Anonymous
01/10/2018 10:29
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
NO. What keeps women from lifting weights is the ridiculous belief that the only acceptable size for a woman is small, which you are perpetuating. That women think it's more important to be small than it is to be strong is a crummy thing. There are SO many benefits to lifting weights--building strength, bone density, etc.--and reducing it to yet another slim-down tactic is utter garbage.
It's perfectly possible to be small but strong. Look at gymnasts. Look at figure skaters, male and female. See the amazing physique of these men who can easily lift, throw and spin their partner while remaining lean enough to jump. The bums of most male skaters will reduce most women to tears. I'm guessing that most women, given a choice, will choose small & strong v. big & strong.
The other thing is that bulking/not bulking has a direct relationship with how much you lift. In general, and that's a very general rule, I think women look better with lean, non-bulky muscles which are a product of weights that bear 12 to 15 repetitions. Start lifting weights that you can only lift once or twice before collapsing, and sure, you'll bulk up. That's not the look most women would favor, though.
You and the PP directly above you are exactly the ones who suck. Of course you can be small and strong BUT why should you make being small your goal? If you stick to weights you can lift 8-12 times, you won't be as strong as if you lifted to max. And why? So you can satisfy typical White American beauty standards? Pfffft.
Why should I make it my goal? Because I like that look better, and because I am not interested in being able to lift as much as humanly possible. Maybe you should ask women what they prefer: to have an ice-skater bum, or to be able to lift 200 pounds.
If you don't want to fit whatever you describe as "white American beauty standards", that's your thing, but don't act like many, many women don't find the lean, chiseled look attractive or desirable. They absolutely do.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 10:16
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
NO. What keeps women from lifting weights is the ridiculous belief that the only acceptable size for a woman is small, which you are perpetuating. That women think it's more important to be small than it is to be strong is a crummy thing. There are SO many benefits to lifting weights--building strength, bone density, etc.--and reducing it to yet another slim-down tactic is utter garbage.
It's perfectly possible to be small but strong. Look at gymnasts. Look at figure skaters, male and female. See the amazing physique of these men who can easily lift, throw and spin their partner while remaining lean enough to jump. The bums of most male skaters will reduce most women to tears. I'm guessing that most women, given a choice, will choose small & strong v. big & strong.
The other thing is that bulking/not bulking has a direct relationship with how much you lift. In general, and that's a very general rule, I think women look better with lean, non-bulky muscles which are a product of weights that bear 12 to 15 repetitions. Start lifting weights that you can only lift once or twice before collapsing, and sure, you'll bulk up. That's not the look most women would favor, though.
You and the PP directly above you are exactly the ones who suck. Of course you can be small and strong BUT why should you make being small your goal? If you stick to weights you can lift 8-12 times, you won't be as strong as if you lifted to max. And why? So you can satisfy typical White American beauty standards? Pfffft.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 09:28
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:I'm pear shaped. Working my upper body and getting broader shoulders helps to balance me visually.
This is me. I used to have a waify upper body and bigger, more muscular legs due to years of running. My upper body is much more muscular after a few years of trying to hit the weights at least twice a week. I personally love the waify look and miss it, but I think this is better for my health and I know it's better for my metabolism ... I can eat anything and not really gain weight.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 09:24
Subject: How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:^^^ There is a difference between muscle definition and bulk. ^^^
I think people consider bulk to be large. One can have average sized or slender muscles which are defined, as well as strong.
To get THAT look you need both muscle definition AND low body fat to display them. Slender muscle definition won't show if it's covered by fat.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 09:22
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:
NO. What keeps women from lifting weights is the ridiculous belief that the only acceptable size for a woman is small, which you are perpetuating. That women think it's more important to be small than it is to be strong is a crummy thing. There are SO many benefits to lifting weights--building strength, bone density, etc.--and reducing it to yet another slim-down tactic is utter garbage.
It's perfectly possible to be small but strong. Look at gymnasts. Look at figure skaters, male and female. See the amazing physique of these men who can easily lift, throw and spin their partner while remaining lean enough to jump. The bums of most male skaters will reduce most women to tears. I'm guessing that most women, given a choice, will choose small & strong v. big & strong.
The other thing is that bulking/not bulking has a direct relationship with how much you lift. In general, and that's a very general rule, I think women look better with lean, non-bulky muscles which are a product of weights that bear 12 to 15 repetitions. Start lifting weights that you can only lift once or twice before collapsing, and sure, you'll bulk up. That's not the look most women would favor, though.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 09:18
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
This is my experience, as well. Talk of bulking up and saying it is from lifting only (and not heavy lifting + calorie/protein surplus) keeps women from using weights. Experiences like the pp's are the ones which encourage other women to lift weights.
NO. What keeps women from lifting weights is the ridiculous belief that the only acceptable size for a woman is small, which you are perpetuating. That women think it's more important to be small than it is to be strong is a crummy thing. There are SO many benefits to lifting weights--building strength, bone density, etc.--and reducing it to yet another slim-down tactic is utter garbage.
One can be both small and strong.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 09:12
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
This is my experience, as well. Talk of bulking up and saying it is from lifting only (and not heavy lifting + calorie/protein surplus) keeps women from using weights. Experiences like the pp's are the ones which encourage other women to lift weights.
NO. What keeps women from lifting weights is the ridiculous belief that the only acceptable size for a woman is small, which you are perpetuating. That women think it's more important to be small than it is to be strong is a crummy thing. There are SO many benefits to lifting weights--building strength, bone density, etc.--and reducing it to yet another slim-down tactic is utter garbage.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 05:38
Subject: How did lifting weights change your physique?
^^^ There is a difference between muscle definition and bulk. ^^^
I think people consider bulk to be large. One can have average sized or slender muscles which are defined, as well as strong.
I think people consider bulk to be large. One can have average sized or slender muscles which are defined, as well as strong.
Anonymous
01/10/2018 05:30
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
I didn't SAY it would make you bulky. I am arguing against the bulky myth. But it is farcical to claim you are in enough shape to routinely squat and deadlift 115+!lbs yet you don't notice any real muscle definition. To lift that much you have to HAVE muscle. I don't think you look bulky, but tniust ludicrous that you can squat 115 yet also say you don't notice a difference in your body when lifting. So either you do notice changes in your figure or you can't actually squat 115 regularly. Both can't be true.
Anonymous
01/09/2018 20:14
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
This is my experience, as well. Talk of bulking up and saying it is from lifting only (and not heavy lifting + calorie/protein surplus) keeps women from using weights. Experiences like the pp's are the ones which encourage other women to lift weights.
I mean there’s nothing wrong with getting super muscular and strong. I think it’s awesome. But I was just reporting my experience. Honestly there are some men who just don’t bulk up easily either—testosterone and all. It varies person to person.
A person with lower testosterone level will not bulk up like someone with higher levels. will not bulk up faster than someone with higher testosterone level doing similar routines. Largely because the lower testosterone level could not lift as much.
Anonymous
01/09/2018 18:23
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
Me too. I'm that weight and height now in my early 40's. I've actually learned how to eat and work out more effectively for my body type, and its meant that I have gotten leaner/thinner as I've aged. After 3 kids I wear a size 24 jean. Being athletic/muscular does NOT doom one to a lifetime of bulk. When I have gained weight in the past I have looked bulky, however. It just is what it is when you are short and muscular.
Anonymous
01/09/2018 18:16
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
This is my experience, as well. Talk of bulking up and saying it is from lifting only (and not heavy lifting + calorie/protein surplus) keeps women from using weights. Experiences like the pp's are the ones which encourage other women to lift weights.
I mean there’s nothing wrong with getting super muscular and strong. I think it’s awesome. But I was just reporting my experience. Honestly there are some men who just don’t bulk up easily either—testosterone and all. It varies person to person.
Anonymous
01/09/2018 17:19
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
This is my experience, as well. Talk of bulking up and saying it is from lifting only (and not heavy lifting + calorie/protein surplus) keeps women from using weights. Experiences like the pp's are the ones which encourage other women to lift weights.
Anonymous
01/09/2018 17:11
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.
I weigh ~115ish when I am in shape (I am 5'4). I tend to have better posture, get some minor improvements in muscle tone, and sometimes lean out a bit when lifting. But I don't bulk up. It's impossible for me to tell how much of the muscle tone in my legs is from running hilly trails and how much is from squatting 1x a week. When I put on weight, it's fat; when I'm working out a lot, I tend to get leaner. I have not tried intense heavy lifting and while eating a super high protein caloric surplus, though. Perhaps if I did so I would bulk up. I haven't tried to do so, because I started lifting to prevent running injuries, and if I push too hard lifting it means I can't put in the miles I want to. IDK, all I'm saying a) there is a middle ground between light dumb weights and lifting super heavy and b) my experience is my body type plus running regularly doesn't lead to bulking. My experience is also that swimming in high school didn't bulk me up the way it did with other girls as well, and that people's bodies are different. I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you. I do definitely get stronger, just not "bulkier."
Anonymous
01/09/2018 06:59
Subject: Re:How did lifting weights change your physique?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have noticed very little difference to my body from lifting other than some minor improvements in posture and muscle tone. Certainly none of this "bulkiness," although it could also be a combo of body type and the fact that I also run a lot. One thing I have noticed is I tend to get running injuries far less since I started doing some lifting. I also don't lift super heavy.
Translation: sometimes I do a few curls with those pink plastic 2lb dumbbells.
Nope, I do squats, deadlifts, bench press, leg press. Just around or under my body weight.
It is impossible that you're squatting body weight (so 120-155 most likely) and not noticing changes in muscle or physique. Come off it.