"No one who does only cardio looks good"

nasja1984

I prefer both strength and cardio-for health reasons and for looks.

chrisdavey

I believe Phelp's strict diet plan was to eat 10000cals a day Suppose that's what happens when you're that big and swim a gazillion km's a day!

Resistance training does not HAVE to be about lifting up iron, it's just the easiest way to track progression and add more resistance.
e.g. http://www.beastskills.com/tutorials/

Johnsonium: First pic was my initial goal basically. Goals change P.S 7% haha.

Re can't get fit with weights only:
Try some of this

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/389137-cardio
or
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/390679-kb-swings-challenge

JoolieW68

Reading this thread is like opening the fridge door over and over. You keep expecting something different, but it's the same stuff everytime you look.

*TRIP* Damn dead horse......

Lillemeddy

Iniially I did cardio only and I burned calories and lost weight. But i found my body changed only after adding in weights. Changes included toning and tightening.

I absolutely agree. At first I only did cardio, lost weight, but didn't see many changes. Then I started doing toning and strength training, along with cardio, and I started seeing many changes.

I don't understand these statements at all. How could you lose weight and not see any changes in your body? I've never lost weight without getting thinner.

I was at a point where I weighed about 15 pounds less than I weigh now. Of course I saw changes. I was a lot skinnier!! But - being the pear I am - I was still not proportionate. By switching out HOURS of cardio with heavy lifts, I were able to start shaping my body. My thighs as well as my butt are now firm and my shoulders and back are wider - giving me an hourglass figure, instead of being a pear. Cardio did not.

So yes, you can ofc lose weight and slim down with cardio. But as far as SHAPING you body, weights are the way to go.

rml_16

Iniially I did cardio only and I burned calories and lost weight. But i found my body changed only after adding in weights. Changes included toning and tightening.

I absolutely agree. At first I only did cardio, lost weight, but didn't see many changes. Then I started doing toning and strength training, along with cardio, and I started seeing many changes.

I don't understand these statements at all. How could you lose weight and not see any changes in your body? I've never lost weight without getting thinner.

I was at a point where I weighed about 15 pounds less than I weigh now. Of course I saw changes. I was a lot skinnier!! But - being the pear I am - I was still not proportionate. By switching out HOURS of cardio with heavy lifts, I were able to start shaping my body. My thighs as well as my butt are now firm and my shoulders and back are wider - giving me an hourglass figure, instead of being a pear. Cardio did not.

So yes, you can ofc lose weight and slim down with cardio. But as far as SHAPING you body, weights are the way to go.

Unless you have large breasts, you do not have an hourglass figure.

Just sayin'.

jadedone

Unless you have large breasts, you do not have an hourglass figure.

Just sayin'.

I disagree, I define being an hourglass as having the same width at the top and bottom, with a well defined waist. Having large breasts isn't needed, you can still look like an hourglass and be fairly flat up top.

LorinaLynn

Unless you have large breasts, you do not have an hourglass figure.

Just sayin'.

I disagree, I define being an hourglass as having the same width at the top and bottom, with a well defined waist. Having large breasts isn't needed, you can still look like an hourglass and be fairly flat up top.

Yep. Someone with an hourglass figure has shoulders that are roughly the same width as the hips, with a defined waist. I have small boobs, but I'm an hourglass.

Before I lost weight, I had a disproportionately large *kitten*, and was pear shaped. I would have still been pear shaped if I had a boob job and great big knockers, because my hips were wider than my shoulders.

rml_16

Unless you have large breasts, you do not have an hourglass figure.

Just sayin'.

I disagree, I define being an hourglass as having the same width at the top and bottom, with a well defined waist. Having large breasts isn't needed, you can still look like an hourglass and be fairly flat up top.

That may be how you define it, but it is not the objective definition. The measurements used to define an hourglass are the bust, waist and hips. Not the shoulders. However, women who (naturally) have the correct measurements usually also have broader shoulders.

I'm not making this up. There are actual measurements that define this figure type.

penrbrown

That may be how you define it, but it is not the objective definition. The measurements used to define an hourglass are the bust, waist and hips. Not the shoulders. However, women who (naturally) have the correct measurements usually also have broader shoulders.


I'm not making this up. There are actual measurements that define this figure type.

The illusion of an hourglass figure is just as good as the real thing.

But I agree that your definition is the more common. In other words BUST, waist and HIPS = Hourglass. Not shoulders, waist and hips.

rchupka87

I would refer you to this link:

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

At least go down to the pictures, see her at 117, 132, and 147. Decide for yourself what "looks best"

But I will mention that if you google the benefits of strength training, specifically for women, there is a reduction in chances for specific cancers and osteoporosis. Strength training doesn't have to involve weights, you can do body weight exercises.

This

RachRice29

"Skinny girls look good in clothes. Fit girls look good NAKED!!!"

