If lifting is the way to get that 'toned' look, then why...?
Replies
-
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.0
-
No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
0 -
It comes down to your body fat % and how much muscle you like. Some women lifters have a lot of muscle, and low body fat %...it can be a very muscular look. Some have a smaller amount of muscle and low body fat percent, for a softer look. Some have a lot of muscle, and a decent amount of fat (especially in off season if they compete), and for some that may appear "bulky".
The beauty of lifting is you can BUILD the body you want. Thus...bodybuilding. dur.7 -
Lots of great comments here that I agree with. Genetics and what/how much you eat are the biggest factors in what you will look like, I believe.
My profile photo is pretty much what I look like right now… I lift heavy 4 times per week and do some running, walking and high-intensity interval cardio. My calories are not very high, but I am only 5'3", 118lbs and 50 years old. I would be larger if I ate to gain muscle.
Interestingly, I was the same weight and look when I was doing Ironman triathlons with mostly endurance cardio.
This is just genetics and who I am. Certainly not bulky!10 -
I agree completely @jen2133 You look amazing by the way!
Genetics helps and your diet is a huge factor. Lifting heavy or light, metabolic conditioning, sports-whatever it is just keep moving! I try to go heavy on lifts but haven't lost much of my muscle tone.mostly attributed to good nutrition!
3 -
Lots of great comments here that I agree with. Genetics and what/how much you eat are the biggest factors in what you will look like, I believe.
My profile photo is pretty much what I look like right now… I lift heavy 4 times per week and do some running, walking and high-intensity interval cardio. My calories are not very high, but I am only 5'3", 118lbs and 50 years old. I would be larger if I ate to gain muscle.
Interestingly, I was the same weight and look when I was doing Ironman triathlons with mostly endurance cardio.
This is just genetics and who I am. Certainly not bulky!
Wow, you look fantastic!
2 -
I was definitely more bulky when I was 22 lbs heavier and not lifting.
Same. I regret not lifting earlier in my life...but happy I found what works for me and something I love.
OP you've gotten tons of good advice. It will take time for your body to adjust based on your exercise of choice..so if you find your physique is not going in the direction you wish..change it up!2 -
The "Muscle Panic" set. Never heard that phrase before but it sounds appropriate so I'm going to borrow it if you don't mindamyrebeccah wrote: »It really addresses an issue I never hear from the Muscle Panic set, which is that even if you get more muscle than you want somehow, it doesn't last without maintenance and further training.
. It's a common reaction I get from women when they ask me for advice and I tell them to forget most of what they've heard and go lift some weights, and not the little, pink dumbells. "Ermagod, I don't want to look like a man!!"
IMO, the most important thing about any exercise routine is that you find one that you enjoy, and you do some serious research into how best to make your program work. Lifting weights is not a panacea for a great body either, male or female, if you don't efficiently use your time and don't get good advice on how to achieve your goals. I see lots of guys in the gym for example, with good upper bodies and little spindly legs from lack of training. The same goes for any program really, be it running or cross training or whatever. The best results are always achieved with consistent, sustained, efficient efforts.
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
That is what is typically called "skinny fat", you need to build muscle. The muscles under your layer of fat lack any definition or shape. Body building with progressive overload (strength training) is likely *exactly* what you need... and to do that you're going to need to ensure you're getting enough protein and calories to actually build the muscle.0 -
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
As others have already said, it has more to do with your bodyfat percentage (BF%) than weight. A low BF% will result in more muscle definition - somewhat low for the "sculpted" or "toned" look, very low for the "ripped" look.
Take a look at the pictures in this graphic - never mind that some of the women have considerably more muscle mass, just look at the differences in definition (and fat distribution) at different BF% levels:
2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
1 -
OP here's a couple of ways to avoid that look you want if you intend to lift heavy: Don't eat a calorie surplus. Don't let your body fat level get too low.
If you look "boxy", that doesn't have anything to do with lifting weights under the conditions above. That look is due to genetics.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
As others have already said, it has more to do with your bodyfat percentage (BF%) than weight. A low BF% will result in more muscle definition - somewhat low for the "sculpted" or "toned" look, very low for the "ripped" look.
