They say women don't get bulky when they lift. I'm getting bulky :(

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was told lower the weight and increase the reps to be tone but not bulky.

There is no difference between "toning" and "bulking".

What's wrong with being a little bit bigger in certain areas? OP, you probably look better, but unfortunately we're drilled with this stupid idea that getting even a tiny bit bigger (I bet people wouldn't even notice) is some terrible thing. I hate that we're expected to be as small as possible, to the point where we sacrifice the health benefits of having more strength and muscle mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been in gyms for almost twenty years and around strength athletes who devote their lives to getting bigger and stronger, and can definitely count on one hand the number of natural (AAS free) women whose muscle mass made them "too bulky" by any reasonable standard. People like Serena Williams or Annie Thorisdottir are well known because they are extreme genetic outliers. If you were beset by the "problem" that afflicts them, you would know it, because you would have been dominant in sports at at least the national level for your whole life, and would be getting paid a lot of money as an athlete.

To the individual who mocked "trainers" who implied she did not know her own body, I would reply that, in fact, you do not know your own body. If you have limited exposure to resistance training, the edema that accompanies the tissue injury you are suddenly inflicting will hang around for awhile. Certainly weeks, possibly even months. It goes away with time as the body adapts to the stimulus; the adaptation will likely be slower if you are older, as physical adaptations generally are. If you find the phenomenon intolerable, by all means stop lifting weights. What is unhelpful is posts like these that perpetuate this idiocy that women are capable of quickly "bulking" their muscles to unseemly proportions.

Research and decades of anecdotal experience demonstrate pretty clearly that a drug-free woman can expect to accrue about 3 lbs of muscle mass per year of serious training, assuming she is training consistently, overeating, and is healthy. This amount drops off over time, as continued adaptation gets harder and harder. Understand that 3 lbs spread over your entire body is not likely to be noticeable. What is noticeable is the tissue swelling that accompanies trauma to which your body is not accustomed. Not knowing the difference leads to ignorant posts like the one that spawned this dumpster fire of a thread.

A million times, this. The first few months of lifting a lot of people experience inflammation/water retention. And then you lean out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been in gyms for almost twenty years and around strength athletes who devote their lives to getting bigger and stronger, and can definitely count on one hand the number of natural (AAS free) women whose muscle mass made them "too bulky" by any reasonable standard. People like Serena Williams or Annie Thorisdottir are well known because they are extreme genetic outliers. If you were beset by the "problem" that afflicts them, you would know it, because you would have been dominant in sports at at least the national level for your whole life, and would be getting paid a lot of money as an athlete.

To the individual who mocked "trainers" who implied she did not know her own body, I would reply that, in fact, you do not know your own body. If you have limited exposure to resistance training, the edema that accompanies the tissue injury you are suddenly inflicting will hang around for awhile. Certainly weeks, possibly even months. It goes away with time as the body adapts to the stimulus; the adaptation will likely be slower if you are older, as physical adaptations generally are. If you find the phenomenon intolerable, by all means stop lifting weights. What is unhelpful is posts like these that perpetuate this idiocy that women are capable of quickly "bulking" their muscles to unseemly proportions.

Research and decades of anecdotal experience demonstrate pretty clearly that a drug-free woman can expect to accrue about 3 lbs of muscle mass per year of serious training, assuming she is training consistently, overeating, and is healthy. This amount drops off over time, as continued adaptation gets harder and harder. Understand that 3 lbs spread over your entire body is not likely to be noticeable. What is noticeable is the tissue swelling that accompanies trauma to which your body is not accustomed. Not knowing the difference leads to ignorant posts like the one that spawned this dumpster fire of a thread.

Also, I want to be your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not totally getting massive, but I know my arms, shoulders, and traps have increased in size (and I know it's muscle, not fat, my waist is actually a little smaller), which I feel is making me look bulky, and also causing issues with fitting into some fitted shirts in my upper body. Maybe most women don't get bulky, but I seem to be one of the few who do, and I don't like it. It feels like it showed out out of nowhere and rather quickly

If I stop lifting, how long will it take for the muscles to shrink?

What's your height and weight?

What does this matter? I don't weight myself, and the scale isn't telling of anything if you're into fitness. I tend to be a size S/XS (more S these days, especially on top and things with sleeves ).

It says something about whether you are "bulky" because you are muscular or fat

New poster here - you're a moron, and obviously not athletic at all. When you're an athlete, weight is a whole different animal.

Not really. A switch doesn't flip when you call yourself an "athlete" that changes physiology. Lacking a significant amount of testosterone, women have a limited capacity to add lean tissue irrespective of the training workload they take on.

Knowing somebody's height and weight is a generally useful proxy for knowing body composition regardless of the training they're doing. For instance, if you're 5'6 and 150, you are likely carrying a significant amount of extra bodyfat. To be under, say, 20% bodyfat at that height and weight, you would have to be outrageously muscular. For reference, Kim Walford, probably the strongest pound-for-pound woman in the world, is 5'5 and 145-150, and can deadlift well over 500 pounds.

The vast majority of us significant underestimate the amount of bodyfat we are carrying. At 25%, most women can see a degree of abdominal definition. At 20%, you're likely to have clear abdominal definition and probably the beginnings of some vascularity in the upper arms. Below 18% or so you are unmistakably ripped.

On a final note, to your "when you're an athlete..." comment, I find it unlikely that anyone who could seriously be called an "athlete" would be ringing their hands and dramatically changing their training plans because their shoulder muscles were a little swollen or a shirt fit a bit differently. And that was, of course, the context in which the height/weight question was asked. So the "moron" thing was maybe misdirected.

[Anonymous]

Not OP, but when I bike or ski a lot, I get a big butt. Maybe I don't gain weight, but that weight is definitely redistributing and I have a hard time fitting pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not totally getting massive, but I know my arms, shoulders, and traps have increased in size (and I know it's muscle, not fat, my waist is actually a little smaller), which I feel is making me look bulky, and also causing issues with fitting into some fitted shirts in my upper body. Maybe most women don't get bulky, but I seem to be one of the few who do, and I don't like it. It feels like it showed out out of nowhere and rather quickly

If I stop lifting, how long will it take for the muscles to shrink?

Define "bulky"

It takes a lot to put on massive mass. Genetics plays a minor role. Pics might help OP, seriously.

[Anonymous]

I get bulky too, so now I only lift heavy 2 days a week instead of 4. I also do more cardio. So far it seems to be working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been in gyms for almost twenty years and around strength athletes who devote their lives to getting bigger and stronger, and can definitely count on one hand the number of natural (AAS free) women whose muscle mass made them "too bulky" by any reasonable standard. People like Serena Williams or Annie Thorisdottir are well known because they are extreme genetic outliers. If you were beset by the "problem" that afflicts them, you would know it, because you would have been dominant in sports at at least the national level for your whole life, and would be getting paid a lot of money as an athlete.

To the individual who mocked "trainers" who implied she did not know her own body, I would reply that, in fact, you do not know your own body. If you have limited exposure to resistance training, the edema that accompanies the tissue injury you are suddenly inflicting will hang around for awhile. Certainly weeks, possibly even months. It goes away with time as the body adapts to the stimulus; the adaptation will likely be slower if you are older, as physical adaptations generally are. If you find the phenomenon intolerable, by all means stop lifting weights. What is unhelpful is posts like these that perpetuate this idiocy that women are capable of quickly "bulking" their muscles to unseemly proportions.

Research and decades of anecdotal experience demonstrate pretty clearly that a drug-free woman can expect to accrue about 3 lbs of muscle mass per year of serious training, assuming she is training consistently, overeating, and is healthy. This amount drops off over time, as continued adaptation gets harder and harder. Understand that 3 lbs spread over your entire body is not likely to be noticeable. What is noticeable is the tissue swelling that accompanies trauma to which your body is not accustomed. Not knowing the difference leads to ignorant posts like the one that spawned this dumpster fire of a thread.

Also, I want to be your friend.

Me too. I train heavy. 5"6' and 130lbs. I don't look bulky. In fact I look quite slim. The people I train with who look bulky eat too much. They would admit it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not totally getting massive, but I know my arms, shoulders, and traps have increased in size (and I know it's muscle, not fat, my waist is actually a little smaller), which I feel is making me look bulky, and also causing issues with fitting into some fitted shirts in my upper body. Maybe most women don't get bulky, but I seem to be one of the few who do, and I don't like it. It feels like it showed out out of nowhere and rather quickly

If I stop lifting, how long will it take for the muscles to shrink?

Not everyone is a svelte ballerina type or long distance runner. I bulk up very easy and love it. I may not fit in old clothes but my arms look incredible this time of year with sleeveless shirts. Why not just enjoy what you have and stop wishing for something you aren't.

[Anonymous]

I am a true mesomorph.

I am a former college soccer player, track runner.

I have incredibly muscular thighs. Very-well defined legs--but no skinny jeans. I also have very muscular 'guns' as people call them.

My entire life it would take me very little time to put on muscle. Roommates' parents in college used to comment on my build.

I am a size 4, 46 years old. I am an odd mix of seeming petite--but pretty stacked.

I married guy who has body builder guns and 12-pack and a genetic propensity in his mid-40s to maintain that appearance with little time.

Strangely enough, my 8 and 10-year old boys have defined guns and abs...one looks like a little meathead and they just play regular kid sports like soccer---we don't have them lifting weights.

I don't know why it's hard to understand that some of us women bulk. I have been this way since I was 13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a true mesomorph.

I am a former college soccer player, track runner.

I have incredibly muscular thighs. Very-well defined legs--but no skinny jeans. I also have very muscular 'guns' as people call them.

My entire life it would take me very little time to put on muscle. Roommates' parents in college used to comment on my build.

I am a size 4, 46 years old. I am an odd mix of seeming petite--but pretty stacked.

I married guy who has body builder guns and 12-pack and a genetic propensity in his mid-40s to maintain that appearance with little time.

Strangely enough, my 8 and 10-year old boys have defined guns and abs...one looks like a little meathead and they just play regular kid sports like soccer---we don't have them lifting weights.

I don't know why it's hard to understand that some of us women bulk. I have been this way since I was 13.

Congratulations on your genetic gifts. This isn't what this thread was about though. It was about a person who surely is not "incredibly muscular" balking at a little water retention in her delts and traps and asking how quickly she could lose the size if she stopped lifting. To that question, I would say the answer is quickly, and probably more quickly still if you take some anti-inflammatories and try to minimize the use of your arms for a few days.

To your points...couple issues. First, I suspect our definitions of "incredibly muscular" and "very well defined" are different, but even allowing that you have world class genetics for hypertrophy, is the implication that after an initial adaptation, your legs (or whatever) would just keep growing at an absurd rate indefinitely? Until you looked like a female Ronnie Coleman? Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen to a woman who wasn't using anabolics?

Look, we all start from different places, but we're not really the unique snowflakes we often like to believe ourselves to be. To wit, the female body tends to store fat and retain water in the hips and thighs...many women are also very sensitive about measurements and clothing fit in these regions, so a small change is noticeable and if you are preoccupied with the size of your ass and legs, you may freak out if you swell a little. Just rest assured that this doesn't portend of some miraculous capacity to slap on muscle mass indefinitely at a staggering rate. It's an initial adaptation that, for one thing, has already happened, so it's not going to get worse...and, for another, will GO AWAY once the tissue adapts to the repeated microtrauma. Actual lean tissue accrual happens very very slowly, over months and years...it is not something you are going to be able to notice or measure on a week-to-week basis, even if you are the genetic cream of the crop. That's just reality.

I think the real issue here is people who are carrying a tad more fat than they realize experiencing some muscle swelling and fluid retention, which just pushes the fat out and gives a soft, bloated look. Obviously this does not look that awesome. Understand building lean tissue is a long-term investment in your health, strength, and metabolic power. In the long run you'll be a lot leaner and almost certainly take up less space than you do now while being more useful in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a true mesomorph.

I am a former college soccer player, track runner.

I have incredibly muscular thighs. Very-well defined legs--but no skinny jeans. I also have very muscular 'guns' as people call them.

My entire life it would take me very little time to put on muscle. Roommates' parents in college used to comment on my build.

I am a size 4, 46 years old. I am an odd mix of seeming petite--but pretty stacked.

I married guy who has body builder guns and 12-pack and a genetic propensity in his mid-40s to maintain that appearance with little time.

Strangely enough, my 8 and 10-year old boys have defined guns and abs...one looks like a little meathead and they just play regular kid sports like soccer---we don't have them lifting weights.

I don't know why it's hard to understand that some of us women bulk. I have been this way since I was 13.

Congratulations on your genetic gifts. This isn't what this thread was about though. It was about a person who surely is not "incredibly muscular" balking at a little water retention in her delts and traps and asking how quickly she could lose the size if she stopped lifting. To that question, I would say the answer is quickly, and probably more quickly still if you take some anti-inflammatories and try to minimize the use of your arms for a few days.

To your points...couple issues. First, I suspect our definitions of "incredibly muscular" and "very well defined" are different, but even allowing that you have world class genetics for hypertrophy, is the implication that after an initial adaptation, your legs (or whatever) would just keep growing at an absurd rate indefinitely? Until you looked like a female Ronnie Coleman? Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen to a woman who wasn't using anabolics?

Look, we all start from different places, but we're not really the unique snowflakes we often like to believe ourselves to be. To wit, the female body tends to store fat and retain water in the hips and thighs...many women are also very sensitive about measurements and clothing fit in these regions, so a small change is noticeable and if you are preoccupied with the size of your ass and legs, you may freak out if you swell a little. Just rest assured that this doesn't portend of some miraculous capacity to slap on muscle mass indefinitely at a staggering rate. It's an initial adaptation that, for one thing, has already happened, so it's not going to get worse...and, for another, will GO AWAY once the tissue adapts to the repeated microtrauma. Actual lean tissue accrual happens very very slowly, over months and years...it is not something you are going to be able to notice or measure on a week-to-week basis, even if you are the genetic cream of the crop. That's just reality.

I think the real issue here is people who are carrying a tad more fat than they realize experiencing some muscle swelling and fluid retention, which just pushes the fat out and gives a soft, bloated look. Obviously this does not look that awesome. Understand building lean tissue is a long-term investment in your health, strength, and metabolic power. In the long run you'll be a lot leaner and almost certainly take up less space than you do now while being more useful in general.

Like Eric and Beth Heiden (speed-skaters) from the 80s---I almost need custom-made genes for my muscular thighs. Yes- they are pretty impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a true mesomorph.

I am a former college soccer player, track runner.

I have incredibly muscular thighs. Very-well defined legs--but no skinny jeans. I also have very muscular 'guns' as people call them.

My entire life it would take me very little time to put on muscle. Roommates' parents in college used to comment on my build.

I am a size 4, 46 years old. I am an odd mix of seeming petite--but pretty stacked.

I married guy who has body builder guns and 12-pack and a genetic propensity in his mid-40s to maintain that appearance with little time.

Strangely enough, my 8 and 10-year old boys have defined guns and abs...one looks like a little meathead and they just play regular kid sports like soccer---we don't have them lifting weights.

I don't know why it's hard to understand that some of us women bulk. I have been this way since I was 13.

Congratulations on your genetic gifts. This isn't what this thread was about though. It was about a person who surely is not "incredibly muscular" balking at a little water retention in her delts and traps and asking how quickly she could lose the size if she stopped lifting. To that question, I would say the answer is quickly, and probably more quickly still if you take some anti-inflammatories and try to minimize the use of your arms for a few days.

To your points...couple issues. First, I suspect our definitions of "incredibly muscular" and "very well defined" are different, but even allowing that you have world class genetics for hypertrophy, is the implication that after an initial adaptation, your legs (or whatever) would just keep growing at an absurd rate indefinitely? Until you looked like a female Ronnie Coleman? Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen to a woman who wasn't using anabolics?

Look, we all start from different places, but we're not really the unique snowflakes we often like to believe ourselves to be. To wit, the female body tends to store fat and retain water in the hips and thighs...many women are also very sensitive about measurements and clothing fit in these regions, so a small change is noticeable and if you are preoccupied with the size of your ass and legs, you may freak out if you swell a little. Just rest assured that this doesn't portend of some miraculous capacity to slap on muscle mass indefinitely at a staggering rate. It's an initial adaptation that, for one thing, has already happened, so it's not going to get worse...and, for another, will GO AWAY once the tissue adapts to the repeated microtrauma. Actual lean tissue accrual happens very very slowly, over months and years...it is not something you are going to be able to notice or measure on a week-to-week basis, even if you are the genetic cream of the crop. That's just reality.

I think the real issue here is people who are carrying a tad more fat than they realize experiencing some muscle swelling and fluid retention, which just pushes the fat out and gives a soft, bloated look. Obviously this does not look that awesome. Understand building lean tissue is a long-term investment in your health, strength, and metabolic power. In the long run you'll be a lot leaner and almost certainly take up less space than you do now while being more useful in general.

Like Eric and Beth Heiden (speed-skaters) from the 80s---I almost need custom-made genes for my muscular thighs. Yes- they are pretty impressive.

Jeans---oops!! That is due to a combination of my genes and sports habits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a true mesomorph.

I am a former college soccer player, track runner.

I have incredibly muscular thighs. Very-well defined legs--but no skinny jeans. I also have very muscular 'guns' as people call them.

My entire life it would take me very little time to put on muscle. Roommates' parents in college used to comment on my build.

I am a size 4, 46 years old. I am an odd mix of seeming petite--but pretty stacked.

I married guy who has body builder guns and 12-pack and a genetic propensity in his mid-40s to maintain that appearance with little time.

Strangely enough, my 8 and 10-year old boys have defined guns and abs...one looks like a little meathead and they just play regular kid sports like soccer---we don't have them lifting weights.

I don't know why it's hard to understand that some of us women bulk. I have been this way since I was 13.

Congratulations on your genetic gifts. This isn't what this thread was about though. It was about a person who surely is not "incredibly muscular" balking at a little water retention in her delts and traps and asking how quickly she could lose the size if she stopped lifting. To that question, I would say the answer is quickly, and probably more quickly still if you take some anti-inflammatories and try to minimize the use of your arms for a few days.

To your points...couple issues. First, I suspect our definitions of "incredibly muscular" and "very well defined" are different, but even allowing that you have world class genetics for hypertrophy, is the implication that after an initial adaptation, your legs (or whatever) would just keep growing at an absurd rate indefinitely? Until you looked like a female Ronnie Coleman? Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen to a woman who wasn't using anabolics?

Look, we all start from different places, but we're not really the unique snowflakes we often like to believe ourselves to be. To wit, the female body tends to store fat and retain water in the hips and thighs...many women are also very sensitive about measurements and clothing fit in these regions, so a small change is noticeable and if you are preoccupied with the size of your ass and legs, you may freak out if you swell a little. Just rest assured that this doesn't portend of some miraculous capacity to slap on muscle mass indefinitely at a staggering rate. It's an initial adaptation that, for one thing, has already happened, so it's not going to get worse...and, for another, will GO AWAY once the tissue adapts to the repeated microtrauma. Actual lean tissue accrual happens very very slowly, over months and years...it is not something you are going to be able to notice or measure on a week-to-week basis, even if you are the genetic cream of the crop. That's just reality.

I think the real issue here is people who are carrying a tad more fat than they realize experiencing some muscle swelling and fluid retention, which just pushes the fat out and gives a soft, bloated look. Obviously this does not look that awesome. Understand building lean tissue is a long-term investment in your health, strength, and metabolic power. In the long run you'll be a lot leaner and almost certainly take up less space than you do now while being more useful in general.

Like Eric and Beth Heiden (speed-skaters) from the 80s---I almost need custom-made genes for my muscular thighs. Yes- they are pretty impressive.

How do you "almost" need custom-made jeans? Isn't that more of a you do or you don't kind of deal?

At any rate, big congrats on your family, muscularity, humility, and courage to share!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not OP, but when I bike or ski a lot, I get a big butt. Maybe I don't gain weight, but that weight is definitely redistributing and I have a hard time fitting pants.

Yes! It's why I don't spin anymore. I don't care what anyone on this site says, it dramatically increases the muscles in the caboose and my pants don't fit. Even though every other area gets smaller.