Eating According to your Body Type?

JulesAlloggio

How many of you have heard about this? Do you eat According to your Body Type? I just figured this all out (with the help of a nutritionist) and she suggest I do this (since I am Figure Body Building).

If you don't know what it is... this sort of explains it.

(a) Mesomorph ("hard body", maintains weight easily, tends to be
muscular, average metabolism)

(b) Endomorph (gains weight easily, slow metabolism, difficulty losing
body fat in "trouble areas")

(c) Ectomorph (lean frame, loses weight easily, fast metabolism, low
body fat, difficulty gaining lean mass)

Just curious about how many people have TRIED eating according to what type they are.

ScottishMrs

How do you choose calories and macros based on this system?

I came in here thinking it was eating based on your blood type. That's something that my inlaws tried and it worked for them, but I think it's just because it cut a lot of the unhealthy food out of their diets along with a few random healthy foods that would do things like "increase their acidity" or something like that.

JulesAlloggio

How do you choose calories and macros based on this system?

For me as a "mesomorph" I calculate my weight X15 to get my calorie intake. I also eat a 40% carb/ 30% pro/ 30% fat diet plan.


I'll have to look up the others

JulesAlloggio

Endomorph ---
To calculate how many calories you would need..go to this link.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/265505-how-to-calculate-an-endomorph-caloric-intake/

An endomorph diet plan should be around 40 to 45 percent carbohydrates, 15 to 20 percent fats and around 50 percent protein.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/493506-endomorph-diet-plans/#ixzz2R06GWr4s



For an Ectomorph... http://ezinearticles.com/?Ectomorph-Diet---Gain-Weight-on-an-Ectomorph-Diet&id=1482101

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone

ScottishMrs

How do you choose calories and macros based on this system?

For me as a "mesomorph" I calculate my weight X15 to get my calorie intake. I also eat a 40% carb/ 30% pro/ 30% fat diet plan.


I'll have to look up the others

Endomorph ---
To calculate how many calories you would need..go to this link.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/265505-how-to-calculate-an-endomorph-caloric-intake/

An endomorph diet plan should be around 40 to 45 percent carbohydrates, 15 to 20 percent fats and around 50 percent protein.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/493506-endomorph-diet-plans/#ixzz2R06GWr4s



For an Ectomorph... http://ezinearticles.com/?Ectomorph-Diet---Gain-Weight-on-an-Ectomorph-Diet&id=1482101

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone

This is very interesting. Thanks for the reading! I'll porobably be back to this topic tonight after I do the reading to give my opinions. Just from hearing it about it though sounds like there's potential for it, but I need to see how it's actually worked through in practice.

jacksonpt

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain, and macros should be based on fitness goals and sustainability.

.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

dsjohndrow

I think in a general sense, we all have to eat according to body type. That is why all these formulas don't work. And age can change how we metabolize food as well.

What I do know is that getting rid of the junk, the processed foods, and stuff like sugar and saturated fats is really helpful.

The biggest consideration is how do we process protein and carbs. Lots of recommendations, but SO individual!

That said, I eat mostly protein because it keeps the weight off, even though I am long distance runner.

ScottishMrs

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

dsjohndrow

Endomorph ---
To calculate how many calories you would need..go to this link.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/265505-how-to-calculate-an-endomorph-caloric-intake/

An endomorph diet plan should be around 40 to 45 percent carbohydrates, 15 to 20 percent fats and around 50 percent protein.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/493506-endomorph-diet-plans/#ixzz2R06GWr4s



For an Ectomorph... http://ezinearticles.com/?Ectomorph-Diet---Gain-Weight-on-an-Ectomorph-Diet&id=1482101

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone

This works for me, but I am not a body builder. I strength train 2 days a week, and run about 25.

jacksonpt

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

I don't see how... a surplus is still a surplus regardless of some fancy term for body type. A surplus will lead to weight gain. Weight gain plus lots of heavy lifting = mass gains and getting bigger. A deficit is still a deficit regardless of terminology which leads to weight loss. Weight loss + lots of heavy lifting = cutting.

I guess it really comes down to how you determine what calorie intake you need to be in a deficit or in a surplus. You can start off with something like MFP or TDEE numbers, then increase cals until you start gaining, and use that number for your surplus, or cut back cals until you start losing and use that as your deficit number. Or you can use terms and equations above and hope those are right. Either way you're starting off with some formula, trying it out for a while, evaluating the results, and tweaking as necessary.

JulesAlloggio

Just to clarify..I am a Body Builder so yes this plan seems to work for me.

Just wondering if anyone else does it. Doesn't mean you have to go out and do it. I didn't know if anyone was aware that it can help with weight loss/fat loss etc.

jacksonpt

Just to clarify..I am a Body Builder so yes this plan seems to work for me.

Just wondering if anyone else does it. Doesn't mean you have to go out and do it. I didn't know if anyone was aware that it can help with weight loss/fat loss etc.

How? I'm not a body builder, but I do bulk/cut cycles when I'm not racing, so I have similar goals at least part of the year...

tuckerrj

Hey Jules, thanks for providing a topic that doesn't include "kiss, hug, marry or mash" the person above you.

So I went to the Livestrong site, and did the calculations for an endomorph of my height and guess what? I wound up with nearly an exact match of the calorie count that MFP prescribes. ~2,100 calories for maintenance or 1,600 to lose a pound a week.

Thanks again. But don't be surprised if you get harassed by those that don't want to discuss any weight loss concepts that don't match their own.

ScottishMrs

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

I don't see how... a surplus is still a surplus regardless of some fancy term for body type. A surplus will lead to weight gain. Weight gain plus lots of heavy lifting = mass gains and getting bigger. A deficit is still a deficit regardless of terminology which leads to weight loss. Weight loss + lots of heavy lifting = cutting.

I guess it really comes down to how you determine what calorie intake you need to be in a deficit or in a surplus. You can start off with something like MFP or TDEE numbers, then increase cals until you start gaining, and use that number for your surplus, or cut back cals until you start losing and use that as your deficit number. Or you can use terms and equations above and hope those are right. Either way you're starting off with some formula, trying it out for a while, evaluating the results, and tweaking as necessary.

It's true that we all start somewhere different and then tweak for what works for us. It makes me wonder if we all started with the exact same program, after our tweaks, which program would be most accurate in the end? Would any? Everyone needs something that makes sense to them and works for them personally though. This one is definitely an interesting idea and if I had all of the time in the world I would love to test out each and every program and see if anything really works as advertised. The reason I think that this one could have some validity is because people are always saying "this program didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things started to work" and they list things like TDEE, gender, activity level, but not body type and other people who match the listed stats say "the tweaks you made didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things worked". The idea that different body types require different macronutient breakdowns seems like a plausible hypothesis to me, but it is just a hypothesis. The caveat though is that I've seen several people who "change their body type" through diet and exercise and I think that in order to really know what your body type is you have to already be around your peak physical condition.

OP: I don't mean to be threadjacking. Sorry.

ETA:

Just to clarify..I am a Body Builder so yes this plan seems to work for me.

Just wondering if anyone else does it. Doesn't mean you have to go out and do it. I didn't know if anyone was aware that it can help with weight loss/fat loss etc.

I think that it could hypothetically aid in weight loss/fat loss etc, but the biggest problem would probably be what I stated above:

"I've seen several people who "change their body type" through diet and exercise and I think that in order to really know what your body type is you have to already be around your peak physical condition".

This is my own personal hypothesis though and could possibly be easily disproven or worked around.

JulesAlloggio

Just to clarify..I am a Body Builder so yes this plan seems to work for me.

Just wondering if anyone else does it. Doesn't mean you have to go out and do it. I didn't know if anyone was aware that it can help with weight loss/fat loss etc.

How? I'm not a body builder, but I do bulk/cut cycles when I'm not racing, so I have similar goals at least part of the year...

seriously, stop being rude and trying to be "Mr Know it all"

Just started a discussion on body types..geez.. RELAX!

JulesAlloggio

Hey Jules, thanks for providing a topic that doesn't include "kiss, hug, marry or mash" the person above you.

So I went to the Livestrong site, and did the calculations for an endomorph of my height and guess what? I wound up with nearly an exact match of the calorie count that MFP prescribes. ~2,100 calories for maintenance or 1,600 to lose a pound a week.

