General Comment About People Who Don't Lift

jonnythan

Hmm, it seemed natural to me to infer that saying it was "silly" to not lift weights if these things above were your goals meant that you were saying you couldn't achieve them. I can't imagine why achieving your goals by any means would be silly, but if I inferred incorrectly, I apologize.

That inference may have been natural to you, but it was wrong.

You can make it to the bathroom by walking, or you can make it to the bathroom by crawling. Crawling is silly, but you'll still make it there. Achieving your goal of making it to the bathroom by crawling is silly, even though you will achieve said goal.

Of course, some goals are virtually impossible without heavy lifting. Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises. Guys that want to look like an underwear model or dancer won't ever look like that without the same.

popo0509

good thread . My husband and I lift together, he's an ex power lifter who is still in good shape and he's acting as my trainer. It def feels good to get stronger and I feel so much better at the end of the day.

Or I can be like my cousin who has been tiny her whole life and eats EVERYTHING. Problem is, she is very weak, runs extremely awkward (which is a rare sight anyway) and has bad knees. I think her size is ok...but I want to me more than just cosmetic, i want to feel great in and out.

DonnaNCgirl

I wasn't on MFP at the time or I would have at least been exposed to the importance of lifting. I think I look pretty good with clothes on, but I'm pretty sure based on the pics and comments I've read here on MFP that I would be much happier and look better naked if I had lifted while I was losing weight.

This is exactly the point.

The problem isn't that doing yoga is a waste of time, or that it's dumb. It's not. The problem is that people don't recognize how productive and effective real strength training is. If you understand, and just don't like lifting and understand the tradeoff you're making, then fine. But the problem is when people try to convince themselves or others that yoga or "toning" or whatever else they do is just as effective or efficient at building or maintaining lean mass and strength as lifting is. It's just not.

Lifting will enable you to lose body fat and preserve lean muscle faster than anything else you can do. Serious bodyweight training (and by serious I mean Convict Conditioning or gymnast-style full-body workouts designed to work you heavy to failure) comes close. Yoga, not so much. Pink dumbbells, no.

If you still don't want to lift, fine don't lift. But don't try to convince other people that whatever else you've decided to do, whether it's spend 10 hours a week on an elliptical or 4 hours a week of yoga, will produce results similar to a routine that actually includes heavy lifting. It won't.

^^^This. And to be fair, it wasn't MFP that opened my eyes. It was a friend, then reading things on MFP and researching on my own. Do what you like and you'll get results. They won't be the same as lifting.

bcattoes

Of course, some goals are virtually impossible without heavy lifting. Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises. Guys that want to look like an underwear model or dancer won't ever look like that without the same.

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

ArroganceInStep

You can make it to the bathroom by walking, or you can make it to the bathroom by crawling. Crawling is silly, but you'll still make it there. Achieving your goal of making it to the bathroom by crawling is silly, even though you will achieve said goal.

Of course, some goals are virtually impossible without heavy lifting. Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises. Guys that want to look like an underwear model or dancer won't ever look like that without the same.

Life isn't a bathroom break, there's no rush to get to the end. Worrying about how quickly you'll get to some imaginary end point instead of designing something you can stick with long term and will be happy doing is a mistake in my opinion. And you can look like an underwear model pretty without lifting, your diet just needs to be more rigorous.

People need to be given accurate information, but they very well may be able to achieve goal body composition without ever lifting weights. It really doesn't matter if it's more or less efficient, and if the less efficient path is one someone will be better able to stick with than whatever 'ideal' paradigm is being pushed...that less efficient way is better.

jonnythan

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

LiftAllThePizzas

I have started adding weights/ toning now to get rid of my last few lbs and wobbly bits! I only want to be lean and firm really. I do yoga once a week. An hour of Leg weights, not heavy but at least 4 sets. Then an hour of arms but I only use 2kg weights but lots of reps. Then lots of core, varied sit ups. I try and do a class like spinning or zumba too. Muscle helps burn calories... pick up the weights lol xx

You pretty much missed the entire point of this and almost every other "heavy lifting" thread. If you can do lots of reps, it's not the sort of "weights" people are talking about.

bcattoes

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights.

EvgeniZyntx

I think I look pretty good with clothes on, but I'm pretty sure based on the pics and comments I've read here on MFP that I would be much happier and look better naked if I had lifted while I was losing weight.

Lol, can't really tell from your profile pics. Put up a couple naked and we'll let you know. j/k

Joking aside, one of the key things I feel that any trainer and anyone focused on weight loss should be concerned with is making most of that loss fat and minimizing lean muscle tissue loss. For that, I believe weight training is the most efficient route. Beyond that, I think there is something to be said for a balanced program that includes resistance training of some kind (weights, yoga, body weight), cardio and some form of functional training.

One of members Steve Troutman is a well respected fitness and nutrition professional. He made a statement refering to concern about the scale number but I think it really sums up a high level view of the ideal goal of a diet and fitness program.

"I simply don't think it's worth worrying about what your weight should be. Rather, worry about what your health, functionality, performance, and physique should be. Weight will settle where it needs to be once those things are optimized."

Optimizing health, functionality, performance and physique. That made sense to me when I first read it and it still does. Some people will never want to weight training and they'll get to the level of health, functionality, performance and physique they desire. I don't think it's any coincidnence that pretty much every top level expert, from Venuto to Troutman to Layne Norton to Lyle McDonald to Alan Aragon, that I've ever read thinks weight training is a critical peice of a total program though.

Nor is it any coincidence that almost every sport including gymnastics and dancing as has been mentioned here, but also baseball, track, football, basketball, wrestling etc, etc all include weight training in their training programs.

That said, body weight and yoga and other forms of exercise have a benefit and not everyone is looking for optimum or concerned about lean mass preservation. As we've seen in this thread. Does that mean there is no value to those forms of exercise? Not at all!

I really like the "Optimizing health, functionality, performance and physique" idea. And this is why I feel, as a person that has recently come back to lifting that xxxxxxx (lifting, running, yoga, etc) alone is insufficient, for me.

Not only do I have a large dislike of the absolutist approach but I feel that in terms of real-world dynamics no single training activity will provide me with everything.

Lifting is great - I'm a stronger climber and have better grip, leg strength, pull strength on the wall.
Yoga is great - my flexibility, auxilary strength in movement, reach, balance are better for it.
Neither gets me outdoors, and for this they both kinda suck, for me

It's a question of efficiency, pleasure, time-management to specific objectives.

Neither alone provides me what I want - in the end it's sterile to classify them as superior or not - it really is objective focused.

Edit: where are pics?

bcattoes

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

jonnythan

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

I don't know what "firm" really means, so I can't say anything about that. I think "firm" has a lot more to do with skin appearance than anything else and is therefore mostly genetic or a result of tanning, etc. A person only has fatty tissue and muscle to show through the skin.

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I never said you can't have this or that. You keep wanting to read my posts as "you can't look good or toned without lifting barbells" and that's not even remotely what I've been saying. You need to pay attention to what I am actually writing, not what you think I'm writing.

EvgeniZyntx

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights.

Without "iron-in-the-gym", yes. Without some sort of strength training? It's very difficult.
Weight training is an efficient tool. Among others.

bcattoes

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

I don't know what "firm" really means, so I can't say anything about that. I think "firm" has a lot more to do with skin appearance than anything else and is therefore mostly genetic or a result of tanning, etc. A person only has fatty tissue and muscle to show through the skin.

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I never said you can't have this or that. You keep wanting to read my posts as "you can't look good or toned without lifting barbells" and that's not even remotely what I've been saying. You need to pay attention to what I am actually writing, not what you think I'm writing.

You said Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises.

I'm saying (said): That's not true.

It's not tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" without weights. Though, again, I suppose "tough" is subjective. Many would say lifting heavy is "tough", which would make it tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" with weights.

mmapags

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

And how would a person get a firm, fit body without some kind of resistance training, whether it's weights, body weight or yoga? I'm married to a woman who was 5'5" and 115 lbs before she started training and I can assure you that, while she may have been thin, she was anything but fit and firm. How would this undeveloped muscle tissue suddenly get firm?

jonnythan

You said Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises.

I'm saying (said): That's not true.

It's not tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" without weights. Though, again, I suppose "tough" is subjective. Many would say lifting heavy is "tough", which would make it tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" with weights.

I'll echo the above poster: how do you get a "firm" toned body without heavy resistance work?

mmapags

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

I don't know what "firm" really means, so I can't say anything about that. I think "firm" has a lot more to do with skin appearance than anything else and is therefore mostly genetic or a result of tanning, etc. A person only has fatty tissue and muscle to show through the skin.

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I never said you can't have this or that. You keep wanting to read my posts as "you can't look good or toned without lifting barbells" and that's not even remotely what I've been saying. You need to pay attention to what I am actually writing, not what you think I'm writing.

You said Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises.

I'm saying (said): That's not true.

It's not tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" without weights. Though, again, I suppose "tough" is subjective. Many would say lifting heavy is "tough", which would make it tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" with weights.

Did you see the part where he also said "or serious bodyweight exercises" ?? Or do you just select out the part you want to argue with and ignore the rest?

bcattoes

And how would a person get a firm, fit body without some kind of resistance training, whether it's weights, body weight or yoga? I'm married to a woman who was 5'5" and 115 lbs before she started training and I can assure you that, while she may have been thin, she was anything but fit and firm. How would this undeveloped muscle tissue suddenly get firm?

With the exception of young adults who have never been overweight and are naturally firm, I wouldn't think it possible. Strenghth training is necessary. I've never suggested otherwise.

bcattoes

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

I don't know what "firm" really means, so I can't say anything about that. I think "firm" has a lot more to do with skin appearance than anything else and is therefore mostly genetic or a result of tanning, etc. A person only has fatty tissue and muscle to show through the skin.

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I never said you can't have this or that. You keep wanting to read my posts as "you can't look good or toned without lifting barbells" and that's not even remotely what I've been saying. You need to pay attention to what I am actually writing, not what you think I'm writing.

You said Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises.

I'm saying (said): That's not true.

It's not tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" without weights. Though, again, I suppose "tough" is subjective. Many would say lifting heavy is "tough", which would make it tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" with weights.

Did you see the part where he also said "or serious bodyweight exercises" ?? Or do you just select out the part you want to argue with and ignore the rest?

Well again, "serious" is a subjective term. But resistance bands could also do it.

mmapags

This statement Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises is just simply not true. You are wrong on that point.

I don't think I am.

Looking "toned" requires two things:

1) Low body fat.
2) Enough muscle mass for them to be visible

This is virtually impossible if you don't commit to a serious strength training regimen. Unless you work the muscles hard through lifting heavy, whether that lifting involves bodyweight or iron, it's just not going to happen unless you use steroids or are incredibly gifted genetically.

"Toned" is a subjective term, but I see it most often used to mean firm. You can have a fit, firm body without weights. And you can lift heavy and have too much fat.

I don't know what "firm" really means, so I can't say anything about that. I think "firm" has a lot more to do with skin appearance than anything else and is therefore mostly genetic or a result of tanning, etc. A person only has fatty tissue and muscle to show through the skin.

I'm really not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. I never said you can't have this or that. You keep wanting to read my posts as "you can't look good or toned without lifting barbells" and that's not even remotely what I've been saying. You need to pay attention to what I am actually writing, not what you think I'm writing.

You said Most people don't have "skinnyfat" as a goal, and want to lose weight and end up looking "toned." Very tough to do without lifting or serious bodyweight exercises.

I'm saying (said): That's not true.

It's not tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" without weights. Though, again, I suppose "tough" is subjective. Many would say lifting heavy is "tough", which would make it tough to be fit and not "skinnyfat" with weights.

Did you see the part where he also said "or serious bodyweight exercises" ?? Or do you just select out the part you want to argue with and ignore the rest?

Well again, "serious" is a subjective term. But resistance bands could also do it.

Either you don't pay attention to the details of the posts you disagree with or you like to parse nonsense and argue for it's own sake.

ArroganceInStep

I'll echo the above poster: how do you get a "firm" toned body without heavy resistance work?

Do you consider hiking, rock climbing, swimming, surfing, rowing, running, orienteering, and such to be heavy resistance work?

Depending on goals, people can achieve physiques they desire doing those things and not weight lifting or doing gymnastics. I personally could not (though I enjoy doing those things) but my goals aren't the same as everyone else's.