Question for "Athletic Build" ladies

I am 5' tall. My doctor even told me I would probably be good at 150 pounds since I lift heavy. Yes I wouldn't look like I am ready for a competition at that point but I will also not he the tiny 98 pounder like my niece is at that height. Some of us aren't made that way.

A gal at work who is a size 2/4 and weighs 150 pounds and she is 5'6". She is so tiny no one ever guesses her weight right but she is a soccer player and has a lot of muscle on her.

I'm 5'3, CW:118-120lbs fluctuating, SW: 156lbs. I have muscular legs esp in the calves even though I've lost almost 36lbs, it still muscular though it slim down a bit compared before I'm not really sure if my body is athletic type but I kinda have broad shoulders too.

I'm 5'4" and when I looked the best, I was between 150 and 155. I have a very large frame according to the wrist measurements and I have a lot of muscular definition naturally. When I went below that, I looked like a skeleton with muscles...not a good look lol.

Btw, I KNOW that lifting won't make me huge...but I am aware that muscle does weigh more than fat.

A pound of fat and a pound of muscle both weigh a pound. The fat just takes up more space.

I'm 5'4" with an athletic build. Very strong legs and a bit wider set shoulders. I've already hit my goal weight at 130 pounds but have recently lost 5 more pounds. I found that the definition in my muscles popped right out. I wasn't trying to lose the weight but if I'm going to naturally bust through a 2.5 year plateau I probably shouldn't complain about it.

Well.... depend of your body, but being 5,4 myself I once weighed 119 without working out and I did not look that good...
The best body I had was at 140, wearing a size 7, but I was working out like crazy (for me), about 20 hours per week.... so, I will never get THAT body back, even if I go down to 140 (because now I exercice about 4 hours per week only, and I had 2 babies). Really depends of your exercice routine.

5'1" athletic/stocky build.... 140lb @ 23-25% body fat (not planning on going below 22% body fat and couldn't really give a poo what the scale says, my goal weights are of the barbell type)

my advice is not worry so much about goal weights... instead focus on a goal body fat percentage and go by what you look like in the mirror. It's hard to get an accurate measure of body fat percentage, but using more than one method can help (i.e. if you measure it 3 ways and get roughly the same number each time) and you can use it to measure change in the right direction (if you use the same methods each time, even if they're not 100% accurate you can still see if your body fat % has decreased or stayed the same)..... but ultimately go by what you look like in the mirror. You can see the difference between flab, muscle and bone quite easily, so long as you're honest with yourself. Other measures like waist circumference and waist to hip ratio can be used as a measure of health, i.e. above certain numbers there's a greater risk of obesity related illness, just as is the case for higher body fat percentages.... so there's a whole load of measures you can use to check your body composition is healthy. Weight is just one of a range of variables that can be an indicator of health risk, but the problem with weight is that strong bones and muscles are denser than weak bones and muscles, while only weight increase due to excessive body fat has a health risk.

.

I'm 5'3 and currently at 127lbs-ish. I'm wearing a 4. I'm thinking that I must have an "athletic build," b/c people guess I weigh like 115 lbs. My husband is also jealous of my massive calf muscles. Since I started lifting weights, I do seem to be quite a bit stronger than I anticipated.

I don't know my body fat %, but I would like to find out. I used a couple online to estimate, and it put it around 23%, which is the higher end for "fitness." I'd ideally like to cut some body fat a little (most from my butt/thighs, for real). I started cleaning up my diet at the end of Dec, and I am noticing a bit of slimming in that region.

I'm 5'8" and weight 167, but I am muscular. Granted I am not "cut" but I wear a size 7/8, which isn't half bad for someone my height. 2 years ago I was 150lbs after I had my son and I wore a size 9/10. So more weight but less density. I don't care WHAT my scale says anymore, I only care about how my clothes fit.

Btw, I KNOW that lifting won't make me huge...but I am aware that muscle does weigh more than fat.

A pound of fat and a pound of muscle both weigh a pound. The fat just takes up more space.

thank you.

I know it's a pet peeve thing- but I can't stand when people say "a pound of X weighs more than a pound of Y."

NO IT"S MORE DENSE. dense- dense is the word for which you search.

I'm 5'8" and am around 162- and looking to add. But ideally I'd be around 150.

I see your logic but I don't think the statement is completely incorrect. hypothetically if you and me both wear the same size of jeans but your legs are all muscle and mine are all fat, then you will weigh more than me BECAUSE YOUR MUSCLE WEIGHS MORE THAN MY FAT. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can see both arguments

No, sorry that is incorrect. A lb of muscle is simply more dense than a lb of fat, just like a lb of brick is much more dense than a lb of feathers. They still all weigh a lb.

As defined by Free Dictionary, weight is, "The force with which a body is attracted to Earth or another celestial body, equal to the product of the object's mass and the acceleration of gravity." Which is why you would weigh more on Jupiter than Earth, but your mass would stay the same.

There is no argument. It's physics.

ETA: I consider myself an athletic build. I'm 5'5" and currently 130 lbs.

i'm more fat than athletic at the moment, when i was in shape my body looked very close to the ballerina misty copeland (who doesnt look at all like a ballerina :laugh: )

i'm 5'5 and when i was 125 pounds i was sickly looking to the point where my doctor put me on a weight gain program.

oh and am also pretty solidly built. even when i was at 125, bigger people would run into me, fall and hurt themselves and i barely noticed :laugh: even now at close to 60 pounds overweight, there's not a lot that joggles on me (just belly and boobs)

my goal weight at the moment is 164, which should get me to my size 6 express jeans goal (i'm currently 221 and size 14 express jeans)

I'm 5'9" and 160lbs, size U.S. 8. Goal is 150. I have a decent amount of muscles, big hips, big rib cage, broad shoulders, long limbs, big head, etc.



Also a cubic foot of muscle is heavier than a cubic foot of fat. When someone says "muscle is heavier than fat" usually they mean by volume. Just like someone might say a rock is heavier than a feather.

Volume is totally different than weight. A pound equals a pound. Muscle is more dense. Even a pond of rocks weighs the samovars a pound of feathers.

I'm 5'5 and I like myself around 150.

I'm 5'7" and 128lbs. Recently added a bit of muscle so about 19/20% bf I think. Want to maintain here. Like my measurements and the way all my clothes fit. 32-25-36. 20" thighs.

I'm 5'9" and 160lbs, size U.S. 8. Goal is 150. I have a decent amount of muscles, big hips, big rib cage, broad shoulders, long limbs, big head, etc.



Also a cubic foot of muscle is heavier than a cubic foot of fat. When someone says "muscle is heavier than fat" usually they mean by volume. Just like someone might say a rock is heavier than a feather.

Volume is totally different than weight. A pound equals a pound. Muscle is more dense. Even a pond of rocks weighs the samovars a pound of feathers.

We all know a pound is a pound, nobody has questioned that. What the OP said was that muscle weighs more than fat, which is accurate. A handful of muscle weighs more than a handful of fat.