reducing leg muscle...? I want skinny legs :(
Replies
-
My husband has this problem and only one thing has worked for him. Running and NO lower body workouts. He only runs and lifts heavy, heavy on upper body. I wish I had a before and after but it's dramatic. He does have a very low body fat percentage as well to get most of the fat off his legs.0
-
I'm not a lady, so what I say may have 0 impact for you, or help you out, but it has been helping me a lot....
The best way to describe my build is I am built like a tree trunk. My weight is distributed from calves all the way up to my shoulders. But, the past few months I have been really changing up my exercise routines. (and laugh all you want) But I have been doing a ton of step aerobics (HIIT style) lately. In the past 2 months I have lost almost 2 inches off of my thighs and that seems to be doing a lot of shaping on my thighs. I didn't go into the steps looking to shape my legs (I was quite happy with them) but as a byproduct they are currently outpacing the rest of my body.
Just my 2 cents...0 -
Roll around in a wheelchair all day so that your leg muscles atrophy away.0
-
It's impossible for you to get bulky. You're a woman, and therefore you could not possibly have enough testosterone to build that much muscle. You're just wrong. You can't possibly know what you're talking about regarding your own body, since what you say is true doesn't fit my world view.
/sarcasm0 -
It's impossible for you to get bulky. You're a woman, and therefore you could not possibly have enough testosterone to build that much muscle. You're just wrong. You can't possibly know what you're talking about regarding your own body, since what you say is true doesn't fit my world view.
/sarcasm
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???0 -
What's with all the leg hating on MFP?
I understand about the tall boots - I have always had that problem, even when I was in high school and weighed 140lbs!
But since then, I've learned that my legs are fabulous! They are muscular, strong, and can take me anywhere I want to go. I can run for miles, take back to back spin classes, stand, walk, lift, etc. And I look damn good in heels and skirt.
Maybe you just need to start lifting some heavy weights to get some definition?
And, why are we ashamed to ask a store clerk for something that fits? That's what they are there for! And they make boots out of stretchy material too
Ladies - embrace your legs, train the heck out of them, and enjoy the results!! :drinker:
I am with this %100. I donno if i should be embarrassed by my profile pic now or what lol. My thighs measure 1inch larger than my calves ( 19.5inch calves,20.5inch thighs) and I was feeling pretty proud of how they look until i read this . .....:ohwell:
I may not fit into knee high boots but I can rock a mini skirt like no body's business:happy: edited to correct my measurements.0 -
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Isn't it, though? She's saying her legs are too muscular, ie bulky. Which, as I've been told repeatedly on this site, is impossible for women to get. So, obviously, she's wrong. 0 -
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Isn't it, though? She's saying her legs are too muscular, ie bulky. Which, as I've been told repeatedly on this site, is impossible for women to get. So, obviously, she's wrong.
It's my understanding the OP wants *smaller* legs and thus wanted to lose muscle mass. She *feels* her legs are too large for what she would like. To my knowledge no one has said it's impossible for that happen. The argument you're referencing is the one over whether or not women can easily gain muscle mass and get 'bulky'. Here I think we are talking about someone who feels she already has a lot of muscle mass. An important distinction.
Regardless, for women who feels their legs are too big or bulky or muscular I challenge you lower your body fat to a relatively low level and then decide whether or not there's too much muscle there. I would put a lot of money on, 95 times out of 100, losing fat will solve the 'big' legs problem. Muscle isn't making you fat. Fat is making you fat.0 -
I hear ya - I am the "Thunder Thigh Queen" - even when I lose weight I still have thunder thighs compared to the rest of my body:grumble:0
-
Keep the diet clean and balanced and build up to lots of long slow distance running and stretch a lot to lengthen those muscles.
Do not expect fast results, give it a year.
You can't make your muscles longer by stretching them.0 -
YES! Exactly! I have to wear pants that do NOT fit my waist so my thighs and calves can all fit in!
Or change your perspective from "Boo! I have huge legs!" to "Yay! I have a tiny waist!"
I used to have really thin legs, when I was a really skinny person.
I have significantly meatier legs now, and I love it. Those skinny little legs got pooped going for a walk. Now I can run trails and hills that a sane person would hike.
And honestly? I think my new thicker legs look way better than before. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/551109-that-was-then-this-is-now-14-years-later-with-pics0 -
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Isn't it, though? She's saying her legs are too muscular, ie bulky. Which, as I've been told repeatedly on this site, is impossible for women to get. So, obviously, she's wrong.
