I started out as an ectomorph… Then I started eating.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Sigh.
We’ve all discussed these before but what the hell, I have a different opinion than most so I’ll throw my .02 in.
Somotypes basically started as a good way to communicate “Hey, I’m a naturally skinny dude with good carb tolerance who generally needs to eat more to gain weight (ecto).” So for these reasons, I do think they have a purpose.
However, they get thrown around now as excuses as to why someone is too fat, too skinny, can’t gain muscle, etc. They’re also used to sell training programs as in “If you’re an ecto, you shouldn’t do too much volume…”, etc.
I see myself as an ecto but I no longer look like a skinny bitch. That doesn’t mean I’ve changed somotypes, it really just means that without proper diet and training I stay naturally skinny and still need to eat a lot to gain weight. No big deal, no harm done. What we don’t want is noobs looking at the somotypes and automatically limiting their progress based on whatever it is they think they are.[/quote]
Yes i would call this a fossilized horse, but fun to argue about anyway. What I hate hearing is “I can’t gain because i’m an ecto, or I can’t lose because I am a meso”, this is nonsense. However let’s be honest, no matter what you call the genetic differences in body type Phil Heath was standing on an Olympia stage after 5-6 years of training, do you think Michael Phelps could do the same thing?
[quote]chriscarani wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Sigh.
We’ve all discussed these before but what the hell, I have a different opinion than most so I’ll throw my .02 in.
Somotypes basically started as a good way to communicate “Hey, I’m a naturally skinny dude with good carb tolerance who generally needs to eat more to gain weight (ecto).” So for these reasons, I do think they have a purpose.
However, they get thrown around now as excuses as to why someone is too fat, too skinny, can’t gain muscle, etc. They’re also used to sell training programs as in “If you’re an ecto, you shouldn’t do too much volume…”, etc.
I see myself as an ecto but I no longer look like a skinny bitch. That doesn’t mean I’ve changed somotypes, it really just means that without proper diet and training I stay naturally skinny and still need to eat a lot to gain weight. No big deal, no harm done. What we don’t want is noobs looking at the somotypes and automatically limiting their progress based on whatever it is they think they are.
Yes i would call this a fossilized horse, but fun to argue about anyway. What I hate hearing is “I can’t gain because i’m an ecto, or I can’t lose because I am a meso”, this is nonsense. However let’s be honest, no matter what you call the genetic differences in body type Phil Heath was standing on an Olympia stage after 5-6 years of training, do you think Michael Phelps could do the same thing?
[/quote]
I mean, yeah, obviously people will have different genetic limits. What are you getting at?
- “We (humans) are scattered along a continuum of (human) attributes.”
- Dr. K. V. Mookajipoosutjuiara
- “Trying to study human variation using THREE (wow, that many?) somatotypes or whatever is a gross over-simplification of reality that unfortunately leads to severe over-complication of what needs to be done.”
- Dr. Albert “the psychedelic crow” Alhambrello
- “It takes less than a minute to come up with a less than convincing-sounding name to try and lend credibility to a commonsense assertion”
- Tribunaldude.
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
- “We (humans) are scattered along a continuum of (human) attributes.”
- Dr. K. V. Mookajipoosutjuiara
- “Trying to study human variation using THREE (wow, that many?) somatotypes or whatever is a gross over-simplification of reality that unfortunately leads to severe over-complication of what needs to be done.”
- Dr. Albert “the psychedelic crow” Alhambrello
- “It takes less than a minute to come up with a less than convincing-sounding name to try and lend credibility to a commonsense assertion”
- Tribunaldude.
[/quote]
You can tell the least educated in biology by those who believe everyone falls into simple classifications.
-Professor X (biologist…a real one).
[quote]chriscarani wrote:
Yes somatotypes can be very helpful, but they are not rigid standards set in stone.
The body types may seem like BS at first, but just look at it in terms of goals and it makes a lot of sense.
