burning off muscle?

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

"Mari Jaine" <sesame@seeds.net> wrote in message
news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
> 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

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 ...
>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'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" <sesame@seeds.net> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
sQ@comcast.com...
> 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

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...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" <sesame@seeds.net> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
sQ@comcast.com...
> 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

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" <sesame@seeds.net> wrote in message news:eNCdnaZvyP6Ha3zdRVn-
sQ@comcast.com...
> 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

"Bill" <utthitaxpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2kf5r8F1l7s3U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> 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

Nope, sounds very logical.

...and
> > 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 SH*T 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/sc...scle.html?ex=-
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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
> > 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.

> 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
> 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
> 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 wrote:
> "Bill" <utthitaxpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2kf5r8F1l7s3U1@uni-
> berlin.de>...
>
>>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
>
>
> Nope, sounds very logical.
>
> ...and
>
>>>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 SH*T brought on by the pop
> "women's magazine" press.

Nonsense.

> 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 wrote:
> Becca wrote:
>
>> "Bill" <utthitaxpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2kf5r8F1l7s3U1@uni-
>> berlin.de>...
>>
>>> 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 SH*T brought on by the pop
>> "women's magazine" press.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> 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 <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> 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 http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald
> <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> 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

On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:

> 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 http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/