Anonymous wrote:a few years ago I began a program lifting progressively heavier weights + cross fit.

The biggest change to my physique were the constant injuries. I still have shoulder impingement when I try to lift too much or rock climb.

I'm getting the benefits I most seek from a moderate program of lifting some weight, but not trying to put on a ton of muscle.

Yeah the injuries were from cross fit. Cross fit is awful. Massively dynamic movements with heavy weights at insane reps. Death trap.

I'm the 15:04 poster - I look beefier now than I did when I started lifting because 14-15 years have gone by. In that 14 years, I've turned 35, 40 and 45 and my metabolism has dropped a bit so I'm heavier now by about 15 lbs. My thyroid isn't functioning like it did in my 30's and I haven't medicated yet. I also had a baby at 36 - after that, I went from having a 4-pack to having some definition on the sides but very little elsewhere. I'm running 1,100 miles a year instead of maybe 1,500.

I definitely look better at 45 than I would if I didn't lift. I definitely look better than most of the same-age people I know and many of the younger folks. But I don't look as good as I did when I was 35 and lifting the same, pre-baby, pre-metabolism drops. And I'm not willing to diet like crazy to get back to my 35-year-old body, even if I could.

a few years ago I began a program lifting progressively heavier weights + cross fit.

The biggest change to my physique were the constant injuries. I still have shoulder impingement when I try to lift too much or rock climb.

I'm getting the benefits I most seek from a moderate program of lifting some weight, but not trying to put on a ton of muscle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many women do view themselves as ornaments first. And if my daughter grows up to believe that about herself and/or my sons to find that the only attractive look on a woman (assuming they're heterosexual), I will have considered that a major parenting fail.

Nice. Everyone who disagrees with you simply MUST view themselves as an ornament.

No, but choosing your workouts based primarily on how they make you look, rather than how they make you feel and what they allow you to do, is placing a hell of a lot more priority on looks than I want my kids to do (and than I do myself).

First, let's dispense with the lie that looking good isn't important to people. It is. I know it offends you but it's the truth.

Second, do whatever you want with your self and your kids, no one wants to mess with your life.

Third, as mentioned, very few women are motivated by being able to lift as much as they possibly can. It just isn't a priority. Ask others if you don't believe me. It should also be mentioned that gymnasts and figure skaters can do things you can't do, so performance has many facets.

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."

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.

There are obviously differences in my strength and muscle tone when lifting, but they aren't massively dramatic, especially when clothed and some of the muscle definition in my legs, for example comes from other activities as well, like trail running up steep hills. And I don't need to buy new clothes because my shoulders are popping out of old shirts and jackets like other PPs reported.

Look, I think it's great if women want to be super strong. I don't mean to perpetuate this idea that women can't be beautiful and strong. I just don't really like lifting massive amounts of weight as much as I like distance running, I don't have a body type that leads to packing on muscle all that easily, and I prefer challenging my body physically in other ways. But I do lift 1-2x a week doing mostly compound lifts like squats and deadlifts. I don't find it changes my body as much as other PPs report. I also often lift less weight and do more reps, because my goal is to not have such severe DOMS that I can't continue my running training, especially if I'm training for a race.

Maybe being leaner adheres to more sell out ideas of feminine beauty, but it's also necessary to get better at distance running. But it doesn't mean that you can't lift to the degree that you get the benefits of improved bone density, improved joint strength, and a general increase of athleticism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many women do view themselves as ornaments first. And if my daughter grows up to believe that about herself and/or my sons to find that the only attractive look on a woman (assuming they're heterosexual), I will have considered that a major parenting fail.

Nice. Everyone who disagrees with you simply MUST view themselves as an ornament.

No, but choosing your workouts based primarily on how they make you look, rather than how they make you feel and what they allow you to do, is placing a hell of a lot more priority on looks than I want my kids to do (and than I do myself).

DP. Unless you're some sort of olympic athlete or professional, performance isn't going to matter much in life. Looks, however, will get you far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many women do view themselves as ornaments first. And if my daughter grows up to believe that about herself and/or my sons to find that the only attractive look on a woman (assuming they're heterosexual), I will have considered that a major parenting fail.

Nice. Everyone who disagrees with you simply MUST view themselves as an ornament.

No, but choosing your workouts based primarily on how they make you look, rather than how they make you feel and what they allow you to do, is placing a hell of a lot more priority on looks than I want my kids to do (and than I do myself).

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.

Or you could stick to weights that you can lift 8-12 times as strength training so you don't experience as many injuries in endurance sports, or any number of other reasons. Not everyone finds lifting weights and being massively strong to be their ideal form of exercise, regardless of what it does to your body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many women do view themselves as ornaments first. And if my daughter grows up to believe that about herself and/or my sons to find that the only attractive look on a woman (assuming they're heterosexual), I will have considered that a major parenting fail.

Nice. Everyone who disagrees with you simply MUST view themselves as an ornament.

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.

Dp. It's not that small is the goal, it's more not wanting to look large.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many women do view themselves as ornaments first. And if my daughter grows up to believe that about herself and/or my sons to find that the only attractive look on a woman (assuming they're heterosexual), I will have considered that a major parenting fail.