21, Female, 5'6, 124 lbs

gezz, nit pick.

Someone who is UNFIT will look "fatter" than someone who is FIT of the same size. If you are 124lbs and all fat, you are going to look flabby and larger in volume than someone who is 124 and lean muscle.

I won't argue this, it's a stupid waste of my time...but maybe you an figure it out from here.......
 
Less E drama, more helping OP. :violent2:
 
Zr1 said:
You obviously don't know the basic concept...

Muscle does not weigh more than fat.

A five pound pile of fat will take up more space (volume) than a five pound pile of muscle, but five pounds is still five pounds. Because muscle is more dense than fat, the person with less fat and more muscle will look smaller.

You will not gain muscle, if your not eating a surplus of calories. Research "how to gain muscle" on google and learn something. I would post you a link, but I'm not allowed to until i reach 15 posts...

110lbs is barely below what is considered normal...For a petite girl, 110lbs is perfectly fine. 5'6 115 is considered "normal." Not that BMI really matters, because it doesn't include muscle mass, or body type, but just to show you even under your expert BMI opinion, it's a 5lb difference...

I never said a 5'6 124lb girl would have cellulite...I said "thick" girls generally are more prone to cellulite and i clearly started "not all," but some. I was agreeing that a smaller girl does not have cellulite, which is why my group of friends are more attracted to them.... A thick girl would be someone 5'5 135lbs or more...135 would be on the nice end, but anything more would be pushing it. If she is at that weight or heavier, most likely she will have some. (Assuming she isn't active)

Skinnier girls simply just don't have as much cellulite and i said this from the beginning. Why do you change things around? Your wrong, get over it...

lol, you thought muscle weighed more than fat and you also thought you will 100% gain muscle if you lift weights...lol, you don't know what your talking about... :rofl:

By the way, weight/fat...What's the difference? You can't turn "weight" into muscle either... She was implying fat. Either that, or the sentence just doesn't make sense. Her only option would be to gain weight and gain muscle, not turn the weight into fat...Get it yet? Or, do i have to reference everything until you stop this gibberish?
Click to expand...

Just caught wind of this thread, and I have to set this straight. Like stranglj noted, muscle, strictly on a volumetric basis, weighs more than fat. You yourself note that fat is going to take up more space. Because muscle is more dense, there is more mass per volume. So for the same volume, you have greater mass. Mass x acceleration = force (weight). You can't just alter volumetric constraints in order to support your case.

Trying to argue that 5 lbs of anything is the same as 5 lbs of anything else is plain stupid. 5 lbs of feathers is going to weigh the same as 5 lbs of steel. That's not the point when it comes to body mass. It's going to take so much more filled space for 5 lbs of feathers. It's the same with adipose tissue, which is part of the reason why fat weight is so much more dangerous than muscle weight.

Long story short, given a set amount of volume, muscle tissue weighs more than fat tissue because muscle tissue is more dense. And without a proper body comp to back it up, you typically cannot make comments about being over/under-weight when a person is so close to the "ideal" weight when you don't know the composition of tissue. Sidenote... although the amount of cellulite is partially based upon body composition, cellulite is also partially dictated by genetics, as is the fat storage of every individual. It's completely possible, and not at all uncommon, for a "skinny" woman to have what would be considered abnormally large cellulite deposits.

It is also NOT true that you cannot develop muscle tissue if you are not in a caloric surplus. Particularly during the first couple months of training, provided the caloric deficit does not border on malnutrition, the body is more than capable of generating muscle tissue. This is primarily because exercise and resistance training, in and of itself, changes the way that the body utilizes proteins, and even aids in the absorption and retention of proteins. The caveat is that if you are trying to develop more muscular bulk beyond initial training adaptation, it is more difficult to do without a caloric surplus.
 
Last edited:
I am just gonna say this girl is not eating enough. I am a 5'6'' 125 lb girl... I am at about 12 - 13 percent BF right now and am quite toned... but was not like this 4 months ago. I was eating a 1200 calorie a day diet before but have now learned that I was destroying my metabolism. I am now on a 2000 calorie diet (trainer says it should be more....) and I immediately began shedding pounds, fat pounds. Of course it didnt come without work at the gym - 3 weight training days a week, 4 - 5 days with cardio ( 40 min) and one day with a total body orkout (bootcamp).

I do not want to go below 125 lbs, but would like to lose the BF and keep toned... so I will continue on this diet as it seems to be working.

I would also like to add that I never weigh myself unless it is to calc. BF. I could care less what the scale says.

This girl needs more protein! And an apple for a snack wont suffice... throw in some cottage cheese, peanut butter, yogurt (watch the carbs tho)
 
7am: 3/4 cup muesli with skim milk (200 calories?)
11am: About 150g of mixed garden salad with a 95g tin of 98% fat free tuna (250 calories?)
2pm: Same as 11am (250 calories?)
4pm: an apple or peach (50 calories?)
7pm: 1 cup of cooked white rice with stir fry vegies and 100g of beef or chicken (450-500 calories?)
Click to expand...

What I usually find out is that people underestimate (rarely over) what they're actually eating. What you're already eating is just silly. Salad is really a "spacer" meal; what I mean is that you'll feel full, but you just consumed very little amount of actual energy. Typically people who go in food eating contests will train their bodys months before with salad since it will expand their stomachs. I'm not saying you'll eat more, I'm just saying that there are so little calories in the food that you can eat very little and feel very full. Why do you think resturants and other places serve salad and bread before a meal? It's to make you feel full so you can get the heck out of there asap and the next chump sits on the table.

A full can of tuna usually about 180 calories if even that. You're probably eating about 800 calories until about dinner time. Probably then, you just take less food, which will add about 300, maybe 400, which comes to 1200. That's way, way too little.

You just need to up your exercises, and continue eating however you were previously. I'm more than certain, based on your weight and height, that you were probably eating better than you are now.
 
i am 24,female.my weight is also 124 lbs. I personally don't think that you need to lose any weight and 14 lbs is a lot.I think you need to lose only 7lbs.Its great for you.
 
calcium said:
Zr1 - You think you are being smart but you sound like a dumbass.
Click to expand...

As does everyone who tries to sound clever by chiming in with the 'xlb of fat weighs the same as xlbs of muscle' statement when the implication to a comparison of volume is obvious.

This discussion happens on here way too much :(
 
tru dat sista yo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top