reducing leg muscle...? I want skinny legs :(

Merithyn

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.

themedalist

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!!!

chuisle

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.

WandRsmom

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:

Willbenchforcupcakes

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.

chuisle

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.

alexis831

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.

astrampe

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....

olee67

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.

chuisle

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?

TXHunny84

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:

yogagirl1111

bump

olee67

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.

astrampe

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:

chuisle

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.

slkehl

Built legs are so hot though! Oh well, to each his own

drmerc

Invest in a wheelchair, avoid using your legs at all costs and eat very little food

LorinaLynn

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.

Rae6503

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.

bms34b

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.