Take a look at the pictures in this graphic - never mind that some of the women have considerably more muscle mass, just look at the differences in definition (and fat distribution) at different BF% levels:
To add, OP has never trained, even as intensively as a yogi, so will likely have a much smaller lean mass to begin with. So getting to the point where muscles are exposed enough would likely mean a lower body fat% than someone who does train no?1 -
Different goals.
Your yoga friends may want to look more like Jessica Alba and your lifting friends may want more muscle mass, like Erin Stern.
If you want a more slender look you won't chase progressive overload as much.
https://bretcontreras.com/how-to-attain-a-slender-look-like-jessica-alba-zoe-saldana/
@xtxtxtx Definitely read this.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
You will not gain only muscle. You will gain fat as well. Then you will need to do a cut. Then you will do another bulk. Then another cut. Then you will realize that X muscle group is lagging so you'll focus on it, etc. You are not going to have a physique like one of the most well known physique models in a year. It's just not happening.
This video was made by a man but it talks about the process of building a physique.
https://youtu.be/dCcTIWQNFds 5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
All of the people I have worked with have roughly taken 1-2 years to develop a really good body doing a recomp and many of them have pretty good physiques to start with. It's not to say you won't see progress over a 3-6 month period, but you won't gain a substantial amount of muscle nor cut a large amount of fat in that period. The last person I worked with gained 6 lbs of lean body mass and cut 6 lbs of fat in 6 months. She was a complete noob, and LBM =/= muscle.2 -
Another thing, if you guys are saying the runners/dancers are just really skinny and not muscular, so their muscles are just exposed...idk if that makes sense. Because I'm 105 pounds but I don't look like a runner or yogi. Shouldn't my muscles be exposed by now?? BMI 19.8. Believe me I'd love to go lower but I lose my period when I do.
As others have already said, it has more to do with your bodyfat percentage (BF%) than weight. A low BF% will result in more muscle definition - somewhat low for the "sculpted" or "toned" look, very low for the "ripped" look.
Take a look at the pictures in this graphic - never mind that some of the women have considerably more muscle mass, just look at the differences in definition (and fat distribution) at different BF% levels:
Well, it's even one more step than this.. it's not just body fat level, it's body composition.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
yeah no. nothing in the fitness industry takes 3-6 months for what people expect to look like.
That's just laughably inaccurate.4 -
Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
yeah no. nothing in the fitness industry takes 3-6 months for what people expect to look like.
That's just laughably inaccurate.
Previous NFL Pro cheerleader, Won her IFBB- procard at her first show, Rated number 1 on Bodybuilding.com for her physique, Featured on the front of Oxygen Magazine, featured winner of "World's Fittest Model competition".
No, no... that's just a matter of cutting body fat! 3-6 months!
6 -
Bodyweight exercises can be every bit as difficult as lifting weightsTraveler120 wrote: »You don't need to lift heavy as in deadlifts, bench, squat, to look lean and toned. There are plenty of men and women who look that way from just regular exercise combining bodyweight exercise, yoga, TRX, cycling, running etc.
I don't like the big thighs and shoulders and arms you get from heavy lifting either. And there are plenty of women who do get that bulky look naturally without gear and just from lifting. I like the slim, low body fat, evident muscle, "toned" look on women.
0 -
wellthenwhat wrote: »
Bodyweight exercises can be every bit as difficult as lifting weightsTraveler120 wrote: »You don't need to lift heavy as in deadlifts, bench, squat, to look lean and toned. There are plenty of men and women who look that way from just regular exercise combining bodyweight exercise, yoga, TRX, cycling, running etc.
I don't like the big thighs and shoulders and arms you get from heavy lifting either. And there are plenty of women who do get that bulky look naturally without gear and just from lifting. I like the slim, low body fat, evident muscle, "toned" look on women.
Good news, most women don't give a rats what men want them to like like, particularly women with their own personal aesthetic goals.11 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
yeah no. nothing in the fitness industry takes 3-6 months for what people expect to look like.
That's just laughably inaccurate.
