Women who put on muscle fast
Options
Replies
-
Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y 0 -
Go read the OP again. It's literally a woman who thinks her muscles get bigger while she's losing weight, and that it makes her "bulkier" and "manish."
This is literally impossible.
OMFG
bulky is not mannish.
I hate seeing this. This is a trend that makes me angry.
jonnthan- anger isn't toward you really- but well- media and misuse of words. I hate it- angry. makes me angry.0 -
Why do people keep insisting that this is an issue of differing viewpoints on the word "bulky?" You can't just decide on your own what words mean.
Why not? Bulkiness is purely perception. There isn't a special scale for it.
There is no room for perception when it comes to whether you are getting more or less bulky.
Only if the definition of "bulky" is specific to some idea of growth in muscle volume. And yet, language is a fluid thing, and clearly you are arguing to a mass of people (mostly women) who will not listen to you because their perception is that the swole from exercise (water retention, glucose + inflammation and fat or increase definition) creates a state that is, for them, described as "bulky" and often not a nice thing, in their view. While you might want a universe of absolutes, perception is a significant element of body esthetics which is what they are talking about.
So while you and I might agree and post all the science about hypertrophy, their correct answer is, "whatevers, I know what I'm talking about when I talk about how this makes me feel. My friends get me".
You can be right, but unless you approach from the perceptional issue that it is, you won't get across, IMHO.0 -
Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.0 -
and for those who missed it, my doing cardio every day self (same pic, one over processed so you can actually see my shape):I got really into weights and Les Mills BodyPump.. Was doing it a fair few times a week with heavy weights (no other women in the class were lifting what I was lifting & I wasn't taking anything apart from the odd protein shake here and there)
The long and short of it is I became 'bulky' my upper body, shoulders, back and arms was just horrible when I had clothes on
No, you didn't.
Show us the pics and measurements to prove it, because if that happened while you weren't gaining weight then you are a marvel of biology.
Why does she need to 'prove' anything? Her perception was that she started to look bulky doing those activities, and she changed her habits to avoid that. Her idea of bulky and yours may not be the same, but that doesn't mean that her perception of her own body is invalid or necessarily inaccurate.
Body image is an intensely personal thing, and what we perceive may not match others' perceptions of us, because their view is measured by a different fundamental scale to ours, produced by their own experiences. We all know someone who obsesses about some part of their appearance that we don't even notice. Just because their 'hooked' nose/'bulky' calves/'sticky-out' ears/ 'frizzy' hair doesn't bother our aesthetic sense, or measure up to our personal frame of reference for those things, does not mean that it isn't a real problem/issue and a source of self-consciousness to the person who owns the nose/ears/hair/calves/shoulders in question.
People need to learn to love their bodies, regardless of whether or not they are working to make improvements. No amount of diet or exercise will make you happy if you can't find happiness with who you are *right now.*
I don't believe that there is a person in this thread that would argue with that statement. What is being discussed is objective reality. I said earlier that it is very easy for people to misperceive what is happening with their own bodies, I have experienced it myself. Everyone believes that lifting weights makes people bigger but that only happens if that person is eating at a calorie surplus. For the vast majority of people on MFP, i.e. those who are dieting, lifting weights will simply preserve the LBM that they have as they lose weight. Even for the few who are completely untrained or who are genetically gifted and do gain some limited muscle mass while eating at a deficit, they will actually get smaller, as was illustrated by the fat/muscle comparison that CoderGal posted earlier.
I know this is a hard concept for people to learn. I've seen it again and again with others starting the process and quite far along in it, and I experienced it myself. No one is attacking anyone in this thread or challenging their "happiness." This is a genuine attempt to explain what is going on.
and my 'bulky' lifting self at the same weight:
0 -
Why do people keep insisting that this is an issue of differing viewpoints on the word "bulky?" You can't just decide on your own what words mean.
Why not? Bulkiness is purely perception. There isn't a special scale for it.
There is no room for perception when it comes to whether you are getting more or less bulky.
Only if the definition of "bulky" is specific to some idea of growth in muscle volume.
The definition of "bulky" is specific in that it refers to size. Not of muscle - of anything. A person cannot increase bulk on a calorie defiict.
Besides, forget about the dumb semantic arguments about the definition of "bulky." In this thread, it's clear from the OP on down, that the people who are saying they get too bulky literally believe that their body parts are getting larger as a result of muscle growth.
This is physically impossible. Women do not "put on muscle" while losing weight.0 -
and for those who missed it, my doing cardio every day self (same pic, one over processed so you can actually see my shape):I got really into weights and Les Mills BodyPump.. Was doing it a fair few times a week with heavy weights (no other women in the class were lifting what I was lifting & I wasn't taking anything apart from the odd protein shake here and there)
The long and short of it is I became 'bulky' my upper body, shoulders, back and arms was just horrible when I had clothes on
No, you didn't.
Show us the pics and measurements to prove it, because if that happened while you weren't gaining weight then you are a marvel of biology.
Why does she need to 'prove' anything? Her perception was that she started to look bulky doing those activities, and she changed her habits to avoid that. Her idea of bulky and yours may not be the same, but that doesn't mean that her perception of her own body is invalid or necessarily inaccurate.
Body image is an intensely personal thing, and what we perceive may not match others' perceptions of us, because their view is measured by a different fundamental scale to ours, produced by their own experiences. We all know someone who obsesses about some part of their appearance that we don't even notice. Just because their 'hooked' nose/'bulky' calves/'sticky-out' ears/ 'frizzy' hair doesn't bother our aesthetic sense, or measure up to our personal frame of reference for those things, does not mean that it isn't a real problem/issue and a source of self-consciousness to the person who owns the nose/ears/hair/calves/shoulders in question.
People need to learn to love their bodies, regardless of whether or not they are working to make improvements. No amount of diet or exercise will make you happy if you can't find happiness with who you are *right now.*
I don't believe that there is a person in this thread that would argue with that statement. What is being discussed is objective reality. I said earlier that it is very easy for people to misperceive what is happening with their own bodies, I have experienced it myself. Everyone believes that lifting weights makes people bigger but that only happens if that person is eating at a calorie surplus. For the vast majority of people on MFP, i.e. those who are dieting, lifting weights will simply preserve the LBM that they have as they lose weight. Even for the few who are completely untrained or who are genetically gifted and do gain some limited muscle mass while eating at a deficit, they will actually get smaller, as was illustrated by the fat/muscle comparison that CoderGal posted earlier.
I know this is a hard concept for people to learn. I've seen it again and again with others starting the process and quite far along in it, and I experienced it myself. No one is attacking anyone in this thread or challenging their "happiness." This is a genuine attempt to explain what is going on.
and my 'bulky' lifting self at the same weight:
RRRAAAWWRRR0 -
Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.0 -
16 pages of arguing over semantics. Awesome.0
-
Just to note a body shot front and side, flexing and not (4 pics) is the most valuable when it comes to estimating where you are.
pics?I wish I had this "problem". My legs are always kind of man muscular, but damn can I get some upper body to match?
why?
Because they want to examine your pics and then tell you why you're wrong and then lecture you on weights, body fat %, muscle definition, heavy lifting vs. baby pink dumbbells, and throw in a bunch of sarcastic digs so they can show that they're part of the cool kids' club. Ad nauseam.
Yea. So sorry, that people who have been through this process are attempting to illustrate a point. Go find someone who will give you a hug, pat your head, and tell you "wow, you're so bulky!" It's all about the teddy bears and rainbows for some, actual progress for others.
LMAO!!!!
Sweetie, you've been here since March and you already have over 4000 posts. You seriously need to find something better to do with your time.
I read your profile. Rather than laughing and making snarky comments, you may want to listen to people who lost weight and have kept it off and also built muscle mass.
Start by re-reading the posts here because you are clearly reading them in a manner that is not intended or warranted. Again, we have been discussing the facts of what we could reasonably call bulking and cutting phases. A pro bodybuilder even entered for a while and graciously provided her pictures to illustrate.
This isn't about my time or the number of posts I have made. I'd honestly have to make fewer if people such as yourself would read more carefully.
I don't understand why my simple why escaladed into this...kind of unnecessary don't ya think?
All I wanted to know is why the original person I quoted wanted to see my pictures...
No one here wants to make fun of your pictures. I will state unequivocally that it is POSSIBLE for a woman to get bulky. I personally know women who I would call "bulky" (in the sense of muscle mass and not in the sense of fat as so many really are). You know what it took? Years, and I mean years, of lifting heavy weights and steroids. Yes. Steroids. Why do I know? Because the women told me that they used steroids.
What we can do, is if we look at your pictures, is tell you where you are and help you get to where you want to be. Most of the time it is a matter of continuing lifting, because once the fat comes off, if you are lifting heavy, you will be left with a lean and "toned" body. But it is 99 times out of 100 a case of too much body fat and not a case of too much muscle.
The pictures also help illustrate the difference between perception and reality. Again, and I've said repeatedly in this thread, I went through the same mental process of thinking I was getting bigger muscles when all I was doing was losing fat. The tape measure doesn't lie though.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... Tjose muscles start to look "large and unwieldy" to them and possibly even 'bulky'. In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
Right, that's me off for the weekend - I'm taking my arm muscles to the gym. They may not get any measurably bigger, but they'll sure look it!0 -
I got really into weights and Les Mills BodyPump.. Was doing it a fair few times a week with heavy weights (no other women in the class were lifting what I was lifting & I wasn't taking anything apart from the odd protein shake here and there)
The long and short of it is I became 'bulky' my upper body, shoulders, back and arms was just horrible when I had clothes on
No, you didn't.
Show us the pics and measurements to prove it, because if that happened while you weren't gaining weight then you are a marvel of biology.
Why does she need to 'prove' anything? Her perception was that she started to look bulky doing those activities, and she changed her habits to avoid that. Her idea of bulky and yours may not be the same, but that doesn't mean that her perception of her own body is invalid or necessarily inaccurate.
Body image is an intensely personal thing, and what we perceive may not match others' perceptions of us, because their view is measured by a different fundamental scale to ours, produced by their own experiences. We all know someone who obsesses about some part of their appearance that we don't even notice. Just because their 'hooked' nose/'bulky' calves/'sticky-out' ears/ 'frizzy' hair doesn't bother our aesthetic sense, or measure up to our personal frame of reference for those things, does not mean that it isn't a real problem/issue and a source of self-consciousness to the person who owns the nose/ears/hair/calves/shoulders in question.
People need to learn to love their bodies, regardless of whether or not they are working to make improvements. No amount of diet or exercise will make you happy if you can't find happiness with who you are *right now.*
I don't believe that there is a person in this thread that would argue with that statement. What is being discussed is objective reality. I said earlier that it is very easy for people to misperceive what is happening with their own bodies, I have experienced it myself. Everyone believes that lifting weights makes people bigger but that only happens if that person is eating at a calorie surplus. For the vast majority of people on MFP, i.e. those who are dieting, lifting weights will simply preserve the LBM that they have as they lose weight. Even for the few who are completely untrained or who are genetically gifted and do gain some limited muscle mass while eating at a deficit, they will actually get smaller, as was illustrated by the fat/muscle comparison that CoderGal posted earlier.
I know this is a hard concept for people to learn. I've seen it again and again with others starting the process and quite far along in it, and I experienced it myself. No one is attacking anyone in this thread or challenging their "happiness." This is a genuine attempt to explain what is going on.
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
If her perception was that she started to "take up too much space" while she was in fact losing volume, then her perception was objectively wrong.
This entire thread is about women who think their muscles are getting larger in a calorie deficit and it's making them physically larger.
It's not.0 -
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.
Exactly. They truly believe they are developing big muscles and their thighs or arms are literally getting bigger. This is not the case. That's what we're all trying to explain, and everyone wants to argue with.0 -
Merely trying to add another perspective to the discussion, and responding a specific part of a specific post, not the whole thread. If you don't want to acknowledge that a woman may feel herself to be too 'bulky' despite the scientific difficulties in that matching up to your view of that term, please, continue on in blissful ignorance.
Again, this thread is specifically not about how anyone feels at the moment.
The entire thread is about change over time. It's not about being bulky or having muscle, it's about getting bulky or gaining muscle.
You can have muscle or not have muscle. You can be bulky or not be bulky. That's not what this is about. This is about whether you can BECOME bulkier or GAIN muscle while losing weight.
The answer is "you cannot."
Am I reading that right. You are saying you can't gain muscle while losing weight?
Not to any significant degree, no. Certainly you can't gain enough muscle in a caloric deficit to make a body part larger.
Beg to differ and this video pretty much sums it up in how you can lose fat and gain muscle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi-jnsG0Z7Y
Oh god, Scooby.
No matter what Scooby says, and I am not watching his video, you cannot make any body parts larger while in a calorie deficit. It just doesn't happen.
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Sir, with respect, then do it, and come back here and show the results. You are speaking to a group of people who have been through the process of bulking and cutting repeatedly, and for many of us AFTER trying the types of gimmicks discussed there. Real trainers of real bodybuilders will play little tricks such as carb cycling to get off the last few pounds during a cut, but they don't play these games on a large scale during the bulking phase. The video even goes into 6 meals a day and meal timing which the science, real science, points to being complete rubbish.
Yes, you can add a little muscle in a calorie deficit if you are untrained, have laid off training for a while and are coming back, and/or are using steroids. With the exception of that latter one, it also isn't a lot of muscle. You get a little bump, but for serious muscle gains you have to eat and eat. This is why the basics are pushed so hard. Sure you can find a guy on youtube focusing a lot of attention on the details, and telling people what they want to hear. You can get very popular and make plenty of money telling people what they want to hear. The entire diet and fitness industry, which is aimed at the general public, does just that.0 -
But it can be done and you are wrong and very misinformed.
Show me one example of a woman who increased the size of a body part while in a calorie deficit as a result of the muscle growing.
Show me the empirical evidence that you can't lose fat and gain muscle at the same time.
Because this study would imply that you can:
http://muscleevo.net/calorie-deficit/#.UiCvDz9IVgg
Bulking/cutting is not the only way to put on muscle.0 -
I think it's likely your understanding of 'bulky' and hers may be different. In her context, I took the word 'bulky' to mean highly-defined, perhaps large in proportion to the rest of her body, and inelegant - not a lithe, svelte look, but visibly muscular, which many women believe is unfeminine and unappealing. I know 'bulk' has a particular connotation in weightlifting, but it's not the only way to use that word.
If only there were some book written, where we could collect definitions of words so that when we use them we could make sure we're using them correctly. You could have them in alphabetical order, and give the meanings of words right next to the word itself.
If such a book existed, and the word "bulky" was in it, it could, for instance, say "of relatively large size" and not "smaller yet more defined."
If only such a book existed.
How many times a day do you use words in a sense not precisely aligned with their primary dictionary definition, but rather, in colloquial fashion? Context matters, and language evolves - just ask the Oxford English Dictionary team who spend all year, every year updating and editing the content of their publication. Do you 'follow' someone on Twitter or indulge in weightlifting 'geekery'? If we followed your apparent standards for the 'correct' use of language and ignored context, neither of those things would be possible, according to their precise dictionary definitions, until fairly recent years.
Even those OED guys who spend all year updating their entry for the word "bulky" have not found it reasonable to include an entry that says "small but defined."
If you are losing size and your muscles are becoming more visible, you are, literally and unarguably, not becoming bulkier.
Read the title of the thread. It's about "putting on muscle." People are using bulky to mean "bigger muscles." There is no semantic argument here.
People who complain that they're getting too bulky literally think their muscles are getting bigger. They are not. Period, end of story, zero room for argument.
Oxford English dictionary: 'Bulky' adjective (bulkier, bulkiest)
taking up much space; large and unwieldy
All of which are judgements requiring perception.
The person you demanded proof from perceived that her upper body had become 'bulky' (perhaps not the correct use of the word, but I understood her meaning from context.). Her perception may well be accurate, it's likely she could see more of the muscular definition she already had, or that was developing with use, because she was losing body fat/weight. Many women who have this issue are in the same boat. They 'see' their muscles getting 'bigger' because they are more visible, both individually and in relation to their smaller bodies as they lose weight... In some cases, they actually do gain measurably bigger musculature (the impressive lady who weightlifts professionally, for example), but you're right, in many cases it is merely a change of perception - you know, that inconvenient thing you think has no place in this discussion. I'm so sorry we don't all use perfectly-accurate terminology for you and rely on mere feminine perception of our own bodies to judge what's happening to them. It must make your life so difficult.
If her perception was that she started to "take up too much space" while she was in fact losing volume, then her perception was objectively wrong.
This entire thread is about women who think their muscles are getting larger in a calorie deficit and it's making them physically larger.
It's not.
"there's no 'too' in the OED definition. A person who has previously had no muscular definition to speak of might very well start to feel that their muscles "take up much space" once they become visible on a body that is shrinking in overall size. I'm not really sure why you think "objectively wrong" matters so much in a person's self-evaluation/perception (subjective), either.
I also don't recall the OP mentioning a deficit, but I may be wrong - it's been a while since the start of this thread!
That really is my last word on the subject - I came in to empathise, and got caught up in the debate. I've lots of better things to do. Arrivederci!0 -
I get terribly fed up with being told women don't bulk up, or women don't look like body builders without steroids. I put on muscle very easily, and although I don't end up looking like a body builder when I do heavy weights, I certainly get rather manish in the arms and legs. When I rowed a lot I had very big arm and thigh muscles, and was certainly not on steroids. I didn't even eat much protein by most people's standards (being vegetarian).
So are there any other women on here like me, who actually do get big muscles doing weights, and don't really want them?
You likely run higher levels of testosterone naturally (yes, women produce small amounts of testosterone--responsible for the sex drive in women). No woman produces a lot of testosterone, but there is a range. You can use an herb like Chasteberry (also called Vitex) which blocks some of the testosterone production by increasing progesterone production (the OTHER female hormone that we don't seem to produce enough of, for various reasons). Because many, many women are somewhat "estrogen dominant" (and estrogenic compounds that we take in from food and the environment are part of the problem)--stepping up progesterone production is good for balance and combating the over-production of androgenic hormones. Acne and hirsuitism are both symptoms of the over-production of androgenic hormones, as is "bulking up". Good luck!0 -
True, I just think the "bulk" they are claiming is an illusion in their mind. But, like jonnythan said, they got smaller, not bigger. Yes, it is impossible to get bulky in a deficit, which is why I'm pretty sure the reason they think they look bulky is due to their self-perception. They aren't just making these claims to troll or to pretend or anything. I believe they truly believe it themselves.
Exactly. They truly believe they are developing big muscles and their thighs or arms are literally getting bigger. This is not the case. That's what we're all trying to explain, and everyone wants to argue with.
Initial exercise swole at few weeks = larger volume. Their perception isn't wrong, it's focusing on the wrong thing...
Long term weight loss + exercise will help out if you can get past the perception thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions