reducing leg muscle...? I want skinny legs :(

bump

UUHM...If you are genetically predisposed to have bigger calves, body fat will not make much of a difference - I had 16" calves at 127lbs (I'm 5'8.5) age 23, and I have 17' calves at 176lbs and 27% bf age 44 - so not true that losing body fat will give you skinny stick calves....

I'm not arguing that losing body fat = stick thin cavles.

I am arguing that losing body fat > losing muscle mass.

So try one before the other.

And you are completely right - we can only fight our genetic composition so much. Have you tried to lose muscle mass? If so, did it help?

Why on earth would I intentionally try to lose muscle mass????:noway: :sad: Did it help for what? I have big calves - not green ones, sick ones or crazy calves....They take me on easy and fun ten km runs, they help me do squats with lots of pounds, they carried me through beautiful places and trails all over the workd - Don't think they need any help other than keeping them strong....:laugh:

Built legs are so hot though! Oh well, to each his own

I've seen a lot of these type threads, and very few with actual photos showing what the legs looked like. So it's hard to say if someone really has very muscular legs, if they might be holding a bit more body fat, if they are genetically inclined to have bigger legs (ie, pear shaped), or if someone is chasing unrealistic expectations (ie, Victoria's Secret's photoshopped models' legs).

I've also never seen a woman who wasn't flexed and posing and on steroids that I thought, "Damn... I don't want THAT much muscle. That's just TOO much!!!" Everyone else seems to fall under the range of normal. Maybe not their ideal, but normal.

I'm a bit older than some on here. I'm done with trying to fit my body into some mold it won't fit in. I have small boobs, a big bum, and meaty thighs. That is who I am. I'm fit and strong and healthy, but sometimes I can't get a pair of skinny jeans past my ankles no matter WHAT size I try on. Some boots are cut weird and won't fit my calves. The new shortie-shorts in all the stores are disastrous on my thighs. Some might argue that at 40, I shouldn't even be thinking about wearing skinny jeans and shortie-shorts, but I flip those people the bird. :laugh:

So with age, experience and hopefully a tiny bit of wisdom... my advice is to be the best YOU that you can be, but also learn to appreciate what you are.

I can totally relate to this!, I can be as skinny as I would like to go, but my thighs will ALWAYS be big.. despite everything else (including the bottom of my legs) being small!

Me too ladies. It's just the curse of being naturally muscular. I am always flipflopping between wanting skinnier legs and loving them because I'm healthy and strong.

As a result of a birth defect, my legs are two different sizes and shapes. One leg has a calf circumference of 14", the other 19" inches. I've been self conscious about this my whole life.

And then it hit me.

My legs have taken me thousands of miles and over 10 half marathon finish lines. They've been the chief instrument through which I've lost 45 pounds and reached my goal weight. They'll keep me from re-gaining the weight and next year they'll enable me to realize the dream of finishing all 26.2 miles that is the New York City Marathon.

Ashamed of my legs? No way. My legs are freaking amazing!!!

And that is what we call perspective!!!

The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.

This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).

The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.

Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.

I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.

What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.

When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.

Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.

It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.

Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:

Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.

I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.

People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.

The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.

This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).

The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.

Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.

I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.

What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.

When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.

Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.

It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.

Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:

Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.

I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.

People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.

There are also too many variables that could come into play why your legs where bigger as a child than as an adult (age, calorie intake, etc..).

Resource on this topic:


"Before you accuse the muscle of being the culprit, take a look at the body fat."


http://www.leighpeele.com/bulky-muscles-and-training-females-the-definition

The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.

This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).

The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.

Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.

I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.

What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.

When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.

Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.

It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.

Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:

Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.

I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.

People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.

You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.

I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.

You are a marathon runner and have slim thighs and calfs and yet you state that the opposite to what I am saying is true LMAO!!!!

The physique fits the bloody activity, it will take time, but it really does do so.

Stick a person on the moon with minimal, if any, atmosphere and see how eventually their physique will change to fit the surroundings.

Does nobody study biology, physiology or physics anymore???

The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.

This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).

The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.

Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.

I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.

What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.

When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.

Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.

It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.

Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:

Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.

I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.

People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.

There are also too many variables that could come into play why your legs where bigger as a child than as an adult (age, calorie intake, etc..).

Ahh you mean weighing just over 90lbs at 5' 2" should mean I would have 24" thighs.

Doesn't equate, genetics plays a major part in the whole factor but the activities undertaken make up the rest.

If I had been involved in long distance stuff at that age, there is a strong possibility that my thighs would have been a lot thinner than they were. Unfortunately, there is no way of ever knowing now

I have 17" calf muscle and 22" thighs (huge by many women's standards) and I wouldn't want to get rid of them. They look shapely and sexy. Muscle mass also increases your metabolism so I get to eat more. Sure, I can't wear some boots and skinny jeans, but who needs that? I look way hotter in heels and a short skirt than someone with smaller and softer legs!

Wow, 22" thighs, you think that is huge???? Mine are larger and I think my legs are pretty normal. Hmm, maybe not.

The body will fit the activity it undertakes - eventually.

This is why sprinters end up with muscley legs whereas marathon runners have slimmer legs and a racewalker will have even slimmer legs (albeit, all three physiques will have muscle but the "look" will be totally different).

The more the explosive power of the activity, the more muscley will the legs be. Your trick is to find the correct activity for you and thereby, eventually, your legs will slim down to your desired size.

Having said all that, it will not happen overnight and can take many months or years to get your desired effect as genetics will play a major role in the size of your legs.

I quite beg to differ - this theory conflates correlation with causation. She is saying "Marathon runners have skinny legs BECAUSE they run marathons" when in reality it's much more likely that people who run marathons tend to have skinny legs. The marathons didn't cause it. If you trained like a ballerina for a year you still wouldn't get longer limbs.

What is your body fat percentage? You carry your weight in your legs - that's still fat you're seeing, not muscle. Keep losing FAT and result will be MUCH better than trying to lose muscle mass. ALL of the advice above about not eating protein etc. is rather wrong headed because in the end, I very, very much doubt it's really muscle that's creating this bulk.

When you have sub 18% body fat and still think you should lose muscle mass then it's time to revisit all this advice.

Then can you explain please, how when I was just 13 years old at 91lbs (5' 2" tall) I had 24" thighs and 15" calfs because I did a lot of sprinting, but now I am 135lbs and have thighs at 21" and calfs at 14.5" but do a lot of long distance running. My thighs only change as I lengthen my training and only then after many months.

It is a scientific fact that the body will adapt to whatever environment it is put into - eventually.

Genetics do play a massive part in a person's shape and size, but that shape can be altered slightly, but the correct activity is needed. In short:

Explosive, power activities will encourage a large muscular physique
Endurance and long aerobic sessions that are not weight-bearing will eventually land the person with a thinner physique.

I hasten to add that the "thinner physique" does not mean "skinny-fat" or "no muscles" either, it just means a different look.

People do not have to just accept their physiques, it can be molded, the trick is to know what you are doing.

You do realize that YOU could be an exception to the rule, right? And that a person's physique is more complicated than simply whether you sprint, run for distance or walk, right? I've never heard of such a thing - which doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue but giving someone advice in the "this is the absolute truth" way based on YOUR own experience is in poor form.

I'm a distance runner, I run marathons - my thighs are 19", my calves are 13.25" and I would never make a general assumption about my own physique to others based on the fact that I'm a distance runner. Runners come in different shapes and sizes, I don't look like people's idea of a distance runner but my training and race performances state otherwise. Perception is tricky. Don't make assumptions.

You are a marathon runner and have slim thighs and calfs and yet you state that the opposite to what I am saying is true LMAO!!!!

The physique fits the bloody activity, it will take time, but it really does do so.

Stick a person on the moon with minimal, if any, atmosphere and see how eventually their physique will change to fit the surroundings.

Does nobody study biology, physiology or physics anymore???

I disagree. I have 22 7/8 in thighs. I run marathons. My legs are not 'skinny', nor am I skinny. I am athletic. If we went by what you said, I should be skinny. Nope. Genetics play a large roll is our body composition.

Well they are certainly not bloody fat pmsl

Well it is fact where I come from when I have tried various methods over the years, the best study I can see for myself is one I do on myself.

and THAT my dear, is fact.

Actually, quite by definition, that is an opinion. Which are you entitled to and may be very helpful the OP. So let's move on.

Well it is fact where I come from when I have tried various methods over the years, the best study I can see for myself is one I do on myself.

and THAT my dear, is fact.

Actually, quite by definition, that is an opinion. Which are you entitled to and may be very helpful the OP. So let's move on.

It's also called anecdotal evidence. What holds true for one does not hold true for all. Were it otherwise, weight loss would have been solved a loooooong time ago.