Sorry to be nitpicky, but the “tone” thing is really putting a stutter into my reading.  It’s not tone, it’s toned.  You exercise or tone your musles so as to become toned.  It’s not a tone female body, but a toned female body.  Etc.
The grammar is sufficient to distract me from your otherwise fine point.
My daughter has shoes similar to these that she loves.  She does not have any illusion that they tone anything, but she wanted very comfortable , thick soled shoes to wear in the lab where she often stands for long periods.  She tried these as an act of desperation when every casual shoe she found was uncomfortable to stand in for long periods.  They have also stood up to daily wear very well compaired to other like-priced excercise shoes. 
I’ve tried hers and do not care for them as they do seem a little wobblyand the thick sole is not important to me.

Oh man, I hate prescriptive grammar nitpicking so much that I kind of want to say “tone tone tone” over and over again.

People say “tone” instead of “toned”. Or both are in use. Since I’m not writing a formal paper, I am free and in fact pleased to use colloquial language.

I’ve never heard anyone but you say “tone” but I’ll go with you on it.

As someone who actually enjoys building muscle and only stopped lifting because she stopped being able to fit into women’s clothing (my arms actually got stuck in a short sleeved blouse and I had to get a store attendant to help me out because every time I tried to help myself the flexed bicep juts made it worse), I hate the idea that being muscular is icky. Or the usual reassurance that “women can’t get bulky like men, don’t worry, you can lift weights,” which of course makes bulked-up little me feel fabulous about myself. Clearly because I can put on muscle bulk I am not a woman! Guh.

This makes me wonder if there’s a good book on the history of quackery, panaceas, and snake oil.  I’ll have to look into it.

Yes to the entire post.  Just yes.

YES! A few years ago I found this page, which is about lies that women are told about fitness and includes all the bullshit about tone:
http://www.stumptuous.com/lies-in-the-gym
The whole site is pretty awesome for women who want to be fit and strong, and are tired with all the crap about exercise that we’re fed in mainstream media. It sure saved me from a lot of useless reps using low weights, and I just ignored this whole stupid toning shoe thing because I knew it was bullshit. I did have to clamp my mouth shut sometimes when I heard someone mention them.

I specifically remember in high school, my friend and I joined a gym, and on our visits I was doing aerobic and then weights. My friend just did aerobic training because she was afraid of getting “too big muscles”. Sigh. I don’t think that mindset has changed much.

Sorry Amanda, but sometimes your writing is frustrating because you make great social points (which I really do love reading), but you sometimes make them in argument against things that not purely social (e.g. partly scientific), and present the social arguments as if they refute non-social aspects. Yes, the Reebok ads are sexist, and fitness promotion in general is often very much about promoting an unattainable ideal. But that has nothing to do with whether “tone” is bullshit or not. If “tone” and “increasing muscle activation” are bullshit (and I personally have no idea whether they are), I want to know the anatomical reasons to believe that; otherwise you’re not supporting your assertion.

The irony is that most women who do a “normal” weight training (say, three times a week for :45-1:00), will not turn into the Incredible Hulk.  Yes they will develop muscle, but most women just don’t have the genetics to add massive amounts of bulk (just like most men don’t have the genetics to turn into Lou Ferrigno circa 1979, even with steroids). 

Granted, there may be exceptions (like Hobbes at 3), but the odds are just against any given individual.  Besides, even if one can get a muscular, fit look, why is this a bad thing?  One of this culture’s standards of beauty is the cheerleader.  Most cheerleaders I’ve met have a good deal of muscle.  Do women really want to look more like runway models than cheerleaders?  Is this something our culture pushes?

And yes, I know that fat paranoia is foisted on cheerleaders too (as well as dancers, gymnasts, and other fields where hours of exercise is a requirement for the job).  However, muscle doesn’t seem to be a worry.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Thanks you lijakaca for the link addressing the anatomical issues!

But that has nothing to do with whether “tone” is bullshit or not.

Didn’t you notice the little lawsuit that Reebok had to pay for making false claims?  Their shoes don’t work and they lied about the science to sell more crap.

My daughter has shoes similar to these that she loves.  She does not have any illusion that they tone anything, but she wanted very comfortable , thick soled shoes to wear in the lab where she often stands for long periods.

I’m actually surprised that anyone finds them comfortable, considering they are designed to be uncomfortable.  The technology is basically just to make it harder to balance normally, which makes your muscles work a little harder to not fall over.  I’ve heard of a lot of people getting sprained ankles from these things.

Consumer Reports claimed that a few months ago, that the shoes seem to cause more injuries.

I’ve been wearing shoes similar to these (the Payless knockoff version) at work and on my two mile walks almost exclusively. Normally my feet start hurting quick after standing so much; I can get a few more hours of painlessness in the rocker bottoms.

A week or so ago I dug out my (normal) autumn boots for a day. Or more like a couple of hours, as after that the pain in my knees was ridiculous. I was wondering if there was a simple way to detach my own legs.

This is anecdata that’s just as valid as the original data for those shoes, but I think it’s time to start weaning myself off my rocker bottoms before I fuck up my skeleton even more.

“Do women really want to look more like runway models than cheerleaders?  Is this something our culture pushes?”

Yeah, what are you silly women complaining about?  You have choices!  You can look like straight guys think you should look, or you can look like gay guys think you should look.  What more do you want?

The ads aren’t the only reason those shoes sold. They were incredibly comfortable and helped cure my plantar fasciitis. A lot of people with foot issues bought them for the massive cushioning. (And many abandoned them when they were rumored to be bad for the knees.) However, the ads made me embarrassed to wear them to the gym, namely b/c people kept informing me how useless they were at toning my ass.

“Tone” and “increasing muscle activation” are bullshit.

Also, I am a scientist.

Happy now?

More seriously, it does kind of shock me how little people understand about fitness, despite being immersed in a culture so obsessed with it and claiming to want to be fit themselves.  Here’s an exercise: think of all the people you know/see on a regular basis (in real life; not on TV or in magazines).  Think of their body types.  Are there any you would like to look more like?  How do you think they get/maintain that appearance?  If you can’t think of anyone, or have no idea what people who are actually fit do to be fit, then you are the target audience for this kind of bullshit.

The fact is, plenty of real people manage to be fit, or reasonably so.  They’re not magical; they’re probably not doing anything you couldn’t do yourself.*  If you don’t know any of them, you can join a gym or find them online.  In other words, do a little research, just like you would before taking up a new hobby or starting a home improvement project.

Also:

Looking at real people who are fit will give you a realistic idea of what you can look like at a particular age and with a particular body type.  It will give you an appreciation of what real (un-airbrushed) human bodies look like.  To me, real bodies are both less perfect and more beautiful than the plastic half-people you see on magazine covers.  You might find a greater appreciation for your own body that way.

* I understand that some people have disabilities and medical conditions which make fitness more challenging.

The argument is sound…but wait a minute…did you just make fun of chicks (read me) using the 10lbs weights at the gym!?! I felt so kick-ass this week when I upped my weights from the 7.5lbs (at least for biceps & triceps) to the 10lbs!!! My shoulders are still on the 7.5lbs level, but “we’re” getting there (by we, I mean me and my muscles). I’ve never really been worried about “bulking up”, maybe because it TAKES A LOT for me to gain any muscle, but I want more MUSCLE. Did you know that you can eat more when you have more muscles?!? Yes, you can eat more FOOD. This should be the #1 advertisement for “toning” (heh).

One of this culture’s standards of beauty is the cheerleader.

Yeah, but the “cheerleader” body type that everyone pays attention to are the girls flying, not the ones catching them—and in high school cheer in particular, there can be a huge difference in body types. Or people think of the Laker Girls and the Dallas Cowgirls, who are closer to a dance troupe than a competitive stunting cheer team, and are deliberately chosen for body type as much as ability.

Here’s what an expert has to say on the subject:

Women often avoid resistance training for fear they will end up looking like the female bodybuilders seen on television or in print occasionally and fear the excessive musculature those women possess. The truth is though that to develop high levels of muscularity is extremely difficult for both men and women, and especially for women. Female and male bodybuilders combine intense training, strict dietary practices, good genetics and often times anabolic/androgenic steroids to create the hyper muscular look of high level bodybuilders.

To build significant amounts of muscle mass especially for women requires a very high calorie, high protein diet, combined with very heavy high volume weightlifting and high levels of the hormone testosterone which most women only produce in very small amounts. To “bulk up” most women would be required to eat large amounts of food, lift heavy weight most days of the week and use steroids.

Women should not be afraid of or shy away from weight training; it will improve body composition, speed up metabolism, and improve bone mineral density and decrease your risk of developing osteoporosis.

I doubt that Hobbes is using steroids, she’s just someone who wanted to bulk-up and had the right combination of genetics + workout routine to do so.

http://www.sharecare.com/question/as-woman-lifting-weights-bulk-up

OTOH, we’re asked to disapprove of these women here, who are a bit too tan for my taste, but their bodies don’t look unfeminine to my eyes.

Rob, I’m sorry your Google has failed you so miserably. I do often do in-depth journalism, but alas, on the blog where I write for free, I stick to blogging.

Finally, something I can send to my mother to make her ditch those ridiculous quackery shoes. She won’t listen to me, but she likes you, Amanda!

Thea, it takes a real, strained reading that wants to be offended to believe I’m discouraging newbies who fully intend to actually train their muscles by adding weight after they get through the prelimins. I was talking, quite obviously, about women who could lift more but fear “bulking up”.

Thanks, Well! I would refer her to the FTC and Consumer Reports, as well.

Thanks, Dave and Dark, for additional info.

Per Hobbes, part of the problem is shirts assume relatively small arms for women. I’m not bulky by any measure, but some of my sleeves are ridiculously tight.

Unfortunately, sleeves are one of the places where clothing manufacturers can cut corners, as evidenced by the time that the company I worked for, rather than tell a customer that we didn’t actually have enough fabric for their order, frankened up a pattern involving petite-sized sleeves on a misses-sized jacket (there is a difference, and it’s enough that we were able to cut all the pattern pieces from our existing fabric.)

I know a handful of women in the food-service industry that swear by these, with no illusions that they tone anything, but noting that they are very comfortable for working in and help w/ the back pain. Could be the odd-shaped soles as I’ve noticed clogs are pretty popular in the restaurant industry as well.

With respect to cheerleaders, athletes, and attractiveness, I seem to recall reading a while back that there was science indicating that proper symmetry had as much to do with attractiveness as anything else. 

I’d guess that the corollary to that is that one natural result of working out is that one achieves better physical symmetry?

Per Hobbes, part of the problem is shirts assume relatively small arms for women. I’m not bulky by any measure, but some of my sleeves are ridiculously tight.

