I am in my third workout of Stage 2, and I have definitely gained inches in my legs or butt. Something is making my all of my pants tighter. I have worked out for years but always focused on my upper body and then cardio for my legs. This kept me on the small side (in a good way, I am 5'3") with defined arms but no leg definition. I am eager to have leg definition, but I am freaked by the pants situation. I am guessing that I put on muscle without losing fat, thus having a net increase in size. I am wondering if I should continue or if this workout is too bottom-focused for my body type (generally curvy, can build muscle or gain fat). On the positive side, this is the first time I am seeing my legs get stronger, but I guess I thought the more intense working out would result in some fat loss at the same time.
My diet is pretty good, no sugar, high protein (carbs ranging from 120-200), average 1800 calories/day and has been this way for a long time. I still do cardio (HIIT 2x/week plus 1 or 2 ss for 45 minutes plus an hour or more of walking everyday to get around the city). I am not really sure how much less I can eat without ending up in a revolt. I never cheat or binge on real sweets this way so I hesitate to restrict much more. I do not eat perfectly clean in that I eat a commercial protein bar every day and eat sf/ff yogurt, and sf hot cocoa at least a few times/week. But other than that, I eat tons of veggies, chix, fish, lean meat, and dairy like cottage cheese and plain greek yogurt.
So I guess my question is whether I should continue with the idea that eventually the metabolic perturbation will result in some fat loss, change my cardio, or what.
I have been in the same frustrating stand still while my waist continues to get smaller. Perhaps you are just getting a J Lo butt LOL! My is going up also and I thought I had one. That is the only explanation I have. So perhaps that is it?
I also have this same "issue" But I don't really view it that way since my butt before was non-existent, so am excited to gain inches in my leg/butt area. When I started Stage 2 I noticed the change, but after awhile It seemed to not be as big. Not sure if it was water retention or what from the amount of leg exercises.
I'd stop worrying about your current pants and pay attention solely to the progress you're making on your body. Maybe all your pants are "slim fit" - made to fit women without a lot of muscle in their legs. You're building nice, strong, shapely legs. Perhaps you could buy some skirts & show those suckers off!
So what if you are building muscle under a little fat. Eventually that fat will burn off. And, it sounds like you've bought pants for one body type - lean. It's ok to buy pants for your new physique - shapely and muscular!
__________________
"If 'toning' is the goal, strength is the method." ~ Mark Rippetoe
Exercises like squats and deadlifts and all the one-legged exercises are focusing on the largest muscles in your body, your legs. Lou talked about what happens to your muscles when you do a lot of cardio (and I might butcher this, since I don't have the book in front of me, so someone can fix it): the endurance muscle fibers are given preferential treatment for development over the strength-focused muscle fibers. Now that you're lifting heavy with those muscles, the strength-focused muscle fibers are being built up, and the strength-focused fibers take up a larger volume compared to the endurance fibers.
What did the calculations in the book say for your workout and non-workout days? Most of fat loss comes from the nutrition side. You seem to be doing a lot of moving through the week, so you might actually need to eat morethan 1800 cals and then see from there what can be cut back. It seems counter-intuitive, but as the book frequently pointed out, sometimes you have to eat more to lose more.
And you know, I was looking over the program last night after I had looked at several logs of guys on NROL. The "Fat Loss" workouts in that book looks mostly similar to our Stage 7. I know we're women, so when we hear of a new "exercise program," we immediately think of fat loss. But the more I look at and work with this program, I'm thinking that that isn't really Alwyn's goal. His goal is to make us stronger and more confident with what our bodies can do. Only then does he throw us into an extreme fat-targeting workout (3x15-25! w/ 30s rest!), when we're stronger and can 1) make it through the whole workout and 2) lift weights that make the workout worth our while.
And you know, I was looking over the program last night after I had looked at several logs of guys on NROL. The "Fat Loss" workouts in that book looks mostly similar to our Stage 7. I know we're women, so when we hear of a new "exercise program," we immediately think of fat loss. But the more I look at and work with this program, I'm thinking that that isn't really Alwyn's goal.His goal is to make us stronger and more confident with what our bodies can do. Only then does he throw us into an extreme fat-targeting workout (3x15-25! w/ 30s rest!), when we're stronger and can 1) make it through the whole workout and 2) lift weights that make the workout worth our while.
Some people were talking about this in another thread (don't remember which), and it completely makes sense. And I agree.
And, look at how many women (including myself) have found a lot of confidence in themselves as a result. For me, I've found a lot of pride in being able to do things I never would have guessed I could do. I would have laughed at someone if they'd told me 6 months ago that I'd be able to pick up something that weighs over 110 pounds, just standing there and picking it up. And we still have several more months in the program!
__________________
"If 'toning' is the goal, strength is the method." ~ Mark Rippetoe
If you are building muscle (which it sounds like you are) that muscle you are building in your rear end and legs will in the long run help you burn more fat over all. Give the workouts more time your legs wont grow out of proportion to the rest of your body.
__________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
In most women, fat comes off the butt and thighs last. And you're holding on to fluid, too. I was just reading this from the John Hussman site earlier:
If you've been lifting weights, you'll also be adding to muscle mass while you lose fat. The muscles become able to store more glycogen, and every gram of glycogen binds itself to several grams of water within the muscle, so a "pumped" muscle is heavier. Regular exercise also increases blood volume. And since protein synthesis typically goes along with increased cell volume (especially if you're using creatine and glutamine), the scale will be an awful measure of the improvements that are going on metabolically. It's ironic - cell volume, blood volume - exactly the things that will be helping you to get fit, can be the things that initially make you think you're making no progress.
You should check out the rest of the article. It talks about how you're changing your body from the inside out. Keep it up. Have faith.
__________________
"Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths." - Lois Wyse
I am in my third workout of Stage 2, and I have definitely gained inches in my legs or butt. Something is making my all of my pants tighter. I have worked out for years but always focused on my upper body and then cardio for my legs. This kept me on the small side (in a good way, I am 5'3") with defined arms but no leg definition. I am eager to have leg definition, but I am freaked by the pants situation. I am guessing that I put on muscle without losing fat, thus having a net increase in size. I am wondering if I should continue or if this workout is too bottom-focused for my body type (generally curvy, can build muscle or gain fat). On the positive side, this is the first time I am seeing my legs get stronger, but I guess I thought the more intense working out would result in some fat loss at the same time.
My diet is pretty good, no sugar, high protein (carbs ranging from 120-200), average 1800 calories/day and has been this way for a long time. I still do cardio (HIIT 2x/week plus 1 or 2 ss for 45 minutes plus an hour or more of walking everyday to get around the city). I am not really sure how much less I can eat without ending up in a revolt. I never cheat or binge on real sweets this way so I hesitate to restrict much more. I do not eat perfectly clean in that I eat a commercial protein bar every day and eat sf/ff yogurt, and sf hot cocoa at least a few times/week. But other than that, I eat tons of veggies, chix, fish, lean meat, and dairy like cottage cheese and plain greek yogurt.
So I guess my question is whether I should continue with the idea that eventually the metabolic perturbation will result in some fat loss, change my cardio, or what.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!
I am in the exact same position (except I am 5'2) and have a similar history of doing more upper body focused work and cardio for legs. I have one workout left in Stage 2 and my thighs have gotten bigger. I am pear shaped and my thighs definitely hold onto fat. It is frustrating but I keep reminding myself of some of the points mentioned above i.e. the extra muscle will help burn off the fat over time.
Thanks very much for all the feedback and references. This is helpful. I guess the whole reason I wanted to switch was because I knew I needed this muscle. I have to say, my knees are feeling better which I was shocked about initially. I am sure that is due to the increased strength. I find I can do heavier wts with lower reps more easily (knee-wise) than higher reps with lower wts. Just the repititions bothered my knees so I used to think I could not do squats or lunges. I have often gotten myself in a situation where I had to stick with something unrealistic to maintain my weight (too much cardio usually), and all the while my legs still didn't look great, so in the long run, this should work better in actually improving my metabolism.
I have to agree that the fat loss part of the program seems to come later and the point now seems to be strengthening and building up the metabolism. I just have to get past associating tight pants with getting fat for now. While I am not losing fat, it makes no sense that I would be gaining it right now. I am just so hung up on pants size because it has always been my guide!
I am going to re-read the nutrition section and Hussman article. Thanks again.
I was going throught the same debate - when I started Stage Three.
After much debate, I decided to concentrate on the Fat Loss by using the next three months to do Fat Loss I, II, and III from the original NROL and then as a fourth stage come back to NROLW and do Stage 7. Since fat loss is my main goal right now, this is the route I have chosen. I am sticking with the challenge just changing up my program a bit.
Fat Loss is mainly diet-related. I started off with NROL Fat Loss I and Fat Loss II. Made great gains strength-wise, but did not lose much fat. It wasn't until I buckled down on the nutrition side of the house (Jan 1) that I saw fat loss begin happening. It doesn't matter what your lifting routine is...until you tighten up on the nutrition, fat loss will be very difficult.
“What this power is I cannot say; all I know is that it exists and it becomes available only when a man is in that state of mind in which he knows exactly what he wants and is fully determined not to quit until he finds it.”Alexander Graham Bell
When you discuss that fat loss is related to diet, do you mean that I should focus on maintaining my calories and as much protein as possible? is that the main point. Do you stick with the diet from the book or do you just try to get a lot of Protein and up to the maintenance calories...does that make sense? just a question floating aroundin my head after reading the post
I agree you have to watch what you are eating! I am doing PN and Naked nutrition mix, and I watch my calories (fats/protien/carbs). I was getting results with NROLW for sure. I just see the book taking a fine tuning turn and decided that since my main goal is fat loss I would turn back to NROL -I did this last year and had great results, I just didnt have the means to stick with the program - now that I have the lunch time gym routine I am on a great track!
I think maybe this is just a problem for you tiny gals out there who don't have much to lose in the first place.
I'm not petite by any means and my butt and thighs have gotten smaller, not larger. I feel firmer, too. I've lost 14 pounds since I started, and I'm eating pretty good. I should probably eat a little less because the weight loss has slowed, but I'm happy.
And I know it's not just me, because my measurements have gone down and people are telling me I look smaller.
I think maybe this is just a problem for you tiny gals out there who don't have much to lose in the first place.
I'm not petite by any means and my butt and thighs have gotten smaller, not larger. I feel firmer, too. I've lost 14 pounds since I started, and I'm eating pretty good. I should probably eat a little less because the weight loss has slowed, but I'm happy.
And I know it's not just me, because my measurements have gone down and people are telling me I look smaller.
I don't think it's a matter of size as much as individual physiology...I can tell I've lost fat in a few places, but my thighs are definitely not any smaller - they're jut not any bigger right now either. And I agree with missjane - I think diet is a huge part of it. Some of us need to kick our metabolism up with more calories, some of us need to cut calories a little to see a consistent loss, and maybe some of us started out eating just right and are seeing the inches drop because our bodies are satisfied.
But man, I've been working my butt off in the gym, and every inch off my waist is like pulling a tooth. And I know I'm getting stronger, so it keeps my motivation up while I figure out the best way for my body to lose fat.
__________________
"Men are taught to apologize for their weaknesses, women for their strengths." - Lois Wyse
Fat Loss is mainly diet-related. I started off with NROL Fat Loss I and Fat Loss II. Made great gains strength-wise, but did not lose much fat. It wasn't until I buckled down on the nutrition side of the house (Jan 1) that I saw fat loss begin happening. It doesn't matter what your lifting routine is...until you tighten up on the nutrition, fat loss will be very difficult.
I agree!! It's all about diet... I've been consistent with my workouts and not my diet and I've gained weight... I would like to say it's muscle, but it's not!! Now that I've got my diet in check, I can already feel a difference after only one week.
Fat Loss is mainly diet-related. I started off with NROL Fat Loss I and Fat Loss II. Made great gains strength-wise, but did not lose much fat. It wasn't until I buckled down on the nutrition side of the house (Jan 1) that I saw fat loss begin happening. It doesn't matter what your lifting routine is...until you tighten up on the nutrition, fat loss will be very difficult.
My diet has been totally on since starting NROLW. Super clean and I count everything (plus weigh/measure my food) The only issue might be the calories the book calculated for me are too high. The problem is when I go lower I lack energy for the workouts.
I think it was in the book or related advice from Lou Schuler indicating that for women who are new to exercise, they will see a greater, faster fat loss - which is logical anyway. I have been working out for a long time and already very much watch what I eat, so the fat loss is bound to be harder. I'm just not sure how much more I can clean up my diet without slowing down my metabolism or feeling overly deprived. I have not eaten sugar in years and my starch is limited to a half piece of bread a few times a week. Most of my carbs are from veggies and low-fat plain dairy products. I'm wondering if part of it is that I weaned my son about four months ago and had weight gain from that which happened with my first child as well. Even though I reduced my intake upon weaning, it was like my body was in rebound mode. Both times my weight was at the lowest in years while nursing and then went right up when I finished. Since I was watching what I ate and exercising while I was nursing too, I'm thinking my metabolism is still adjusting to some extent. I had gotten used to be pretty small during those 14 months (0 pants were fitting and big in some brands). So now with the extra muscle on top of that gain back to where I would probably be normally anyway , I feel extra big.
I have been doing fitday, but I'm still not sure if going lower is right or just putting me back on a road to slower metabolism. My macros tend to be around 40/40/20 (20 fat).
Sounds like your legs/butt were just un trained and responded how they were supposed to.
Some women have hangups about the size of that area. If you're one of those that prefers the skinny lower half, then building muscle is going to ruin that for you. Accept the changes or stop doing what you're doing.
__________________
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
Legs/Butt getting bigger - thoughts?
Now that I've got my diet in check, I can already feel a difference after only one week.
Linear Mode