It's my understanding the OP wants *smaller* legs and thus wanted to lose muscle mass. She *feels* her legs are too large for what she would like. To my knowledge no one has said it's impossible for that happen. The argument you're referencing is the one over whether or not women can easily gain muscle mass and get 'bulky'. Here I think we are talking about someone who feels she already has a lot of muscle mass. An important distinction.
Regardless, for women who feels their legs are too big or bulky or muscular I challenge you lower your body fat to a relatively low level and then decide whether or not there's too much muscle there. I would put a lot of money on, 95 times out of 100, losing fat will solve the 'big' legs problem. Muscle isn't making you fat. Fat is making you fat.
^^^ This Thank you! :flowerforyou:0 -
I hear ya - I am the "Thunder Thigh Queen" - even when I lose weight I still have thunder thighs compared to the rest of my body:grumble:
Yep! That's my problem 0 -
I'm with ya! I've never been able to wear any of the super cute tall boots
0 -
It's impossible for you to get bulky. You're a woman, and therefore you could not possibly have enough testosterone to build that much muscle. You're just wrong. You can't possibly know what you're talking about regarding your own body, since what you say is true doesn't fit my world view.
/sarcasm
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Of course it is... If you're not eating anything and laying in bed all day. Fact is, people lose muscle as they get older. Fact is, weight and size is weight and size no matter where it comes from. I'd hate to tell you, if someone weighs 400lbs with 5% body fat over a extended period of time, they lose days off their lives. It's not nearly as drastic as being 400lbs and 50% bdoy fat, but, it does stress your body. Elite athletes lean out their bodies by reducing or eliminating thier weight training. Fighters of all types build muscle and fat to gain size and strength prior to a fight and then "cut" to lean their muscles, reduce weight, and increase speed. To say losing muscle is generally inadvisable is not accurate.0 -
I was blessed with my mom's small feet (size 6) and my dad's thick calves (18"). I don't have any suggestions for slimming down the calves, I personally have never tried. I would suggestion Zappoes for boots. They're super friendly, helpful and have an awesome return policy. You can also modify the search for shoe and calf size! I found several pair of knee high boots from there. If you wear a size 8 or larger you can also try shopping the "big girl stores" for knee high boots. Lane Bryant and Torrid (which are the two in my area) stock size 8 and larger in their stores and the boots of course have more room in the calf.0
-
I hear your pain!!! But people on here are right... embrace it. I have always felt insecure about mine and have never been overly fat or anything from the calf up!!! Some societies actually think that "strong legs a woman make!!!" But, in all my years the only way for me to lose anything in my legs was to walk, walk, walk as much as possible! And also lower your carb count ! Good luck.0
-
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Of course it is... If you're not eating anything and laying in bed all day. Fact is, people lose muscle as they get older. Fact is, weight and size is weight and size no matter where it comes from. I'd hate to tell you, if someone weighs 400lbs with 5% body fat over a extended period of time, they lose days off their lives. It's not nearly as drastic as being 400lbs and 50% bdoy fat, but, it does stress your body. Elite athletes lean out their bodies by reducing or eliminating thier weight training. Fighters of all types build muscle and fat to gain size and strength prior to a fight and then "cut" to lean their muscles, reduce weight, and increase speed. To say losing muscle is generally inadvisable is not accurate.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. First of all, show me someone who is 400 lbs and 5% body fat. Mostly because that would be really remarkable. Second, take an example which so absurd/extreme and then tell us again what the point is?
I *think* the point you are trying to argue with that is that muscle loss is not advisable. It's inadvisable for health purposes because strength is excellent indicator of overall health. Muscles help to boost your metabolism, prevent injury, and ultimately can boost longevity. As those elite athletes will tell you they work very hard to minimally avoid losing muscle mass while on a cut. Aesthetically, figure athletes do the same thing. The ENTIRE purpose of a cut/bulk cycle is to keep and increase muscle and lose fat.
Regardless, this is STILL not what was under discussion. The OP isn't trying to cut and bulk or become an elite athlete or anything you mentioned. The advice that she shouldn't set out to lose muscle mass (as opposed to fat) is very solid.0 -
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
Of course it is... If you're not eating anything and laying in bed all day. Fact is, people lose muscle as they get older. Fact is, weight and size is weight and size no matter where it comes from. I'd hate to tell you, if someone weighs 400lbs with 5% body fat over a extended period of time, they lose days off their lives. It's not nearly as drastic as being 400lbs and 50% bdoy fat, but, it does stress your body. Elite athletes lean out their bodies by reducing or eliminating thier weight training. Fighters of all types build muscle and fat to gain size and strength prior to a fight and then "cut" to lean their muscles, reduce weight, and increase speed. To say losing muscle is generally inadvisable is not accurate.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. First of all, show me someone who is 400 lbs and 5% body fat. Mostly because that would be really remarkable. Second, take an example which so absurd/extreme and then tell us again what the point is?