There's no way to get FIT doing only cardio.

You are completely wrong. In fact, the reverse is probably true. You can't get fit by doing only weights.

I never said ONLY weights was the answer. I said that by doing ONLY cardio, you cannot be truly fit. You need a combination of both. I define fit as have good cardiovascular health and dense muscle. If you can run a 5 minutes mile without breaking a sweat, but cannot lift your own body weight by doing one pull-up.....No, you are not fit. Doing only cardio will not make you a well-rounded, fit person. I stand by that.

LorinaLynn

That may be how you define it, but it is not the objective definition. The measurements used to define an hourglass are the bust, waist and hips. Not the shoulders. However, women who (naturally) have the correct measurements usually also have broader shoulders.


I'm not making this up. There are actual measurements that define this figure type.

The illusion of an hourglass figure is just as good as the real thing.

But I agree that your definition is the more common. In other words BUST, waist and HIPS = Hourglass. Not shoulders, waist and hips.

Depends on if you're talking about from a fashion/seamstress point of view, or a more sexualized point of view.

FWIW, I'm barely a B at most, but an hourglass by both definitions. My shoulders are about the same width as my hips, and my bust is the same as my hips, with my waist ~10 inches smaller.

BAMFMeredith

This thread makes me feel like this:

jadedone

Unless you have large breasts, you do not have an hourglass figure.

Just sayin'.

I disagree, I define being an hourglass as having the same width at the top and bottom, with a well defined waist. Having large breasts isn't needed, you can still look like an hourglass and be fairly flat up top.

Yep. Someone with an hourglass figure has shoulders that are roughly the same width as the hips, with a defined waist. I have small boobs, but I'm an hourglass.

Before I lost weight, I had a disproportionately large *kitten*, and was pear shaped. I would have still been pear shaped if I had a boob job and great big knockers, because my hips were wider than my shoulders.

I am a pear with big boobs! Hopefully over time my shoulders can catch up so I can be an hourglass.

jadedone

That may be how you define it, but it is not the objective definition. The measurements used to define an hourglass are the bust, waist and hips. Not the shoulders. However, women who (naturally) have the correct measurements usually also have broader shoulders.


I'm not making this up. There are actual measurements that define this figure type.

The illusion of an hourglass figure is just as good as the real thing.

But I agree that your definition is the more common. In other words BUST, waist and HIPS = Hourglass. Not shoulders, waist and hips.

Depends on if you're talking about from a fashion/seamstress point of view, or a more sexualized point of view.

FWIW, I'm barely a B at most, but an hourglass by both definitions. My shoulders are about the same width as my hips, and my bust is the same as my hips, with my waist ~10 inches smaller.

I believe. For example, Sarah Jessica Parker is probably pretty close to an hourglass, but she doesn't have a lot on top.

Kim Kardashian is considered an hourglass, but she is a little more like a pear with a big chest.

AZackery

I never said ONLY weights was the answer. I said that by doing ONLY cardio, you cannot be truly fit. You need a combination of both. I define fit as have good cardiovascular health and dense muscle. If you can run a 5 minutes mile without breaking a sweat, but cannot lift your own body weight by doing one pull-up.....No, you are not fit. Doing only cardio will not make you a well-rounded, fit person. I stand by that.

Why can't a person be fit by just doing cardio? Just because a person can't lift their own body weight by doing one pull-up, it doesn't mean they aren't fit. A lot of bodybuilders can't even do push-ups. Would people that believe in lifting weights, say these people aren't fit?

vmclach

I wrote it.
And I stand by my opinion.


I've never seen a person look good who only runs. Women can probably get by with it and look decent, but men need to lift weights.

I disagree. I've seen quite a few people who only run, and they are lean and look great. That's my main motivation for running.

most women who run seriously also lift. Just sayingg

kwest_4_fitness

I agree with everyone's assessment that good is defined by the one looking. If you're happy with the changes in your body, continue to do what you're doing, even if it's just cardio. I HATED lifting. Hated, hated, hated. Because I thought the only way to lift was to tug on these insanely heavy machines and be crushed to death by weight bars and laughed at by burly men in gyms. But after buying a metric butt ton of workout equipment and free weights for my personal gym, I realized I could lift what I wanted, what I was comfortable with and enjoy the benefits of what I consider moderate lifting.

Adding strength training, which I now love, to my work out has increased the speed at which I drop pounds. Don't know if that would be the case for everyone, though. However, if I still hated lifting, I simply wouldn't do it. I would instead focus on light toning exercises to add to my cardio.

jadedone

Personally, I am not super excited about weight lifting, but my body definitely seems to respond to it. But I like challenging myself, bragging rights, and body weight exercises.

I think it is good for everyone to be able to do some pushups. And bodyweight squats. And crunches. And planks. Weights aren't the only form of strength training.