General Comment About People Who Don't Lift

penrbrown

Yawn:yawn: You do you and I'll keep doing me.

I bet you will...

*wink wink*

*leer*

...
...

Hee. Kidding! Just kidding!

LiftAllThePizzas

But I digress, I don't think you can tell every woman that they won't bulk up past their comfort point simply because they are a woman and that we should all lift as heavy as possible because it can't happen. It can.

When I was 14 I broke my leg. For 3 months I was unable to move my ankle joint. When the cast came off, I couldn't even walk, and my left leg was like a toothpick compared to my right leg.

The point being, if you find yourself getting more "bulk" than you want, just stop challenging those muscles and they will very quickly shrink! (Or more practically, limit the level to which you challenge them to control their size.)

LorinaLynn

But I digress, I don't think you can tell every woman that they won't bulk up past their comfort point simply because they are a woman and that we should all lift as heavy as possible because it can't happen. It can.

If my muscles start bulking up past my comfort point, I'll back off. If it happens at all, it's not like it will happen overnight.

Especially in women, muscle strength doesn't mean muscle size. That, to me, is the most amazing part about heavy lifting. I can increase my strength by crazy amounts, and still look deceptively small.

After 12 weeks of doing Stronglifts (and increasing my calories all the while because I in the middle of it, I didn't like how losing body fat was making my chest look bony) I don't look that much different. There would have been a more visual difference if I didn't keep increasing my food intake... I would have looked even smaller, but I didn't want that. My size didn't increase at all. But my strength went way up... beyond what I thought possible in that time frame.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/820899-12-weeks-of-stronglifts-still-a-woman-lotsa-pics

Those lifting lighter weights for more reps are in bigger danger of bulking than those lifting heavy for less reps.

bethb03

bump

CoderGal

But I digress, I don't think you can tell every woman that they won't bulk up past their comfort point simply because they are a woman and that we should all lift as heavy as possible because it can't happen. It can.

Since we're mostly talking about calorie deficits here:

If by bulk you mean get larger...gluck trying to do that on a calorie deficit. the scientists would be all over you. I've seen nobody consistently gain size that way ever. If by bulk you mean lose fat...doesn't happen over night, and trust me, it's easily reversed.

If by bulk you mean eat over your TDEE:
Well, if you keep on with that you well be over weight.
If you do that and strength train yep, you'll eventually increase your muscle mass. It's a slow process. And you'll probably be slimmer then you did if you just ate allot. But if you don't want to increase in size...don't? Go on a deficit.

acpgee

I've know a couple of ballet dancers in major companies and they tell me they lift, actually.

KenosFeoh

No, I haven't seen all the pictures in the thread (and not the belly dancer posted earlier). I wasn't talking about every possible dancer anyway; I was talking about the dancers in my head. I have a DVD of belly dancers performing, and their bodies look very different from the bodies of weight lifters that I've seen posted around the forum here.

Again - I haven't seen all of them, but I did know that there are hard muscled dancers and less hard muscled lifters. I've seen a few examples of both in this thread.

If I didn't want to be able to dig out rocks and move heavy things around in the wheelbarrow to do landscaping projects, I don't think I'd do much weight lifting. I'd still practice belly dancing.

There are belly dancers that include weight training in their exercise regiment too.

But what you are basically saying is that nothing anyone says, shows you or proves to you matters. That realizing dancers of any type, including belly dancers, do weight training or that including weight training doesn't mean you are going to be "hard" or "bulky"...matters because the dancers in your head don't do that so you won't listen because you already have this notion of what you believe to be right.

Okay..gotcha. Moving on....

Wait a minute! What am I being scolded for? I never said I was right and anybody else was wrong. I made a comment early in the thread right off the top of my head about dancing versus weight training. Then I explained what I was thinking when I made the comment. I'd post pictures of what I was thinking about too if I knew how, but it really doesn't matter. I do weight training, too.
I'm sure I will appreciate the results. so far so good

Again, got me now? I hope so. moving on ...........

mmapags

I've know a couple of ballet dancers in major companies and they tell me they lift, actually.

So far, it appears to me that every dancer that has posted here lifts. BinaryPulsar, CoderGal, Katerina, the belly dancing lady (sorry I forgot your user name :flowerforyou: ). They all lift. My daughter was a dancer when she was in high school. I have know many dancers personally. I could not tell the difference in thier bodies from a woman lifter's body. Heck, my wife lifts and she is a thin and "lithe" woman. She had a new woman trainer come up to her out of the blue at the gym and compliment her yesterday for doing weight work and how lean an feminie she looked. I think my opinion is clear that there is little difference between a lifter and a dancer's body. If I am wrong, fine. Can anyone show me how? (other than referencing some vague image in their head) I will then admit my error.

KenosFeoh

I've know a couple of ballet dancers in major companies and they tell me they lift, actually.

So far, it appears to me that every dancer that has posted here lifts. BinaryPulsar, CoderGal, Katerina, the belly dancing lady (sorry I forgot your user name :flowerforyou: ). They all lift. My daughter was a dancer when she was in high school. I have know many dancers personally. I could not tell the difference in thier bodies from a woman lifter's body. Heck, my wife lifts and she is a thin and "lithe" woman. She had a new woman trainer come up to her out of the blue at the gym and compliment her yesterday for doing weight work and how lean an feminie she looked. I think my opinion is clear that there is little difference between a lifter and a dancer's body. If I am wrong, fine. Can anyone show me how? (other than referencing some vague image in their head) I will then admit my error.

Nope - I can't find anything wrong with this.

Pixi_Rex

Not that I'm in immediate danger of either, but I'd rather have a dancer's body than a lifter's body.

Every female lifter I have ever seen has a fairly close body to a dancer... unflexed and In normal everyday life they look very demure and lady like.

KatrinaWilke

I realize you may not have read all the posts, but I did not suggest that weight lifting decreased flexibility. I suggested that a dancer who lifts weights would look different than someone who only lifts weight (without the other training that dancers require). Let's face it, if dancers didn't have a different look to their body, I highly doubt we'd be discussing how to get a dancers body.

Well a lot of people have asked just what "a dancer's body" really even means. There seems to be no answer. Look at the dancers on So You Think You Can Dance. Some of them look like bodybuilders, some of them look like the girl next door.

The simple fact is that you're wrong. You have false conceptions about the nature of human body, and instead of trying to listen and learn you are stubbornly sticking to these conceptions. What you say simply doesn't make sense.

Additionally there have been pictures of a dancer and lifter posted in this thread that show no distinction or difference.

I'm sorry but I've never seen So You Think You Can Dance. I wouldn't expect the differences to show as much in a still photo, though the poses chose suggest the difference. If you were to see two women in real life, one who was a dancer who lifted weights, and one who lifted weights as her only form of exercise, there would likely be a difference in they why they walked and moved. The dancer would be more lithe and graceful.

So they may move differently. Ok. For the third or fourth time, in what way would they LOOK differently. KatrinaWilkes who is a dancer has said they would not. You, who are not a dancer I believe, says they would. Yet, you can't seem to either demostrate how or alternatively, admit that you are mistaken. Pick one. Either one.

Actually KatrinaWilkes said the same thing I've been saying, when she said:

While in a way a dancers body would be more "lithe". That is because they stretch like crazy and train to look graceful.

Sorry just got off work. I do not agree with you! Flexibility had nothing to do with how my body looks! Muscle shape does not change because of flexibility!

KatrinaWilke

In general the dancer would likely be more lithe.

No, this makes no sense. It's simply not true.

^While in a way a dancers body would be more "lithe". That is because they stretch like crazy and train to look graceful. However, I lift heavy and I am VERY VERY flexible. Yoga instructors stop me to ask why I am so flexible! The only way I lose any of my felxibility is when I stop stretching. Lifting weights does not equal less flexibility........less stretching equals less flexibility.

I never suggested lifting weights equaled less flexibility.

Sorry, I took lithe to mean "supple, limber, or flexible". I take back what I said if that's not what you meant!

It's exactly what I meant but, as you pointed out, it is the stretching that creates the flexibility. Which is exactly what I suggested earlier in the thread when I said

You need the stretching and cardio of dancing, along with the strength training to get a dancers body.

I realize you may not have read all the posts, but I did not suggest that weight lifting decreased flexibility. I suggested that a dancer who lifts weights would look different than someone who only lifts weight (without the other training that dancers require). Let's face it, if dancers didn't have a different look to their body, I highly doubt we'd be discussing how to get a dancers body.

I think the original issue was, can a lifter look like a dancer. I take that as muscle definition. Not if a lifter can carry themselves like as dancer. I think women on this thread want a dancer body so they are afraid of lifting. What I am saying is you CAN get muscle definition like a dancer from lifting.

blues4miles

Hey everyone, stop telling all these women to lift! I just started lifting "heavy" (whatever the heck that means) about two months ago and feel great. Already my arms and legs look better, and my running has improved. I know when I lose the fat, there's going to be some real muscle underneath, not just skin and more fat.

So ladies who don't want to lift "heavy" please, don't start. Because I am kind of a mean, competitive bi:devil: and I want to look better than you. When we both lose weight and I am the same weight as you I want to look stronger and sexier than you. I want the guys to think I look hot but that they also had better not mess with me. I want to look like I hold my own and am to be taken seriously. I want the women to know I work for it and am an ATHLETE not just an anorexic. So please, don't lift. :drinker:

KatrinaWilke

Actually KatrinaWilkes said the same thing I've been saying, when she said:

While in a way a dancers body would be more "lithe". That is because they stretch like crazy and train to look graceful.

I guess you missed this part when she said,
"It depends on what you mean by a "lifter". If you are talking about a normal person who does total body workouts.......they would look very much like a "dancer". Keep in mind some dancers, especially in ballet do not lift and do not have the same muscle definition, but are also very unhealthy! They subside on very unhealthy calorie levels. So if you wanted to look like an emaciated ballerina, you should become anorexic. But if you wanted to look like the healthy, fit modern, contemporary dancer, lifting weights will not hinder that.

But if you are talking about a professional lifter or bodybuilder, no they would not look like dancers. But their strength training is highly specialized and target specific muscles. They are sculpting their bodies and different muscle groups to look like that. But again normal people who do full body strength training and train each muscle group proportionately will not look like the body builders!"

Thanks for reposting my first response. I thought summed it up nicely the first time. Well other than using subside in the totally wrong way! :-)

jonnythan

While I agree with your previous posts...When people use the term heavy lifting or lifting heavy it makes me think of my husband and his cousins who try to outlift each other, some can bench over 300 lbs. Stength training is more what my sisters and I do, not to see how much we can push our bodies but to look leaner.

Well "strength training" doesn't mean "throwing weights around the gym like a macho man."

Starting light to get form down is a good idea. Staying light is a bad idea. Losing body fat and preserving muscle is what makes you look leaner, and you do that by lifting heavy. Heavy is a relative term. It means heavy for you.

funkycamper

I am doing this too because of some lower back issues. I don't think I can go right into freeweight exercises on some of the lower body exercises. My back is too weak. I'm working up to it though. :bigsmile:

Careful, this could be a dangerous way to go. No machines will strengthen the stabilizers and antagonists the way actual lifting can. You should be doing freeweight exercises, starting light and very slowly moving up. If you build certain larger back muscles up without building the stabilizers around them, you can create an imbalance that can get you injured later on.

The right way is to do the correct compound exercises from the beginning.

Read the weakness, back recovery, guidelines, and inflexibility articles here:
http://www.exrx.net/Exercise.html

Since this person responded to me, I'm going to jump in here. I suppose it would depend on the severity of the injury and the degree of fitness one has when starting out. I couldn't lift a 3# Barbie bell without experiencing discomfort in my back when I first started back to exercising after my own back injury. And I'm talking about just picking it up to carry. Doing any kind of pressing or pulling movements? Forget about it. Wasn't going to happen. Most of those moves felt uncomfortable even without any weights at all. And I had zero balance at first. There was no way I could do even a partial squat without almost falling over due to major muscle imbalances.

