train more. Read more. Talk less.

Actually she is not getting newbie gains...she herself said she's been lifting for 2 years so that 11kg she gained...not newbie gains.

2 years? Yea, I stand by what I said

Since it was my response that was originally quoted, I'd like to point out/clarify that I wasn't even referring to what she had already gained, but rather her "I'm not looking to build muscle" statement (ie - future strength training, not past). That you cannot do on a deficit. Yeah, you'll get some "newbie gains" when first starting, especially if you're not already fit, but those stall out fairly quickly, even on a progressive load program. Beyond that? There won't be any gaining to be had while in a caloric deficit.

So, in the long run, even if one is not looking to build muscle, they should still be strength training, so that they retain the muscle they do have. That was my point with that.

Dragonwolf

I have been working at a calorific deficit and have still gained muscle, though this is not my primary goal. I guess I go against the odds. I am looking to get slimmer not build up muscle or muscle definition (my body apparently disagrees with my intentions and is building muscle relatively quickly but not shifting fat as fast so I get a spike in weight and then a slow drop).

I think there is some confusion that I am trying to go for Trish Warren,more Kelly Brook.

The primary difference between Warren and Brook is actually body fat. If Brook took her body fat down to Warren's, or Warren took her's up to Brook's, they would actually look pretty close. (In fact, here's one of Warren during what appears to be the off-season, or at least not on a photo shoot designed to show off her muscles -- http://www.mikedaviesfitness.com/wp-content/gallery/trish-warren/trish_warren_01.jpg )

Additionally, Warren is a bodybuilder. She works out and has a diet that is specifically tailored to build muscle and keep her body fat as low as physically possible. You cannot look like her by accident. Even guys can't look like (their equivalent of) that without investing a lot of time and effort into it, and they have the testosterone to do it far more easily than women.

Oh, and guess what? Brooks lifts, too -- http://www.handbag.com/gym-bag/how-to/a528823/celebrity-fitness-kelly-brooks-weight-lifting-workout-revealed.html (assuming those are 45lb/20kg plates and she's using an Olympic bar, that's 135lb/61kg; considering she's roughly 125lb/57kg, that's not bad for her first deadlift). So the idea that if you lift weights, you'll end up like Warren and not like Brooks holds less and less water. Like I said, the difference between the two is more in body fat percentage than anything else.

Getting slimmer is "building up muscle definition," because getting slimmer means a smaller layer of fat between your skin and your muscles. Both are very slow processes, though. You won't get a body like Warren's over night, even if you were going for it, so all you need to do is change what you're doing once you get to a point that you're happy with.

Also, muscle holds on to water, and stays "tense" (for lack of a better word offhand) for a time after a workout ("swole!"), which makes them firmer and more defined. A day or so later, and they "deflate" (so to speak) to a resting state.

The spike in weight is likely water weight, or can be hormones, shifts in glycogen stores, or any number of things without any other information for context. The body can fluctuate by as much as 10lb/4.5kg in a single day, and most women see "gains" of upwards of 5lb/2.2kg just from the time of month. I know that, personally, I'll sometimes see a large spike that will take a couple of weeks to slowly come off, even though it's just transient (water) weight. This is normal, weight loss is not perfectly linear.

I should have probably mentioned earlier, that I have been working out for the last couple years (this includes lifting) so it is not that I just walked into the gym and went, "Yeah, see that 85kg, I'ma lift that" I built up to it.

To be fair, for your size, an 85kg deadlift isn't out of the realm of possibility for a newbie dead lift. I reached it in 8 weeks of doing StrongLifts (and only took that long for the most part because I was brand new to lifting, and started with StrongLifts' absolute beginner number, which was the DL equivalent of lifting the empty bar). Therefore, it's not a stretch to not think that you worked up to that (and if you built up to that over two years, then either you started really light, or you progressed really slowly, or both).

Time Magazine:

"It is already widely accepted that even the most rigorously adhered-to diet will not produce the same results from person to person. Some of us are simply genetically predisposed to burn more calories more efficiently than others. Restricting those calories, as you do on a diet, will similarly lead to differing results."

"For apple-shaped people hunting for the right diet, a blood test to determine insulin levels may help confirm which regimen will work best for them. But for pears, it remains a toss-up. So until scientists find out more about their body shape, they'll have to lose the old-fashioned way: eating less"

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1626795_1627112_1626457,00.html

No mention of hourglass though.... Oh well!