I *think* the point you are trying to argue with that is that muscle loss is not advisable. It's inadvisable for health purposes because strength is excellent indicator of overall health. Muscles help to boost your metabolism, prevent injury, and ultimately can boost longevity. As those elite athletes will tell you they work very hard to minimally avoid losing muscle mass while on a cut. Aesthetically, figure athletes do the same thing. The ENTIRE purpose of a cut/bulk cycle is to keep and increase muscle and lose fat.
Regardless, this is STILL not what was under discussion. The OP isn't trying to cut and bulk or become an elite athlete or anything you mentioned. The advice that she shouldn't set out to lose muscle mass (as opposed to fat) is very solid.
Okay, how about a 330lb person with 8% body fat vs a 330lb person with 42% body fat. No doubt the person who doesn't have 42% body fat is more healthy. Carry all that muscle weight into your 50's and 60's.
My point, indicated earlier, is that not only is it healthy and there is a proper method to reduce muscle mass, but, this is also what our topic author indicated SHE wanted to do. Most people have come on here and told her she's wrong for what she wants HER body to look like and how she should embrace having legs that make her feel uncomfortable and insecure.
Muscle mass is NOT an indicator of strength, either. What you are suggesting by saying so is that a person with large legs should be able to squat massive amounts of weight.
Fact is, there is a proper way to exercise and eat to effectively lose muscle mass and ultimately reduce overall bulk and size. And that's what whole point of HER starting this topic.0 -
It's impossible for you to get bulky. You're a woman, and therefore you could not possibly have enough testosterone to build that much muscle. You're just wrong. You can't possibly know what you're talking about regarding your own body, since what you say is true doesn't fit my world view.
/sarcasm
No one is saying that. It's simply that expressly attempting to lose muscle (as opposed to fat) is generally inadvisable. For health and aesthetic reasons. This isn't even a conversation about getting bulky or testosterone....???
You missed the sarcasm tag! :ohwell:0 -
It's my understanding the OP wants *smaller* legs and thus wanted to lose muscle mass. She *feels* her legs are too large for what she would like. To my knowledge no one has said it's impossible for that happen. The argument you're referencing is the one over whether or not women can easily gain muscle mass and get 'bulky'. Here I think we are talking about someone who feels she already has a lot of muscle mass. An important distinction.
Regardless, for women who feels their legs are too big or bulky or muscular I challenge you lower your body fat to a relatively low level and then decide whether or not there's too much muscle there. I would put a lot of money on, 95 times out of 100, losing fat will solve the 'big' legs problem. Muscle isn't making you fat. Fat is making you fat.
My point is that she's not comfortable with the amount of muscle that she's acquired, something that any number of women have expressed concern about on these forums. And each time they've done so, they have immediately been told that it's absolute impossible for a woman bulk up too much. The OP has proven otherwise.
She's at 25% BF% with 17" calves. She's at a very healthy amount of BF for a woman, and is obviously fairly muscular. I guess this means that maybe, just maybe, women CAN get bulky, or at least bulkier than they wish to be.
She's not fat; she's muscular. If she were 40% BF, then fine, I'd accept your argument, but she's at a healthy level, so it doesn't fly. Women can, and do, become muscular and BULKY on occasion, regardless of what the all-knowing gurus of MFP would like to claim.0 -
As a result of a birth defect, my legs are two different sizes and shapes. One leg has a calf circumference of 14", the other 19" inches. I've been self conscious about this my whole life.
And then it hit me.
My legs have taken me thousands of miles and over 10 half marathon finish lines. They've been the chief instrument through which I've lost 45 pounds and reached my goal weight. They'll keep me from re-gaining the weight and next year they'll enable me to realize the dream of finishing all 26.2 miles that is the New York City Marathon.
Ashamed of my legs? No way. My legs are freaking amazing!!!0 -
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. First of all, show me someone who is 400 lbs and 5% body fat. Mostly because that would be really remarkable. Second, take an example which so absurd/extreme and then tell us again what the point is?