However, I could use light weights on the machines without discomfort or almost falling over due to balance issues. And so I did. As I gained some strength and flexibility, I added in yoga, then Zumba, then kickboxing, then bootcamp classes, then spinning and outdoor cycling, then running, (a progression as I have been able to handle it without feeling as if I was overdoing it for my back). [Note that during the beginning stages of all these different classes, I often had to modify moves for my back. I rarely find this necessary anymore.]

All of those other exercises/classes have strengthened my stabilizers and improved my balance enough, along with the machines, that I can now do free weights without any problem. It took about 16 months of doing other exercises and using the machines to get to the point where I have been able to make the switch.

I should add that, during this time, I have been doing careful analysis of my body's instabilities/weaknesses/inflexibilities and have been doing things to work on those issues. For example, when I started I had quads that were doing all the work because my glutes/hams weren't even firing. Even exercises that were designed to work the glutes/hams would have my quads doing most of the work. When I first started doing leg curls, for example, my quads wanted to push instead of my hams pulling. I had to do a lot of concentration work on my glutes/hams to teach them to re-fire and, once they actually woke up, to do some of the work, eventually taking over increasingly more of the work until they are actually now working the way they are supposed to. Although they're still my weakest area and will require more work to get them where I want and need them to be.

I love the ExRx site but I don't believe their advice would have worked for me and the issues I was dealing with from my back injury. In fact, most of the things they suggest, could very well have resulted in re-injury for me. Not saying your advice wouldn't work for some. For many it might be perfect. But I'm convinced it would have been very bad news for me if I had followed it. We all need to balance exercise advice with listening to our own bodies.

jonnythan

Don't get me wrong - when rehabbing from genuine injuries, by all means see a physical therapist or physician and follow his or her instructions.

funkycamper

Talk to your doctor before you do any of that.

That's a given. Rather, a physical therapist. Doctors generally know very little about this topic.

Or a good chiropractor. My physical therapist was actually having me do exercises that would increase the sway in my back which contributed to my back injury in the first place. I had zero good progress while seeing a PT. When I dumped the PT and started doing the exercises my chiropractor gave me instead, I started seeing good, steady progress toward healing.

Of course, not all PTs are bad and not all chiropractors are good. Just my personal experience.

jonnythan

Or a good chiropractor. My physical therapist was actually having me do exercises that would increase the sway in my back which contributed to my back injury in the first place. I had zero good progress while seeing a PT. When I dumped the PT and started doing the exercises my chiropractor gave me instead, I started seeing good, steady progress toward healing.

Of course, not all PTs are bad and not all chiropractors are good. Just my personal experience.

"Good chiropractor" is a bit of a funny term. Chiropractic, at its core, is total quackery and chiropractors, by and large, have no idea what they're doing. The "good" chiropractors are the ones who more or less reject the core philosophy of chiropractic and instead practice physical therapy.

funkycamper

Or a good chiropractor. My physical therapist was actually having me do exercises that would increase the sway in my back which contributed to my back injury in the first place. I had zero good progress while seeing a PT. When I dumped the PT and started doing the exercises my chiropractor gave me instead, I started seeing good, steady progress toward healing.

Of course, not all PTs are bad and not all chiropractors are good. Just my personal experience.

"Good chiropractor" is a bit of a funny term. Chiropractic, at its core, is total quackery and chiropractors, by and large, have no idea what they're doing. The "good" chiropractors are the ones who more or less reject the core philosophy of chiropractic and instead practice physical therapy.

I disagree. If I had followed the advice of orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists, I would have had spinal surgery that would have fused my back in a fixed position and be limited in movement and have severe activity restrictions for the rest of my life. Since I followed the advice of my chiropractor instead, and used other alternative therapies like cranial-sacral, I am doing century bike rides, lifting heavy (well, for me, anyway and I will progress to heavier weights), running in 5k races (and am considering building up to longer ones) and am taking a mountaineering course which includes steep hikes with a heavy pack wearing snowshoes and crampons, learning to self-arrest with an ice ax, belaying, rappelling, and such and virtually never have any back soreness at all anymore. All the things doctors and physical therapists told me I would never be able to do. And I'm loving every minute of it.