This is referring to weight distribution and where people lose/gain weight first. So-called "apple" shaped people are that way due to insulin resistance and/or elevated insulin levels, as insulin (particularly at high levels) tends to prefer abdominal fat storage. For "pears," the weight distribution preference isn't from insulin (but rather, more likely, estrogen, which favors the hip area). The "hourglass" figure theoretically has a better balance of hormones and probably gains/loses weight all over without much preference.

The only other thing it might affect is the kind of diet that each person will do best on, specifically the "apple" people, due to the elevated insulin levels (which can interfere with fat loss), and then, it only applies to diet (they need a way to keep insulin down), not weight lifting (except maybe the reasons for weight lifting, but since all women should be doing it for a myriad of reasons, additional reasons based on body shape are kind of moot).

Additionally, doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not you should lift weights, which is what you originally asked:

Question: I have an hourglass figure (47, 37,46), I have read that I should not lift weights until I have burned the required excess body mass, but I have also read that an increase in muscle makes it easier to burn the away unwanted body mass.
This is primarily a question for those who are familiar with weight loss and the hourglass figure, do I lift weights or not?

I have a wheat intolerance so I don't eat many carbs.
[...]
I weigh my food and I do eat high protein. As mentioned, I have eaten 2000 cals and I mean lean meats (mostly, sometimes you have to have a couple of rashers of streaky bacon, and a rib or two otherwise where is the joy?!)

Not eating wheat does not mean you don't eat a lot of carbs. You said initially that you still eat rice, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables. Rice and potatoes are very carby foods, as are most fruits and starchy vegetables. You're diary's closed, though, so it's hard telling what "many carbs" actually is.

On a side note, fat is not bad. In fact, it's necessary for proper hormone and cell function, as well as vitamin absorption. Without seeing your settings, it's hard to tell, but you might be able to afford shifting some of your carbs and/or protein to fat, which might help you with your weight loss.

It seems everyone agrees about lifting but not so much on the calorie deficit. I am still a fan of eat less move more, and I don't think that will change anytime soon mainly because I have tried different calorie consumption levels and this one works for me and my body (the other great debate. I still think it is unrealistic to think that everyone is the same in how they lose weight. It has been proven that men and women lose weight differently. Also take a look at certain athletes within the same team. That is the peer study for me when it comes to the different body type question. Take a look at a rugby team or if that is not your sport compare football world football squads that are built of layers on the same or similar diets.) is a heavy deficit.

"Eat less, move more" has a point of diminishing returns, at least when it comes to "good loss." There comes a point where even the body's attempts at holding on to weight fail and it takes fuel from wherever it can get it, including muscles (which eventually includes the heart).

You don't need a heavy deficit in order to lose weight, and doing so can actually damage your metabolism over the long term, because a too-heavy deficit will prompt the body to start doing what it can to preserve the fuel it has, because it doesn't know when it will be getting more.

As for different athletes on a team looking different, odds are it has more to do with different performance goals than it does anything else. You can really see this with American football, where the roles of the players are vastly different (I've little doubt that rugby is much different, though I'm not as familiar with the sport). The guys that have to tackle others are bigger and have some more fat and quite a bit more muscle on them, while the ones that do a lot of running are leaner and smaller.

You can also see these differences between sports. Check out this side-by-side comparison of different elite athletes -- http://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/ If you know how a sport affects a person's body, you can actually tell just by looking at them what sport they participate in. The long-distance runners are a lot smaller and have smaller muscles than the sprinters or jumpers. The jumpers, sprinters, and cyclists have thigh/leg heavy muscle development, while the swimmers and boxers have more even muscle development. The body builders have low body fat, while the weight lifters don't much care about body fat level. It's all about the goals of the activity (and their diet and fitness regimen reflect their chosen activity, not so much the other way around).

While the weight distribution changes are different between men and women (this is due to hormone levels, which also allow men to build more muscle, more quickly than women, and determine where weight is put on or comes off of), the underlying caloric formula remains the same -- eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight.

This means that with your stats, you should be able to eat around 1600 calories, without exercise, and lose about a pound a week. If you can't (or if you are gaining), and you are sure your food measurements are accurate, then that means there is likely a medical issue that needs to be addressed. That's why most people here feel that your 1200 base intake is too low.

And again, read through this article, which is really great at explaining the actual benefits of (heavy, progressive) weight lifting in women:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/