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.
40 pounds, in terms of the human skin, is just not all that much.
Depends on health and age, but muscle tone can take care of every bit of that. Many people have done it.
The loss of 40 pounds does not doom one to looking like a toad for the rest of your life. Loss of 40 pounds along with developing muscle tone will work wonders.
I thought the point of lifting weights while losing weights was to prevent skin sagging?
Not at all.
While it might help to a degree with it, that is not the purpose and not the intent. Muscle weighs more than fat because it's more dense, but you'll still typically end up slimmer in certain areas and could still see skin sag.
I've lost 40+ pounds and I'm looking to tone up my muscles to tighten up my skin. I'm looking for recommendations on what to do. Right now, my main exercise is walking.
Being "toned" just means you have a bodyfat percentage low enough that your muscles are visible and defined. It's really nothing more than that.
It sounds like you've done a really good job on the weightloss, so provided you're at about 18-20% body fat, start adding some basic weight training to grow the muscles and fill out.
I've lost 40+ pounds and I'm looking to tone up my muscles to tighten up my skin. I'm looking for recommendations on what to do. Right now, my main exercise is walking.
While it might help to a degree with it, that is not the purpose and not the intent. Muscle weighs more than fat because it's more dense, but you'll still typically end up slimmer in certain areas and could still see skin sag.
Well, a pound of muscles weighs as much as a pound of fat. But that's sort of stupid. The point is that muscle (~1.05 g/ml) is denser than fat (~.90 g/ml). Of course since it's 17% denser if you compare having 17% more fat than muscle it weighs the same... but yeah, kind of dumb that you'd do that.
Well, a pound of muscles weighs as much as a pound of fat. But that's sort of stupid. The point is that muscle (~1.05 g/ml) is denser than fat (~.90 g/ml). Of course since it's 17% denser if you compare having 17% more fat than muscle it weighs the same... but yeah, kind of dumb that you'd do that.
One pound of steel and one pound of feathers weigh the same.
Just because muscle takes up less space does not mean it weighs less!
It is one of those stupid things(the other stupid thing being starvation mode) people keep repeating without any scientific fact......
Also, it's okay to work out to "build muscle" or "get stronger" as a woman.
This! My husband uses the word "tone" to describe the muscles I have in my arms Heaven forbid. I specifically work out for all the reasons you stated above. But I joke with him and tell him since he's a man he has muscles and I have toned arms lol..
Muscle weighs more than fat by volume, because of it's density. That's been discussed and proven many times over. Here's one link.
"Muscle weighs more than fat because it's denser, said Joel Seedman, Ph.D., neuromuscular physiologist and owner of Advanced Human Performance in Suwanee, Ga. If you hold a fistful of muscle, it will weigh more than a fistful of fat because you technically have more compact tissue in your hand."
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.