Should an Ectomorph Train Differently?

too sarcastic or not enough? i was going to delve into the powers of wrist isolation movements as they correlate to GH increases.

[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
too sarcastic or not enough? i was going to delve into the powers of wrist isolation movements as they correlate to GH increases. [/quote]

I just dont know what to believe in that post. Some things are obvious, but do you really have 13" wrists?

I’m wondering…

If I were a really skinny kid and remained so up through college (I was about 130 when I started college), and am now over 230, am I still an ectomorph?

I think the idea of a body type like these is a crock. People talk about their “natural” weight. The problem being your “natural” weight is based on your diet and lifestyle. When I wasn’t eating much and was still training, my “natural” weight was very low. Now that I eat and train, my “natural” weight is still going up. How much you weigh is based mostly on factors entirely under conscious, physical control. Everyone at every point is their “natural” weight based on how they treat their bodies. (there are a few rare medical exceptions)

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m an ectomorph too.

Hell, we are ALL ectomorphs here!!![/quote]

Not me. : )

[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:

good luck dingle berry, remember water is for pussies!
[/quote]

I don’t get posts like this - the guy asked a legitimate question - why mock him?

I mean, being in this game a long time, I think it’s easy to become jaded and think that everyone that asks a question like this should know better, but realize that many people really don’t know.

They’re not trolling, they don’t deserve to be verbally abused - they just truly don’t know about this stuff - even the basics. So, I’d think it would be more beneficial to everyone involved to either give some decent advice, or just don’t say anything at all…

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m wondering…

If I were a really skinny kid and remained so up through college (I was about 130 when I started college), and am now over 230, am I still an ectomorph?

I think the idea of a body type like these is a crock. People talk about their “natural” weight. The problem being your “natural” weight is based on your diet and lifestyle. When I wasn’t eating much and was still training, my “natural” weight was very low. Now that I eat and train, my “natural” weight is still going up. How much you weigh is based mostly on factors entirely under conscious, physical control. Everyone at every point is their “natural” weight based on how they treat their bodies. (there are a few rare medical exceptions)[/quote]

It does change, and its what you have a tendency towards. Note that ectomorph is not a synonym for hardgainer, but people seem to be implying that they are identical. Basically if you have a tendency toward being lower body fat and lower weight you are ecto. If you have a tendency to lower body fat, but more muscle you are meso. And if you have a tendency toward higher body fat, but lower muscle then you are endo. And not everyone is an extreme.

[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
too sarcastic or not enough? i was going to delve into the powers of wrist isolation movements as they correlate to GH increases. [/quote]

doh! My sarcasm meter is broken. :slight_smile: That’s what I get for not reading closely.

[quote]dankid wrote:
And if you have a tendency toward higher body fat, but lower muscle then you are endo. And not everyone is an extreme. [/quote]

Actually, endos gain fat easily, but usually also gain muscle fairly easily, so I don’t think that’s quite accurate.

But, most people are a combination of two somatypes. And of course, proper training and nutrition work for everyone - an ecto can get big and lean, an endo can get big and lean, at which point they’d both resemble a mesomorph.

So, body typing has some important things to take into consideration, but in the end training and nutrition will take anyone - regardless of bodytype - where they want to go…

[quote]dankid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m wondering…

If I were a really skinny kid and remained so up through college (I was about 130 when I started college), and am now over 230, am I still an ectomorph?

I think the idea of a body type like these is a crock. People talk about their “natural” weight. The problem being your “natural” weight is based on your diet and lifestyle. When I wasn’t eating much and was still training, my “natural” weight was very low. Now that I eat and train, my “natural” weight is still going up. How much you weigh is based mostly on factors entirely under conscious, physical control. Everyone at every point is their “natural” weight based on how they treat their bodies. (there are a few rare medical exceptions)

It does change, and its what you have a tendency towards. Note that ectomorph is not a synonym for hardgainer, but people seem to be implying that they are identical. Basically if you have a tendency toward being lower body fat and lower weight you are ecto. If you have a tendency to lower body fat, but more muscle you are meso. And if you have a tendency toward higher body fat, but lower muscle then you are endo. And not everyone is an extreme. [/quote]

Sweet, chalk up one 230 pound ectomorph here then. But like I said, you are referring to a “natural tendency”, that is based at least mostly on your conscious decisions. Everyone "tends to be skinny when they aren’t eating. Everyone “tends” to be fat when they over eat and don’t exercise. Everyone “tends” to build muscle when they eat well and lift. You can only have a “tendency” based on a diet and lifestyle.

From a scientific standpoint you must specify and control these variables in the data in order to make a logical comparison or model for extrapolation. If, as you are doing, you overlook these variables, your label can only be descriptive of a condition, same as the words skinny, or built, or fat, or skinny fat. What you are doing is not, in any way, a predictive scientific model.

Now, if you want to specify all facets of a lifestyle then make comparisons between people, that would work. But what do you gain by this? Nothing. It is not something that confines anyone to a specific build. And it doesn’t change in any way, the solution. If you aren’t gaining, you need to eat more. Period. Even if you’re an “endomorph”. Same as an ectomorph that is getting fat should cut back.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dankid wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m wondering…

If I were a really skinny kid and remained so up through college (I was about 130 when I started college), and am now over 230, am I still an ectomorph?

I think the idea of a body type like these is a crock. People talk about their “natural” weight. The problem being your “natural” weight is based on your diet and lifestyle. When I wasn’t eating much and was still training, my “natural” weight was very low. Now that I eat and train, my “natural” weight is still going up. How much you weigh is based mostly on factors entirely under conscious, physical control. Everyone at every point is their “natural” weight based on how they treat their bodies. (there are a few rare medical exceptions)

It does change, and its what you have a tendency towards. Note that ectomorph is not a synonym for hardgainer, but people seem to be implying that they are identical. Basically if you have a tendency toward being lower body fat and lower weight you are ecto. If you have a tendency to lower body fat, but more muscle you are meso. And if you have a tendency toward higher body fat, but lower muscle then you are endo. And not everyone is an extreme.

Sweet, chalk up one 230 pound ectomorph here then. But like I said, you are referring to a “natural tendency”, that is based at least mostly on your conscious decisions. Everyone "tends to be skinny when they aren’t eating. Everyone “tends” to be fat when they over eat and don’t exercise. Everyone “tends” to build muscle when they eat well and lift. You can only have a “tendency” based on a diet and lifestyle.

From a scientific standpoint you must specify and control these variables in the data in order to make a logical comparison or model for extrapolation. If, as you are doing, you overlook these variables, your label can only be descriptive of a condition, same as the words skinny, or built, or fat, or skinny fat. What you are doing is not, in any way, a predictive scientific model.

Now, if you want to specify all facets of a lifestyle then make comparisons between people, that would work. But what do you gain by this? Nothing. It is not something that confines anyone to a specific build. And it doesn’t change in any way, the solution. If you aren’t gaining, you need to eat more. Period. Even if you’re an “endomorph”. Same as an ectomorph that is getting fat should cut back.[/quote]

Great post…and exactly what I have been saying for years. I was an “ectomorph” according to these guys in junior high and high school. No one would call me that now. I was skinny because I wasn’t eating enough and didn’t have consistent access to weights.

For people to go around labeling previously untrained people without even considering how they adapt to training over the long term is not doing any sort of scientific analysis here.

But then, this is Dankid we are talking about so that is nothing new.

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
dankid wrote:
And if you have a tendency toward higher body fat, but lower muscle then you are endo. And not everyone is an extreme.

Actually, endos gain fat easily, but usually also gain muscle fairly easily, so I don’t think that’s quite accurate.

But, most people are a combination of two somatypes. And of course, proper training and nutrition work for everyone - an ecto can get big and lean, an endo can get big and lean, at which point they’d both resemble a mesomorph.

So, body typing has some important things to take into consideration, but in the end training and nutrition will take anyone - regardless of bodytype - where they want to go… [/quote]

I would argue that true endos are more fat and less muscle, and what you are describing is someone that is a mix of endo and meso. I also feel that its not possible to be and endo and an ecto. These are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yes, bodytyping can suggest things, but its very possible for a person to change their body type all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum with nutrition and training. And the “tendency” will change too. I think people get caught up in dismissing it because this tendency isn’t just a result of genetics. It also has to do with behaviors. If you are a natural endo and diet down and resemble a meso, but dont change any of the behaviors that led you to naturally be an endo, you’ll probably make your way back to being an endo.

It just goes to show that genetics do have an effect on things, but in the end its your behaviors that have the final say.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Sweet, chalk up one 230 pound ectomorph here then. But like I said, you are referring to a “natural tendency”, that is based at least mostly on your conscious decisions. Everyone "tends to be skinny when they aren’t eating. Everyone “tends” to be fat when they over eat and don’t exercise. Everyone “tends” to build muscle when they eat well and lift. You can only have a “tendency” based on a diet and lifestyle.

From a scientific standpoint you must specify and control these variables in the data in order to make a logical comparison or model for extrapolation. If, as you are doing, you overlook these variables, your label can only be descriptive of a condition, same as the words skinny, or built, or fat, or skinny fat. What you are doing is not, in any way, a predictive scientific model.

Now, if you want to specify all facets of a lifestyle then make comparisons between people, that would work. But what do you gain by this? Nothing. It is not something that confines anyone to a specific build. And it doesn’t change in any way, the solution. If you aren’t gaining, you need to eat more. Period. Even if you’re an “endomorph”. Same as an ectomorph that is getting fat should cut back.[/quote]

You are making some incorrect generalizations though. Sure, everyone pretty much builds muscle when they are eating and training. And everyone tends to be SKINNIER when they aren’t eating and aren’t training. But there are different rates to these. Some people can not eat and not train and will still gravitate toward being muscular and lean. While others will mainly lose muscle and end up “skinny fat”. On the other end, some can eat a ton and train and build muscle extremely fast while staying relatively lean. While others might gain mostly fat in the same situation.

It is the TENDENCY.

We’ve all seen the person that doesn’t lift any weights or even workout and eats like crap that has a pretty decent physique, they are probably most like a meso/ecto. And we’ve all known the person who has to train hard and keep their diet in check and struggle to get leaner, they are more of a meso/endo. Its not the end all be all.

It is the TENDENCY.

“From a scientific standpoint you must specify and control these variables in the data in order to make a logical comparison or model for extrapolation”

Now this isn’t really true. It would be nice to control each variable, and get quantitative research to sort this out, but that just isn’t going to happen. You can still get meaningful conclusions and even generalizations by looking at this more qualitatively.

Like my first post suggested, you have to look at why a person is a certain somatype. If you are an endo, because you dont workout, and eat like crap, then your first step to becoming more like a meso is to workout and eat better. And if your an endo, because you train with too much volume and dont eat enough (This is possible), then you maybe need to adjust these factors.

The same goes for ectos. If you are an ecto simply because you dont eat enough, then just eat more. But its possible you are eating enough and are just working out too often, or with too much volume.

You could try to come to some generalization that all ectos dont eat enough and train too much, while all endos eat too much and dont train enough. This would probably be correct for most people, but there will be some instances where it is not correct.

So my opinion is that Somatypes are just an indicator of where you have a tendency to be body comp wise. And you can use this indicator to compare to where you want to be. (Note though, if you have a natural tendency to be an endo, but once a year, your cut your BF down for a show, only to regain it all back after, you still have a natural tendency to be an endo) And I think most of us want to shift our tendency toward being meso. I also think by looking at why you have a tendency to be a certain way, you can adjust your nutrition/training based on YOUR needs to get the best results.

I just see bodytypes as another excuse for poor results. There’s nothing that ample nutrition and smart training can’t overcome, yet people always seem to want to overcomplicate things to comfort themselves.

[quote]The Contender wrote:
I just see bodytypes as another excuse for poor results. There’s nothing that ample nutrition and smart training can’t overcome, yet people always seem to want to overcomplicate things to comfort themselves. [/quote]

Thats what a lot of people say. And these are probably the people that have a natural tendency toward being a meso. I dont think its a good idea to use bodytypes as an excuse or to comfort yourself though. You should use them as clues to determine the best training/diet methods for you.

look all apologies for the sarcastic reply. the truth is i am still relatively new (3yrs), but i’ve managed fairly good progress, truth is this isn’t rocket science…it’s a commitment, a marriage that you never knew you wanted/or didn’t want, either way, eventually as you progress, you find yourself in it.

w/ trolls running ramped and the same questions being recapitulated an infinite amount of times i don’t know how some of you guys who’ve been posting and progressing don’t just say fuck it, and throw up your hands.

this is suppose to be a brotherhood, because of my love for this…i’m done being overtly sarcastic most of the time, i’ll be careful what i say. coming from 150lbs to where i am now has transformed me, however it might be in my best interest to remain super humble because truthfully i aint’ that big yet.

nobody is.

[quote]dankid wrote:
You are making some incorrect generalizations though [/quote]No, thatâ??s exactly what you are doing[quote]. Sure, everyone pretty much builds muscle when they are eating and training. And everyone tends to be SKINNIER when they aren’t eating and aren’t training. But there are different rates to these. Some people can not eat and not train and will still gravitate toward being muscular and lean. While others will mainly lose muscle and end up “skinny fat”. On the other end, some can eat a ton and train and build muscle extremely fast while staying relatively lean. While others might gain mostly fat in the same situation. [/quote]There is no such thing as the same situation.[quote].

It is the TENDENCY [/quote](based on a multitude of controllable variables)[quote]. .

We’ve all seen the person that doesn’t lift any weights or even workout and eats like crap that has a pretty decent physique, they are probably most like a meso/ecto. And we’ve all known the person who has to train hard and keep their diet in check and struggle to get leaner, they are more of a meso/endo. Its not the end all be all. [/quote]Nor is it useful or scientific.[quote].

It is the TENDENCY.

“From a scientific standpoint you must specify and control these variables in the data in order to make a logical comparison or model for extrapolation”

Now this isn’t really true [/quote]It is true. For it to be a scientific model, YOU MUST account for these variables[quote]. It would be nice to control each variable, and get quantitative research to sort this out, but that just isn’t going to happen [/quote]exactly[quote]. You can still get meaningful conclusions and even generalizations by looking at this more qualitatively.

Like my first post suggested, you have to look at why a person is a certain somatype. If you are an endo, because you dont workout, and eat like crap, then your first step to becoming more like a meso is to workout and eat better [/quote]So essentially what you are saying here is that the person is an endo, then becomes “like” a meso even though both are results of behavior? You are making destinctions about the state of this person that donâ??t scientifically exist. If originally he trained and was a mesomorph then became a fat couch potatoe, he would be a meso that was “like” and endo. By your designation, even though it is the same person, one is an endo and one is a meso. [quote] And if your an endo, because you train with too much volume and dont eat enough (This is possible), then you maybe need to adjust these factors. [/quote]and if you are an “ecto” or a “meso” that is the same way because of too much volume (this is possible), “then you maybe need to adjust these factors.” If you are overtraining you need to cut back, regardless of the body type label you have. The label isn’t providing any useful information in this case[quote].

The same goes for ectos. If you are an ecto simply because you dont eat enough, then just eat more. But its possible you are eating enough and are just working out too often, or with too much volume.
[/quote]the same is possible for all “types”[quote].

You could try to come to some generalization that all ectos dont eat enough and train too much, while all endos eat too much and dont train enough. This would probably be correct for most people, but there will be some instances where it is not correct.
[/quote]This is pretty funny from a guy that is arguing using sweeping generalizations over a broad spectrum of variables to specify training advice. Do I need to copy and paste this paragraph so you can read it?[quote]

So my opinion is that Somatypes are just an indicator of where you have a tendency to be body comp wise. And you can use this indicator to compare to where you want to be. (Note though, if you have a natural tendency to be an endo, but once a year, your cut your BF down for a show, only to regain it all back after, you still have a natural tendency to be an endo) And I think most of us want to shift our tendency toward being meso. I also think by looking at why you have a tendency to be a certain way, you can adjust your nutrition/training based on YOUR needs to get the best results.[/quote]

You should adjust your nutrition and training based on personal experience (which is in many ways the opposite of what you are saying), why the need to attempt labels tied to broad generalizations of an infinitely variable set? The labels make no rational sense.

Doubleduce , you have a pretty limited view of what is excepted as “scientific” Not everything is proven, and not every variable can be controlled. By your definition we would have no idea what is going on in the universe. I agree that you cant state that you KNOW something based on inference, but you still have a pretty darn good idea.

But if you dismiss inference and situations where everything isn’t compltely controlled, then you’ll be living in a world with very little knowledge. And if you try to base everything entirely off experience, then its going to take you a lot longer to reach a much less sophisticated understanding of things.

And I did make some very blatant generalizations, but I also stated that they aren’t absolutes. They are likelihoods and nothing is going to ever be absolute when their are multiple factors that have huge effects on outcomes. Its about using more knowledge or more indicators to do things better. Not about blindly following generalizations that may be incorrect.

EDIT: Also, what I am saying isn’t that different from your last statement. You said you should base things off your experience. And im saying you need to look at WHY you have trouble changing your body type. For ex: The typical ecto that “cant” gain weight, but is actually only eating 2000 calories a day. The simple answer is to eat more. Im just trying to suggest that this might not be based on experience. Because in the individual’s eyes, nothing has worked up until now, thus all they can deduct from THEIR experiences are what doesn’t work. And while just stating “eat more” is probably almost always the solution, there are times when this is not the case, as Ive stated above. I dont see how being logical about things is a problem

[quote]dankid wrote:
Doubleduce , you have a pretty limited view of what is excepted as “scientific” Not everything is proven, and not every variable can be controlled. By your definition we would have no idea what is going on in the universe. I agree that you cant state that you KNOW something based on inference, but you still have a pretty darn good idea.

But if you dismiss inference and situations where everything isn’t compltely controlled, then you’ll be living in a world with very little knowledge. And if you try to base everything entirely off experience, then its going to take you a lot longer to reach a much less sophisticated understanding of things.

[/quote]
There is a difference when the variables in question are known to be primary factors in the model. Itâ??s also of note to point out that with statistical analysis you can account for variable that you cannot control. What you are proposing, however, is ignoring prime variables in a â??scientificâ?? model as if they donâ??t exist. This is expressly non-scientific.

[quote]

And I did make some very blatant generalizations, but I also stated that they aren’t absolutes. They are likelihoods and nothing is going to ever be absolute when their are multiple factors that have huge effects on outcomes. Its about using more knowledge or more indicators to do things better. Not about blindly following generalizations that may be incorrect.

EDIT: Also, what I am saying isn’t that different from your last statement. You said you should base things off your experience. And im saying you need to look at WHY you have trouble changing your body type [/quote] there is absolutely nothing you can gain by applying this label to your condition.[quote]. For ex: The typical ecto that “cant” gain weight, but is actually only eating 2000 calories a day. The simple answer is to eat more. Im just trying to suggest that this might not be based on experience. Because in the individual’s eyes, nothing has worked up until now, thus all they can deduct from THEIR experiences are what doesn’t work[/quote] if a person wonâ??t listen to their own body, you think they will listen to others? Besides, now you are just using it as a tool to get people to wake up to what they already know[quote] . And while just stating “eat more” is probably almost always the solution, there are times when this is not the case, as Ive stated above[/quote] and as Iâ??ve stated above this advice should be the same if the person is a â??mesoâ?? or â??endoâ?? [quote]. . I dont see how being logical about things is a problem[/quote]

Because Iâ??ve shown how your every example is illogical.

Sorry doubleduce, your reasoning is different than mine.

Simple answer the OP’s question. Yes, in general, an ecto should eat more, do less volume, less cardio, less recreational activity, etc. But no always.

[quote]dankid wrote:
Sorry doubleduce, your reasoning is different than mine.

Simple answer the OP’s question. Yes, in general, an ecto should eat more, do less volume, less cardio, less recreational activity, etc. But no always.[/quote]

So, how does the OP know whether he is an ectomorph or an endomorph/mesomorph that doesn’t eat enough? Personal experience. You have to try and experiment before you can even apply the label. Once you have figured out your body, you could assign the appropriate label. It’s just silly.