Don’t get me started on shirts.  I get custom made dress shirts because that is the only way I can find long sleeved shirts that fit.  Off the rack shirts that fit my shoulders reach below my knees (I have broad shoulders—airplane seats are hell!—but normal height.) and the sleeves cover my fingers. 

Re:  tone vs toned.  Bloody hell.  Were this published in the Guardian, I’d probably raise a flag (and equally criticize the editor for not catching it, that is one of the jobs of the editor) but this is a blog.  About the only time grammar/spelling should be critiqued is if it confuses or obscures the message.  I didn’t even notice it until I read the comment.

(That said, I will note funny typos—there was one on another blog that referred to the “NYPD officers in white shorts”—clearly a typo for “white shirts”—but the image of the NYPD in white speedos immediately came to mind…)

If toning shoes make your ankles feel better, great! It’s truly life-changing to find a shoe that works well with one’s individual anatomy. Feet are weird critters. I have a pair of high-heel boots that hit the sweet spot, and actually feel more comfortable than many of the stability running shoes that are supposed to be good for my type of fucked-up foot. Who’d a thunk, 2.5-inch heels feeling like clouds on these filthy hippie high-arched corn-and-bunion feet?

But feeling good on one’s feet doesn’t mean the Reebok shoes performed the feats of magical tone-building that the ads claimed they did. And that was what the lawsuit was about, and why I’m glad this is getting attention. I’m sure Reebok threw millions of dollars away trying to get lawyers and scientists to prove in court that their claims were anything but bullshit. And still lost.

I never believed the claims that these shoes were magic, it was just all ‘too good to be true.’ Yet I do have a pair of Reebok Rockers, and a pair of Rocker-knock offs. I didn’t pay more than $20 for either of them. Why? I was searching for a shoe that fit my needs working in retail. Super-comfortable for standing for 8 hours a day. These shoes may not tone your ass with magic, but they are comfortable and their thick-cushy sole has kept a lot of pressure going on a knee that sometimes hurts from an old injury. Also, it allows me to fulfill my need to fidget without being super obvious about it, you just tilt your foot back and forth.

I do see how their could be more potential to injure yourself in these, but that’s true of flip-flops, Ugg bots, heels and so many other types of footwear… i think in terms of possible damage it’s probably on the lower end of the scale.

The 2 downsides of owning these shoes: 1) That I did give money to a company that lied to consumers and produced some really stupid/sexist ads. 2) Someone might think that I was gullible enough to buy the shoes because I believed the claims.

beauty lies in the eyes of another’s dream.

reebok easytone : ass :: reebok pump : vertical leap

Lots O’ money to be made on bullshit.  My dad has had a joke for years about those magnetic bracelets for arthritis: he’s going to figure out how to make a magnetic condom and make a billion dollars. Fuckin’ condoms, how do they work?!

I do see how their could be more potential to injure yourself in these, but that’s true of flip-flops, Ugg bots, heels and so many other types of footwear… i think in terms of possible damage it’s probably on the lower end of the scale.

I’d think the difference is that nobody’s trying to excercise in heels or Uggs, turning an ankle while walking would, on average, be better than turning one while jogging. Do people try to run with these things on?

I’m looking at that black-and-white ad and wondering how it didn’t end up on Photoshop Disasters. I dare you to try to replicate that pose in the mirror. The whole area where the lower belly and ladybits would be seems to just be kind of airbrushed into a flat shadow space that melts into the bottom leg. Even acknowledging that some supposed photoshop disasters start out as real but impossible-looking-in-2D, the figure has been liquefied and heal-tooled to the point of looking like one of those smooth rubber bendy dolls. Which is so common in ads that it’s barely worth mentioning.

I wish the myth of the weight-lifting-anything-more-than-5lbs-will-make-you-huge would die.  It is so pervasive in all aspects of society.  I’ve had heated arguments with friends who refuse to push themselves at all or lift anything more than a 5lb weight out of fear of getting huge.

I work out 2 hours a day, 6 days a week (including cardio), mostly for the relaxation it provides me.  I am defined, but by no means huge, and I have no desire to be.  And many many times people have remarked that I should be Hulk-sized for all the time I spend in the gym.  There is so many misconceptions out there that it’s obvious that Reebok could get away with an ad like this.

I’m not a fan of high heels or Uggs, either. I think high heels are attractive, but I basically only wear them if I’m not going to be, you know, walking.

Thanks, Well! I would refer her to the FTC and Consumer Reports, as well.

Oh believe me, I’m assembling a binder. It worked on the vaccine woo she got in her head, maybe it’ll work this time too.

I once saw a guy working out with (I assume) his girlfriend.  She was obviously competent and was squatting some reasonable weight.  After a couple of sets, she wanted to put on more and he stopped her and told her she shouldn’t because she didn’t want to get “too big”.

I nearly fucking decked him right there.  I did say something to her the next time I saw her.

Conversely, there are some women who come to the gym who are very feminine and very attractive and who can squat as much as I can.  One of the things women can do that men can’t is accentuate a typically “feminine” hourglass figure (or create one) by building muscle in the shoulders, chest, back, hips, butt, and thighs.  But to do that you have to use significant weight and avoid doing too much midsection work - i.e. the opposite of what a lot of people actually do.

Whatever.  I can’t save the world.  But don’t be afraid to lift heavy.  Worst thing that happens is you get strong, boost your metabolism, and avoid osteoporosis, right?

Way back in the sixties, a tennis shoe company was selling PF Flyers, with the “invisible magic wedge” built right into the sole, which would help you run faster and jump higher.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I’d guess that the corollary to that is that one natural result of working out is that one achieves better physical symmetry?

It also seems to help the brain, at least in our mammalian cousins in the Rodentia family:

Like muscles, many parts of the brain get a robust physiological workout during exercise. “The brain has to work hard to keep the muscles moving” and all of the bodily systems in sync, says J. Mark Davis, a professor of exercise science at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina and senior author of the new mouse study, which was published last month in The Journal of Applied Physiology. Scans have shown that metabolic activity in many parts of the brain surges during workouts, but it was unknown whether those active brain cells were actually adapting and changing.

To see, the South Carolina scientists exercised their mice for eight weeks. The sedentary control animals were housed in the same laboratory as the runners to ensure that, except for the treadmill sessions, the two groups shared the same environment and routine.

At the end of the two months, the researchers had both groups complete a run to exhaustion on the treadmill. Not surprisingly, the running mice displayed much greater endurance than the loungers. They lasted on the treadmills for an average of 126 minutes, versus 74 minutes for the unexercised animals.

More interesting, though, was what was happening inside their brain cells. When the scientists examined tissue samples from different portions of the exercised animals’ brains, they found markers of upwelling mitochondrial development in all of the tissues. Some parts of their brains showed more activity than others, but in each of the samples, the brain cells held newborn mitochondria.

There was no comparable activity in brain cells from the sedentary mice.

This is the first report to show that, in mice at least, two months of exercise training “is sufficient stimulus to increase mitochondrial biogenesis,” Dr. Davis and his co-authors write in the study.

Off the rack shirts that fit my shoulders reach below my knees (I have broad shoulders—airplane seats are hell!—but normal height.) and the sleeves cover my fingers.

The genetics of body proportions is rather interesting in and of itself.

My father is 6’ 1”, and wears a size 7 shoe.  His inseam is 30 inches, I’m 5’9”, my sister was 5’4” and we all share the same inseam.

I think there is something inherently attractive in having long legs, it means you have offspring who’ll be able to run with the Doctor when the time comes.

I can’t figure out why women who think they’re going to bulk out too much don’t just stop if they get too bulky.  It’s not like it happens overnight and it’s not like the muscles won’t atrophy if you don’t exercise them much.

I don’t even see many women using 10 lb weights—two digits seems to be heavy enough to scare some women into thinking it will result in the dreaded “bulk.” Mostly it’s 1 lb, 3 lbs, or maaaaaybe 5 lbs.

Also—the closest I have come to the beauty standard in my life was when I was lifting my 10-rep max for every muscle group, 3 sets, 3 days a week. Not that fitting the beauty standard is a good reason to lift weights, but I found it ironic and amusing that that’s how it worked.

Plus lifting weights always gives me a power rush.

Re “increased muscle activation”—I suppose you could quantify the number of muscle fibers activated? Or their rate of firing? Not that that means anything when it comes to shoes or “toning.”

When I saw those ads I just disregarded them as another product for people who want to look like they are into fitness but don’t want to do any actual exercise but the “tone” thing is interesting.  It seems to me this is the result of men laying claim to the word “muscle” and insisting that its not sexy for women for fear that muscle might be seen as less manly, maybe even feminine and sexy(which it is).  Of course that simple minded fear causes women to worry about what dudes might think and advertisers to search for new words that don’t trigger such bad thoughts.  What’s next?  Bones?  Women shouldn’t have bones?  Oh right, there’s the photoshopped ad.  Good job, but they should have smoothed the knees out more, I think I see a little humanity still.

I recommend this product as a proven exercise alternative, although there is the problem of the doorknob flying off and hitting your ass, leaving a fist-sized bruise.

@ #37 Dana
Those are in Disney’s ‘60s-set The Sandlot; I love that movie!

Amanda’s right about the sports science. Muscles get firmer by getting bigger. Furthermore, they get bigger by progressive overload. In other words, you work the muscle until it is fatigued, then you rest, eat right, and repeat, working the muscle a little harder each time. If your muscle can do more this week before tiring out than it could last week, that’s because your muscle is growing.

The idea that a funny-shaped pair of shoes will continue to tone your butt and thighs over the long term as you went about your daily activities is absurd. Even if contorting your legs into a weird posture did give your leg muscles a workout, your body would acclimatize rapidly and you wouldn’t see any further results.

Of course, it’s not pseudoscience to say that you can achieve a more toned physique through weight training. If you gain muscle and lose fat (or never had much fat to begin with), you can achieve more visible muscle definition without necessarily adding a lot of bulk. But that doesn’t mean your muscles aren’t growing, or that the underlying training principle is different for you than for a bodybuilder. 

Amanda, as Trainer and coach of athletes, I am so happy to see you lambasting this quackery. Too many people are so eager to avoid the actual work of getting fit that they line up for any huckster or quack who will tell them they can eat whatever they want, and have the body they desire without a drop of sweat. It’s maddening.

One thing I do take issue with is that EMG or Electromyography can measure muscular activation. However, an 11/11/28% increase in activation when compared to walking is insignificant. It’s simply not high enough intensity to illicit any kind of physiological adaptation.. so It’s still crap, just accurately measured crap.

As far as injuries, these probably aren’t going to lead to the single indecent catastrophic injuries like high heels or big soled flops, but anytime you change the mechanics of the human gate you’re playing chicken with repetitive stress injuries. If you walk a mile that’s 2000 steps, that’s a lot of cumulative trauma to your knees/hips/ankles/low back. even if they feel better, they may just be exacerbating pre-existing dysfunctional movement patterns and further ingraining them.

Overall very well written and your major points are spot on. 

I have a question about the whole toned vs. bulky thing, and I feel like there is probably somebody here who knows the answer (I have tried to google an answer, and I’m still not really clear on it).  My understanding is that fast twitch muscle fibers are the ones that get bulky, and they are also the ones that develop as a result of anaerobic activity.  But shouldn’t it be possible to develop one’s slow twitch muscle?  Is that not what people mean by “toning”?

I really like the point that as you age if you want to stay toned, you are going to have to get thicker.  This goes for guys too as well.  We don’t have the thin lithe build we had at 20 either even if we stay in shape.

“I mean, these shoes don’t do diddly-squat except increase your chances of turning an ankle, but it’s interesting that even in their fallacious claims to be achieving some sort of fitness goal, they bring up a fitness goal that doesn’t actually exist for real women in the real world, but is a myth constructed by Photoshop: that there’s such thing as a workout routine that can achieve “tone”, i.e. firmness without building muscle. That you can lift your ass up an inch without pushing it out two as you build muscle.”

My favorite implicit Photoshop claim: That you can build muscle, thus improving tone, without gaining weight.  Optimally you’re supposed to be able to tone up and get lighter at the same time.  Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

“My understanding is that fast twitch muscle fibers are the ones that get bulky, and they are also the ones that develop as a result of anaerobic activity.  But shouldn’t it be possible to develop one’s slow twitch muscle?  Is that not what people mean by ‘toning’?”

I don’t think so, though this is a subject upon which I’m very willing to be proven wrong.  My own experience runs to the contrary: I’m strong but slow; lots of slow-twitch muscle fiber; not so much fast-twitch muscle fiber.  If anyone could have “gotten toned” without bulking up it should have been me.  But it hasn’t worked out that way, ever.  If there’s anyone out there with a way around the “you’ll feel and look better but you’ll weigh more and your thighs will still bulge, except they’ll be more solid and less soggy” dilemma, I’d love to hear from you.  If I could tone up and take off weight simultaneously I’d do it.  I’d love to know how to achieve that feat.

There are three ways muscles can get bigger/stronger:
1. The fibers can get bigger.
2. You can add mitochondria (energy factories) and structural proteins to existing muscle cells.
3. You can train the nervous system to fire the muscle more efficiently.

You really need all three to gain significant, explosive strength, but you can modify your exercise routine to focus on one or the other.  Bodybuilders focus only on muscle size by doing medium-length sets (10-12 reps) in rapid succession to fatigue.  Powerlifters tend to do shorter sets (4-6 reps) at higher weight with more time in-between, which gives them more of the second and third type of strength - and more strength in general for the same muscle size.

The key here is that (2) and (3) will make you stronger, but not as big as (1).  They will cause your muscles to have greater tone (in the real sense - firmness) and strength for the same size.  Combined with low bodyfat, it’s possible to be very strong and lean without being huge if you can train more like a powerlifter.

On the other hand, if you want a classical physique with defined muscles, or you really want to re-shape your body and aren’t interested in a lot of fat loss, training like a bodybuilder is probably better.  There are strategies for muscle training that combine both approaches (pyramids, drop-sets, etc.) if you want both size and strength (i.e. “functional muscle”).

Regarding slow-twitch fibers, it’s possible to develop them through the type of training you’d expect - long distance running and the like - but you will not have the “runner’s physique” without a low bodyfat percentage.  Otherwise, you’re just a normal-looking or chubby guy/gal who can run far

@bekabot: If you don’t have a lot of endurance for running, swimming, etc. you probably do have more fast-twitch fibers than slow-twitch.  You just don’t have “explosive” strength.  How do you normally lift?  Do you mind describing your typical workout?

I’ve never really understood why the bulking-up thing is treated with so much fear. I mean, sure, someone may not want it, or even really dislike it, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to avoid. Nobody walks into a gym, picks up a 20-lb dumbbell, and pops up into bodybuilder physique like an airbag inflating. It’s slow and gradual and—-kicker—-it goes away all by itself if you stop lifting.

All anyone has to do to avoid getting too big is to check themselves out in the mirror every few days, and once they get as big as they want to be, adjust their workout to stay around that size. Or if they get too big, take a few days or a couple weeks off from the weight room, and watch it sort of magically disappear.

Every time I hear some sort of “don’t worry, you can’t,” type crap being spewed I want to throw things. More like, “don’t worry, it’s easy to avoid.”

Yes, the claims are stupid. BUT…
I started wearing Chung Shi shoes (http://chungshiusa.com/), because my feet and knees hurt a lot when I stand or walk. This started when I was 18. It hurts so much that even more than 30 seconds on my bare feet is uncomfortable; 5mins with orthopedic inserts. So life just sucks. I was and am so desperate for anything that will help, that I bought those overpriced Chung Shi shoes based on a few other people who swear by them… and it worked better than orthopedic inserts. One podiatrist said something about taking the weight off my heels.

Yes, all the claims there are a bunch of bs that targets women. But for whatever weird reason, I’ not in (as much) pain when I wear those stupid looking shoes. I hate wearing them, because they make me look like I buy into all that fake-science and body image crap, but nothing can argue with pain. No, my legs don’t look any better, but I think there must be something about Chung Shi shoes that help some people with some feet problems. I dont’ know if that applies to other manufacturers, but stupid-shaped Chung Shi shoes are why I can get through a boring, sedentary, unfulfillig life without too much pain.

Btw, I love your “boring” food posts. That helps me deal with my CSA without aggravating my feet problems too much.

I have great endurance as a hiker and swimmer.  I can lift and tote a box which weighs about half what I do, although I don’t claim that I’d be able to do it on a day-to-day serious basis. 

Gyms freak me out, so I don’t have what I think you’d call a typical workout…what I do is exercise: I hike, power-walk, jog, paddle, carry a pack, and so forth.  (I’m too slow to make a good runner.)  I find that I build muscle by doing this and also that I put on weight, though it’s weight of a different kind from the sort of weight I’d put on sitting around snacking.  (When I was studying accounting I used to carry my textbooks, which were heavy, around in a pack on my back.  I quickly developed a muscley, defined back, though the muscles and the definition subsided after I quit carrying the books.)

“Otherwise, you’re just a normal-looking or chubby guy/gal who can run far.”

Substitute “hike” for “run” and that describes me pretty well. 

I’m still doubtful that there’s a way to get firmer and to take off weight at the same time, which is the true goal ads like this one prescribe.  The fact that I can’t attain that goal doesn’t matter intensely to me now, but I found it bothersome when I started hiking in my teens.  I gained about seven pounds of muscle right away, which disgusted me more than I can describe.  Then, as now, the promise was that if you behaved yourself (exercised regularly, didn’t eat too much and didn’t eat garbage, comported yourself as a virtuous girl) you were supposed gain entrance to a state in which you’d get slim as an elf and would be able to run through fields of daisies in slow motion.  Intellectually I knew it wasn’t so and that I was no more going to turn into a Unicorn Maiden than Lindsay Wagner was going to turn into a cyborg, but I let the whole thing make me unhappy all the same.  It’s stupid, but these visions can prove compelling, and they can be hard to ditch.

My understanding was that you could gain muscle and still lose weight and get smaller if you’re starting off with fat reserves.  As you gain the muscle, you might initially get bigger, but as your improved metabolism kicks in, you’ll start burning off that fat, so you’ll get smaller, what with fat being less dense than muscle.  Bulking up starts when you’ve basically burned the excess fat and your muscles are still getting larger.  When I was running seriously, I weighed less and had more muscle and less fat than I do now.  I was not lifting (because I hate lifting) which likely changes the equation. 

This is not to say there is this mythical “toning”—you’re going to have muscle definition, but unless you’re really into bodybuilding, your muscles will be smaller than your fat was.

What I always thought of as weird is that a different company came up with this easytone stuff first and their shoes had a serious hike at the toe, like and inch off the floor. When Reebok came out with their cheaper version the lift was much less. That screamed snakeoil more than anything else.

Muscle fiber types are (generally) dependent on genetic makeup, but can be influenced by training modality. While type II muscle fibers (fast twitch) are more prone to hypertrophy (getting bigger) specific training and dietary protocols are required to get there.. or more succinctly put:
“If getting big muscles were that easy, I would have them” -Mark Rippetoe

The “tone” (dear flying spagetti monster in heaven how I loathe that phrase) Is a misappropriation what physiologist refer to as muscle tone.  athletes who have at least moderate amounts of muscle mass have greater tonus: passive partial contraction of the muscle giving it a harder more defined appearance. Combine that with fairly low subcutaneous body fat and you appear “toned.”

Diet is really the foundation of your bodyfat % and I’m not going to what is the appropriate diet for fat loss, because thar be monsters.. but I will say that you can’t gain mass (muscle or fat) without supporting nutrients.

Most often when people complain about getting “too bulky” either:
They are training for their goals, but not eating for them (I worked out so I deserve…)
or
when folks have been dieting and doing a lot of aerobic exercise for so many years that their lean body mass virtually non-existent, and they freak out as soon as they get a hint of muscle development.

In my experience bodybuilder type training (body part splits, high volume, isolation training)  is exactly the wrong training for anyone who is afraid of “bulkyness” It’s the easiest way to gain muscle volume without stimulating the central nervous system and getting the hormonal benefits of training. Run, Jump, sprint. Get better at moving and I promise you’ll feel better, look better and won’t have to worry about “getting too bulky.”
Our bodies are for function, not form. Focus on function and form will improve.

anyone with specific questions or comments can email me jbzero at msn

Just to clarify, the reason I’m interested in the slow/fast twitch thing isn’t because I’m trying to avoid amassing more fast twitch but because I suspect that my body is very resistant to growing more slow twitch muscle mass (my concern being endurance, not so much my appearance).  I’m not sure if anybody else has had a similar experience, but trying to sustain an aerobic exercise regimen can be pretty discouraging when the same activity never gets any easier, especially when lifting weights seems to give a much greater return on my investment!  So being a chubby lady who can run far would be perfectly fine with me.

I don’t know if it’s been said, but you can measure ‘muscle activation’ scientifically.  From thermal imaging, EKG or kinetic sensors along muscle groups, to testing blood chemistry at sites along the body, activation of muscles can be determined.

We know how much energy it takes to walk vs jog vs crawl for many types of animals and surfaces.  It flat out takes more calories to walk on sand or sponges than it does dirt or pavement.  Shoes could act to slow down your inertia, resist action and make walking basically more difficult without bringing shocks to your tendons.

However, I don’t know any science that says muscle site activation has anything to do with which fat in the body is lost.

Has anyone seen those stupid lap-band commercials?  They tout FDA approval.

They do work, though. At least to some extent. I haven’t worn those particular shoes, but I had a pair of MBTs about five years ago, and I wore them every day for a year because they were so comfortable I didn’t want to wear other shoes, plus I was a student so I could wear what I wanted. My calves got much more muscled—I’ve heard of women who had to stop wearing them because their calves got “too big”, but I’m the kind of person who will always have skinny legs. My posture also got better. I’m not sure if my ass did; probably a bit, but the impact on my calves was much more noticeable. I was walking a lot like non-car owners do in a city, but not doing any deliberate exercise that year.

And you can feel when you stand or walk in them that you are using your muscles in a different way from normal. And when I walked for longer than ten or fifteen minutes in them, I could feel I was using more energy to walk than normal, because my body would start to get very slightly out of breath from that.

That said, I have worn Fit Flops for the past three summers, and they didn’t seem to have any effect on my leg muscles, and I also don’t experience a positive impact on my posture from wearing them instead of normal shoes. Their wobbly sole is a lot less wobbly than the wobbly sole of the MBTs (and I think the Reeboks are also less wobbly than the MBTs), so that might be why there’s a difference. Or maybe it was wearing the MBTs every day that did it. IDK. The Fit Flops are still super comfortable, though.

Not much of a point here, I just think Amanda’s description of the toning shoes was overly harsh, lots of people do experience positive benefits from (some brands?) of them and while I’m sure that they are bad for some people’s backs they were good for mine.

@bekabot: J.B. Zero seems very knowledgeable, but I’ll add my $0.02…

(Disclaimer: I’m not a trainer.  But I am in pretty good shape, read a lot, and have tried a lot of different workouts.  Take whatever follows with a grain of salt.)

You seem to have genetics a bodybuilder would kill for.  You put on muscle easily without having to spend long hours at the gym.  But Zero is also right in that it requires fuel to build muscle.  And fatigue from long aerobic/endurance work (like hiking) is going to make you hungry, which means you’re going to eat, which means building muscle.  ...at least it’s not fat?

So let’s assume you don’t want to look like this (I mean, she’s awesome, but that’s not for everybody).  You don’t want to be a bodybuilder.  So you probably want to avoid things which are like bodybuilding - for example, instead of hiking uphill with a heavy pack, try running on level ground or swimming.  Watching your diet will help, too - if you want to firm up without gaining muscle the only real way to do it is to lose fat.

If you were less gym-averse and really interested in strength or boosting your metabolism, I would say to add in some heavy powerlifting and/or compound exercises: squats, deadlifts, bench press, shoulder press, pulldowns, rows.  Low reps, heavy weight, good warmup, good form, rest between sets, only once a week per muscle group (2-3 days a week total).  That is how I gained a lot of strength on a relatively wiry frame, and I’m a person who has a lot of trouble adding muscle.  Explosive lower-body movements might help you gain some quickness, too.

Also, you can trade off - spend some time building strength and not watching what you eat as much, and then do more cardio and eat less for a bit to drop a few pounds.  That’s kind of like what bodybuilders do, except you’d be focusing on strength instead of muscle mass when you’re lifting more (and you wouldn’t be trying to get down to unhealthy bodyfat levels).  The good news for you is that unless you’re pretty out of shape, you can’t add muscle and lose fat at the same time.  So take advantage of that - use the thousands of calories you’re burning lifting heavy and recovering from lifting heavy to help drop the bulk.

I don’t know if any of that advice is helpful to you or compatible with what you like to do.  But hopefully it can give you some ideas.

I’ve never been a bodybuilder, b/c (even though I agree that on some people the bodybuilder physique is pretty awesome) you’re right, I don’t want to look like that — but when I was a younger woman I lived in a boardinghouse where a lot of the guys were bodybuilders.  They told me more or less what you did (one thing I remember is that they were always going on about what great lats I had).  You’re also right that swimming suits me better than hiking does: I’m actually more skilled at it, I like it more, and I end up looking more “conventionally good” when I’ve been swimming than when I’ve been hiking, and then, too, pools don’t wig me out the way gyms do.  It’s just that I live in a part of the world in which hiking is so easy b/c the great outdoors is right outdoors, by which I mean right outside the doors.  All you have to do is get out into it and start walking around.  Memberships to organizations which grant the public access to pool facilities, OTOH, cost money.  Maybe not huge amounts of money, but it’s not tempting to have to pay to do something when you can do some other thing almost for free (if you already own the paraphernalia appertaining to it, which I do.

Nevertheless I’ve been thinking about joining the Y.  Maybe I can wangle a membership for Christmas…

You know, another thing I’ve always said is that you shouldn’t strive for the “best possible physique” for your body - you should strive for the best physique that your lifestyle allows.  If you love hiking and the outdoors (like I do - I’m also in one of those parts of the country where it’s just there and you can’t help but do it) and it’s worth having thick legs, then you ought to go hiking.  Because if you give up things you love to look a certain way, you’re just going to end up being miserable.

To that end, I hope you have success with the Y membership and achieve your goals.

(Also, lats on women are great.  They help emphasize the waist, whether or not you are naturally curvy!)

Well, you know, I’m not miserable now — but I was when I was fourteen years old.  When I get indignant about stuff like this today it’s on behalf of teenage girls.  They’re vulnerable to this kind of thing: they haven’t had time to settle into their adult bodies, and every advantage is taken of that fact.  They get sold the way nobody else does.

It’s not tone, it’s toned.  You exercise or tone your musles so as to become toned.  It’s not a tone female body, but a toned female body.

I feel the same way about the American tendency to use “tan” instead of “tanned”, but y’know - language.  If I spent a huge amount of time complaining about someone else’s use of colloquialisms that hurt my ears a bit, I’d be a boring pedant.

What annoyed me the most was that Reebok’s press release essentially amounted to “We’re paying $25M because the FTC is making us but we don’t admit the stuff we said about the shoes is bullshit.”

Trying to deceive your customers is bad enough. Refusing to admit you tried a con after you got caught is pathetic.

i say yes to the post

Has anyone seen those stupid lap-band commercials?  They tout FDA approval.

I don’t know if this applies to the lap-band specifically, but the FDA thing is often used in sneaky ways.  There are two different things that the FDA can do.  They can clear a product for its safety, and approve it for its effectiveness.  Very commonly, OTC things will say that they are cleared by the FDA, which means that they probably won’t hurt you if you take them.  But they know that the general public will just assume it means that they have proven to the FDA that the product is effective.

That’s why you can have FDA-cleared homeopathic pills that are safe (because there’s nothing in them) but also not effective (because there’s nothing in them).

I think the FDA should require less ambiguous language, but should still keep clearing OTCs for safety.  If someone is gonna take a placebo, it should at least be one that won’t harm them.

The FDA doesn’t protect the doctor if something goes wrong:

An Orange County woman has died after weight-loss surgery at a West Hills outpatient clinic, the fifth person to die shortly after Lap-Band procedures at clinics affiliated with the 1-800-GET-THIN advertising campaign since 2009, according to lawsuits, coroner’s records and interviews.

Paramedics rushed Paula Rojeski on Sept. 8 from Valley Surgical Center to a nearby hospital, where she was pronounced dead, said Los Angeles County Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter. The coroner’s office performed an autopsy but has not yet determined how she died.

Rojeski, 55, was the second Lap-Band patient to die after surgeries at the West Hills facility on Woodlake Avenue, which has used multiple names, most recently Valley Surgical Center. Three patients have died after procedures at another clinic on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, which also has used numerous names including Beverly Hills Surgery Center.

Both locations receive referrals from 1-800-GET-THIN, which sends prospective weight-loss patients to outpatient clinics that perform Lap-Band surgeries in Southern California. The ads have attracted criticism, including from the device’s manufacturer, about underplaying of risks associated with the procedure.

1-800-GET-THIN, the ubiquitous marketing campaign seen on billboards, television and the Internet, has led to a surge of Lap-Band weight-loss surgeries in Southern California. More than 100,000 people called 1-800-GET-THIN in its first 15 months of business, leading to more than 10,000 scheduled surgeries, the marketing company said in a trademark lawsuit. (It filed the suit against an attorney who had set up a website to attract former patients as clients.)

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/sep/23/business/la-fi-lap-band-death-20110924

“Language descriptivism doesn’t mean that there aren’t inaccurate or erroneous descriptions of language.”

Yeah, even accepting the idea that language can’t be right or wrong, it certainly can be aberrant.  And reading a piece that has a lot of aberrant usage in it is like listening to a scratched CD.  Every time I come across an instance of it, my brain stops for a moment to wonder, “Is this supposed to be an adjective, verb, or noun? Is it a typo?  Is it some meaning of the word ‘tone’ that I’m not familiar with?” Clearly enough people do not experience this that when people point it out, they come across as pedantic jerks, but I feel like the intent is more to let the person know that there is a technical issue that is making the piece less easy to read for some of us. 

My skin is always tan, but it’s only really tanned in the summer.

Yes, Reebok “overclaimed.”  But, where is the science that shows injuries from these shoes (not as in I fell off my higher that usual soles, but as in the rocker effect caused an injury form use? Not saying an injurh can’t happen for a particular individual, However, there is quite a bit of evidence, like this:
http://www.pnfchi.com/fotos/literatura/1233837207.PDF
about adding a bit of instability as a way to improve core and other supportive muscle use. 

Or this:http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H09-128
There have been quite a few studies on injured soccer players and instability to rehab. So , no, it isn’t a complete crock.

A bit of instability + low weight, high reps CAN help with back/hip/knee problems by strengthening the core- and general “toning.”  it’s easier to add some instability to say, a bicep workout, then it is to add a killer abs routine, or horrors and really damaging - those reverse ab weight machines.  Physioballs, ankle disc platforms, or even lifting on one foot in a pilates workout are all based on that same theory. 

bekabot:  I see Dave Fried gave the answer to one of your questions.  Marathon runners tend to be pretty fit, but also pretty skinny.  I’ve known people who went from solid but moderately fit to much slimmer, particularly in the thighs and calves, when they took up distance running.  Jogging and power alking didn’t seem to be enough from what I’ve seen.  I have neither the time nor the dedication to train that way seriously enough to have a real impact on weight or an easily discernable one to size, but I’ve seen it in others.
That said, of course genetics plays a part and not everyone will react the same to the same excercises.  Ther really is no “right way” to be fit or to control weight or anything else.  One of problems as a society (and perhaps a sepecies) is our tendancy to believe in “the one right answer”.  Which sucks when the answer that has been decided as “right” isn’t at all right for you.

mamram:  the scratched CDeffect; YES, exactly.  Thanks.