I *think* the point you are trying to argue with that is that muscle loss is not advisable. It's inadvisable for health purposes because strength is excellent indicator of overall health. Muscles help to boost your metabolism, prevent injury, and ultimately can boost longevity. As those elite athletes will tell you they work very hard to minimally avoid losing muscle mass while on a cut. Aesthetically, figure athletes do the same thing. The ENTIRE purpose of a cut/bulk cycle is to keep and increase muscle and lose fat.
Regardless, this is STILL not what was under discussion. The OP isn't trying to cut and bulk or become an elite athlete or anything you mentioned. The advice that she shouldn't set out to lose muscle mass (as opposed to fat) is very solid.
Okay, how about a 330lb person with 8% body fat vs a 330lb person with 42% body fat. No doubt the person who doesn't have 42% body fat is more healthy. Carry all that muscle weight into your 50's and 60's.
My point, indicated earlier, is that not only is it healthy and there is a proper method to reduce muscle mass, but, this is also what our topic author indicated SHE wanted to do. Most people have come on here and told her she's wrong for what she wants HER body to look like and how she should embrace having legs that make her feel uncomfortable and insecure.
Muscle mass is NOT an indicator of strength, either. What you are suggesting by saying so is that a person with large legs should be able to squat massive amounts of weight.
Fact is, there is a proper way to exercise and eat to effectively lose muscle mass and ultimately reduce overall bulk and size. And that's what whole point of HER starting this topic.
I'm not saying there's not a proper way to reduce muscle mass but it is still *generally* inadvisable. Our author said she wanted smaller legs. My point is that there's fat to be gotten rid of before you tread into losing muscle mass. My point is that losing muscle mass now is unlikely to give the author the ultimate results she's seeking.
People get on the forums and say they want to be thin so they are going to 200 calories a day. Part of the point of these is to help give people information and let them know, sometimes, that is a better way. That's all I think that was going on here. The OP can take all the information I and other posters have given her and make her own decision.
And yes, muscle mass is CORRELATED with strength and maintaining. I agree they are not the same but they are related. Regardless of the point about strength other benefits of muscularity still stand.0 -
As a result of a birth defect, my legs are two different sizes and shapes. One leg has a calf circumference of 14", the other 19" inches. I've been self conscious about this my whole life.
And then it hit me.
My legs have taken me thousands of miles and over 10 half marathon finish lines. They've been the chief instrument through which I've lost 45 pounds and reached my goal weight. They'll keep me from re-gaining the weight and next year they'll enable me to realize the dream of finishing all 26.2 miles that is the New York City Marathon.
Ashamed of my legs? No way. My legs are freaking amazing!!!
:flowerforyou:0 -
You really want to lose muscle mass in your legs? Get put in knee immoblizers. After trashing my knee, I lost 1.5" around my quads in 5 weeks, and it took me a year and a half to build it back up again, eating at a surplus and lifting heavy. Not something I would ever recommend anyone intentionally try.0
-
My point is that she's not comfortable with the amount of muscle that she's acquired, something that any number of women have expressed concern about on these forums. And each time they've done so, they have immediately been told that it's absolute impossible for a woman bulk up too much. The OP has proven otherwise.
She's at 25% BF% with 17" calves. She's at a very healthy amount of BF for a woman, and is obviously fairly muscular. I guess this means that maybe, just maybe, women CAN get bulky, or at least bulkier than they wish to be.
She's not fat; she's muscular. If she were 40% BF, then fine, I'd accept your argument, but she's at a healthy level, so it doesn't fly. Women can, and do, become muscular and BULKY on occasion, regardless of what the all-knowing gurus of MFP would like to claim.
I totally get the feeling and where's its coming from. I agree she's not fat! I agree that there's nothing wrong with wanting to look less 'bulky'! My point is simply that if she wants to have thinner legs she needs lower body fat. What I, and other are saying, is that there is a large misconception about what causes the perceived unsightliness. It's NOT your muscle. 25% is very healthy and great she should be proud. But if she's not where she wants to be then you have to get lower - women with legs like Charlotte on Sex in the City (as was discussed ealier) are below 20% at least. She's not fat but she's not ultra lean either (no offense - neither am I!).
I'm not an all knowing MFP guru, thanks for the sarcasm though. IF/when all these women concerned about bulk achieve their dream bodies by ridding themselves of muscle I would be happy to look at the evidence and change my tune. Until then, I am going to stick with what expert trainers and athletes say.0 -
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND!
