Ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph
Replies
-
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies
Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
I think he means the ratio of fat/muscle which is higher in women due to less growth hormones. For women, for every 1 lb gained its going to be around 75% fat and 25% muscle. Men is closer to 50/50.5 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.0 -
-
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.2 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
I think he means the ratio of fat/muscle which is higher in women due to less growth hormones. For women, for every 1 lb gained its going to be around 75% fat and 25% muscle. Men is closer to 50/50.
Again, I've never read that and I question its validity. Based on the below, from Lyle McDonald, the 50:50 ratio holds for women as well as men.
(source)Assuming relative average partitioning (not superior or inferior), a weight gain of approximately one pound per week (of which half should be muscle) and half a pound per week for females (of which half should be muscle), or 4 and 2 pounds/month respectively should roughly maximize muscle gains without excessive fat gain...A female starting at 130 pounds and 19% body fat could realistically get to 154 pounds (12 pound fat/12 pounds lean) before hitting 24% body fat. For the female trainee, at one half-pound per week is nearly a year of training; again that would be broken up into distinct training phases.
Of course if you are assuming that the women is eating an equal number of excess calories as a man, the ratio would differ. But I'm not sure why we'd assume that the man is eating an appropriate number of calories while the woman is not. Obviously you scale your calories to your needs.1 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
0 -
-
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
Unless a girl is going to go into contest prep mode, that will likely be unachievable. Most women i know would end around the 16 to 20% range. But the client i had at 14% looked very good.0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »They gain fat than muscle?????
Lets see some scientific evidence on that one please!!!
I think @trigden1991 meant more fat than muscle.
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
I'm not a bulking expert so I might not have this right, but I think that under equal conditions, women will put on more fat than men.
Let's say a man and a woman with novice training experience decide to do a 500 calorie surplus for a bulk. They'll both gain ~4 pounds over the course of a month. The man puts on 2 lbs of LBM, and the woman gains 1 lb. The woman has gained a larger percent of fat than the man on an equal caloric surplus.
If the man sticks with a 500 calorie surplus and the woman drops to a 250 calorie surplus, the woman's conditions are now optimal and their fat % gains will be more similar.1 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »chocolate_owl wrote: »They gain fat than muscle?????
Lets see some scientific evidence on that one please!!!
I think @trigden1991 meant more fat than muscle.
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
I'm not a bulking expert so I might not have this right, but I think that under equal conditions, women will put on more fat than men.
Let's say a man and a woman with novice training experience decide to do a 500 calorie surplus for a bulk. They'll both gain ~4 pounds over the course of a month. The man puts on 2 lbs of LBM, and the woman gains 1 lb. The woman has gained a larger percent of fat than the man on an equal caloric surplus.
If the man sticks with a 500 calorie surplus and the woman drops to a 250 calorie surplus, the woman's conditions are now optimal and their fat % gains will be more similar.
Ok. So the man is bulking properly and the woman is not. That's a great comparison to throw out.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Anyone, especially female, who thinks they gain muscle quickly or easily is grossly mistaken.
Compared to a guy? Nope. Compared to other women? Yup.0 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
Unless a girl is going to go into contest prep mode, that will likely be unachievable. Most women i know would end around the 16 to 20% range. But the client i had at 14% looked very good.
Well this is becoming a little unpleasant
When we start to talk about sub 21% BF on a woman who is not comp prepping being an ideal IT becomes a little discomfiting considering healthy ranges for women are generally considered to be 20-33% and sub 21% can be considered underfat
4 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
Unless a girl is going to go into contest prep mode, that will likely be unachievable. Most women i know would end around the 16 to 20% range. But the client i had at 14% looked very good.
Well this is becoming a little unpleasant
When we start to talk about sub 21% BF on a woman who is not comp prepping being an ideal IT becomes a little discomfiting considering healthy ranges for women are generally considered to be 20-33% and sub 21% can be considered underfat
It also depends on age too. It's easy to be sub 21 when you are younger.
0 -
Doesn't testosterone & estrogen have a huge part in someone's ability to build muscle/lose fat? If a woman has a high amount of estrogen, would she have a harder time seeing results?0
-
Testosterone levels do help in building muscle0
-
I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.1 -
tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
I have to admit that I need carbs in order to have energy. I eat more protein than I used to bc my diet used to be just carbs pretty much.
If I eat a low carb diet, I am tired and foggy. Low carbs works for other people though.
Do what works for you bc honestly, I often get very conflicting advice on MFP and if I listened to everyone, I'd be spinning my wheels.2 -
Testosterone levels do help in building muscle
Some women have lower levels of estrogen and higher levels of testosterone. Those women will build muscle more easily than a woman with higher levels of estrogen.
A PT at my gym told me that older women can actually gain MORE muscle bc their estrogen levels are lower.
Again, conflicting information is everywhere0 -
tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
But none of this has anything to do with somatotypes...1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
But none of this has anything to do with somatotypes...
I think the point is that somotypes have been debunked, but we still try to categorize ourselves into neat little packages.
We all have different genetics and I think that's what these ladies are trying to express.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 412 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions