beginning a weight training program. I would like to specifically tone up my quads, hamstrings and glutes.
I have bulky thighs and I was hoping that maybe if I start some weight training along with my cardio I could un-bulk them?? Is that possible? My thighs are so fatty, and they have quite a bit of muscle tone underneath them so how can I get rid of that fat, and make my muscles look more prominant?
Also, another question, my body is very unevenly proportioned. I guess its from the way I worked out - with Tae-Bo, but I'm only guessing. I'm "pear shaped" you could call it. I have a toned upper body, with the exception of my chest. I have a nice, toned back, muscles are very prominant, and my arms and stomach are pretty much to the point where I dont know if i could lose anymore weight from it..and I dont know if i want to cuz I'm starting to get real bony in the shoulder area, collarbone and hips. They stick out
Help, please?
Hi srg_girl,
Unfortunately, if you already have a lot of muscle, the only way to see it is to peel of the fat and that's done in the kitchen, not the weight room. As for re-proportioning your body, weight workouts are the best way to do it. I sould suggest taking a look at either Body for Life by Bill Phillips or BodyRx By Dr. Scott Connelly for a beginners comprehensive approach to weightlifting and proper nutrition. More muscle in your upper body will certainly help speed the fat loss that you want on your legs.
You are going to need to lift heavy to the point of muscle failure, then rest and supply those muscles with adequate amounts of lean protein and unprocessed carbs. Also keep doing cardio (tae bo counts as cardio) but not to the point that you burn off your muscle.
Please feel free to join us on the weekly thread which is full of information, questions, and motivation.
How much cardio does it take to burn off muscle? I thought as long as you were lifting to failure and eating enough protein to support growth, you wouldn't burn off muscle.
One thought about the uneven body proportions — as I’m sure you’ve discovered, the fat doesn’t come off evenly as you lose weight. For me and maybe for you, it came off from the head down, so my upper body looked much better than my lower for a long time (and still does!) When you get down to the last 10 or 20 pounds like you are, it seems like the fat collects in one area and doesn’t want to leave. For you and me, it’s legs; for others, it’s the stomach/abdomen.
I agree with Mel that what we eat has a lot more to do with getting rid of those last pounds of fat that how we work out. Keep doing what you’ve been doing -- obviously it’s working! — and you may be happy to find that those last 13 pounds melt off your legs.
Tik- good question! My trainer feels that walking to his car is more muscle burning cardio than he should be doing. Of course, with an average annual body fat % of 6.5% (gets to 4% for comps), he doesn't have much else to burn. Theoretically any time that you do sustained exercise for more than about 10 minutes, you are going to burn some muscle. The energy pathway goes from ATP in the muscles (very short term- 10-20 seconds), glycogen stored in the liver (good for another 10-15 minutes), then protein. Fat is the last source of energy that your body will utilize, which is why doing cardio endlessly makes most people look "skinny-fat", and why marathon runners look like beef jerky. Lifting to failure ensures that you are also building muscle at a faster rate than you are burning it.
Since most of us need cardio to keep the fat moving, the question is how much and what kind. It's debated endlessly in the training literature, every fitness board, and no one agrees. My guideline is 30-40 minutes of moderate to high intensity. Meg does a lot more. You have to experiment and find what works for your body.
I'm sure that was a totally useless answer, but there really isn't an exact answer that I know of
I think I know how you feel, as I am naturally pear-shaped and have had to work hard to overcome it. My mother and grandmother were the same way. I was always distressed about it, until recently, when my husband said he thought it was sexy. I wish he had said that long ago, lol!
Anyway, here are my stats so you can see how I've changed:
(Sorry about the weirdly formatted chart. Had trouble with that.)
As you can see, I've got the bust-to-hip ratio down quite a bit, even though the waist needs more work. My arms are also bigger, and my shoulders more square. That gives the "coat hanger" effect so clothes hang better and you look more "hourglass" than "pear."
I did this basically by doing lots and lots of cardio on the bottom half, such as walking, jogging, water aerobics. Jogging takes the fat off better than walking, for me. No weight lifting at all on the bottom half, especially squats, that just makes me bigger down there!
For the top half, I do rowing machine (that's helped a lot, especially for the upper back and shoulders), and again water aerobics for the arms. Also golf and club-type dancing.
