How long until visible results from weight lifting?

[Anonymous]

Some bodies never look "toned" no matter what you do. Tone is genetic and neurological. How your muscles look in resting state depends in the signal from your brain to the muscle. It is a range from hypertonia (rigid muscles with reduced mobility, and spasms, like in many forms of cerebral palsy), to hypotonia (loose floppy muscles, as in floppy baby syndrome). Healthy muscles are never fully relaxed, the brain holds them in a shape, but the range of healthy muscles is from borderline hypotonia (always soft looking with little to no definition) to borderline hypotonia (a 5 year old with a 6-pack but not great range of motion).

Whether or not weight lifting will change how you look depends on how much fat you carry, but also on where you fall in the neurological range between hypotonia and hypertonia.

[Anonymous]

I am still overweight, and I do see it in my arms quite quickly when I lift (my arms still are flabby unfortunately but you can see muscle definition on the top, and then the flab). I also notice how much smoother my back is, and my collar bones are defined. Not visibly noticeable in my legs but they feel more muscular instead of flabby.

I am obviously still working on getting fitter, but just want to say that you can still notice changes even if you are not at your goal weight. Weight lifting is also the only form of exercise that seems to make a real difference in my weight loss efforts, I still run and my cardio has improved, but I only lose when I lift (even if I drop the cardio).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some bodies never look "toned" no matter what you do. Tone is genetic and neurological. How your muscles look in resting state depends in the signal from your brain to the muscle. It is a range from hypertonia (rigid muscles with reduced mobility, and spasms, like in many forms of cerebral palsy), to hypotonia (loose floppy muscles, as in floppy baby syndrome). Healthy muscles are never fully relaxed, the brain holds them in a shape, but the range of healthy muscles is from borderline hypotonia (always soft looking with little to no definition) to borderline hypotonia (a 5 year old with a 6-pack but not great range of motion).

Whether or not weight lifting will change how you look depends on how much fat you carry, but also on where you fall in the neurological range between hypotonia and hypertonia.

This forum needs a “woo” button to identify pseudo-scientific nonsense. Visible muscle is entirely a function of lean mass and fat mass. If you have lean muscle mass and low body fat, you will look lean when relaxed. Other than on stage at a body building comp or at a fitness magazine cover photo shoot, flexing (muscle rigidity) doesn’t enter into the equation.

[Anonymous]

*look toned when relaxed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that under 1200 is too low. That’s the point that I was trying to make earlier. Not eating enough also slows down your metabolism over time.

Your body just adapts. If you’re eating under 1200 it will naturally conserve energy and you won’t move around as much. Your NEAT expenditure goes down. Your metabolism itself doesn’t slow, it’s that your body will reduce the amount of energy you’re able to expend on activity and moving and exercise to compensate for the low calories. It’s tired and not fed so it won’t want to move. You would do better to eat 1800 and MOVE more.

This would be a LOT of movement for me as a small person. Like 8-10 miles on the treadmill, a pilates class, and HIIT for an hr every day to get 100-200 cals below my resting (1300).

The more you move and the more muscle you build the more you can eat. Your resting is only that low because you aren’t active and don’t have muscle burning your calories off. I’m 5’1. I weigh 102 and have very visible muscles. No way I eat at 1200-1300 a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that under 1200 is too low. That’s the point that I was trying to make earlier. Not eating enough also slows down your metabolism over time.

Your body just adapts. If you’re eating under 1200 it will naturally conserve energy and you won’t move around as much. Your NEAT expenditure goes down. Your metabolism itself doesn’t slow, it’s that your body will reduce the amount of energy you’re able to expend on activity and moving and exercise to compensate for the low calories. It’s tired and not fed so it won’t want to move. You would do better to eat 1800 and MOVE more.

This would be a LOT of movement for me as a small person. Like 8-10 miles on the treadmill, a pilates class, and HIIT for an hr every day to get 100-200 cals below my resting (1300).

The more you move and the more muscle you build the more you can eat. Your resting is only that low because you aren’t active and don’t have muscle burning your calories off. I’m 5’1. I weigh 102 and have very visible muscles. No way I eat at 1200-1300 a day.

Exactly. Women tend to obsess over cardio and calorie cutting. It’s important to know what your body type is and workout and frame your macros accordingly. Sometimes, not consuming enough food is why you’re not seeing progress. That and too much cardio. This is why we see so many avid runners who are still flabby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that under 1200 is too low. That’s the point that I was trying to make earlier. Not eating enough also slows down your metabolism over time.

Your body just adapts. If you’re eating under 1200 it will naturally conserve energy and you won’t move around as much. Your NEAT expenditure goes down. Your metabolism itself doesn’t slow, it’s that your body will reduce the amount of energy you’re able to expend on activity and moving and exercise to compensate for the low calories. It’s tired and not fed so it won’t want to move. You would do better to eat 1800 and MOVE more.

This would be a LOT of movement for me as a small person. Like 8-10 miles on the treadmill, a pilates class, and HIIT for an hr every day to get 100-200 cals below my resting (1300).

The more you move and the more muscle you build the more you can eat. Your resting is only that low because you aren’t active and don’t have muscle burning your calories off. I’m 5’1. I weigh 102 and have very visible muscles. No way I eat at 1200-1300 a day.

Right, because you're already fit and active. I am not, so I am doing weight training 3-4 times a week and some limited cardio along with a very low cal count. When I build more lean muscle, my calorie intake can go up. But for now, it is below my resting even with a training regime to shed the fat off at the onset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that under 1200 is too low. That’s the point that I was trying to make earlier. Not eating enough also slows down your metabolism over time.

Your body just adapts. If you’re eating under 1200 it will naturally conserve energy and you won’t move around as much. Your NEAT expenditure goes down. Your metabolism itself doesn’t slow, it’s that your body will reduce the amount of energy you’re able to expend on activity and moving and exercise to compensate for the low calories. It’s tired and not fed so it won’t want to move. You would do better to eat 1800 and MOVE more.

This would be a LOT of movement for me as a small person. Like 8-10 miles on the treadmill, a pilates class, and HIIT for an hr every day to get 100-200 cals below my resting (1300).

Not likely. I am a five foot two 44 year old woman. I burn about 2,000 to 2500 calories a day. I do one 30 minute weight training workout and walk about 15,000 steps. usually with my dogs. Nonetheless, even on days in which I'm sick and completely sedentary, my resting is 1300 calories.

There is absolutely no way unless you live on your couch that you were only burning 1300 calories a day.

And if you are, you should absolutely get your body moving a lot more for your future health and mobility