I have surfing through all of the threads for the past couple of hours and I keep seeing post about muscle weighing more than fat and as you transition into your new shape you will hopefully have more muscle and much less fat. Hence you may weigh more than you originally were hoping for but, you will probably fit into the size you were hoping for if not smaller.
I went to a personal trainer about a year ago. Free with the membership deal so what the **** I'll hear what he has to say. Obviously he was in much better shape than I.
After I went through all of my testing he asked me, "Kelly what weight do you think you should or want to be?". Of course from everything I had seen or read about and the doctor backed up.........I should weigh 130 lbs for being 5'5". In turn he said,"RIIIIIIGHT".
Apparently I am 138 lbs of muscle and bone. 130 is not happening for me. 160 would be my goal weight. I know he is right because at 160 lbs I am a size 5. No problem with that # at all.
NOW here is where my confusion sets in. Men can put muscle on much quicker than women. It's genetically easier for them. But, women actually have to work at least twice as hard to even obtain a 1/4 of the muscle mass a man will put on.
So through everything I have studied.......women body builders will only gain a 1/2 lb of muscle per year while they are in some serious training. Men much more. Even still how can we say, "Oh your working out......you've gained muscle"? Is that really true?
I would think if it were and we were gaining pounds of muscle each week we would be some seriously ripped females right now. I do believe the muscles we have hold onto water and waste until we flush it with our water and protien intake. My son who has a trainer at the U of M for running also does a pretty intense massage to help "push" any impurities out of the muscles to cut back on any soreness and pain.
I just really want to know..............how much muscle are we REALLY putting on?
Thanks for the input. Kelly
I went to a personal trainer about a year ago. Free with the membership deal so what the **** I'll hear what he has to say. Obviously he was in much better shape than I.
After I went through all of my testing he asked me, "Kelly what weight do you think you should or want to be?". Of course from everything I had seen or read about and the doctor backed up.........I should weigh 130 lbs for being 5'5". In turn he said,"RIIIIIIGHT".
Apparently I am 138 lbs of muscle and bone. 130 is not happening for me. 160 would be my goal weight. I know he is right because at 160 lbs I am a size 5. No problem with that # at all.
NOW here is where my confusion sets in. Men can put muscle on much quicker than women. It's genetically easier for them. But, women actually have to work at least twice as hard to even obtain a 1/4 of the muscle mass a man will put on.
So through everything I have studied.......women body builders will only gain a 1/2 lb of muscle per year while they are in some serious training. Men much more. Even still how can we say, "Oh your working out......you've gained muscle"? Is that really true?
I would think if it were and we were gaining pounds of muscle each week we would be some seriously ripped females right now. I do believe the muscles we have hold onto water and waste until we flush it with our water and protien intake. My son who has a trainer at the U of M for running also does a pretty intense massage to help "push" any impurities out of the muscles to cut back on any soreness and pain.
I just really want to know..............how much muscle are we REALLY putting on?
Thanks for the input. Kelly






I always get tied in knots when trying to explain that. I think I'll have to plagiarise you now and again. 

[/IMG]
Comment