A mum-of-four has proven that weight is just a number by dropping three whole dress sizes, while losing less than a kilo on the scales.
Adrienne Osuna recently posted a side-by-side photo on Instagram showing her transformation from 182 to 180 pounds (that’s 82.5 kilograms to 81.6).
She captioned the photo: “I THANK GOD I didn’t let the scale stop me…I could care less what I weigh. For reals powerlifting built this body. My goals are to *build muscle and lose fat* I didn’t diet to get here…I lifted a lot of heavy things and I do intermittent fasting and I’m not done yet!!!”
“And yesss really 2 pounds difference… size 16 to a size 10 it’s body recomposition – losing fat & gaining muscle. I lift 5 days a week and do 3 days cardio, and I intermittent fast usually 15 hours over night,” she added.
Since it was posted online five weeks ago, the post has received more than 10,000 likes. A second post with the same photo and an update on her story attracted more than 11,000 likes.
Through her Instagram posts, Osuna has proven how much muscle mass has to do with our appearance and that the number on the scale isn’t the only indicator of health and fitness.
Many people have thanked her for being so open and honest about the transformation.
“You have really inspired me! When I have a bad week at the scales I have to remember it’s not all about numbers. You are amazing,” wrote one person.
This Is Us has it in a contract that their main star has to lose weight with the character that she plays.
“So inspirational. The scale hasn’t moved much for me though my body is changing . I see it doesn’t really have to for me to look a lot different. Thanks for posting,” added another.
Top Comments
MM, you didn't approve my comment yesterday- not sure why? Can you please have an editor look at this story (and every other story on your website.... as I've been requesting for months). Did she lose three or six dress sizes? Headline and second paragraph both say something different.
Well, congrats to the lady, however much weight she lost. A kilo is equal to 2.2 pounds, so 2 kilos is 4.4 pounds. I suppose if you lose a certain amount of nondense fat, and can manage to replace it with much denser muscle, that means she lost 4.4 lbs (2 kilos) of fat and put back about 2.4 pounds (just over 1 kilo.) the It all comes down to what the scale really says. Choosing to ignore what the scales tell you doesn't negate their accuracy, but just erases one source, not their results. I'm not sure what to think about the pictures showing just her abdomen either. Certainly she's pulling her abdomen in the "skinny me" shot. Can't tell for sure if shes pushing it out in the "fatter me" taken first. It's surely possible, to increase the appearance of more weight than was really there. As for the "intermittent fasting" mostly at night for about 15 hours is about the same time most people sleep, and nobody eats while they sleep! Adding about 3½ hours of no eating at each end of the sleeping time most folks try to get - 8 hours - will complete that 15 hour time span. Not terribly unusual for people to complete their dinner 3½ hours before bed, or to delay breakfast for a while after rising. It may not work out to precisely 15 hours all the time, but then she said she only did it "intermittently" anyway.
Weight losses of a certain amount of weight don't show up the same on small people, as it would on a larger person. A small person has less space to fill than someone tall and with a heavy bone structure, so taking off only 4.4 pounds of fat, and putting back on about half of it in muscle takes less muscle tissue than the amount of less dense, "fluffier" fat.
I have had about 6 months of acute gall bladder problems, which finally culminated in it being removed laparoscopically in November. Over that 6 months, I lost a good deal of weight myself - about 55 pounds. Since I'm tall, and have a heavier bone structure, and a denser body mass than a lot of women, it doesn't show up on me like it would on a shorter woman of less weight and body mass. Unfortunately, in a way I guess, I can and do carry weight well, and it's fairly well distributed, so even a large loss like that doesn't show up as drastically to the eye as it would on a shorter woman who doesn't have the same structure.
So, if this gal is shorter and smaller than average to begin with, then her very small loss of less than 5 pounds is going to be more drastic looking than on a tall person with a larger skeleton. It's all really a matter of perspective.