Ok, so restoring what was lost.
 

Hi All,

I am 53, female and cycling a lot, about 100 miles a week, plus using some weights regularly. But I am losing muscle mass and I don't like it at all. I am very healthy but could use some wisdom on how to put more muscle (not a lot) back on.

Lift more.

Don't ever sit down

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...oseatdrops.jpg

It's interesting to look through this 13 year old thread and see how conventional wisdom has changed over the years.

Ugh a double loose versus lose error. :thumb:

I think this is my biggest issue, just eating more and although I am eating the right foods, strength training on the off days. Thank you all for your great and funny answers!

What exactly are you doing for your lifting?

I am using free weights. I work for myself so although I have a gym membership, time is an issue, however, I cycle about 100 miles per week. I use 15 lbs and 12 lbs, 25 lbs for triceps training.

This helps a lot, thank you! I have been reading that. I am working to force myself to eat more. It is a challenge so I am drinking protein shakes now. Do you think that is ok?

Okay. What you're saying here is roughly the equivalent of:
I walk my dog 10 minutes a day for cardio.

Yes it's better than nothing, and in someone who is untrained, you'll see some changes but not much. In order to make a significant difference in your strength and the amount of muscle mass you carry, you have to put in significant effort. Focus on compound exercises like the following:

Squats (or if this isn't possible, leg press) - squats in particular hit a huge range of muscles and are great for bone density. Ultimately, you should be able to do at least a set of 5 with your bodyweight.
Lunges - a useful alternative to squats that work mainly one leg at a time. If all you have are dumbbells this may be your best option available.
Deadlifts - good back, glute and hamstring ("Posterior chain") exercise that allows for a lot of weight to be lifted. Make sure your form on these is very good though.
Benchpress - works a large amount of upper body musculature (pecs, delts and triceps). A good long term goal is to be able to do 1 rep with your body weight.
Overhead Press - good compliment to the bench press. Typically people use about 75% of their bench press weight on this.
Pull-downs/Chin-ups - good back exercise. A good long term goal would be to do a set of 5 chin-ups. There's no reason why a woman can't do these.
Rows - another good back exercise.

Ultimately, after a few months of dedicated work, you should be using weights like: 50, 80 or 100 lbs depending on the exercise. That may sound intimidating, but the human body is pretty incredible at adapting if you push it a little. Much like how a 20 mile ride is likely no big deal to you but quite impressive in the eyes of a beginner. If you don't know what you're doing, it's probably good to get some coaching on the proper technique.

You CAN use machines instead of free weights which is pretty much fool proof. However, the issue with those is often that they don't fit certain body types well. Again, effort is the key. You should be pushing pretty hard in all your exercises, and you want to do movements that work several muscles at once.

How do you know that? Have you had DEXA scans done?

Thank you so much for taking the time to write out this detail. I will put it to use right away. I do a lot of free weights but will watch a video on how to do the leg squats but the other ones, I am familiar with. I do have a coach for cycling but this thread was answering a specific question for me.

No, I have not, but I have noticed and my children (four boys, three girls) have noticed the difference. What is a DEXA scan?

DEXA = dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. A DEXA scan basically makes a 3D map of your body, and identifies all the fat, muscle, bone, etc, tissue you have.

I should have also said push-ups are another great upper-body exercise.

I'm far from an expert in this stuff, but I believe the amount of weight one can or should do, even as a percentage of body mass, varies a lot, and pound for pound, women are not as strong. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A strong man can bench press his own weight, but that may not be obtainable for some women, depending on physique. I hope someone who knows can weigh in on this.

I actually do those and planks :)

They noticed a difference in what? Strength or the amount of fat laying on top of your muscles?

That's funny ,, a walking piece a fat ,,,u say:lol::lol::lol:

I've been thinking about this a bit. I get most of my exercise from cycling. I keep telling myself to also add some upper body exercise, but haven't gotten motivated for that. Plus I can ride my bike for hours, but can only motivate myself to do weights for a few minutes.

And, I think my cycling muscles are getting stronger. Maybe.

So, could it be not really losing muscle as much as moving muscle from where it isn't being used for cycling to where it is being used for cycling.

I.E. One becomes a faster cyclist, but slower runner.

To a certain extent you're wrong. While the percentages do certainly vary due to a lot of factors (height, length of specific levers, body fat, muscle attachment points), many people underestimate what "strong" is or how strong you can become. This is particularly true for women. At pretty much any public gym, at least 1/2 the women lifting weights are completely wasting their time with weights that are too light to cause any sort of adaptation.

A woman who can bench her own body weight is decently strong, you're certainly not likely to be able to do that on your first day lifting but it is something that would be attainable for many women (it's tougher for larger ones, or obese people) after a few years of dedicated training. A man should be able to do this quite easily after only a few months of serious training (again, assuming you're not morbidly obese or anything). A man who can just barely bench his own weight is weak. It would probably be the equivalent of running a 10k in 55 minutes or an hour. To someone that never runs, that looks pretty darn good. To any serious competitive runner, that's a joke time. It's also a time that just about anyone should be able to attain with enough training.

For lower body exercises, strength to weight ratios are fairly similar between men and women. Being able to do a full ROM squat with 1.5 times body weight is easily attainable for any healthy individual. If you can walk up a flight of stairs, you're essentially lifting your entire body weight with just one leg (albeit over a fairly small range of motion).

I'm saying this as someone who competed in powerlifting for a number of years. The best women in the world are benching double their body weight or more and squatting over triple. Doing 1/2 what they do isn't unreasonable.

Now, that doesn't mean you ***should*** do this right off the bat. Much like someone jogging for the first time should start with 1 or 2k and not 10k. But, it absolutely is possible with time if you take it semi-seriously... and if you don't take it at least semi-seriously, what's the point?

Thanks, [MENTION=420341]OBoile[/MENTION].

I should add in case it wasn't clear: to a certain extent you're also very correct. Everyone is different and the amount of weight a person should lift is individual and can absolutely vary due to a wide number of factors.

Just, from my experience, most people who's primary focus is endurance sports (or really anyone who isn't competing in a strength sport or is a teenage boy), tend to underestimate what they are capable of in the gym and/or do a token amount of weight lifting that ultimately isn't going to do much for their fitness. This is doubly true of women as there is still a stigma against women strength training (although it is going away). Of course, if your goal is to be an elite cyclist and not general health, this isn't a bad thing as strength isn't necessary for your sport (unless you're a sprinter). But for most of us, if you want to make a significant difference in your strength and/or muscle mass you have to put the time and effort in.

Right. There's the difference between what's possible and what's normal. Normal people are what we might call obese and weak. Normal is not the same as reasonable at least not any longer.

In addition to what OBolle wrote: women also have (and should have) a higher percentage of body fat than men at the same weight and height—this also holds true for fitness levels. So, "pound for pound" women should have less muscle mass and more body fat then men, which can kinda translate into a statement that women are not as strong pound per pound as men.