Search Results: lifting weights

Before I started lifting weights seriously, my measurements were something like 36-26-38 (bra size 28H). Now that I've been lifting weights for over a year, and my measurements are now 38-29-40 (bra size 32DDD). I believe my body fat percentage is about the same or slightly less, but also my fat has redistributed from my love handles to my upper legs and butt (I speculate to be partly because of my age and/or supplements I've been taking). I still have a curvy silhouette, my hips and butt look rounder and fuller, and my arms and legs are more toned. The problem, though is that my back is thicker in the profile. Worse still, my waist is less drastically curved, and while my stomach looks flatter in the sense of being more athletically toned, I have that slight pooch that girls get when they have thicker abs under a small layer of fat so that I have the outline of abs but my stomach isn't nearly as flat as it was when I was sixteen and a bony, un-toned 36-24-37. I don't know what to do. I feel as though I've wasted a year of hard work just to be bigger and less feminine-looking. I realize that these aren't terrible measurements, but I feel stupid for putting so much effort to look LESS attractive. Is there any way to reduce muscle in my midsection without starving myself? Are my shoulders and arms mannish? Does it look better to be more toned or to have better ratios? Do I still look okay? (I apologize for the poor quality of the pictures. I don't have any old ones for comparison.)

Common knowledge tells us that when we eat more calories than we need, we gain weight; and if we eat less calories than we need, we lose weight. But I wonder what happens if less emphasis is put on the weight or number on the scale and more emphasis is put on the body composition and fat distribution.

Let's take a 250-pound, 6'2'' man. He is the archetypical fat guy, eating too many high-calorie, low-nutrient food products. But one day, he decides, out of the blue, that he just does not want to eat junk food anymore. He wants something new for a change and tries to shop for some cheap, healthy food products at his local supermarkets. He makes sure that his diet is balanced and enough to build muscle through intense resistence-training. Riding a real bicycle can be a form of aerobic, cardiovascular exercise as well as a form of resistence-training (especially if you are trying to ride upslope). To train his upper body strength cheaply, he does bodyweight exercises and educates himself on proper form to avoid injury. His goal is not to lose weight, but to change his body composition, so that he has more muscle than fat, while remaining at the same weight. So, he continues to eat at a calorie surplus, but this time, with good food to supply the growth of muscles. He hopes to remain a big guy, but with more muscles than fat.

Which method do you think works best? Do you think people should eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight, or do you think people should eat at the weight-maintenance level or at a calorie surplus with the intention of changing the body composition especially in regards to building more muscle through weight-lifting, bodyweight exercises, and resistance-training in aerobic exercises?