Just yesterday I tried out a gym, did about 1/2 hour on the treadmill, walking/jogging, and 1/2 - 3/4 hour (can't remember exactly) of upper body weightlifting, on machines using 30 - 40 lb. weights. That seems like a good direction for me. My next project is to whittle my waist and develop my chest.
So I guess my point is, you may have naturally big hips and butt, and you can only trim that down to a certain point if your bone structure there is wide and heavy. But you can look more proportional if you build up the top half, then everything seems to fall into place, so to speak. Good Luck.
Last edited by SeekInnerThinChick; 02-26-2004 at 01:11 PM.
Seek — awesome progress! Those numbers sure paint a great picture, don’t they? Thanks for sharing them with us.
I just want to speak up in defense working out legs for us bottom-heavy gals. Of course, everyone’s different but here’s my experience:
At 257 pounds, my hips measured 57”. I worked out legs from Day One of losing weight. I did squats, a dozen kinds of lunges, leg press, extensions, curls, dead lifts, hack squats, you name it. I go heavy and go to failure, every week. Net result for me? 35” hips and a tight butt.
Of course, I do cardio too, just like you mentioned. But for me, at least, working out legs has paid off, big time!
Just my two cents on weight training legs and big butts...
I do lots of squats and lunges and trimmed down my bottom half from a size 10 jean in April 2001 to my current size 4! (Both jeans are the same style from DKNY, BTW). I'm blessed/cursed with an hourglass figure - small waist, big butt and boobage...so I *do* consider myself in the "Baby Got Back" category.
So don't give up those squats and lunges!!! They DO work! Incidentally, I'm a huge proponent of hitting every muscle group in my weekly split... I've posted my split before but here ya go again:
I have to agree with Meg- I would work legs no matter shape you think your innate body shape is. I carry most of my fat on my abdomen, and work my whole body as hard as possible. My legs were never heavy and consequently haven't really changed size, but they sure have changed shape and composition since lifting hard and heavy to failure and beyond. Not to gloat, but my 49 year old butt is high and tight, and instdad of soft thighs, I have solid muscle. That muscle goes a long way to helping burn off the fat stored around my middle.
Your legs and butt are the largest muscle group in your body- take advantage of that fact and turn them into fuel burning muscle. It's unlikely that you'll get bulky unless you really work at it (lift super-heavy low rep sets with 3 minutes of rest and eat enourmous amounts), and all you have to lose is fat. The pear shape is the most common way that women store fat- lifting heavy is the only way to reshape your body.
Meg: Thanks! I think your look is more typical of what many women will experience, but then you have a good, even skeletal system. You're naturally well-proportioned, even in your "big" pictures. Now you look like an Olympic gymnast!
I, on the other hand, have a noticeably smaller rib cage, very narrow shoulders, and a very short waist. My hip bone is just a couple of inches below my lowest rib. This makes the "hippy" look worse. And I do bulk up pretty fast down there, possibly because there is already a lot of muscle in that area. Also my hormones, but that's another thread.
That's why I decided on cardio to "tear down" the bottom and weights to "build up" the top. The cardio all by itself trimmed off inches down there, and the weights have given me more muscle on top. In fact the cardio alone has made the lower half much firmer, so I'm probably adding some muscle tissue there, but hopefully stripping out the intra-muscular fat faster than I'm building muscle. And at about 128 pounds of lean body mass (at least by the Covert Bailey formula) I'm not sure I need much more muscle than I've got.
Don't get me wrong, I think weights are wonderful, but I've tried squats and lunges in the past, and that stuff just makes me split my jeans, lol!
I need suggestions for...
and I was hoping that maybe if I start some weight training along with my cardio I could un-bulk them?? Is that possible? My thighs are so fatty, and they have quite a bit of muscle tone underneath them so how can I get rid of that fat, and make my muscles look more prominant? 
Of course, with an average annual body fat % of 6.5% (gets to 4% for comps), he doesn't have much else to burn. Theoretically any time that you do sustained exercise for more than about 10 minutes, you are going to burn some muscle. The energy pathway goes from ATP in the muscles (very short term- 10-20 seconds), glycogen stored in the liver (good for another 10-15 minutes), then protein. Fat is the last source of energy that your body will utilize, which is why doing cardio endlessly makes most people look "skinny-fat", and why marathon runners look like beef jerky. Lifting to failure ensures that you are also building muscle at a faster rate than you are burning it.
Those numbers sure paint a great picture, don’t they? Thanks for sharing them with us. 
I've posted my split before but here ya go again:
