An article for women that don't WANT to lift heavy
Replies
-
I didn't like the Contreras blog bashing some celebrity butts. Or "bare in mind". :laugh:0
-
I love how some people's response is that women can't naturally get too bulky, when the point of the article(s) is that for some women, heavy lifting would get them a body that's too bulky/muscular *for them*.
Personally, it would be fairly realistic for my body type to get a Jessica Biel-type body (because that's how I'm built), but that's not really the look I'm going for. I think people should lift for health purposes (e.g., preventing muscle and bone loss with aging/weight loss), but I don't want to look muscular.
It's funny when people post pictures talking about how weight lifting didn't make them "bulky," and 99% of the time they're more muscular than I would personally want to look. I'm glad they're happy with how they look because that's all that really matters. But I don't get the impression that wanted to look thin (or "lithe" or whatever you want to call it) is really a socially acceptable goal on MFP.
The point is that the look that's being described as "bulky" - i.e. visible muscle definition - comes from having a particular body fat percentage. Women can lift as much as they like and never get that look if they keep their body fat percentage in the low 20s.
No-one's denying the fact that some women look more muscular than many women want to look... the point is that lifting isn't going to make you have that look unless you also drop your body fat percentage below 18%. So "I don't want to look muscular" is not a reason to not lift. Also, the look that many of these women do want - the bikini model look, i.e. nice shape, no visible muscle definition - comes from lifting and keeping your body fat percentage a bit higher.
That's what everyone is trying to get across.
if you don't want to lift then don't lift. But you're not going to look "too muscular" unless you drop your body fat percentage low enough to have muscle definition.0 -
If you feel you should do something because someone else is telling you to do it, you're doing it wrong.
Do what you like, do what you want, worry about you.
The end.
This.
So much this.0 -
I love how some people's response is that women can't naturally get too bulky, when the point of the article(s) is that for some women, heavy lifting would get them a body that's too bulky/muscular *for them*.
Personally, it would be fairly realistic for my body type to get a Jessica Biel-type body (because that's how I'm built), but that's not really the look I'm going for. I think people should lift for health purposes (e.g., preventing muscle and bone loss with aging/weight loss), but I don't want to look muscular.
It's funny when people post pictures talking about how weight lifting didn't make them "bulky," and 99% of the time they're more muscular than I would personally want to look. I'm glad they're happy with how they look because that's all that really matters. But I don't get the impression that wanted to look thin (or "lithe" or whatever you want to call it) is really a socially acceptable goal on MFP.
The point is that the look that's being described as "bulky" - i.e. visible muscle definition - comes from having a particular body fat percentage. Women can lift as much as they like and never get that look if they keep their body fat percentage in the low 20s.
No-one's denying the fact that some women look more muscular than many women want to look... the point is that lifting isn't going to make you have that look unless you also drop your body fat percentage below 18%. So "I don't want to look muscular" is not a reason to not lift. Also, the look that many of these women do want - the bikini model look, i.e. nice shape, no visible muscle definition - comes from lifting and keeping your body fat percentage a bit higher.
That's what everyone is trying to get across.
if you don't want to lift then don't lift. But you're not going to look "too muscular" unless you drop your body fat percentage low enough to have muscle definition.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know this article has been posted on here before, but I think the comparison between the 2 15% body fat women toward the end of this article illustrates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages
And yes, I know no one ends up looking like the woman on the right by accident. I just think it illustrates the muscle mass vs. body fat distinction well. Some people want low body fat but not a lot of muscle mass (like the woman on the right, who has low body fat but is not "muscular").
Okay, I think the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten now
0 -
Not saying that she's an expert, but I like her point.
I started lifting a lot this year, ate at a deficit, and to be honest, I like the way my upper body looked a lot more BEFORE I started lifting (though my abs look more defined) . I know most people would say, "the bulk is because of a calorie surplus" but it wasn't because I ate at a deficit.
To each their own I guess is what I'm saying.
I find that if I take a little time of lifting, I lose my pump. The pump results from fluid retention in your muscles, not actual muscle fibers. If you were in a calorie deficit, you only added a couple of lbs of muscle if that. Just an fyi.0 -
I love how some people's response is that women can't naturally get too bulky, when the point of the article(s) is that for some women, heavy lifting would get them a body that's too bulky/muscular *for them*.
Personally, it would be fairly realistic for my body type to get a Jessica Biel-type body (because that's how I'm built), but that's not really the look I'm going for. I think people should lift for health purposes (e.g., preventing muscle and bone loss with aging/weight loss), but I don't want to look muscular.
It's funny when people post pictures talking about how weight lifting didn't make them "bulky," and 99% of the time they're more muscular than I would personally want to look. I'm glad they're happy with how they look because that's all that really matters. But I don't get the impression that wanted to look thin (or "lithe" or whatever you want to call it) is really a socially acceptable goal on MFP.
The point is that the look that's being described as "bulky" - i.e. visible muscle definition - comes from having a particular body fat percentage. Women can lift as much as they like and never get that look if they keep their body fat percentage in the low 20s.
