bulky

[Kimberly33]

Originally Posted by JP44

I'm sorry but I find the bolded part really patronizing and this gets posted all the time. Even your use of the term "panic thread" is insulting.

Why do you assume other women are simply wrong about what is happening in their own body? Because it didn't happen to you?

I can see how "panic thread" sounds insulting. I did not mean to imply any thread in which someone expresses their displeasure, but specifically those like, "Help!!! I'm bulky!!!" in which the poster does, in fact, seem to be panicking. I was unclear.

The bolded part comes from years at VF when dozens (hundreds?) of women have found that to be true of them. You might be right that some women can gain more muscle than they like in three weeks of a new program, but it is also true that many women have muscles that hold on to water under stress. I think that the latter is a better explanation of "bulkiness" that happens within a week or two (or a workout or five).

I think we can all be wrong about what happens in our body. I study and teach critical thinking and we, as humans, are NOTORIOUSLY and demonstratively bad at it. That's why I tend to prefer repeatable studies to anecdotes.

Fast twitch fibers build 10x faster than slow twitch fibers. (see http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/haycock/hst-07.htm) so just because someone is complaining about "bulking" after 3 weeks of a new routine (esp. if it's heavy lifting) doesn't mean they are imagining things (i.e. new muscle growth). They may have more fast twitch fibers which would responding more quickly to that type of training--particularly if it's heavy lifting.

Can we please stop the universal judgment that "female bulking = temporary water gain or fat over muscle"? This is just another variation on the myth that women can't bulk.

Well, I did say "most," not "all."

I think this your view is plausible. But, I think that the water gain theory has more evidence for it. We can disagree about that. I think the studies that show that it's hard for women to put on more than a few pounds of muscle in a year support my view. But, unless we're going to pay to have people biopsied and weighed in a water tanks, we're probably not going to know which is correct for certain.

I totally agree that people get results they don't want and it's fine for them to choose to do workouts for other reasons. But, I think there is likely going to be an objective fact about how much (or the range of) muscle a woman can put on in a a few weeks or a year. This is where we are disagreeing.

...
Moreover, just as you don't appreciate having your more muscular look derided as unfeminine, why should someone who prefers a less muscular look be deemed "weak looking." (your term.) Aren't you also passing judgment on someone's body? How do know what their body is capable of doing? Maybe they can run 50 - 100 miles in their "weak looking" body!

I didn't say women who WERE weak--I'm someone who is overweight but quite fit. I know better than to judge ability by looks. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone. But it's also hard for me to get past the history of the preferred aesthetic for women--it comes from the historical upper classes, who didn't have to work and thus didn't have muscle tone (and it used to be light skin when people traditionally worked outside and has switched to tan [for pale skinned fold] now that people work inside). But you are right, my reacting to the history is no better than people upholding it.

[Kathryn]

First off, I think 'bulk' is a fairly subjective term (for some, it seems like any visible muscle is 'bulk').

For me, it's a definite 'large and thick' look, not just having muscles. (for example, back in the 80's, Gladys Portuguese, Rachel Mclish and other female 'bodybuilders' had muscle, but not bulk. Then Bev Francis came on the scene (see the movie "Pumping Iron 2: the Women") and started a controversy because she was (what I and perhaps others refer to as) 'bulky".

There are definitely body types (some mesos, especially if they are endo-mesos) that look 'bulkier' than others, even when they may do less weight work (think Rosie O'Donnel with muscles, or the woman who plays the coach on "Glée"). For some, pretty much whatever they do, they may look 'bulky', but IMO, it's better to have muscle 'bulk' than fat 'bulk.'

Do I 'bulk"? As an ecto-endo, not very much, though when I was doing P90X, my traps were starting to get bigger than I like.

[ddj]

Originally Posted by JP44

I get tired of being told female bulking is a myth. It's NOT for many women!

Thank you.

Originally Posted by JP44

Can we please stop the universal judgment that "female bulking = temporary water gain or fat over muscle"? This is just another variation on the myth that women can't bulk.

Thank you, again.

I have a tendency to develop large leg muscles, all the way down to my thick ankles. Although I do have a bit more fat on them than I would like, they would still be huge if I had no fat there. That's just the way I'm made, short and stocky. Some women could train with very heavy weight and never get much leg definition because of the way they are made. DH has a tall, lanky skinny friend (male) who said he was jealous of my enormous calves because he seems to think I have more explosive power because of them. I told him if I could figure out how to give them to him, I would.

However, I do like being strong. And my legs are going to be large no matter what. So if I have to choose between strong and muscular (and larger than I like) and fat and flabby (and still larger than I like) I guess I'll go with the former.

[frostyjan]

I think the word "bulky" should be used to describe a piece of luggage, not a woman. It means something different to everyone and therefore not at all useful in describing someone's appearance.

JMHO

[videofit]

As an ectomorph, I couldn't get bulky even if I wanted to, which I don't. That doesn't stop me from being strong and having nicely shaped muscles.

[slysam]

The problem with a label like "bulky" is that it is so subjective to he point of almost being meaningless unless you know what the person means when they say "bulky". When I read about how different workouts bulk different women, it is only a little helpful as I can't see that woman and usually don't know what she considers bulky. By some definitions only a few women can become bulky and by other definitions almost anyone can. The other thing that kind of bothers me is it sounds so negative. I happen to like seeing defined muscles on some women though I also like seeing thin willowy forms and curves on some women. Any body can be beautiful in its own way and everyone has their own preferences. I do keenly follow discussions about the "bulk" issue as I have my own concerns about whether certain workouts may help me get bigger than I want to be in certain areas, and VF seems to have the most honest discussions on the subject that I've seen.

[slysam]

Originally Posted by frostyjan

I think the word "bulky" should be used to describe a piece of luggage, not a woman. It means something different to everyone and therefore not at all useful in describing someone's appearance.

JMHO

Agree!

[CarlaVeg]

This thread made me wonder.... do you gals think Cathe, Jillian Michaels, & Kelly Coffey Meyer are bulky?

[Lexy]

I seriously thought this thread was started as a joke. But nope. It's for real.

[Nuggie's Auntie]

Originally Posted by frostyjan

I think the word "bulky" should be used to describe a piece of luggage, not a woman. It means something different to everyone and therefore not at all useful in describing someone's appearance.

JMHO

I totally agree. To me, it connotes something cumbersome and ungainly, which is not at all the same in my mind as 'muscular.'