I have the same issues which is why I workout longer, don't do heavy weights, lots of reps at lighter weights, eat LOTS OF CARBS, have a big deficit at the end of the day (500-1000 calories) with lost of walking! My fitbit helps with tracking where I am at so I stay low but not too low. I even seem to build muscle with all of that combined however at a low rate compared to my bodies ability to pack it on. Heck I had a 6 pk at the age of 12 and never really even worked out other then playing softball and other sports. I could bust out 35 1 handed pushups out of the blue just for kicks, what chick does that seriously? Its cool but not when you try to put on a pair of boots and there is no flipping way they will get around your calfs! Or when your pants are tight around your thighs and calfs yet completely too big in your waist. Or when your arm holes are too small but the rest of the shirt fits perfectly! Just my body and genetics.
It will take time but eventually your body will get there. Mine is still not there in my legs however maybe in a couple of months. I did just drop ½ inch on each of my thighs and ¼ inch on each of my calfs (1.50 inches total). That isn’t a lot but for me that is a blessing. I am at 17.6 body fat so I am figuring I will get there at around 16% but I am short 5’1 and with my muscle I weight around 109 or so. I use to be 16% body fat at 115 pounds so I have lost a lot of muscle! YAH! Still wanting those skinny toned strong legs though without the bulk! It’s a battle. Seems you always want what you don’t have. I know so many people who say they want my problem, heheh.0 -
My point is that she's not comfortable with the amount of muscle that she's acquired, something that any number of women have expressed concern about on these forums. And each time they've done so, they have immediately been told that it's absolute impossible for a woman bulk up too much. The OP has proven otherwise.
She's at 25% BF% with 17" calves. She's at a very healthy amount of BF for a woman, and is obviously fairly muscular. I guess this means that maybe, just maybe, women CAN get bulky, or at least bulkier than they wish to be.
She's not fat; she's muscular. If she were 40% BF, then fine, I'd accept your argument, but she's at a healthy level, so it doesn't fly. Women can, and do, become muscular and BULKY on occasion, regardless of what the all-knowing gurus of MFP would like to claim.
I totally get the feeling and where's its coming from. I agree she's not fat! I agree that there's nothing wrong with wanting to look less 'bulky'! My point is simply that if she wants to have thinner legs she needs lower body fat. What I, and other are saying, is that there is a large misconception about what causes the perceived unsightliness. It's NOT your muscle. 25% is very healthy and great she should be proud. But if she's not where she wants to be then you have to get lower - women with legs like Charlotte on Sex in the City (as was discussed ealier) are below 20% at least. She's not fat but she's not ultra lean either (no offense - neither am I!).
I'm not an all knowing MFP guru, thanks for the sarcasm though. IF/when all these women concerned about bulk achieve their dream bodies by ridding themselves of muscle I would be happy to look at the evidence and change my tune. Until then, I am going to stick with what expert trainers and athletes say.
UUHM...If you are genetically predisposed to have bigger calves, body fat will not make much of a difference - I had 16" calves at 127lbs (I'm 5'8.5) age 23, and I have 17' calves at 176lbs and 27% bf age 44 - so not true that losing body fat will give you skinny stick calves....0 -
I'm not saying there's not a proper way to reduce muscle mass but it is still *generally* inadvisable. Our author said she wanted smaller legs. My point is that there's fat to be gotten rid of before you tread into losing muscle mass. My point is that losing muscle mass now is unlikely to give the author the ultimate results she's seeking.
People get on the forums and say they want to be thin so they are going to 200 calories a day. Part of the point of these is to help give people information and let them know, sometimes, that is a better way. That's all I think that was going on here. The OP can take all the information I and other posters have given her and make her own decision.
And yes, muscle mass is CORRELATED with strength and maintaining. I agree they are not the same but they are related. Regardless of the point about strength other benefits of muscularity still stand.
I would love to see what published article you read any of this information from.
I'm trying to figure out what someone trying to lose fat by massively under eating has anything to do with this. People haven't given her advice on the whole, they've told her to "embrace her unhappiness."
By simply altering how she plans her meals (not her caloric intake) and changing how she exercises (not wheeling around in a wheelchare), she can lose muscle mass and reduce the size of her legs without losing strength and muscle tone...
I'm gald I gave her advice, she liked what I said, and, the reference I gave her.0 -
UUHM...If you are genetically predisposed to have bigger calves, body fat will not make much of a difference - I had 16" calves at 127lbs (I'm 5'8.5) age 23, and I have 17' calves at 176lbs and 27% bf age 44 - so not true that losing body fat will give you skinny stick calves....
I'm not arguing that losing body fat = stick thin cavles.
I am arguing that losing body fat > losing muscle mass.
So try one before the other.
And you are completely right - we can only fight our genetic composition so much. Have you tried to lose muscle mass? If so, did it help?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions