![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
general gymmy kind of stuff
i don't think it's ever going to change: i don't like going, but i hate not having gone. so i have to get myself into that extra-stubborn frame of mind where damn it, i'm the one deciding whether i'm going or not, not my mood.
today wasn't bad. 20 minutes on the bike, 2.41 miles; three sets of 20 triceps pushdown thingies; two sets each of ten back extensions and sideways sit-up-type things on that thing where you drape yourself over it and brace your feet and raise your upper body using your lower back; 20 low and 20 high actual sit-ups; three sets of ten on a machine whose name i don't know, but i hadn't realized it was there -- it too involves pushing things down, because i'm all about the backs of my arms; and 1000 meters on the erg, with a 500m split of 2:33.4 (i think).
i'm getting to where i'm going to have to kick some of that up a notch, i think. i don't feel very tired, and -- especially after this weekend, which was quite the upper-body and cardio workout with all the sweeping -- i'm not especially sore. the thing is that i don't feel the need to be a lot stronger (well, i could use the upper body strength, but i'll come back to that in a minute); i just want to be fitter. if i go to a higher gear on the bike, will i be burning more calories and whatnot, or bulking up my quads (which are plenty bulky, thank you)? if i move up to more weight on the lifty things (actually the pushing-down things), won't the muscles get bigger? i don't want that. stronger is okay, but if they're going to change size i want my arms to be smaller. is the solution to stay at the same weight and just do more repetitions?
the thing is that i'm not unhappy, in general, with the way i look. i'm not delerious, because who is, but i'm doing okay. i'm reasonably healthy and well-proportioned, just on a slightly larger scale than some other well-proportioned people. and for that reason, i'm not awfully unhappy with my weight, either, even though for my height it's a little -- okay, probably quite a bit -- high.
i was discussing this with a friend last week, and it was revealed that i outweigh her by close to 50 pounds. we're the same height, and i'm at least a size smaller than she is -- two on the bottom, but possibly just one on the top. dudes. this makes me (as she said) a black hole.
and i'm not too concerned about that, except this: i can see it having consequences down the road for, like, my knees and my hips -- and (this is where i come back to the upper body strength) i can't, literally i can't, pull my weight. it was a good thing that ankle sprain wasn't worse than it was, last month, because holding myself up on the crutches was just not happening for more than an afternoon. the size my arms and shoulders would have to be to be able to handle the weight of the rest of my body -- i'd never be able to wear anything with sleeves ever again.
and that's emphatically not what i want. there are three specific areas i'd like to be less squishy than they are, and given +sleek/solid and -squishy i don't much care what size they turn out to be: the backs of my upper arms; the general circumfrence at hip level; and the insides of my thighs. in the hip region, i might just be doomed. the rest, i ought to be able to succeed with; but at the same time, see above, i feel like besides what there is of me being sleeker, more toned, whatever, it wouldn't be a bad thing if there were less of me all around.
i remember hearing once that the thing about dieting was that you lose muscle mass, which is (i guess) a bad thing. but for me it wouldn't be a bad thing at all -- i've got at least 70 pounds of muscle mass that i'd be delighted to lose -- but i don't want to convert the muscle mass into fat, is the thing. i just want to get rid of it. and that's what i don't know how to do, based on what i've learned from (a) the sports teams i've been on here and there and (b) being an american woman in the late 20th century.
so these are my thoughts on the walk home from the gym. (and now i'm late for my office hours.) in the meantime, though, i can tell that my metabolism is speeding up, which when you're me is always a good thing; and i can't quite tell for sure, but it seems that my clothes are fitting just a fraction of a shade looser than they were a little bit ago. (of course, the other thing is that my subconscious has it in its head that i'm going to keep going to the gym and not seeing much result one way or the other, and then one day i'm going to wake up and all my pants are going to be too big. yyyeah.) i'll have to settle for that, and think happy thoughts about how i'll turn handsprings if i can manage, ever ever ever, to fit into a size 10.
it won't happen. this rack (38D) will never fit in a 10. who am i kidding. but 12 could happen.
today wasn't bad. 20 minutes on the bike, 2.41 miles; three sets of 20 triceps pushdown thingies; two sets each of ten back extensions and sideways sit-up-type things on that thing where you drape yourself over it and brace your feet and raise your upper body using your lower back; 20 low and 20 high actual sit-ups; three sets of ten on a machine whose name i don't know, but i hadn't realized it was there -- it too involves pushing things down, because i'm all about the backs of my arms; and 1000 meters on the erg, with a 500m split of 2:33.4 (i think).
i'm getting to where i'm going to have to kick some of that up a notch, i think. i don't feel very tired, and -- especially after this weekend, which was quite the upper-body and cardio workout with all the sweeping -- i'm not especially sore. the thing is that i don't feel the need to be a lot stronger (well, i could use the upper body strength, but i'll come back to that in a minute); i just want to be fitter. if i go to a higher gear on the bike, will i be burning more calories and whatnot, or bulking up my quads (which are plenty bulky, thank you)? if i move up to more weight on the lifty things (actually the pushing-down things), won't the muscles get bigger? i don't want that. stronger is okay, but if they're going to change size i want my arms to be smaller. is the solution to stay at the same weight and just do more repetitions?
the thing is that i'm not unhappy, in general, with the way i look. i'm not delerious, because who is, but i'm doing okay. i'm reasonably healthy and well-proportioned, just on a slightly larger scale than some other well-proportioned people. and for that reason, i'm not awfully unhappy with my weight, either, even though for my height it's a little -- okay, probably quite a bit -- high.
i was discussing this with a friend last week, and it was revealed that i outweigh her by close to 50 pounds. we're the same height, and i'm at least a size smaller than she is -- two on the bottom, but possibly just one on the top. dudes. this makes me (as she said) a black hole.
and i'm not too concerned about that, except this: i can see it having consequences down the road for, like, my knees and my hips -- and (this is where i come back to the upper body strength) i can't, literally i can't, pull my weight. it was a good thing that ankle sprain wasn't worse than it was, last month, because holding myself up on the crutches was just not happening for more than an afternoon. the size my arms and shoulders would have to be to be able to handle the weight of the rest of my body -- i'd never be able to wear anything with sleeves ever again.
and that's emphatically not what i want. there are three specific areas i'd like to be less squishy than they are, and given +sleek/solid and -squishy i don't much care what size they turn out to be: the backs of my upper arms; the general circumfrence at hip level; and the insides of my thighs. in the hip region, i might just be doomed. the rest, i ought to be able to succeed with; but at the same time, see above, i feel like besides what there is of me being sleeker, more toned, whatever, it wouldn't be a bad thing if there were less of me all around.
i remember hearing once that the thing about dieting was that you lose muscle mass, which is (i guess) a bad thing. but for me it wouldn't be a bad thing at all -- i've got at least 70 pounds of muscle mass that i'd be delighted to lose -- but i don't want to convert the muscle mass into fat, is the thing. i just want to get rid of it. and that's what i don't know how to do, based on what i've learned from (a) the sports teams i've been on here and there and (b) being an american woman in the late 20th century.
so these are my thoughts on the walk home from the gym. (and now i'm late for my office hours.) in the meantime, though, i can tell that my metabolism is speeding up, which when you're me is always a good thing; and i can't quite tell for sure, but it seems that my clothes are fitting just a fraction of a shade looser than they were a little bit ago. (of course, the other thing is that my subconscious has it in its head that i'm going to keep going to the gym and not seeing much result one way or the other, and then one day i'm going to wake up and all my pants are going to be too big. yyyeah.) i'll have to settle for that, and think happy thoughts about how i'll turn handsprings if i can manage, ever ever ever, to fit into a size 10.
it won't happen. this rack (38D) will never fit in a 10. who am i kidding. but 12 could happen.
no subject
First, if you're really thinking you need to lose muscle mass, it might be worth it to spring for a good body composition test--the kind where they do it underwater. That will help you figure out how much of the extra bulk is muscle and how much is fat.
If you really don't have excess fat, then, yes, keeping the weights low and doing tons of reps is theoretically the way to go. Personally, I've never had any results at all doing this; I always have to lift heavy. And bear in mind that muscle is much denser than fat, so if you put on muscle and lose fat, you will get smaller. If you do a bunch of cardio and don't lift, you'll lose muscle that way, too.
When I first started lifting weights, I dropped almost a full dress size without changing my eating habits at all. It took about a month, but then I just got smaller.
I've had great results lifting heavy on the legs--lots of squats, lunges, step-ups and stiff-legged deadlifts. For lower body, I tend to do 2 sets of 12-16 reps; that's a few more reps than I do for upper. When I start back up after a layoff, it always looks like my legs are bulking for a few weeks, but then it kicks in and they start to shrink. For me, cardio just isn't enough to keep my legs thin. And strengthening your legs will help keep your knees healthy, too, which is always a plus.
Ditto for the upper body. I'm noticeably smaller when I'm lifting heavy than when I'm not.
And of course, there's the diet factor... I know people who say that cleaning up their diet got rid of some bulk. Personally, I've never been able to eat clean enough to see if it works.
Hope this helps a little. I really think a body composition test might be a good next step, so you know what you need to accomplish. Good luck, and good job hitting the gym regularly; you're doing better than I right now.