Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a woman in my late forties who does several sets of various lifts with ten lb. free weights almost daily, along with a recumbent bike set on high resistance for at least 30 minutes and abdominal crunches. Because of this, I have extremely well developed and toned muscles in my arms, legs, and abdomen (as in, rock hard when I flex them and very well defined). I'm 5'6" and currently weigh over 180 lbs. but can still wear some size medium clothing and have never worn anything larger than a size 14. I have never, ever worn anything from the "plus" department.
So my question is, how much of my weight do you think can be attributed to my muscle tone? It depresses me that I weigh this much, and I realize that some of it is excess fat that I need to get rid of, but does muscle mass really make a difference in one's weight? I have always heard that muscle is heavier than fat, but I don't know how much to attribute to each.
People tell me I don't look fat, but I still think my weight is way too high.
Last edited by canudigit; 02-24-2015 at 04:57 PM..
I am a woman in my late forties who does several sets of various lifts with ten lb. free weights almost daily, along with a recumbent bike set on high resistance for at least 30 minutes and abdominal crunches. Because of this, I have extremely well developed and toned muscles in my arms, legs, and abdomen (as in, rock hard when I flex them and very well defined). I'm 5'6" and currently weigh over 180 lbs. but can still wear some size medium clothing and have never worn anything larger than a size 14. I have never, ever worn anything from the "plus" department.
So my question is, how much of my weight do you think can be attributed to my muscle tone? It depresses me that I weigh this much, and I realize that some of it is excess fat that I need to get rid of, but does muscle mass really make a difference in one's weight? I have always heard that muscle is heavier than fat, but I don't know how much to attribute to each.
At 5'6 you shouldn't be a 14, OP. You could be a 10, and still have good lean muscle mass, and weigh around 160-165 (given that lean muscle mass weighs more than fat, you're not necessarily far off from where you should be, weight-wise). It's hard to say for sure over the internet, but a 14 would indicate you have excess fat. If I were you, I'd aim for a 10-12, with a 12 being your max. allowed. Congrats on the lean muscle mass, though! You're inspiring me.
At 5'6 you shouldn't be a 14, OP. You could be a 10, and still have good lean muscle mass, and weigh around 160-165 (given that lean muscle mass weighs more than fat, you're not necessarily far off from where you should be, weight-wise). It's hard to say for sure over the internet, but a 14 would indicate you have excess fat. If I were you, I'd aim for a 10-12, with a 12 being your max. allowed. Congrats on the lean muscle mass, though! You're inspiring me.
Thanks! I think part of the problem is that I'm old enough to remember that outdated rule about how a woman is supposed to weigh 100 lbs. for the first five feet of height and then 5 lbs. per inch after that, meaning that I would weigh 130 lbs. Um...not happening! When I weighed 153 lbs. about ten years ago I was a size 10 and people were surprised when I told them how much I weighed, because they thought it was much less. I am also fairly big boned (no, really, lol) so I can carry weight better than someone who is built more delicately.
I like your idea of striving for a size 12 and weight in the 160s. that is a realistic goal for a middle-aged gal like myself, and it isn't as discouraging trying to lose weight if I don't think I have to drop 40-50 lbs. or else.
I am a woman in my late forties who does several sets of various lifts with ten lb. free weights almost daily, along with a recumbent bike set on high resistance for at least 30 minutes and abdominal crunches. Because of this, I have extremely well developed and toned muscles in my arms, legs, and abdomen (as in, rock hard when I flex them and very well defined). I'm 5'6" and currently weigh over 180 lbs. but can still wear some size medium clothing and have never worn anything larger than a size 14. I have never, ever worn anything from the "plus" department.
So my question is, how much of my weight do you think can be attributed to my muscle tone? It depresses me that I weigh this much, and I realize that some of it is excess fat that I need to get rid of, but does muscle mass really make a difference in one's weight? I have always heard that muscle is heavier than fat, but I don't know how much to attribute to each.
People tell me I don't look fat, but I still think my weight is way too high.
Eat less...and I'm not being a jerk. Take a look at your daily diet..i bet you can cut stuff out. People are overweight for one reason and one reason only. Unless you have a thyroid issue which i doubt.
Thanks! I think part of the problem is that I'm old enough to remember that outdated rule about how a woman is supposed to weigh 100 lbs. for the first five feet of height and then 5 lbs. per inch after that, meaning that I would weigh 130 lbs. Um...not happening! When I weighed 153 lbs. about ten years ago I was a size 10 and people were surprised when I told them how much I weighed, because they thought it was much less. I am also fairly big boned (no, really, lol) so I can carry weight better than someone who is built more delicately.
I like your idea of striving for a size 12 and weight in the 160s. that is a realistic goal for a middle-aged gal like myself, and it isn't as discouraging trying to lose weight if I don't think I have to drop 40-50 lbs. or else.
See? You're inspiring me too!
Well, as a teenager, 130 would have been appropriate, except that you're big-boned, so maybe 135 at that age would have been about right. But the weight allowance is supposed to go up according to age, so by your mid-30's, closer to 145 would be ok, maybe 142. And now you're in your 40's, I'm guessing, plus you've built up considerable lean muscle mass, so 160 isn't far off from what the charts allow you for your height, build and age.
I think it's a good plan. And I wish I had a recumbent bike machine! So working up to high resistance on that really toned your legs? I'm gonna see if I can steal my brother's bike machine. It's exactly the right kind. And fyi, cutting back on carbs is the way to go.
Need to get your daily calorie intake under control. Drop some pounds while doing some lifting on the side. Lifting alone will mainly just build muscle under fat. Cardio can help, but not even 20% as much as eating better (and less) would.
OP, I agree with others here - you are not far off from where you should be. I am 65 y.o and 5'8", a few years ago weighed 180. Today I weigh 149. I watched my calories (especially carbs) and started working out with weights, bicycling, belly dance and yoga. I never over exert myself but I AM active every day. I am now size 8-10 on the bottom and size 14 on the top because I am busty and have broad muscular shoulders. People think I am much thinner than I actually am.
I think 150 - 160 sounds right for your height/build/age. Keep at it you are doing great!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's exactly the right kind. And fyi, cutting back on carbs is the way to go.