If Ashton Kuther, Vin Diesel and Kevin James walk into your gym are you going to train them the same way? Of course heavy weights are going to build muscle and cardio is going to shed fat, but the parameters you set up for each will look different based on their body type. Even after their physical appearance becomes less distinct from years of training, Ashton will probably still need to keep his calories high, Vin just can still eat just about anything and keep his abs, and Kevin still needs to watch the food and keep up the cardio.
I have also read that fascia to muscle fiber ratio can be different too, and yes this would affect training. So basically an ectomorph has a higher ratio of fascia to muscle fibers, when he trains like the endomorph, he ends up with more inflamed fascia and DOMS than stimulated fibers. Not sure if there is anything to this but the theory makes a lot of sense, and itâ??s something I have seen anecdotally for years.
[/quote]
Kevin James does look pretty strong.
I dunno. They could also be canadian.
Oh wait…same difference.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You can tell the least educated in biology by those who believe everyone falls into simple classifications.
-Professor X (biologist…a real one).[/quote]
I realize training science has moved light years ahead of body-typing. My point is that it’s not completely without merit and consideration because it is simplistic in nature. Knowing that 30 minutes as apposed to 90 minutes of training will put muscle on you faster is quite practical for the average Joe without a Biology degree. But I digress, not interested in making THAT big a deal of it. Good day gentlemen.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My calves now measure 18.5" as of last week. You should keep that in mind as I continue. I was a very skinny kid. NO ONE looking at me when I weighed 100lbs in HIGH SCHOOL as a freshman would think I would be anywhere near the size I am now. These body type descriptions were meant to describe how someone gains when discussing bodybuilding. They should not be used to make some type of permanent description of someone when applied to an untrained person.
Genetics have much to do with HOW you gain, not just how you look at a given time. using myself as an example, my body needed a ton more calories than I was getting early on. Fixing that alone caused me to go from looking like an “ectomorph” to looking like an off season mesomorph. Even if I gain more body weight in an attempt to get bigger, labeling me an “endomorph” at those times would also be incorrect…especially since most people are a COMBINATION of different phenotypes.
Yes, I had very skinny calves, and given the size of the rest of me, they are still weak…but that is only because I compare myself to serious weight lifters, not the average person who is lucky to have 16" calves at best.[/quote]
Did your wrists grow at all during this transformation? Disregarding normal growth from puberty if possible.
I’m not sure if calves should be a measuring stick considering mine are 17.4 after a year of training and having done like 2 sets of direct calf work all year.
[quote]Scelerat wrote:
I’m not sure if calves should be a measuring stick considering mine are 17.4 after a year of training and having done like 2 sets of direct calf work all year.[/quote]
Some of you need Cliff Notes. We are not talking about people who grow calves easily. Does it really make sense for us to be discussing that?
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Did your wrists grow at all during this transformation? Disregarding normal growth from puberty if possible. [/quote]
To some degree, yes, but I didn’t measure them back then. I know it because of a wrist watch I can’t wear from back then.
Somatotypes has become an excuse for hardgainers, that’s all. I haven’t seen anyone with good gains complaining about them.
The body can be influenced by exogenous and endogenous causes. Someone can be skinny because of metabolic reasons, or just because the eating thing hasn’t been such an issue. Many “endomorphs” make tacos, hamburgers and shitty food part of their lives. Most of the obese cases are exogenous, that makes us wonder how many people mislabel themselves like “it’s hard for me to loose weight”, that’s PURE BULLSHIT in most of the cases. On the scrawny side, most of the guys complaining about miserable gains, if at all, don’t have a clear idea of what and how much they’re eating.
[quote]Mettahl wrote:
I see a lot of people on here saying things along the lines of “I’m an ectomorph so I can’t gain weight.” The thing that I was wondering, is isn’t the somatotype thing outdated? There’s got to be another way to gauge what type of body you have, if there even is a way. I’ve seen some people say that they are “skinny fat,” what is that?[/quote]
It is considered irrelevant by some - and to a degree it is, but it is useful in describing a body shape and certain affinities for different compositions.
Other than that, not much else - it IS possible to be massive as an ecto, and it is possible to be 4% bodyfat as an endo… it is down to different factors than merely this - that saidf, the whole REASON one is considered an endo or ecto is DUE to these varying factors…
I think that before genetics was understood a little more (as today it is a little more), it was as good as it got - genetics in the H+F field was determined by somatotype mainly - but we now know that a lot of genetic ability is not determined by the overall natural body ‘type’ or shape/composition - although it does give a good basis to begin to think about these factors, as obviously someone who has a tendency to store tissues (anabolic) may train in a different way - or focus on different things - as someone who burns more tissue (catabolic).
Overall it is a type of pigeon-holing that i employ and find useful - if only to explain things to someone who has little to no knowledge in the area.
JMO 
[quote]Itchy wrote:
This is just another one of those bullshit concepts that I would love to roll into a lumpy little ball and shove up Richard Gere’s ass.[/quote]
It’s not an all important issue that anyone (especially noobs) should completely base their training on, but to say it’s nothing more than a bullshit concept is false…
Somatypes certainly exist as scientific fact…
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Everyone should know their limitations. Ignoring them is just plain dumb. It’s that ra ra ra everyone is a winner attitude. It does not work. Some people have bodies that do not give them talent to be a bodybuilder that looks like a bodybuilder. Realize it and accept it. Ignoring it is silly.
It’s like telling a midget that wants arms like Schwarzenegger to just “keep at it”, think about your goals, not limitations. Never mind that this midget will NEVER accomplish what he set out to do. But let’s keep him insulated from reality. The same applied to all of us.
Anyone can certainly improve, but how much and fast you improve is thanks to your God given talent, or as we call it today…Genetics.
[/quote]
We don’t have a “ra ra everyone is a winner attitude.” The only attitude is that, if you try hard enough, you can build muscle. You fuck up, you get called out. Honestly, I don’t even believe that you believe what you are saying. Of course genetics play a big part in it, but who gives a shit. The only reason you are disagreeing with almost everyone here is that you a) fucked up yourself in your goals and are trying to blame something right now b) like to be contradictory for the hell of it or c) all of the above.
I think they are sort of useful to make some generalizations for a start. But they are in no way an end-all-be-all to how you should train/eat.
For example, an ecto can probably get away with higher calories, and higher carbs than endo, whether it be for bulking or cutting.
somatypes are just a result of environment, not genetics.
skeletal frame size and dimensions, along with muscle fiber distribution are probably better indicators of body type.
ie; big wrists, short arms, fast twitch upper body = bench monster
Effect of body build on weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and muscular strength.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 26(4):515, April 1994.
VAN ETTEN, LUDO M. L. A.; VERSTAPPEN, FRANS T. J.; WESTERTERP, KLAAS R.
Abstract:
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and isokinetic strength differ as a function of body build. Body build of a subject was characterized as the extent to which a person’s fat-free mass index (FFMI = fat-free mass-height-2; kg-m-2) differs from the regression of FFMI over fat mass index (FMI = fat mass-height-2; kg-m-2) as derived from a sedentary male population (N = 77). From this population two groups with either a slender (N = 10) or a solid (N = 11) body build were selected. For 12 wk the subjects performed a weight-training program twice a week. Training induced a significant (P < 0.05) increase in fat-free mass (FFM) in the solid group (1.6 kg, 2.3%) in contrast with the slender group, which showed no significant change in FFM. Both groups showed comparable decreases in fat mass (FM; slender: -1.7 kg, -10.8% versus solid: -2.4 kg, -11.3%) and increases in strength (on average 13.8%). In conclusion, the increase in FFM due to a weight-training program is modified by body build. This modification, however, is restricted to a larger increase in the solidly built group
[quote]schultzie wrote:
somatypes are just a result of environment, not genetics.
skeletal frame size and dimensions, along with muscle fiber distribution are probably better indicators of body type.
ie; big wrists, short arms, fast twitch upper body = bench monster[/quote]
Well seeing as Genetic mutations tent to be determined by environment, somatotypes are determined by both factors… with environment being largely responsible for body fat accumulation, strength, height, skin colour, hair colour etc…