Thanks again. But don't be surprised if you get harassed by those that don't want to discuss any weight loss concepts that don't match their own.

Thanks and yes those posts are really annoying...
There are a lot of "know-it-all" types of people on here. I just pass on info that works for me. Not everything works for everyone. Very glad that you're eating according to the guidelines on MFP Glad I can pass info on.

jacksonpt

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

I don't see how... a surplus is still a surplus regardless of some fancy term for body type. A surplus will lead to weight gain. Weight gain plus lots of heavy lifting = mass gains and getting bigger. A deficit is still a deficit regardless of terminology which leads to weight loss. Weight loss + lots of heavy lifting = cutting.

I guess it really comes down to how you determine what calorie intake you need to be in a deficit or in a surplus. You can start off with something like MFP or TDEE numbers, then increase cals until you start gaining, and use that number for your surplus, or cut back cals until you start losing and use that as your deficit number. Or you can use terms and equations above and hope those are right. Either way you're starting off with some formula, trying it out for a while, evaluating the results, and tweaking as necessary.

It's true that we all start somewhere different and then tweak for what works for us. It makes me wonder if we all started with the exact same program, after our tweaks, which program would be most accurate in the end? Would any? Everyone needs something that makes sense to them and works for them personally though. This one is definitely an interesting idea and if I had all of the time in the world I would love to test out each and every program and see if anything really works as advertised. The reason I think that this one could have some validity is because people are always saying "this program didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things started to work" and they list things like TDEE, gender, activity level, but not body type and other people who match the listed stats say "the tweaks you made didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things worked". The idea that different body types require different macronutient breakdowns seems like a plausible hypothesis to me, but it is just a hypothesis. The caveat though is that I've seen several people who "change their body type" through diet and exercise and I think that in order to really know what your body type is you have to already be around your peak physical condition.

OP: I don't mean to be threadjacking. Sorry.

Right... I basically agree with all that.

My point is that this approach isn't fundamentally different than anything else. It still relies on a surplus to gain weight and a deficit to lose weight. How you arrive at the surplus or deficit (how you calculate those numbers) is what's different.

So whether you use MFP and eat back exercise cals, base things around your TDEE, use these body type formulas, or find some other method... it still comes down to a surplus to gain and a deficit to lose, and macros based on goals and sustainability.

Saying that one program is better than another is largely wrong (assuming you're not doing some wacky fad/starvation diet)... it's not the program that's "better", its the time and effort you put into it to make it right for you. Just like lifting... a routine based on body part splits isn't necessarily better or worse than a full body routine, it's the effort you put into it that's going to make the difference.

SanteMulberry

Thanks. Interesting reading. :flowerforyou:

jacksonpt

Just to clarify..I am a Body Builder so yes this plan seems to work for me.

Just wondering if anyone else does it. Doesn't mean you have to go out and do it. I didn't know if anyone was aware that it can help with weight loss/fat loss etc.

How? I'm not a body builder, but I do bulk/cut cycles when I'm not racing, so I have similar goals at least part of the year...

seriously, stop being rude and trying to be "Mr Know it all"

Just started a discussion on body types..geez.. RELAX!

I'm actually trying to understand... if I can do something to get more/better results, why wouldn't I? I just don't see how this is any different than anything else. It just uses fancier words.

Sorry, I'll back out of the thread if I'm being a problem...

ScottishMrs

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

I don't see how... a surplus is still a surplus regardless of some fancy term for body type. A surplus will lead to weight gain. Weight gain plus lots of heavy lifting = mass gains and getting bigger. A deficit is still a deficit regardless of terminology which leads to weight loss. Weight loss + lots of heavy lifting = cutting.

I guess it really comes down to how you determine what calorie intake you need to be in a deficit or in a surplus. You can start off with something like MFP or TDEE numbers, then increase cals until you start gaining, and use that number for your surplus, or cut back cals until you start losing and use that as your deficit number. Or you can use terms and equations above and hope those are right. Either way you're starting off with some formula, trying it out for a while, evaluating the results, and tweaking as necessary.

