reducing leg muscle...? I want skinny legs :(
Replies
-
ugh....I wasn't trying to start arguments....Sorry everyone....
Tho with reading the arguments I'm now confused on if I need to lose muscle mass and Body fat or just body fat or just muscle..... :huh:0 -
bump0
-
Then, my best advice to you is. Do your own research and see what works best for you. There are a million ways to skin a cat. I would do what you want to do. Find a plan you feel comfortable with, and go for it. Because, in the end, if you aren't doing what you want to do, you won't do it.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?
Why on earth would I intentionally try to lose muscle mass????:noway: :sad: Did it help for what? I have big calves - not green ones, sick ones or crazy calves....They take me on easy and fun ten km runs, they help me do squats with lots of pounds, they carried me through beautiful places and trails all over the workd - Don't think they need any help other than keeping them strong....:laugh:0 -
Why on earth would I intentionally try to lose muscle mass????:noway: :sad: Did it help for what? I have big calves - not green ones, sick ones or crazy calves....They take me on easy and fun ten km runs, they help me do squats with lots of pounds, they carried me through beautiful places and trails all over the workd - Don't think they need any help other than keeping them strong....:laugh:
haha, I would generally agree! I was just curious since that seemed to be the point of contention here - whether that would help. That said, I am with you 100% - I don't personally ever want to lose muscle mass from anywhere.0 -
Built legs are so hot though! Oh well, to each his own0
-
Invest in a wheelchair, avoid using your legs at all costs and eat very little food0
-
I've seen a lot of these type threads, and very few with actual photos showing what the legs looked like. So it's hard to say if someone really has very muscular legs, if they might be holding a bit more body fat, if they are genetically inclined to have bigger legs (ie, pear shaped), or if someone is chasing unrealistic expectations (ie, Victoria's Secret's photoshopped models' legs).
I've also never seen a woman who wasn't flexed and posing and on steroids that I thought, "Damn... I don't want THAT much muscle. That's just TOO much!!!" Everyone else seems to fall under the range of normal. Maybe not their ideal, but normal.
I'm a bit older than some on here. I'm done with trying to fit my body into some mold it won't fit in. I have small boobs, a big bum, and meaty thighs. That is who I am. I'm fit and strong and healthy, but sometimes I can't get a pair of skinny jeans past my ankles no matter WHAT size I try on. Some boots are cut weird and won't fit my calves. The new shortie-shorts in all the stores are disastrous on my thighs. Some might argue that at 40, I shouldn't even be thinking about wearing skinny jeans and shortie-shorts, but I flip those people the bird. :laugh:
So with age, experience and hopefully a tiny bit of wisdom... my advice is to be the best YOU that you can be, but also learn to appreciate what you are.0 -
I'm a bit older than some on here. I'm done with trying to fit my body into some mold it won't fit in. I have small boobs, a big bum, and meaty thighs. That is who I am. I'm fit and strong and healthy
So with you on this.0 -
I can totally relate to this!, I can be as skinny as I would like to go, but my thighs will ALWAYS be big.. despite everything else (including the bottom of my legs) being small!
Me too ladies. It's just the curse of being naturally muscular. I am always flipflopping between wanting skinnier legs and loving them because I'm healthy and strong.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.
Your legs look great!!
I came back to add my measurements - 18" calves and 24" thighs. And I wouldn't trade them for the world :bigsmile: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!!!
And that is what we call perspective!!!0 -
After training for 1/2 marathon, I noticed mine going down. So, I would suggest long distance running, but I am not an expert or anything.
Best wishes! :flowerforyou:0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.
