burning off muscle?

"Mari Jaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk

up"

Quoted message said:

from strength training, but apparently i have a body type
where i do bulk

up

Quoted message said:

and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's beneficial to
lift for many reasons, but i've been really trying to
get more lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a month
ago and upped the running and x-training cardio.. i've
also followed a pretty strict low carb diet to try to
lose 10-15

pounds

Quoted message said:

for the past couple months. i've lost some inches and
about 7 pounds but

my

Quoted message said:

legs still look very big. could a high intake of protein
be responsible

for

Quoted message said:

keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions would be
appreciated. thx

If you're eating at or below maintenance calories then you
won't put on any muscle (complete beginners sometimes manage
this neat trick but that doesn't sound like you) regardless
of how many of those calories come from protein.

If you're eating ~500 cals below maintenance then you will
lose weight - some of it will be fat and some of it will
be muscle.

Ellis
--
Apply yourself. Take a few risks. Have fun with it.

Mari Jaine wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk up" from
strength training, but apparently i have a body type where
i do bulk

up

Quoted message said:

and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's beneficial to lift
for many reasons, but i've been really trying to get more
lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a month ago and upped
the running and x-training cardio.. i've also followed a
pretty strict low carb diet to try to lose 10-15

pounds

Quoted message said:

for the past couple months. i've lost some inches and about
7 pounds but

my

Quoted message said:

legs still look very big. could a high intake of protein be
responsible for keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions
would be appreciated. thx

I'm a guy, but I have the same problem - get bulked up way
too easily. One time last year when totally bored, I was
watching this show on women bodybuilders (ahem), and they
were talking about how the style of the sport has changed in
recent years and that the women don't want to bulk up
anymore. So the women who WERE bulked up had to adjust to
the new style, and they were saying that the way they lost
muscle mass was to cut way back on their protien intake.
That's what they said and it makes some sense I guess. I'm
cutting back some but no results so far.

- Tony

Relax. The thick calves are a perfect compliment to the
adam's apple. Proportion.

I naturally bulk up with muscle when I gain weight. I've never had much
fat-pinch thickness around my waist (usually 3/8" to 5/8"😉. I've found:

1. Losing weight is easy when you're mostly muscle -- a 600
calorie deficit will lose a pound of muscle, while it
takes 3400 calories to get rid of a pound of fat.

2. Just eat a normal diet to lose weight. Lo carb just
throws your chemistry off and you'll feel worse than you
would by simply cutting back a bit.

3. I run faster when lighter. Bulky muscles are dead weight
for a distance runner. Note that the really fast guys
and gals are usually quite thin.

4. If you're the "put on mostly muscle" type, you'll always
have stronger looking legs than "normal" people of the
same weight. As you lean out your body, your profile
thickness (just above the navel) will get very thin. If
you're skinny there, you know you're at a good distance
running weight.

5. Don't worry, your legs will get smaller as you
lose weight.

-- Dan

"Mari Jaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk

up"

Quoted message said:

from strength training, but apparently i have a body type
where i do bulk

up

Quoted message said:

and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's beneficial to
lift for many reasons, but i've been really trying to
get more lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a month
ago and upped the running and x-training cardio.. i've
also followed a pretty strict low carb diet to try to
lose 10-15

pounds

Quoted message said:

for the past couple months. i've lost some inches and
about 7 pounds but

my

Quoted message said:

legs still look very big. could a high intake of protein
be responsible

for

Quoted message said:

keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions would be
appreciated. thx

Mari Jaine said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk up" from
strength training, but apparently i have a body type where
i do bulk up and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's
beneficial to lift for many reasons, but i've been really
trying to get more lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a
month ago and upped the running and x-training cardio..
i've also followed a pretty strict low carb diet to try to
lose 10-15 pounds for the past couple months. i've lost
some inches and about 7 pounds but my legs still look very
big. could a high intake of protein be responsible for
keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions would be
appreciated. thx

I would expect your body to adapt to the demands put on it.
Run more to look more like a runner, lift more to ... A
month of running is just a start. Focus on fitness rather
than the profile.

