Setting expectations: how long does it typically take for women to build muscle mass?
LAT1963
Posts: 1,375 Member
I have lost about 80 lbs over the past 3 years by eating a 250 calorie deficit, trying to stay over target on fiber and protein (with difficulty on the latter), and walking for exercise.
Unfortunately I recently noticed about 24 lbs of that loss was lean mass.
My weight is about 178 lbs. My lean mass is now around 105 lbs, bone mass around 6 lbs.
I expect to reach a normal (for a woman) BMI of 25 at 165 lbs, about 14 lbs from now, but by my calculations that will still be about 35% fat.
If I figure on parking my weight at 160 lbs, I will need to gain back at least 10 lbs of lean mass to get to a healthy body composition. To that end I've started doing yoga (as a body-weight strenthening plan) and plan to start doing kettlebell swings with a 40 lb kettlebell to build up my glutes. I figure glutes, as the largest muscle group, should yield the easiest early signs of gain--a small % change should move the scale the most. I hope to add other exercises as well but I don't want to start up too much at once, otherwise I might burn out and quit.
I wondered how long I should expect it to take before I notice any changes in muscle mass. Should I see results in a month? In three months? At what time-frame should I conclude something is, or is not, working in the quest for lean mass?
I have no idea how fast women on a moderate re-composition program (ie: not so strenuous that I burn out on it) should start to see results on an impedence scale that measures fat %. What has your experience been?
(for weight training I plan to use dumbells at home not machines at a gym. I have adjustable multi-plate dumbbells (I think up to 35 lbs with all plates loaded--not imposing but not powder puff), the kettlebell, and a weight bench that I haven't assembled. No large scale free-weights/no equipment for bench presses etc. I live alone and have no option for a spotter. I have health issues that make a gym a bad idea until covid-19 is well behind us--though vaccinated I cannot be confident that I am protected from it.)
Unfortunately I recently noticed about 24 lbs of that loss was lean mass.
My weight is about 178 lbs. My lean mass is now around 105 lbs, bone mass around 6 lbs.
I expect to reach a normal (for a woman) BMI of 25 at 165 lbs, about 14 lbs from now, but by my calculations that will still be about 35% fat.
If I figure on parking my weight at 160 lbs, I will need to gain back at least 10 lbs of lean mass to get to a healthy body composition. To that end I've started doing yoga (as a body-weight strenthening plan) and plan to start doing kettlebell swings with a 40 lb kettlebell to build up my glutes. I figure glutes, as the largest muscle group, should yield the easiest early signs of gain--a small % change should move the scale the most. I hope to add other exercises as well but I don't want to start up too much at once, otherwise I might burn out and quit.
I wondered how long I should expect it to take before I notice any changes in muscle mass. Should I see results in a month? In three months? At what time-frame should I conclude something is, or is not, working in the quest for lean mass?
I have no idea how fast women on a moderate re-composition program (ie: not so strenuous that I burn out on it) should start to see results on an impedence scale that measures fat %. What has your experience been?
(for weight training I plan to use dumbells at home not machines at a gym. I have adjustable multi-plate dumbbells (I think up to 35 lbs with all plates loaded--not imposing but not powder puff), the kettlebell, and a weight bench that I haven't assembled. No large scale free-weights/no equipment for bench presses etc. I live alone and have no option for a spotter. I have health issues that make a gym a bad idea until covid-19 is well behind us--though vaccinated I cannot be confident that I am protected from it.)
2
Replies
-
Not sure if this might be helpful, but you can find some relatively short term recomp before & after photos, including women and even mature women if you're patient with scrolling, in this thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat
So you're about 5'8", I'm thinking?
I'd assume that probably *some* of the "lean mass" lost was likely things you wanted to lose, i.e., stuff like blood volume that your smaller body doesn't need, other tissues not really needed, not just actual muscle loss. If the 105 is correct, that doesn't sound shockingly low to me, really, but maybe that's bias on my part. Gaining muscle is always good, of course . . .1 -
To reiterate so not to be stressed about loss of LBM too much (easily could have lost upwards of 20% if not enough protein or resistance training, but your deficit was very reasonable so that would help).
Lean Body Mass is EVERYTHING that is NOT FM (Fat Mass). Bone mass is part of LBM.
Drink 16 oz of water before you weigh - you gained 1 lb of LBM.
Additional point - how did you get your figures?
Unless this was DEXA scan, the potential range of error on any other methods could have the % of LBM change become not nearly as scary sounding.2 -
This was measured by impedance on a Withings scale that estimates body water, body fat, and bone weight.
Weight today 178 lbs, fat mass 69.5 lbs (39%). (lean mass 108.5)
Initial weight was 264 lbs and fat mass was 132 lbs (50%).
So that's 62.5 lbs of fat lost, but only an 11% change in fat % (because of the drop in total weight and the way %s work)
If I want to be 25% fat at 160 lbs, I would need to lose 22.5 lbs of fat and gain 14.5 lbs of muscle.
Alternatively if I can just stop losing muscle and lose 100% fat, my final weight would be 136 lbs, for a BMI of 20.7 and 34 lbs of fat (I would have to lose 35 more lbs of fat and no muscle to reach this.)
I'm not sure which path is the more do-able one.
If I continued to lose fat and muscle in the same proportions as the past 3 years, my body composition would get to 25% fat at too low a BMI.1 -
So if you were able to present exactly the same hydrated body to the scale as last time - you can likely expected upwards of 5% inaccuracy.
Since you would likely not know that - expect 10%.
So 10% range last time, 10% range this time - probably not as bad as expected.
Anything beyond FM/LBM is based on more population statistical data and the % of inaccuracy goes up more on those items - so it can be barely sometimes useful for changes to the other items like water weight and bone weight.
BIA isn't that accurate.2 -
Ok, measurement issues aside, if I start weight training twice a week, how long should I expect before seeing a change in tone or on the scale? I am going to guess that even in the absence of scale-panic, adding weight training is a good idea.
I think my measurements may be more consistent than most because I drink the same amount of water every morning an hour before weighing, at roughly the same time each day, due to taking levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, then pee before weighing.
add: based on what you say I am also thinking I should seek out a more accurate measurement method (at a doc or gym) to use when I hit 160 lbs to get a better idea where I really am and whether to consider myself at maintenance yet or not.0 -
Ok, measurement issues aside, if I start weight training twice a week, how long should I expect before seeing a change in tone or on the scale? I am going to guess that even in the absence of scale-panic, adding weight training is a good idea.
I think my measurements may be more consistent than most because I drink the same amount of water every morning an hour before weighing, at roughly the same time each day, due to taking levothyroxine for hypothyroidism, then pee before weighing.
I think you won't like this answer, but I think that's really complicated. I'm not trying to be tricky or coy, I swear.
Changes on the scale? That are assured to be muscle? That's subject to the measurement error question.
Just changes on the scale? If you start strength training, I'd predict you'll quickly see a water weight gain of up to a few pounds, which either will or won't cycle off between lifting sessions, because quite a few women say it cycles for them, but I know my strength training water weight stays on (with 3x a week training, anyway) until I take a longer break from the training.
In my understanding (not experience), a muscle mass gain of maybe a pound a month would be a good result, for a woman, under ideal conditions, which include relative youth, good genetics, good nutrition, good progressive strength training program faithfully performed, favorable genetics, and a calorie surplus.
Beyond that, I think not much will show visually until you reach a certain (non specific, individual) point in fat loss.
These days, I'm usually BMI 20-point-something (5'5", around 125 pounds), I suspect somewhere in the lower 20s percent body fat (BIA scale routinely says around 23%, but I don't consider that precision info).
When I was BMI 30 (low 180s pounds), my arms looked big, but not very muscular/defined. (They didn't look as . . . for lack of a better term . . . kind of soft or doughy, as some women's do at BMI 30, because I already had some muscle under the fat). My midsection, hips, thighs just looked fat (rolls around the middle).
I don't believe my useful muscle mass has changed much since then: My strength is about the same, for example; and while I took strength-preservation measures during weight loss, I didn't push for gains then or since.
At around BMI 20, my arms look like they do in my profile photo, which I think is somewhat defined, at least for a 60-something woman (photo was 60; I'm now 65, think I look about the same). My legs, which I believe to be stronger/more muscular than my upper body, just look smooth, not very defined, though my quads *feel* hard. Midsection and hips, not very defined. I have slight vertical lines on my torso from obliques, maybe a super faint central vertical and the faintest hint of an upper horizontal line in the right light on a good day. Unimpressive, to say the least. Still, physical therapist recently praised my strong core musculature (unprompted). No definition in my hips/butt, though not devoid of strength/muscle.
Thing is, I have an overlying fat layer on everything below my ribcage, because that's where I hold most of my bodyfat: Waist-hips-thighs. There's muscle there, doesn't show. It *won't* show, unless I either make massive muscle mass gains (not gonna happen, but would take many months even if I tried), or lose to a punitively low body fat level.
YMMV. But I think the general principle likely applies to you, too: There is no guarantee of when gains will show on the body or the scale. Fat distribution matters, and we need *some*.
Muscle gains *will* happen, if you do the things it takes: Good strength program, sufficient protein, etc. Strength gains will happen faster than mass gains, probably much faster if you're a relative beginner to strength training.
Caveat: I don't much strength train. I'm lackadaisical, on/off about lifting. I think I have more muscle mass than the average woman my age, but mostly from nearly 20 years of slightly-progressive strength-y "cardio" (rowing, on-water and machine, literally millions of reps over that time of a deadlift-like motion moving bodyweight + friction horizontally, often + boat weight).
If your subcutaneous fat layer permits, you may see some definition or other appearance improvements before gaining a material amount of new muscle mass, from (1) a bit of pump from the water in the muscles for repair, (2) a sort of tightening up kind of thing, and/or (3) posture and carriage improvements.
If you start, are patient and persistent, you will see improvements in strength (quickly) and appearance (eventually, probably a bit slower). "When" doesn't seem answerable, based on my body/experience.
Others may have more definitive or satisfying answers . . . . sorry.6 -
"How long" is a variable because of a few things:
Age
Training program
Diet and recovery
It can be a year to several years. From the info that you've given, there's NOT going to be a lot of muscle mass gained at all from just kettlebell swings in your glutes since it's more of a muscular endurance exercise if you're just using the same weight.
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
6 -
So it sounds like even with a dialed in, ideal program it would take me about 2 years to regain the muscle mass lost in 3 years of dieting. So a more reasonable goal would be to stop further losses and aim for an endpoint weight of 135-140 instead of 160 lbs. This would put both BMI and % fat into the normal ranges.
Niner I understand what you mean about progressive programs of increasing kettlebell weights so I don't plateau. But right now I'm thinking just of getting started and the first three months. What should I expect? If my scale (or a more reliable measuring device) reports no further losses or, reports gain of, say, a pound, consistently enough to rise above the measurement noise, then I could consider that an indication of success. But I'd eventually have to increase my weights to avoid a plateau.
I'm not currently doing kettlebell swings, so starting to do them should gain me some muscle mass, until that weight & rep level is no longer a challenge. Right?
add: AnnP--yeah I know we need some fat, I'm trying to get to a reasonable fat level for a woman of my age, 25%. I'm not looking to become a well-cut competitive body builder or a rail-thin anorexic. I'm driven more by health concerns than vanity over appearance.0 -
If you think it'll take 2 yrs at 1 lb a month to put back on the 24 lbs of LBM you lost in 3 years - you need to reread 2 initial replies.
You don't understand what LBM is yet.
You have a good concept of what needs to be done though.
Hold weight steady for now.2 -
You can gain 1lb of lean mass in seconds.
Just down a pint of water.
You can gain a few pounds of lean mass overnight.
Just eat a high carb and salty evening meal (without a calorie surplus).
It's really important for your perspective to realise you didn't lose 24lbs of muscle and that's not what your scales are telling you.
How long to see or measure results from weight training is hugely variable. I've been helping a 60 YO female friend train for the last year:
Complete beginner so that should be a plus.
Age is a minus.
Very low gym confidence and fear of some equipment and certain lifts so training not as effective as it could have been, another minus. Also having no lifting experience being over-cautious when weights need to increase (it's taken a year just to get the confidence to leg press over bodyweight).
Shoulder injury - minus.
About 20lbs overweight and that means changes in muscles under a covering of fat are hard to see. (When you are relatively lean small changes in muscle mass and definition are far easier to see).
Lack of time, gym closures and poor overall fitness has meant training volume is lower than optimal and inconsistant..
How long before getting results?
Fairly rapid initial increase in strength as you would expect from a new trainee (mostly using existing muscles better). Some hypertrophy apparent after a few months.
7 -
Those scales are a road to misery if you are as conscious of the figures as you obviously are. That is not a criticism of you - I'm into my numbers too. I also have impedence scales and I am utterly consistent in how I use them. Still the fluctuations they tell me I have are ridiculous. By all means use them, as they can give a vague indication of a trend long term, but to use them for results in the short term (and 3 months is short term) - forget it.
Doing resistance training is a great idea - but building muscle is hard and very slow work. Especially for women, as a general rule.
My advice to you would be to do your training and strive for increases over time (in weight, or time spent, or reps or whatever).
Otherwise, get to your 160lb target. Then maintain that while you engage in training heavily geared towards hypertrophy. Take photos before you start, plus measurements, and if you have some items of clothing that are tight then make a mental note of how they look/feel (and maybe take pics in them, too). After 3 months your scale weight should not have changed much, but you should be able to notice some difference in your photos or measurements or clothing fit - or all 3. If your weight is stable but you are losing size it is pretty much a given that you are gaining muscle and losing fat. Recomp is slow but should serve you well, given what you've said about yourself and your aims.3 -
back in the day, i put on leg and butt muscles by walking hills, using a stairmaster and doing heavy leg presses and hack squats. my knees don't do well with regular squats, so i never did them heavy.
when i weighed 170 and was at my highest ever muscularity, i got there by working out 5 to 6 days per week and working at heavy intensity, and i worked every body part. i started out by working on the stairmaster 4 days per week (a real stairmaster, not a home unit with smaller step height) and working upper body, abs and lower back lightly, working up to heavier resistance.
in my personal opinion only, 2 days a week won't put muscle on you, and progress will be slow. i didn't get a lot of improvement at 3 days per week, which is why i upped it to 4 at that time, but i'd consider monday, wednesday and friday to be a good place to start as there's recovery time between each working, and you'll want to up your protein intake, as well.2 -
My suggestion would be to focus on the journey and not the destination. Work on developing healthy habits and discipline in eating and training. With those in place the results will work themselves out.
If you consider how long it took for you to get where you didn’t want to be, it will likely take a similar amount of time to get to where you do want to be.4 -
it depends on the person.
I've been doing 20 push-ups 3 times a week (Nothing else on arms/upper body) for the past year, and have arms like Linda Hamilton in Terminator.
I've had to stop cycling as my legs were getting too big. I can't squat or lunge, legs get really big. I've been doing 25 donkey kicks on each leg, and 25 fire-hydrants, 3 times a week for the past year. Have a J-LO rear-end.
I began doing 100 crunches every morning a month ago, and already have a really defined pack of abs. The 6pack isn't there yet, just the 2 lines down the side and the central pack of muscles.
Am 5'5" and weigh 137lbs. Would love to weigh 10lbs less. Gyms have opened up here, so can get back to elliptical. That's the only cardio I can do and not get huge thighs.
Hard to get enough exercise in to create a calorie deficit, as exercise makes me bigger.2 -
Just carry on eating at a deficit and start weight training. Body weight is fine initially. But you need to do a fair amount of resistance type training to build muscle. Particularly as a woman. Forget all those numbers - they are a rough guess at best. Concentrate on your workouts and your food and you will gradually see changes.2
-
zebasschick wrote: »
in my personal opinion only, 2 days a week won't put muscle on you, and progress will be slow. i didn't get a lot of improvement at 3 days per week, which is why i upped it to 4 at that time, but i'd consider monday, wednesday and friday to be a good place to start as there's recovery time between each working, and you'll want to up your protein intake, as well.
Ok. Right now I'm looking at 2 days a week as a floor to try to stop the losses. I'm nearly 60 so I have to be careful to allow adequate recovery time between sessions. Also if I start with 2 I'm more likely to stick with it than if I jump directly to 4--I might burn out.1 -
zebasschick wrote: »
in my personal opinion only, 2 days a week won't put muscle on you, and progress will be slow. i didn't get a lot of improvement at 3 days per week, which is why i upped it to 4 at that time, but i'd consider monday, wednesday and friday to be a good place to start as there's recovery time between each working, and you'll want to up your protein intake, as well.
Ok. Right now I'm looking at 2 days a week as a floor to try to stop the losses. I'm nearly 60 so I have to be careful to allow adequate recovery time between sessions. Also if I start with 2 I'm more likely to stick with it than if I jump directly to 4--I might burn out.
I've definitely gotten strength increases from 2x a week, at least for a time. I don't know about mass, because realistically I rarely stick to a strength routine long enough to find out. That's also why I don't know how long strength increases might continue at 2x/week. 😆 For a small number of months, at least, though, for me.0 -
zebasschick wrote: »
in my personal opinion only, 2 days a week won't put muscle on you, and progress will be slow. i didn't get a lot of improvement at 3 days per week, which is why i upped it to 4 at that time, but i'd consider monday, wednesday and friday to be a good place to start as there's recovery time between each working, and you'll want to up your protein intake, as well.
Ok. Right now I'm looking at 2 days a week as a floor to try to stop the losses. I'm nearly 60 so I have to be careful to allow adequate recovery time between sessions. Also if I start with 2 I'm more likely to stick with it than if I jump directly to 4--I might burn out.
Adherence is the most important thing. Even the best program in the world isn’t gonna work if you can’t stick to it!2 -
I have recently done a 6 week training block designed to build muscle. Prescribed by my trainer. In terms of the scale finally telling me what the mirror/clothing was telling me a little earlier I have got my results after 9 weeks. (The 6 week training block, a week of deload and then starting a new training block focusing on speed but being a bit derailed by various factors so maintaining but not progressing).
I was eating for maintenance with a slight nod to recomp in order to maximise muscle gain without putting on weight. So a deficit of no more than 300 per day, usually less.
In that time I lost 700g of weight. Body fat according to impedence scales went from 34.9 to 33.8. Muscle weight increased by 500g. So, if the scales are to be believed I lost a total of 1200g of fat.
The exercise regime probably would not appeal, though I really enjoyed it. It was 4 days a week, 2 upper body and 2 lower body. The sessions took around an hour. 6 exercises, typically done for 4 or 5 sets, typically 12 reps (except for heavy compound lifts which were for 5 reps) and 1 minute rest between sets.
Intensity was not at the highest weights I can move because I would not have got the volume. We started conservatively and I moved up as appropriate over the 6 weeks (though there was a fair bit of body weight stuff in there). But where I could increase weights, examples of weights being lifted at start and end of the 6 weeks are:
DB row - 10kg > 14kg
Delt flies - 3kg > 4kg
Squat - 30kg > 45kg
Good Morning - 20kg > 30kg
Deadlift - 40kg > 55kg
Single leg press - 30kg > 40kg
This may be way more data than you want, but it does go to show that I had to shift a heck of a lot of iron to gain a pound of muscle!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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