# Straight up scientifically related dieting questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 8, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852 "2003-08-08T17:10:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/61 "2003-08-13T14:31:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vasyachkin \* > \*\*but for the rest of the women, the weights they use are PATHETIC by any standard. \*\* Anyone should be aware of the obvious physical differences between MOST men and women, and the fact that men are naturally stronger and build muscle more easily than women. That apart, did you ever consider, before slagging off women’s weights as “pathetic”, that maybe these women aren’t interested in attaining a bulky, gym junkie physique? Maybe they are more intestered in toning, not building muscle, achieving better strength and flexiblity, rather than the silhouette of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And when you say “by any standard” - what is that? Your standard? The “male” standard? If the vast majority of women use lighter weights, then presumably that’s their standard, and it’s not pathetic at all. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/62 "2003-08-13T14:53:13Z")
Just a note here: “toning” is not physiologically different than “building muscle.” More often than not, exercises that are supposed to be for “toning” are just inefficient versions of the same exercises that are standard fare for athletes. The fear of developing a “bulky” physique is almost assuredly unfounded, as most people lack the genetics to achieve that level of muscular development. Someone hoping to acheive better muscle tone would be better off in most cases to increase the amount of weight they are using and sticking to 10-12 reps for three sets of movements, IMO. If they are able to do 30 reps of lateral raises, try switching to 10 reps of upright rows with a heavier weight, for example. Stick with compound movements and as much weight as you can do ten reps with, take a day off between weight training sessions and keep doing cardio work and I think that you’ll probably get better results than if you keep on doing the same 30 reps with the same weight and the same exercises every time. I very much doubt that anyone is going to find that using this approach will produce the extreme muscular development that bodybuilders achieve. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/63 "2003-08-13T15:01:07Z")
Toning, as it’s generally used, refers not only to muscle building but subcutaneous fat loss as well. That’s really a matter of the combination of diet and exercise. As far as getting big goes…well, in order to get huge muscles, you need to have testosterone levels at the high end of the normal male range. The normal female range doesn’t even overlap the normal male range, so women just don’t need to be concerned. ---
**Author:** ![hazygreyeyes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e480ec/32.png) [@hazygreyeyes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazygreyeyes)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/64 "2003-08-13T15:20:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by vasyachkin_ > **but for the rest of the women, the weights they use are PATHETIC by any standard.** I’m a man, and not a burly, built, yoked sort of man. Just an average, slightly overweight kind of man. I have no aversion to mountain biking, soccer, swimming, skiing, baseball, hiking, and a whole slew of physical activities. However, I do oppose the notion of working out in a gym strictly on the basis of meathead jerks who say things just like this–and you weren’t even targeting me and my kind. I can only imagine that if you think all women are “pathetic” what you must think of guys like myself. I probably could not run hurdles around you, nor would I want to. But as someone earlier in this post did mention, there are probably many, many things I find very enjoyable you’d find boring. And I agree whole-heartedly with MLS, working out is really boring. REALLY boring. Treadmills and deadlifting are for the birds, even if they’re the really pumped up ones. And please, don’t bother responding to this vasyachkin, I don’t care what witty retort you have, nor what other insulting and smug comeback as to why a person “should” think of working out as fun. Good for MLS for trying is what I have to say. Jerry Seinfeld put it best regarding working out in my opinion, “what’s the point?” A good hike is always a better option to me. But that’s me, and I wouldn’t knock you if you didn’t agree. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*Anyone should be aware of the obvious physical differences between MOST men and women…Maybe they are more intestered in toning…rather than the silhouette of Arnold Schwarzenegger. > > And when you say “by any standard” - what is that? Your standard? The “male” standard?\*\* I fully agree with this, just what IS your standard? By my standards, men or women with the said physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger are grody, but that’s just my opinion. By all means, if this is your preferred lifestyle, have at it champ; I have no qualms with you wanting to look ripped, but don’t make fun of people who aren’t. Especially when I posted this thread to get information concerning losing weight by healthy means without a shred of interest in being slashed and burned by macho people. Go back to junior high with that mentality, that’s where it belongs–the point here is not to discourage people from wanting to be healthy by mocking them. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/65 "2003-08-16T01:47:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cuckoorex \* > \*\*Just a note here: “toning” is not physiologically different than “building muscle.” More often than not, exercises that are supposed to be for “toning” are just inefficient versions of the same exercises that are standard fare for athletes. The fear of developing a “bulky” physique is almost assuredly unfounded, as most people lack the genetics to achieve that level of muscular development. Someone hoping to acheive better muscle tone would be better off in most cases to increase the amount of weight they are using and sticking to 10-12 reps for three sets of movements, IMO. If they are able to do 30 reps of lateral raises, try switching to 10 reps of upright rows with a heavier weight, for example. Stick with compound movements and as much weight as you can do ten reps with, take a day off between weight training sessions and keep doing cardio work and I think that you’ll probably get better results than if you keep on doing the same 30 reps with the same weight and the same exercises every time. I very much doubt that anyone is going to find that using this approach will produce the extreme muscular development that bodybuilders achieve. \*\* excellent answer. fitness is full of misconceptions. the biggest one is that lower weights will give you a toned body and heavy resistance will make you bulky. its more like this : low weights will waste your time and eating too much will make you bulky. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/66 "2003-08-16T01:56:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*Anyone should be aware of the obvious physical differences between MOST men and women, and the fact that men are naturally stronger and build muscle more easily than women. > \*\* i am well aware of that. now tell me how from this you conclude that because women have a harder time bulding muscle that they should exercise in the most inefficient way possible ? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*That apart, did you ever consider, before slagging off women’s weights as “pathetic”, that maybe these women aren’t interested in attaining a bulky, gym junkie physique? Maybe they are more intestered in toning, not building muscle, achieving better strength and flexiblity, rather than the silhouette of Arnold Schwarzenegger. \*\* see above post. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*And when you say “by any standard” - what is that? Your standard? The “male” standard? If the vast majority of women use lighter weights, then presumably that’s their standard, and it’s not pathetic at all. \*\* by any standard, by which you can judge a physique for attractiveness, the results they will achieve are such as the weights they use. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/67 "2003-08-16T02:11:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > \*\*Toning, as it’s generally used, refers not only to muscle building but subcutaneous fat loss as well. That’s really a matter of the combination of diet and exercise. > > As far as getting big goes…well, in order to get huge muscles, you need to have testosterone levels at the high end of the normal male range. The normal female range doesn’t even overlap the normal male range, so women just don’t need to be concerned. \*\* very true. even so, even on the high end of the male testosterone levels, and even with a proper exercise regimen you will not look like Arnold. not without steroids. and even with steroids you will not, because a LOT of people use steroids and only very few of them get that kind of development. i only wish it was that simple 🙂 so do NOT worry about becoming too muscular, even if you really wanted to, you would probably not be able anyway. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852/68 "2003-08-16T02:29:10Z")
hazygreyeyes, i did not say those women were pathetic, i said their weights were. there IS a difference, the women are merely CLUELESS about the way their bodies function. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-up-scientifically-related-dieting-questions/193852.md?page=3)