No-one's denying the fact that some women look more muscular than many women want to look... the point is that lifting isn't going to make you have that look unless you also drop your body fat percentage below 18%. So "I don't want to look muscular" is not a reason to not lift. Also, the look that many of these women do want - the bikini model look, i.e. nice shape, no visible muscle definition - comes from lifting and keeping your body fat percentage a bit higher.
That's what everyone is trying to get across.
if you don't want to lift then don't lift. But you're not going to look "too muscular" unless you drop your body fat percentage low enough to have muscle definition.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know this article has been posted on here before, but I think the comparison between the 2 15% body fat women toward the end of this article illustrates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages
And yes, I know no one ends up looking like the woman on the right by accident. I just think it illustrates the muscle mass vs. body fat distinction well. Some people want low body fat but not a lot of muscle mass (like the woman on the right, who has low body fat but is not "muscular").
Okay, I think the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten now
I'm not talking about either of those women though. I'm talking about the look that comes from having strong, healthy muscles and around 21% body fat. So the above is a strawman argument.
Additionally, if you really would prefer to look like a woman who has 15% body fat and weak, wasted muscles rather than a woman who has strong muscles and 21% body fat (i.e. no muscle definition) and honestly find a woman who has 21% body fat and strong muscles as "bulky" and not something you want to look like, then that is extremely sad (in the sincere meaning of sad, not the sarcastic meaning) - 15% body fat and wasted muscles is unheathy and underweight. The healthy body fat percentage range for women is 18-28% and fitness models don't maintain 15% body fat year round - they cut for photoshoots etc, and having more lean mass protects them against many of the negative effects of having low body fat. However, some fashion models that maintain the starved/wasted look of 15% body fat and very small muscles get there by eating very low calorie diets and some of them take drugs to stay that thin, basically starving away both fat and lean mass, and many of them have eating disorders.
If you really, truly, honestly find the look of a woman at 21% body fat with strong muscles "bulky" and something you don't want to look like then that's choosing unhealthy over healthy, and that's really sad. But I'm inclined to say that you actually wouldn't find that look unattractive, and you're jumping back to the woman who lifts and has 15% body fat to say that's what you don't want to look like, without addressing the fact that women who lift and have higher body fat don't look like that or any kind of bulky.0 -
i saw some guys in the gym today doing deep barbell squats with about 80kg, and they had legs like noodles - i can only dream of legs that slim!! so as i girl, i am not too worried about turning into the hulk!0
-
This, exactly. The woman who lifts once, then wakes up and sees herself noticeably swole, is not "gaining muscle super easily." She's just pumped.Not saying that she's an expert, but I like her point.
I started lifting a lot this year, ate at a deficit, and to be honest, I like the way my upper body looked a lot more BEFORE I started lifting (though my abs look more defined) . I know most people would say, "the bulk is because of a calorie surplus" but it wasn't because I ate at a deficit.
To each their own I guess is what I'm saying.
I find that if I take a little time of lifting, I lose my pump. The pump results from fluid retention in your muscles, not actual muscle fibers. If you were in a calorie deficit, you only added a couple of lbs of muscle if that. Just an fyi.0 -
I love how some people's response is that women can't naturally get too bulky, when the point of the article(s) is that for some women, heavy lifting would get them a body that's too bulky/muscular *for them*.
Personally, it would be fairly realistic for my body type to get a Jessica Biel-type body (because that's how I'm built), but that's not really the look I'm going for. I think people should lift for health purposes (e.g., preventing muscle and bone loss with aging/weight loss), but I don't want to look muscular.
It's funny when people post pictures talking about how weight lifting didn't make them "bulky," and 99% of the time they're more muscular than I would personally want to look. I'm glad they're happy with how they look because that's all that really matters. But I don't get the impression that wanted to look thin (or "lithe" or whatever you want to call it) is really a socially acceptable goal on MFP.
The point is that the look that's being described as "bulky" - i.e. visible muscle definition - comes from having a particular body fat percentage. Women can lift as much as they like and never get that look if they keep their body fat percentage in the low 20s.
No-one's denying the fact that some women look more muscular than many women want to look... the point is that lifting isn't going to make you have that look unless you also drop your body fat percentage below 18%. So "I don't want to look muscular" is not a reason to not lift. Also, the look that many of these women do want - the bikini model look, i.e. nice shape, no visible muscle definition - comes from lifting and keeping your body fat percentage a bit higher.
That's what everyone is trying to get across.
if you don't want to lift then don't lift. But you're not going to look "too muscular" unless you drop your body fat percentage low enough to have muscle definition.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know this article has been posted on here before, but I think the comparison between the 2 15% body fat women toward the end of this article illustrates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages
And yes, I know no one ends up looking like the woman on the right by accident. I just think it illustrates the muscle mass vs. body fat distinction well. Some people want low body fat but not a lot of muscle mass (like the woman on the right, who has low body fat but is not "muscular").
Okay, I think the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten now
Might I suggest reading the text around those images?The same is true for these females below. The first is a fitness competitor and the later is a fashion model. You may or may not like one or the others appearance, but that isn’t the point of the comparison. The point is both are roughly 15% body with varying levels of water depletion. As you can see, there is quite a stark difference between the two.