I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
There are also too many variables that could come into play why your legs where bigger as a child than as an adult (age, calorie intake, etc..).0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
I can't say I know why you had certain thigh measurements but I can say that you are still committing a logical fallacy. You had bigger legs at a lesser weight at age 13 and you ran sprints. Now you have smaller legs at a higher weight and you run distance. You can't conclude any CAUSAL relationship as fact unless you did a scientific study ruling out ALL other possibilities for your changes physique including aging, diet, hormones etc. This is obviously not possible. So while you might believe you know the reason, and you may well be right, you can't prove it. For every anecdote saying one thing you can find something else saying another - I used to run distance in high school and now rarely run distance, lift, do light cardio and HIIT. Yet I have trimmer thighs than I used to. My body never took the shape of distance runner's even though I ran distance. For others, it does.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
There's something at work called self selection. People predisposed to be suited to certain activities are more likely to engage in them. In short - people with large muscular physiques naturally will tend towards explosive power activities while people with thinner physiques will tend towards endurance. Not everyone, not all the time. But enough that you can't make causal conclusions. Just sort of a fact of psychology and social science.0 -
Resource on this topic:
"Before you accuse the muscle of being the culprit, take a look at the body fat."
http://www.leighpeele.com/bulky-muscles-and-training-females-the-definition0 -
Ok- I need to do more cardio, cut more fat, then try to strength train to tighten my legs up....
Yes I have a lot of muscle in my legs- BUT- they are not muscular.... I was always fat so my legs got used to carrying all the extra body weight around.....the muscles are large from that- not toned sculpted tight skin legs.... There is a jiggly fat layer I'd like to get rid of that won't seem to ever leave. All the muscle in my legs bulks the fat out more just cuz they're still large from being over weight....
Is this a better discription?... I don't have strong muscular sexy legs.....just bigger/bulky in my opinion legs. Not from working out- but from being over weight....
Make more sense?....0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.
I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.
You are a marathon runner and have slim thighs and calfs and yet you state that the opposite to what I am saying is true LMAO!!!!
The physique fits the bloody activity, it will take time, but it really does do so.
Stick a person on the moon with minimal, if any, atmosphere and see how eventually their physique will change to fit the surroundings.
Does nobody study biology, physiology or physics anymore???0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
I can't say I know why you had certain thigh measurements but I can say that you are still committing a logical fallacy. You had bigger legs at a lesser weight at age 13 and you ran sprints. Now you have smaller legs at a higher weight and you run distance. You can't conclude any CAUSAL relationship as fact unless you did a scientific study ruling out ALL other possibilities for your changes physique including aging, diet, hormones etc. This is obviously not possible. So while you might believe you know the reason, and you may well be right, you can't prove it. For every anecdote saying one thing you can find something else saying another - I used to run distance in high school and now rarely run distance, lift, do light cardio and HIIT. Yet I have trimmer thighs than I used to. My body never took the shape of distance runner's even though I ran distance. For others, it does.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
There's something at work called self selection. People predisposed to be suited to certain activities are more likely to engage in them. In short - people with large muscular physiques naturally will tend towards explosive power activities while people with thinner physiques will tend towards endurance. Not everyone, not all the time. But enough that you can't make causal conclusions. Just sort of a fact of psychology and social science.
Well I can say that I certainly was NOT suited to long distance, age however, changed things as did a slipped disc. Over time my shape changed, this was due to the activity I was undertaking.
This is precisely what I am trying to get at.
There is no "exception to the rule" it is the way the body is designed to work, it will fit its activity and surroundings, this is how evolution happened and will continue to happen.
Too many people on this site are trying to fit things into their own way of thinking as to how they would like things to ideally be.
If they were to stand back, take stock and be honest, they would find everything slots into place, unfortunately too much bro-science on here and other sites and none of the statements are ever backed up by science, medical or otherwise.0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
There are also too many variables that could come into play why your legs where bigger as a child than as an adult (age, calorie intake, etc..).
Ahh you mean weighing just over 90lbs at 5' 2" should mean I would have 24" thighs.
Doesn't equate, genetics plays a major part in the whole factor but the activities undertaken make up the rest.
If I had been involved in long distance stuff at that age, there is a strong possibility that my thighs would have been a lot thinner than they were. Unfortunately, there is no way of ever knowing now0 -
Well I can say that I certainly was NOT suited to long distance, age however, changed things as did a slipped disc. Over time my shape changed, this was due to the activity I was undertaking.
This is precisely what I am trying to get at.
There is no "exception to the rule" it is the way the body is designed to work, it will fit its activity and surroundings, this is how evolution happened and will continue to happen.
Too many people on this site are trying to fit things into their own way of thinking as to how they would like things to ideally be.