Have you solicited some informed opinions about your
appearance? The twiggy prototype puts pressure on women to
conform rather than express their own qualities and has
spawned an eating disorder epidemic. RW magazine for June
has an article about a successful trail runner, wife,
mother, etc., who feels she can go forever because she has
big strong legs. From the pictures, she does not look bulky
in any way. I bet she consumes enormous amounts of
carbohydrates.

Why not continue a weekly maintenance lift session? I did
meet one young woman who had this concern and it was likely
valid. However, she let herself go and became fat. Watch out
for the fear of bulk hysteria, which most of the time is
ignorance and an excuse to take it easy.

Viewpoints are relative. The number two complaint in
weightlifting message groups after pecs, is skinny calves.
Many guys retain "bird legs" dont matter what they do.
Someone is going to appreciate large-legged looks.

all i wanna know is, will ya wrap em around my head?

"Mari Jaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk

up"

Quoted message said:

from strength training, but apparently i have a body type
where i do bulk

up

Quoted message said:

and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's beneficial to
lift for many reasons, but i've been really trying to
get more lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a month
ago and upped the running and x-training cardio.. i've
also followed a pretty strict low carb diet to try to
lose 10-15

pounds

Quoted message said:

for the past couple months. i've lost some inches and
about 7 pounds but

my

Quoted message said:

legs still look very big. could a high intake of protein
be responsible

for

Quoted message said:

keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions would be
appreciated. thx

hey all.. thanks for the replies.. looks like most of you
are saying to eat more of a balanced diet, keep running, and
be patient... i don't think i'll be going back to doing
weights though, either...

"Mari Jaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here goes..
after years of lifting i have pretty beefy, muscular legs
for a chick...and i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read
many articles saying how women can't "bulk

up"

Quoted message said:

from strength training, but apparently i have a body type
where i do bulk

up

Quoted message said:

and build -a lot- of muscle. i know it's beneficial to
lift for many reasons, but i've been really trying to
get more lean-looking, so i quit lifting about a month
ago and upped the running and x-training cardio.. i've
also followed a pretty strict low carb diet to try to
lose 10-15

pounds

Quoted message said:

for the past couple months. i've lost some inches and
about 7 pounds but

my

Quoted message said:

legs still look very big. could a high intake of protein
be responsible

for

Quoted message said:

keeping my legs bulked up? any suggestions would be
appreciated. thx

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mari Jaine said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here
goes.. after years of lifting i have pretty beefy,
muscular legs for a chick

Nope, sounds very logical.

...and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read many articles
saying how women can't "bulk up" from strength training,

That is a whole bunch of B*LL [censored] brought on by the pop
"women's magazine" press.

It does not take in all the genetic diversity in the female
population. Check out this article about the amazing
muscular baby and note that his mom is also very muscular.
nytimes.com24muscle.htmlOpen ↗
1088654400&en=caa1695e9f110761&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

I lifted for three semesters in high school. By the end of
my third semester, doing the same workouts/reps as every
other girl & guy in the class, I was phenomenally stronger
than other girl (including girls of similar weight). You
don't b.p. 185 and squat 255 without gaining some muscle
mass. I think it's a genetic thing in my case and it may be
similar in yours.

but apparently i have a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

body type where i do bulk up and build -a lot- of
muscle.

Me too! Quite easily. When I stopped swimming to become an
ultimate (frisbee) player/runner type, my very lean legs got
bulkier and my very bulky shoulders got leaner.

i know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's beneficial to lift for many reasons, but i've been
really trying to get more lean-looking, so i quit
lifting about a month ago and upped the running and x-
training cardio..

Actually, any weight bearing exercise will give you many of
the same benefits of lifting. Fortunately, running is
weight bearing.

i've also followed a pretty

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

strict low carb diet to try to lose 10-15 pounds for the
past couple months. i've lost some inches and about 7
pounds but my legs still look very big. could a high
intake of protein be responsible for keeping my legs
bulked up?

When I trained as a collegiate swimmer, I found that hard
workouts made me crave protein. When I supplied my body with
that protein, my body did a great job of building/rebuilding
my muscles. Lots of protein is great for muscle building. If
you don't want to build as much eat a more balanced diet.

I would advocate a fairly balanced diet to lose weight. I'm
a bigger fan of protein than some folks on this forum, but I
also don't run as long as them. I go for a roughly 30%
protein, 30% fat, 40% carb diet. Of course, what you use to
make up all those percentages is what really matters!

any suggestions would be appreciated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thx

I would expect your body to adapt to the demands put on
it. Run more to look more like a runner, lift more to ...
A month of running is just a start. Focus on fitness
rather than the profile.

I agree with this statement as well. And I think that your
body will change shape but it's not an overnight thing.

My other piece on this is that some activities give a more
lean shape. Yoga comes to mind because it is so focused on
lengthening muscles and stretching.

Also, swimming and other upper body type activities will
help you to build stronger shoulders/delts/pecs and can give
you a more balanced look. This may not make your legs
actually leaner, but will keep your body more proportional.

Finally, if you are the muscle-building type, whatever
muscles you use will be "bulkier". So use all your muscles
(including core muscles like abs, etc.) throughout the week.
This will help keep any one area from being too out of
proportion.

If you are healthy and proud of your body, screw the image.
You have something far more valuable - a functioning body
able to take on everything you throw at it.

Quoted message said:

Why not continue a weekly maintenance lift session?

Why continue? There are other activities that will give the
same benefits of weight bearing exercise without focusing on
just specifically building muscle. Basically, if you are
under 40, not losing muscle, and not prone to osteoperosis,
I don't think any woman needs to lift unless she likes the
effects on her appearance/enjoys the activitiy.

I did meet one young

Quoted message said:

woman who had this concern and it was likely valid.
However, she let herself go and became fat.

Yeah because that's a great solution. = )

Watch out for the fear of bulk hysteria, which

Quoted message said:

most of the time is ignorance and an excuse to take
it easy.

Hopefully Meri isn't one of these as she seems commited to
keeping active.

Becca said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<2kf5r8F1l7s3U1@uni-
berlin.de>...

Quoted message said:

Mari Jaine said:

yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here
goes.. after years of lifting i have pretty beefy,
muscular legs for a chick

Nope, sounds very logical.

...and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i'm getting frustrated by it. i've read many articles
saying how women can't "bulk up" from strength training,

That is a whole bunch of B*LL [censored] brought on by the pop
"women's magazine" press.

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

It does not take in all the genetic diversity in the
female population.

NO, merely the mast vajority. Go into a gym, see how many
MEN are trying to bulk up and failing. And you think the
majority of women can do it.

Not even close.

A small percentage? Yes. The majority. Absolutely not.

In that popular magazines adress the majority,
well....their comments about a woman's likelihood of
bulking up are on the money.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald said:

Becca said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<2kf5r8F1l7s3U1@uni-
berlin.de>...

Quoted message said:

Mari Jaine wrote:

> yeah i guess this may sound a bit strange, but here
> goes.. after years of lifting i have pretty beefy,
> muscular legs for a chick i'm getting frustrated by it.
> i've read many articles saying how women can't "bulk
> up" from strength training,

That is a whole bunch of B*LL [censored] brought on by the pop
"women's magazine" press.

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

It does not take in all the genetic diversity in the
female population.

NO, merely the mast vajority. Go into a gym, see how many
MEN are trying to bulk up and failing. And you think the
majority of women can do it.

Not even close.

A small percentage? Yes. The majority. Absolutely not.

In that popular magazines adress the majority,
well....their comments about a woman's likelihood of
bulking up are on the money.

Which begs the question, just how big are her legs anyways?
[mfw]jpegs, please![/mfw]

Neil

On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Topic switch -- what's with the recent interest in running
anyway ? I mean, you've always followed the research, but it
appears that recently you're taking it up a level by
purchasing almost every running book on the market, and
hanging out in the running newsgroup. Are you running these
days, or are you just gravitating towards weenie forums as
the endurance work kicks in ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Topic switch -- what's with the recent interest in running
anyway ? I mean, you've always followed the research, but
it appears that recently you're taking it up a level by
purchasing almost every running book on the market, and
hanging out in the running newsgroup. Are you running
these days, or are you just gravitating towards weenie
forums as the endurance work kicks in ?

Running? Me. Hell no, only when chased.

I'm simply very interested in endurance stuff right now (I
tend to go through phases), looking at both similarities and
differences between the training of different endurance
sports interests me on both a research related and a
personal level.

For example, two a days/the morning run.

Runners routinely do them, I recall seeing it mentioned that
it has turned good runners into great runners (perhaps a
hyperbolic statement).

Swimmers have trained twice daily for years. Their workouts
are more interval/intensity based.

Based on recent research on gene expression/adaptation, I
think it makes a lot of sense to do it this way. in short,
you're keeping the genes involved in adaptation upregulated
chronically which, given sufficient recovery, should
generate better adaptation and performance.

Cyclists never do this as far as I can tell, at least I've
never seen it recommended or discussed. I don't think
Xcountry skiiers or rowers do either but I have found very
little on their training so far.

I find this interesting. I wonder why this is the case.

Or what about the differences in duration of endurance work
between say cycling and running. A long run for a runnr
might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some circumstances.
A cyclist may go 1-6 hours.

I think this is easy to explain: at a given speed running
burns on average, 2-3 times the calories as cycling over the
same time frame. In that energy utilization (invovled with
biochemical signalling pathways via something called AMPk)
is a key aspect of adaptation, that would imply that a
running workout of 20-60 minute equates to 1-3 hours of
cycling, 1-2 hours running equates to 2-6 hours of cycling
or so. This is consistent with generally suggested norms.

perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is simply
one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60 minute morning
run (in addition to the second run) would mean 1.5 to 2-3
hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6 later in the day.
Would leave no time for anything else.

On and on it goes.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Topic switch -- what's with the recent interest in
running anyway ? I mean, you've always followed the
research, but it appears that recently you're taking it
up a level by purchasing almost every running book on the
market, and hanging out in the running newsgroup. Are you
running these days, or are you just gravitating towards
weenie forums as the endurance work kicks in ?

Running? Me. Hell no, only when chased.

I'm simply very interested in endurance stuff right now (I
tend to go through phases), looking at both similarities
and differences between the training of different
endurance sports interests me on both a research related
and a personal level.

For example, two a days/the morning run.

Runners routinely do them, I recall seeing it mentioned
that it has turned good runners into great runners
(perhaps a hyperbolic statement).

Swimmers have trained twice daily for years. Their
workouts are more interval/intensity based.

Based on recent research on gene expression/adaptation, I
think it makes a lot of sense to do it this way. in short,
you're keeping the genes involved in adaptation
upregulated chronically which, given sufficient recovery,
should generate better adaptation and performance.

Cyclists never do this as far as I can tell, at least I've
never seen it recommended or discussed. I don't think
Xcountry skiiers or rowers do either but I have found very
little on their training so far.

I find this interesting. I wonder why this is the case.

Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
circumstances. A cyclist may go 1-6 hours.

I think this is easy to explain: at a given speed running
burns on average, 2-3 times the calories as cycling over
the same time frame. In that energy utilization (invovled
with biochemical signalling pathways via something called
AMPk) is a key aspect of adaptation, that would imply that
a running workout of 20-60 minute equates to 1-3 hours of
cycling, 1-2 hours running equates to 2-6 hours of cycling
or so. This is consistent with generally suggested norms.

perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is simply
one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60 minute
morning run (in addition to the second run) would mean 1.5
to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6 later in
the day. Would leave no time for anything else.

On and on it goes.

Lyle

Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
the rides.

A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning ride,
a long nap and going on an evening ride when the temps cool
down. toddwells.net is one guy that talks about doing two a
days a lot. He's one of those guys that doesn't need to know
how or why, so you won't see any physiology on his website.

Lyle McDonald said:

Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
circumstances.

Besides marathon guys who are training slower than 6 minutes
per mile (e.g. non-elite marathoners), and ultramarathon
runners, there are few who go beyond 2 hrs. I suspect muscle
damage may have something to do with it. Cycling burns the
hell out of your legs while you're doing it, but you get no
eccentric work and not nearly as much DOMS (I get almost
none after a tough ride even when I'm completely detrained).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

gym gravity said:

Lyle McDonald wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is
simply one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60
minute morning run (in addition to the second run) would
mean 1.5 to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6
later in the day. Would leave no time for anything else.

On and on it goes.

Lyle

Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
the rides.

Uhh, didn't I suggest that in the one unsnipped section I
left above? Still, if adding a 2 hour spin in the morning
improved performance, I bet pros would find a way to get it
in. Go 6-8am, 2 hour spin to get things going gene
expression wise. Eat a couple of meals at 8, long ride from
12-1pm on or even later depending on the length. Possibly.

Quoted message said:

A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning
ride, a long nap and going on an evening ride when the
temps cool down. toddwells.net is one guy that talks about
doing two a days a lot. He's one of those guys that
doesn't need to know how or why, so you won't see any
physiology on his website.

Didn't know that, probably ought to delve into mountain bike
training a bit more.

Thanks for the heads up.

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
circumstances.

Besides marathon guys who are training slower than 6
minutes per mile (e.g. non-elite marathoners), and
ultramarathon runners, there are few who go beyond 2 hrs.
I suspect muscle damage may have something to do with it.
Cycling burns the hell out of your legs while you're doing
it, but you get no eccentric work and not nearly as much
DOMS (I get almost none after a tough ride even when I'm
completely detrained).

Yes, and this is certainly another difference between
the sports.

I think it's also why swimmers can do intensity stuff daily,
no impact forces and relatively low efficiency in the water
may prevent CNS overtraining with constant speed/high
intensity work.

still, I wonder how much more muscle damage occurs as
duration increases with running, assuming you've built
up to it....

Lyle

Quoted message said:

Lyle McDonald wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
circumstances. A cyclist may go 1-6 hours.

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is
simply one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60
minute morning run (in addition to the second run) would
mean 1.5 to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6
later in the day. Would leave no time for anything else.

gym gravity said:

Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
the rides.

A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning
ride, a long nap and going on an evening ride when the
temps cool down.

Following these thoughts (long workouts make it impractical
to do multiple workouts in 1 day and duration of cycling
road races being longer than mt bike races), wouldn't
predominance of 2/day vs 1 longer/day workout be more
related to goals and duration of events and maybe prep time
(driving, changing, warmup, etc), rather than discipline.

To be sure, some doing long events will also do some short
intensive workouts, but probably only as their recovery from
the long workouts allows. I'm suggesting this because where
I am (Alaska) we have winter races (not any that I plan on
doing) of 100, 350, and 1100 miles in length (14 hrs to a
couple weeks) where you can run, xc ski, or mt bike, but
have to maintain whatever weapon you started with. So the
sport doesn't dictate the length.

Of course if people cross-train or doing multi-sport, then
they are more likely to do 2/day also.

Just a different perspective.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Lyle McDonald" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Didn't know that, probably ought to delve into mountain
bike training

a

Quoted message said:

bit more.

Riding the roads on a skinny tire bike is like running the
roads, boring. 😉 Besides, you get a much better workout
mile for mile even if you pedal the Mountain bike on the
roads - lots heavier, more work, etc..

If your looking for building running endurance and staying
injury free, try making one of the two a days the MB.

-DougF