There are also other variables and factors to take into consideration when looking at body composition. One of the main factors is carbohydrate and water manipulation. I discuss in detail how to manipulate both in the Water Manual. Water manipulation or advanced super-compensation techniques can have dramatic differences on your appearance. The 15% woman on the left is likely utilizing those techniques. It is often done by bodybuilders and figure competitors.
In other words, the one on the left doesn't necessarily have more muscle, but rather has less glycogen and basically a controlled dehydration.
Here's a better comparison for you, since it uses the same person:
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/_PB20718.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URsAn0ZH-_U/T0hhaYmVRUI/AAAAAAAAAHA/qc3puy8Is58/s1600/Nicole-Wikins11.jpg
That's Nicole Wilkins-Lee, the IFBB 2013 champion. The first pic is at a competition, while the second is an off-season pic. The only real difference? Hydration and a little body fat. Now, she seems to have large thighs by nature, but there are obvious differences. Notice the significantly softer look the off-season pic has.
Even this picture has significantly less definition, and the only difference from the first one is arguably glycogen and water -- http://getphatwithjen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nicole-wilkins.jpg
That's the point we've been trying to get across -- it's not the muscles, but the body fat that matter. Lift for strength and health, and manipulate body fat and glycogen to get the look you want.0 -
I love how some people's response is that women can't naturally get too bulky, when the point of the article(s) is that for some women, heavy lifting would get them a body that's too bulky/muscular *for them*.
Personally, it would be fairly realistic for my body type to get a Jessica Biel-type body (because that's how I'm built), but that's not really the look I'm going for. I think people should lift for health purposes (e.g., preventing muscle and bone loss with aging/weight loss), but I don't want to look muscular.
It's funny when people post pictures talking about how weight lifting didn't make them "bulky," and 99% of the time they're more muscular than I would personally want to look. I'm glad they're happy with how they look because that's all that really matters. But I don't get the impression that wanted to look thin (or "lithe" or whatever you want to call it) is really a socially acceptable goal on MFP.
The point is that the look that's being described as "bulky" - i.e. visible muscle definition - comes from having a particular body fat percentage. Women can lift as much as they like and never get that look if they keep their body fat percentage in the low 20s.
No-one's denying the fact that some women look more muscular than many women want to look... the point is that lifting isn't going to make you have that look unless you also drop your body fat percentage below 18%. So "I don't want to look muscular" is not a reason to not lift. Also, the look that many of these women do want - the bikini model look, i.e. nice shape, no visible muscle definition - comes from lifting and keeping your body fat percentage a bit higher.
That's what everyone is trying to get across.
if you don't want to lift then don't lift. But you're not going to look "too muscular" unless you drop your body fat percentage low enough to have muscle definition.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know this article has been posted on here before, but I think the comparison between the 2 15% body fat women toward the end of this article illustrates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages
And yes, I know no one ends up looking like the woman on the right by accident. I just think it illustrates the muscle mass vs. body fat distinction well. Some people want low body fat but not a lot of muscle mass (like the woman on the right, who has low body fat but is not "muscular").
Okay, I think the dead horse has been sufficiently beaten now
Might I suggest reading the text around those images?The same is true for these females below. The first is a fitness competitor and the later is a fashion model. You may or may not like one or the others appearance, but that isn’t the point of the comparison. The point is both are roughly 15% body with varying levels of water depletion. As you can see, there is quite a stark difference between the two.
There are also other variables and factors to take into consideration when looking at body composition. One of the main factors is carbohydrate and water manipulation. I discuss in detail how to manipulate both in the Water Manual. Water manipulation or advanced super-compensation techniques can have dramatic differences on your appearance. The 15% woman on the left is likely utilizing those techniques. It is often done by bodybuilders and figure competitors.
In other words, the one on the left doesn't necessarily have more muscle, but rather has less glycogen and basically a controlled dehydration.
Here's a better comparison for you, since it uses the same person:
That's Nicole Wilkins-Lee, the IFBB 2013 champion. The first pic is at a competition, while the second is an off-season pic. The only real difference? Hydration and a little body fat. Now, she seems to have large thighs by nature, but there are obvious differences. Notice the significantly softer look the off-season pic has.
Even this picture has significantly less definition, and the only difference from the first one is arguably glycogen and water --
That's the point we've been trying to get across -- it's not the muscles, but the body fat that matter. Lift for strength and health, and manipulate body fat and glycogen to get the look you want.
FIFY and ^^^ this
same woman, different levels of hydration and cutting - i.e. difference in how she looks off season (i.e. like a bikini model) and when competing (i.e. like a fitness model)
you get the bikini model look by lifting and keeping your body fat around 18-21%
you get the fitness model look by lifting and lowering your body fat to around 15%
So lifting isn't going to make you have visible muscle definition unless you want it to.
BTW if you think she looks too bulky or too muscular in the off season pic then your perception of what a healthy woman should look like is skewed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions