The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
__________________ "My yoga class had me trembling and sweating and I feel MUCH better." - Fang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenacious Training and Tweaking (the A lotta Alitteration thread)
I don't "get" her workout - it's labeled Olympic lifts, but she is really doing more power snatches and power cleans than full Oly lifts. The only time she even gets CLOSE to a full squat is at the end with the OHS, and even then her ROM could be a lot lower...
I don't even see the new boobies. I see a couple of % bf difference between the stage pics and the last pic and almost no diff between the last pic and the video. Most of the HUGE changes you are seeing are likely the lighting, tan and photoshop ones.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Most women do not do the "dirty bulk" thing that you see guys do all the time. For the most part female competitors gain a bit more intelligently. There are exceptions of course. She looks every bit the competitor in off season and she is keeping the bf% very reasonable for her performance goals.
That is why I am curious as to what big differences Elisabeth is seeing that I am not. I think it is more about the lighting and the tan versus body comp differences. If you don't look at a lot of competitors on stage versus real life I could see someone thinking the changes are huge.
To answer your other questions.... I would say she is 12-13% on the stage and 15-16% off season. I cannot guess training type 'cause I cannot see her legs. She definately has seen a db raise or two though. LOL!
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Well, unfortunately the best pics I found weren't postable--she wanted me to pay for them.
What I was referring to was how much muscle she had four years ago, when she was a figure athlete, vs. today--when she is doing performance-based workouts to practice for the Olympics.
I was just interested in how different her body looked with more muscle and varying levels of BF. Here's a better example: figure competitor days athlete days
My observation is that, in my experience, women's perception of what they'll look like if they lift heavy is similar to the first pic--which is even too much bulk for me--but in reality most women will end up like the bottom pic (if they work hard and have the genetics of course) in terms of muscle.
Whatever. It's not a big deal, but I am just hunting around for pics to show clients what weightlifting will do, and what it won't do. I just thought it was nice that I had an example of the same body using different training and at different bodyfat levels.
I'm not so sure she necessarily has more muscle in her figure competitor days, but since her BF% is much lower, it just looks like she has more muscle than when she is "softer".
Well, unfortunately the best pics I found weren't postable--she wanted me to pay for them.
What I was referring to was how much muscle she had four years ago, when she was a figure athlete, vs. today--when she is doing performance-based workouts to practice for the Olympics.
She has the same amount of muscle now and then.
Quote:
My observation is that, in my experience, women's perception of what they'll look like if they lift heavy is similar to the first pic--which is even too much bulk for me--but in reality most women will end up like the bottom pic (if they work hard and have the genetics of course) in terms of muscle.
No kidding, cause you can't even tell the difference in the same amount of LBM at 1) walking-around BF% and 2) contest condition
There are no differences in her muscle mass. What you're seeing is the difference in definition from being really really really lean vs. being just regular lean.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
This is actually a good lesson for you since you are now a trainer. As was already stated That "muscled" look in women comes from low bf% and from the lighting/tan combo. Her LBM is probably identical in both pics or close to it. If you saw her off stage in the gym even at the lower bf% you'd be surprised how little she was. You should attend a natural show at some point in time so that you get perspective on this stuff. Your clients will be tripped up by it too no doubt.
BTW: Now that I can see her legs I think I can say that she does not do compound lifts too often. Definately a "curl girl" type trainee...
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
This is actually a good lesson for you since you are now a trainer. As was already stated That "muscled" look in women comes from low bf% and from the lighting/tan combo. Her LBM is probably identical in both pics or close to it. If you saw her off stage in the gym even at the lower bf% you'd be surprised how little she was. You should attend a natural show at some point in time so that you get perspective on this stuff. Your clients will be tripped up by it too no doubt.
That's why I posted it--I was curious to see what more experienced people had to say about her different "looks".
I actually put it up to learn something, not to make some sort of statement....I don't know if you're familiar with the concept, PDL..
You said she had more muscle in figure condition, vs. her current state. I pointed out that this was an incorrect observation, and I didn't even call you a mean name, either.
It's easy to fall for the illusion if you've never been around physique competitors in stage shape, but you have to remember that the visibility of muscle doesn't equate to the amount of muscle. The people holding the most muscle tend to be the people that aren't especially lean.
Being super-lean, with veins and striations and whatnot, increases the appearance of muscularity, but that's not the same thing as holding a lot of muscle. Skinny kids can be ripped and defined like that, but it doesn't mean they have a lot of muscle.
Most folks don't consider that angle. Especially women. They just assume visibility of muscle = holds a lot of muscle. So I pointed it out. Definition isn't bulk.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Another thing to tell your clients when this topic comes up is to have them show you a pic of too bulky.
1. Most often it will be a women on steriods.
2. In the case of natural bbers, explain that those women look very much like you or me when at 17% bf, not painted orange or under stage lights.
3. Explain about photoshop
I actually had pics of these women that I used to explain these concepts to my clients. These pics that you are using in this thread are actually brilliant for this purpose. Anyone (not familiar with comp) would think what you did RE the woman being too bulky and doing different training to achieve that look. If you can drive home to them that the muscle is the same but the bf is the difference it is much easier to get them to lift like a man without fear. It also will help you to get the point across that 6 pack abs they so cherish isn't about training either...
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Turns out physique competitors don't walk around in contest shape year-round? IMPOSSIBLE
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerManDL
You said she had more muscle in figure condition, vs. her current state. I pointed out that this was an incorrect observation, and I didn't even call you a mean name, either.
You aren't exactly helpful in all your posts either and even somewhat of a dick in some of them.... We are all used to that now though so please carry on...
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
No muscle... Just photoshop... That is the problem with looking at celeb pics. Same as bbing comp pics. If you saw her in person she would look pretty normal. That said, I do agree that there are some chicks who shudder at ANY sort of definition. Those are the chicks I won't work with. Not even if I am starving.
I am sometimes used as an example of TOO BULKY in the gym by girls. That is okay. Two points. 1 is that when I am in the gym, I most often have a swole on. That is not seen in my swimming suit in 4 hours. I have had the same woman who thought I was too bulky at the gym turn that statement around at a pool party. Point 2 is that they will never be as disciplined on diet and training as I am so they will not see the same results. Building mass for a woman is all out balls to the wall diet and lifting. Women can still do big compounds lifts and never, ever see the gains that I am realizing in my more competitive mode designed specifically to build mass.
In the end the point is that a chick is not going to just accidently get too bulky by lifting weights...
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
It's all personal opinion (as I am a fan of what others might consider too bulky), and I certainly do NOT want to start a new debate, but I just can't help wondering what part of her is "huge" (the link Roland provided described her as huge). Defined? Yes. Strong? Probably. Huge? Not so much...
In the end the point is that a chick is not going to just accidently get too bulky by lifting weights...
Right. To give an example of a look that most women DON'T want is that figure athlete at the last Summit. Her traps had that bulky look brought about by lots of isolation work. But then you look at someone like Galya, who is small and strong, she does not have that kind of bulk--yes Roland I know that some of her clients have told her she is too big--I think MOST women would say she has a really nice amount of muscle and still looks VERY feminine.
Sorry for examples that only Summit attendees may be able to get--go to the Summit next year if you feel left out.
Anyway, all of this was just me trying to find pictures of the effect of different training on the same body. My theory was that Jessie in her FA days was doing the isolation work, but now is doing performance based and appears smaller. However, according to you all, she has EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT of muscle (ahem) as 5 years ago, so I will slink off and try to find someone to use as an example.
Right. To give an example of a look that most women DON'T want is that figure athlete at the last Summit. Her traps had that bulky look brought about by lots of isolation work. But then you look at someone like Galya, who is small and strong, she does not have that kind of bulk--....
Not to beat the point to death... but AGAIN this is a case of bf% NOT more or less muscles....