It's true that we all start somewhere different and then tweak for what works for us. It makes me wonder if we all started with the exact same program, after our tweaks, which program would be most accurate in the end? Would any? Everyone needs something that makes sense to them and works for them personally though. This one is definitely an interesting idea and if I had all of the time in the world I would love to test out each and every program and see if anything really works as advertised. The reason I think that this one could have some validity is because people are always saying "this program didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things started to work" and they list things like TDEE, gender, activity level, but not body type and other people who match the listed stats say "the tweaks you made didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things worked". The idea that different body types require different macronutient breakdowns seems like a plausible hypothesis to me, but it is just a hypothesis. The caveat though is that I've seen several people who "change their body type" through diet and exercise and I think that in order to really know what your body type is you have to already be around your peak physical condition.

OP: I don't mean to be threadjacking. Sorry.

Right... I basically agree with all that.

My point is that this approach isn't fundamentally different than anything else. It still relies on a surplus to gain weight and a deficit to lose weight. How you arrive at the surplus or deficit (how you calculate those numbers) is what's different.

So whether you use MFP and eat back exercise cals, base things around your TDEE, use these body type formulas, or find some other method... it still comes down to a surplus to gain and a deficit to lose, and macros based on goals and sustainability.

Saying that one program is better than another is largely wrong (assuming you're not doing some wacky fad/starvation diet)... it's not the program that's "better", its the time and effort you put into it to make it right for you. Just like lifting... a routine based on body part splits isn't necessarily better or worse than a full body routine, it's the effort you put into it that's going to make the difference.

Maybe we're approaching this from different angles. I'm not looking at it necessarily from the loss/gain perspective you seem to be but from more of a body recomp perspective where you'd be losing the BF and simultaneously replacing it with LBM. Probably not exactly what the OP intended when she put it out as a topic for discussion and an option for people looking for something that works for them.

neandermagnon

I used to think I was an endo-mesomorph, i.e. naturally muscular but also naturally inclined to put fat on. I have since realised that actually I'm just a mesomorph, I just got fat from being a lazy slob. As my husband put it: "well, I'm quite a lot like an ectomorph, but I still get fat if I eat crap and don't exercise"

I'm short and large framed, so no-one's ever going to classify me as an ectomorph, but my husband is tall and medium framed, and he will gain fat from being lazy (same as me), and gain muscle from doing exercise (same as me), but because of his height most people would say he's an ectomorph. I'd say we're both mesomorphs. In fact I'd say the majority of people are mesomorphs, and it's just a minority that have metabolic issues that make fat loss and/or muscle gain more difficult than average... and you can't identify those people using a crude eyeball method, it would take a doctor doing tests (e.g. thyroid function, tests for diabetes or pre-diabetes and similar) to find out what's going on in those cases, and what to do differently to be able to lose weight.

jacksonpt

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain.

In terms of weightloss and so on, I definitely think this is true, but in the bodybuilding context of the OP then I think that it may have some validity. I still need to do that above reading though.

I don't see how... a surplus is still a surplus regardless of some fancy term for body type. A surplus will lead to weight gain. Weight gain plus lots of heavy lifting = mass gains and getting bigger. A deficit is still a deficit regardless of terminology which leads to weight loss. Weight loss + lots of heavy lifting = cutting.

I guess it really comes down to how you determine what calorie intake you need to be in a deficit or in a surplus. You can start off with something like MFP or TDEE numbers, then increase cals until you start gaining, and use that number for your surplus, or cut back cals until you start losing and use that as your deficit number. Or you can use terms and equations above and hope those are right. Either way you're starting off with some formula, trying it out for a while, evaluating the results, and tweaking as necessary.

It's true that we all start somewhere different and then tweak for what works for us. It makes me wonder if we all started with the exact same program, after our tweaks, which program would be most accurate in the end? Would any? Everyone needs something that makes sense to them and works for them personally though. This one is definitely an interesting idea and if I had all of the time in the world I would love to test out each and every program and see if anything really works as advertised. The reason I think that this one could have some validity is because people are always saying "this program didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things started to work" and they list things like TDEE, gender, activity level, but not body type and other people who match the listed stats say "the tweaks you made didn't work for me, but when I made these tweaks things worked". The idea that different body types require different macronutient breakdowns seems like a plausible hypothesis to me, but it is just a hypothesis. The caveat though is that I've seen several people who "change their body type" through diet and exercise and I think that in order to really know what your body type is you have to already be around your peak physical condition.