Previous NFL Pro cheerleader, Won her IFBB- procard at her first show, Rated number 1 on Bodybuilding.com for her physique, Featured on the front of Oxygen Magazine, featured winner of "World's Fittest Model competition".
No, no... that's just a matter of cutting body fat! 3-6 months!
it's totally no big deal- it's why everyone is so successful at doing this- because it happens so fast.10 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
Because she's lean, the fat gain would have to be lost after the bulking period to get back down to a body fat percentage that shows those gains. Losing 5lbs when that small will take a few months. 6 months training + a few months cutting. If optimal.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »No way. That kind of physique takes a lot of focused hard work over a long time. She has a really good muscle base.
This article addresses how long it takes to build muscle.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain/Traveler120 wrote: »
Are you referring to the girl on the right? Why would it take years? She's said to be 5'2" and 110 lbs. If someone is starting at the exact same weight and height and say with low body fat but not as "toned", what would be a realistic time frame to look like the image above, assuming a proper training program? Surely, 3-6 months no?I suppose I could give it a try, I'm just afraid of not getting the look i want. I mean if that were to happen how do you go back from there? Also what if I finally get to the point where I have some muscle but not too much--how would I just maintain that without gaining more muscle??
If it was that easy to get huge/jacked, there would be a LOT more huge/jacked guys walking around. And guys have a lot more testosterone than women do.
You're not going to "accidentally" get too muscular. Even people who are trying to do it on purpose have to fight like hell for every ounce they gain, and it takes years to build those physiques.
3-6 months? To build that physique?
Nah. That's not going to happen. Not without elite genetics and a lot of "supplementation" (i.e. anabolic steroids).
But that clearly illustrates the kind of unrealistic expectations a lot of people have.
Really? Then tell me what's realistic. We're talking going from 110 lbs to 110 lbs. On T-Nation, she (Jamie Eason) said she's 110 and ~15% body fat off-season (like on the picture). So if a woman is starting at a flat/soft, un-toned 20%, the difference in body fat is 16.5 vs 22 lbs. She only needs to lose 5.5 lbs of body fat and gain the same in muscle to maintain weight. And that can't be accomplished in under 6 months? I don't see why not, especially if she's not previously lifted before. Even going by @jemhh's link above, it adds up, if we use the 1 lb/month.
The 1 lbs a month is with a calorie surplus and perfect training. You won't gain 5.5 lbs of muscle in less than 5 months in a recomp especially if you are lean to begin with.
Well, then you missed this part of the article:
"One simple fact of training is that everything comes MUCH quicker and MUCH faster when you’re a beginner. That’s why weight training newbies will often consistently build muscle at the high end of average rate, and possibly even exceed it at certain points. However, the more experienced you get and the more muscle you build, the slower your rate of muscle gain will become."
Are you relying just on that article for your information? There are real-life women who lift in this thread who are telling you that you cannot go from an untrained 110 pounds to the picture on the right in six months.
The article was posted to show me what the realistic expectations are for muscle growth, which is what I'd asked for. It only ended up proving what I was saying, that yes, the 110 lb woman can gain the 5.5 lbs of muscle and maybe slightly more in those 6 months if she's a complete noob and is training perfectly.
It's a good article and in line with what I've read elsewhere, but you're welcome to post other links that challenge those estimates they've given.
But she would have to have optimal genetics and would also gain fat because in order to see those results whe'd have to eat in a surplus. To see what she's truly built she'd have to cut. And just how much of a visible difference 5.5lbs makes is going to vary depending on height.
People are forgetting the original question - A 110 lb woman at 20% body fat to the same 110 lb woman at 15 % in under 6 months. And if we use the BuiltLean chart above as a visual, I'm not seeing why everyone thinks it's a years long project to go from #3 to #2.
because it's not just "muscle". in addition to most women only gaining .5 pounds of muscle per month MAXIMUM (see more here), you also have to keep in mind symmetry and existing muscle mass. A lot more goes into that type of physique than just "adding some muscle".
Women in general have a most attractive physique with a certain .7 ratio of bust to hip to waist. Depending on someone's current physique that will take a lot of specific bodybuilding.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K 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