That figure chick was at 12% bf or perhaps even less. She was looking pretty slim and hence why Alan said he wanted to feed her a sammich. In fact the figure chick had very little muscle (prolly why she is doing figure and not bbing. I say she fits in the category Matt talks about RE skinny, ript) Galya's bf% is higher so she looks more soft. I would guess that one may have more muscle than another but the thing you are seeing again is more about bf% than about training or anything else. If Galya showed up at next Summit at 12%, my guess is that you'd see similar or even better delt definition despite her lack of isolation training.
It may be that Jessie has a few more lbs of LBM (or even a few less) after 5 years btw, but that isn't what you are seeing in the pics. The thing you are seeing IS bf% differences.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Anyway, all of this was just me trying to find pictures of the effect of different training on the same body. My theory was that Jessie in her FA days was doing the isolation work, but now is doing performance based and appears smaller. However, according to you all, she has EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT of muscle (ahem) as 5 years ago, so I will slink off and try to find someone to use as an example.
Seriously? It doesn't work this way.
There are no different "looks" created by training. It's a function of muscle + bodyfat.
Different "looks" are created by differing amounts of both, and the same amount of muscle will look very different (in photos) as BF changes.
This idea that "different kinds of training" affects how you look is a bit of a myth.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I mostly agree with Matt. Only mostly however because how you train and eat does have something to do with how one looks. When I was an endurance runner I looked different than I do now at the same bf%.
So the MYTH part is in how much emphasis is put on training versus bf% (as given by your confusion here Elisabeth) THAT said, let's talk about two athletes (females) with similar bf% (so we are talking apples) and who train very differently and have different goals.
Look at a photo of Wilma Rudolf (1960 olympic gold runner):
Probably at the 10-12% range. Then look at a picture of a female figure competitor. (you can't use bber because they are most often lower bf%) I'll pick a random one for you that I think matches the bf% of Wilma about.
As you can see the figure woman looks more muscular. ('cause she trains and diets with the desire to build some muscle - also cause she is tan and on stage with proper lights to show muscle... )
On the other side of the coin, Wilma trains to win races.... LBM be damned. In fact the less actual weight the better.
But as you can also see it ain't that much (huge) difference. (I wish I could find one of a natural girl off stage because the diffence would be even smaller still... but alas they are all fatter than this one) The difference is quite small as compared to when you add bf% to these same people and as compared to what your current belief system is. The key is to compare "mass" (or looks) you HAVE to have to start with the same bf%.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Right because when I said training doesn't make a difference it's obvious I was talking about extreme endurance sports, and not a difference between weight-training disciplines.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Sorry but I am obviously stupid. It clearly wasn't "obvious" to me what you meant and if that is the case then we 100% agree. No difference except for the people who do PX90. LOL!
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
The idea that a woman won't accidentally get too bulky is wrong. If it's too bulky for her, then it's too bulky. There are women on this forum who got bulkier than they like on NROL.
Do I think they are too bulky? No.
Did they have to buy bigger pants because their legs or glutes grew too big for their current pants? Yes.
Were their traps larger than they'd like? Yes. They no longer liked the way certain shirts or dresses looked on them because of their traps.
NROL has no (or extremely little) isolation work of any kind, so it's not that in this case. They weren't super lean like a figure athlete, either.
None of this happened overnight, but if you tell someone it can't happen, they will deny the obvious changes in appearance, possibly long enough to allow more muscle growth than they like.
You have to keep your client's desires in mind when designing the whole program. If they want to be thin and trim and point out Victoria Secret models and non-Jessica-Biel-like-actresses as models of how they want to look, then lots of resistance training is not for them. Particularly not lots of volume.
I still haven't figured out why those types even want to bother with weight training at all. What they need is a good dose of genetic engineering and cocaine.
Any woman that wants to weight train is expecting some "bulk". And frankly just because a wide spectrum of females have decided "any muscle at all" equals "bulky" is a bit irritating. Yes, "bulky" is subjective, but not to the ridiculous extreme - and especially when this thread has demonstrated that it's got far more to do with leanness than actual muscle mass.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Look at these body changes and comment!
figure competitor days
athlete days
That is all. 
It also will help you to get the point across that 6 pack abs they so cherish isn't about training either... 
Linear Mode