OP: I don't mean to be threadjacking. Sorry.

Right... I basically agree with all that.

My point is that this approach isn't fundamentally different than anything else. It still relies on a surplus to gain weight and a deficit to lose weight. How you arrive at the surplus or deficit (how you calculate those numbers) is what's different.

So whether you use MFP and eat back exercise cals, base things around your TDEE, use these body type formulas, or find some other method... it still comes down to a surplus to gain and a deficit to lose, and macros based on goals and sustainability.

Saying that one program is better than another is largely wrong (assuming you're not doing some wacky fad/starvation diet)... it's not the program that's "better", its the time and effort you put into it to make it right for you. Just like lifting... a routine based on body part splits isn't necessarily better or worse than a full body routine, it's the effort you put into it that's going to make the difference.

Maybe we're approaching this from different angles. I'm not looking at it necessarily from the loss/gain perspective you seem to be but from more of a body recomp perspective where you'd be losing the BF and simultaneously replacing it with LBM. Probably not exactly what the OP intended when she put it out as a topic for discussion and an option for people looking for something that works for them.

Ok, great... There is definitely a difference there. I've read a lot about building muscle while simultaneously losing fat, and the majority I've read (especially from more credible sources) say it's either impossible or progress is obscenely slow, and that most people will see better results focusing on one goal at a time and doing traditional bulk/cut cycles.

So yes, I'm definitely coming at this from a bulk/cut for better results mindset.

mrdexter1

I m "meso" and its anoying to have packed muscle on in 6 months at the gym after a 27 year break and still be patiently waiting for the strength to catch up for the way i look !!
I dont know how to word this , but can i ask why you have trained your midrift if you are a "figure" body builder when a very thin waist is an asset ???

iecreamheadaches

a few years ago I was doing the Michael Thurman 6 week body make over diet (Just the diet, i was doing a separate exercise regimen) and thats pretty much eating for your body type. It worked amazingly, and I've considered going back to it if I could find all of the pages I need. Its like this little book you put together after taking this little questionnaire to figure out what body type you are (it ranges from a-d i think) and it gives you a general guide of what you should eat, what you can substitute if you dont want to eat the same thing every day, and then like a whole explanation of that body type and how the body type plan works. Kind of cool, but its a lot of work to get it set up.

jalloggio

Every bit of info helps its always good to know your options.

I've looked into it before and it seems that I am an endomorph it's easy for me to gain mass and put on muscle but sucks when I'm trying to lean out. Knowin my body type does help because I know I have to be insanely strict with my diet during a cut or it just doesn't work.

Outside of the bodybuilding world this concept is foreign to many people but it is a good bit of information.

Thanks for sharing

iecreamheadaches

I calculated mine and its just a tad bit (4.5 actually) higher than what MFP has me set at. So i think I'm doing alright.

JulesAlloggio

I dont know how to word this , but can i ask why you have trained your midrift if you are a "figure" body builder when a very thin waist is an asset ???

HUH? Maybe because I never said a I was PRO... I'm not "ready" for a competition at the moment... I've had 2 kids..In fact, I had a baby 19 mos ago I don't WANT a tiny waistline..I'm already a size 2...

so explain what you mean again? because I have no idea. I'm totally confused..and what does my waistline have to do with my topic on this post?

mrdexter1

you mentioned you were a figure bodybuilder and i was genuinly curious knowing the differing categories and look required for each...

I guess it s all right for blokes to ask questions like this amongst themselves but was nt aware a differing set of social rules applied amongst women so you ll have to excuse me for my gaff...

As for what your waistline has to do with it , there might be 3 body types you mention but genetics also play a part in determining lean body shape..

ehsan517

Personally, I've always thought those terms were generally used as excuses for most people. If you're an elite athlete training in the/for the 99th percentile, then maybe it matters a bit more for for you.

But for 99.9% of people, a deficit is a deficit and will lead to weight loss, a surplus is a surplus and will lead to weight gain, and macros should be based on fitness goals and sustainability.

.

i was waiting for someone to mention this.

eric_sg61

The problem with Somatyping is that people DO NOT fit perfectly into any one of the three categories. How can a diet be based off a somatype when most people exhibit traits from one or more somatype?