Yeah, but she wasn't killing weights crossfit-style, I'm sure. I think with a good (cholesterol and meat-rich) diet and the right moves, women will have no problem gaining strength.
Originally Posted by Alex Good
And I say strength as opposed to mass, because isn't that what matters most for both sexes? Though I suppose I don't MIND gaining some decent muscle mass on my legs and butt independent of strength. It would balance me out a bit. But, it's not a primary goal of mine at all. I'd rather look womanly, tiny, and innocent and then be able to kick someone's ass than look obviously muscular.
1/2 pound muscle every 2 weeks at very very ideal conditions
From over at Body Recomp,
General Philosophies of Muscle Mass Gain | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
"How Fast Can You Actually Gain Muscle Mass?"
We live in an instant gratification society and are constantly bombarded with amazing claims; while this is probably most true in the world of weight loss, itís not much different when it comes to muscle gain.
Magazines advertise 20 pounds or rock hard muscle in a mere 8-10 weeks, a supplement promises 5 lbs of muscle in 3 days or whatever; all around we see claims of rapid gains in muscle mass. Sadly, this is all basically bullshit. Yeah, with glycogen loading or creatine you can increase lean body mass (not the same as muscle mass) fairly rapidly but beyond that, skeletal muscle actually grows fairly slowly.
On average, a natural male doing everything right will be doing very well to gain 1/2 of pound muscle per week. A female might gain half that or about 1/2 pound muscle every 2 weeks.
Letís put that in perspective: over a full year of training, assuming the trainee is doing everything right, thatís 26 pounds of the good stuff for men (13 pounds for women). Which, if you think about it, actually isnít that awful. Itís simply awful compared to what people think they are going to get based on the false promises in the magazines (or the claims of drug using bodybuilders).
That assumes that half-pound is gained week-in, week-out for the entire year. Oddly, and somewhat tangentially, it usually doesnít work that way. Trainees may go a long time with no measurable gains and then wake up several pounds heavier seemingly overnight. I have no idea why, thatís just how it usually works.
Iíd note that, under the right conditions (usually underweight high school kids), much faster rates of gain are often seen or reported. But these tend to be exceptions to the rule more than the norm and since Iím usually writing for the average male trainee whoís not 15 years old with raging hormones, I donít consider those values very illustrative. And, occasionally, when the stars are right, and everything clicks, a true one pound per week of muscle mass gain may be seen for short periods. But again, that tends to be the exception.
Let me reiterate: the average male trainee is doing well to gain about 1/2 pound muscle per week, 2 pounds per month or about 24-26 pounds per year. Iíd note that that will generally only happen in the first year of training and things slow down after that. A female may be gaining about half that much, 1 pound per month of actual muscle tissue or 10-12 pounds per year. I know it sucks but thatís reality.
If it's just mass your after, than just make sure every single time you come within sight of something edible you eat. Eat at a 1000-2000 cal surplus for a month and you will gain mass, but of course this won't just be muscle.
All calipers tell you is the (probable) thickness of the subcutaneous fat in one spot. There is a positive correlation with bodyfat percentage, but the precise relationship is going to be different for everybody, and every place you test. It's possible that the spot you were testing lost fat more quickly than the rest of your body, in which case the BF rate of change is going to be off.
If you rely on one location, say the ubiquitous iliac, yes, I'd agree wholeheartedly. What about if you check seven locations though, isn't that more of a telling change?
I tend to figure that the more places you check, the closer you'll be to an overall picture. Yes? No?
More like greater chance for error. One place is all you need. The actual BF% is irrelevant since there is no $1M prize at the end. As long as the mm are falling all is good.
Originally Posted by Eklecktika