If they were to stand back, take stock and be honest, they would find everything slots into place, unfortunately too much bro-science on here and other sites and none of the statements are ever backed up by science, medical or otherwise.
I'm not saying your body (or any body doesn't adapt). I'm simply pointing out that logically you cannot prove your shape changed due solely to the activity you were undertaking as you say. It's ironic you are mocking other people's lack of evidence when your seems to be yourself. I'm not saying distance running will not allow you to achieve slimmer legs. I'm just saying we can't prove it either way given the information on this board. That's not an opinion, that's fact. To prove causal results you need a controlled study. End of story.0 -
I have 17" calf muscle and 22" thighs (huge by many women's standards) and I wouldn't want to get rid of them. They look shapely and sexy. Muscle mass also increases your metabolism so I get to eat more. Sure, I can't wear some boots and skinny jeans, but who needs that? I look way hotter in heels and a short skirt than someone with smaller and softer legs!
Wow, 22" thighs, you think that is huge???? Mine are larger and I think my legs are pretty normal. Hmm, maybe not.0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.
I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.
You are a marathon runner and have slim thighs and calfs and yet you state that the opposite to what I am saying is true LMAO!!!!
The physique fits the bloody activity, it will take time, but it really does do so.
Stick a person on the moon with minimal, if any, atmosphere and see how eventually their physique will change to fit the surroundings.
Does nobody study biology, physiology or physics anymore???
I disagree. I have 22 7/8 in thighs. I run marathons. My legs are not 'skinny', nor am I skinny. I am athletic. If we went by what you said, I should be skinny. Nope. Genetics play a large roll is our body composition.0 -
Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.
The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.
This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).
The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.
Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.
I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.
What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.
When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.
It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.
Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:
Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.
I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.
People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.
You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.
I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.
You are a marathon runner and have slim thighs and calfs and yet you state that the opposite to what I am saying is true LMAO!!!!
The physique fits the bloody activity, it will take time, but it really does do so.
Stick a person on the moon with minimal, if any, atmosphere and see how eventually their physique will change to fit the surroundings.
Does nobody study biology, physiology or physics anymore???
I disagree. I have 22 7/8 in thighs. I run marathons. My legs are not 'skinny', nor am I skinny. I am athletic. If we went by what you said, I should be skinny. Nope. Genetics play a large roll is our body composition.
Well they are certainly not bloody fat pmsl0 -
Well I can say that I certainly was NOT suited to long distance, age however, changed things as did a slipped disc. Over time my shape changed, this was due to the activity I was undertaking.
This is precisely what I am trying to get at.
There is no "exception to the rule" it is the way the body is designed to work, it will fit its activity and surroundings, this is how evolution happened and will continue to happen.
Too many people on this site are trying to fit things into their own way of thinking as to how they would like things to ideally be.
If they were to stand back, take stock and be honest, they would find everything slots into place, unfortunately too much bro-science on here and other sites and none of the statements are ever backed up by science, medical or otherwise.
I'm not saying your body (or any body doesn't adapt). I'm simply pointing out that logically you cannot prove your shape changed due solely to the activity you were undertaking as you say. It's ironic you are mocking other people's lack of evidence when your seems to be yourself. I'm not saying distance running will not allow you to achieve slimmer legs. I'm just saying we can't prove it either way given the information on this board. That's not an opinion, that's fact. To prove causal results you need a controlled study. End of story.
Well it is fact where I come from when I have tried various methods over the years, the best study I can see for myself is one I do on myself.
and THAT my dear, is fact.0 -
Well it is fact where I come from when I have tried various methods over the years, the best study I can see for myself is one I do on myself.
and THAT my dear, is fact.
Actually, quite by definition, that is an opinion. Which are you entitled to and may be very helpful the OP. So let's move on.0 -
I guess you've always got to have *something* to complain about..../eyeroll0
-
Well it is fact where I come from when I have tried various methods over the years, the best study I can see for myself is one I do on myself.
and THAT my dear, is fact.
Actually, quite by definition, that is an opinion. Which are you entitled to and may be very helpful the OP. So let's move on.
It's also called anecdotal evidence. What holds true for one does not hold true for all. Were it otherwise, weight loss would have been solved a loooooong time ago.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