body type
krennie8
Posts: 301 Member
Do you believe the body types are correct based on wrist circumference?
0
Replies
-
That's not really "body type." Those are frame sizes. And yes I believe the wrist circumference is a good indicator of frame sizes.0
-
There is more to it than just wrist circumference. There is a good body type quiz on bodybuilding .com site that asks more than wrist circumference. That said, modern scientists mostly discredit somatotypes and Sheldon's work, so take it with a grain of salt.0
-
Body type: human, male0
-
perseverance14 wrote: »There is a good body type quiz on bodybuilding .com site that asks more than wrist circumference. That said, modern scientists mostly discredit somatotypes and Sheldon's work, so take it with a grain of salt.
Or a whole shakerful. That's bro science, plain and simple.0 -
No, not really. There's a visible difference between my left and right wrist which must be related to me being right-handed, and some people have fatter wrists when they are heavier (everyone to some extent, I imagine).0
-
Bro Science on the psychological aspects attached to Sheldon's work, but I don't think we can overlook small, medium, and large frames that exist. At least it is one additional unit of measure.
Even in golf, they teach the swing based on one's body type - arc, width, leverage or a combination based on one's physical characteristics.0 -
In golf they're teaching the swing based on your current body shape. So, for instance, if your shoulders are narrower than your hips, your swing is going to be subtly different.
But that doesn't have anything to do with your ability to change your body shape. Some people carry their weight in different places, but everyone has the ability to lose weight, get in shape and tone up if they put in the hard work and effort. We're none of us special snowflakes.
Frame size, yeah, to some extent that exists. The differences are pretty subtle, though, and a lot of people use unrelated things like bone density (a measure relevant to risk factors for osteoporosis) as a fitness gauge, which it is not.
The other stuff, though? That's just excuses. "Oh, I'm not fat, I'm big-boned". No, actually, you're fat. But that's okay, 'cause the good news is you can do something about that.0 -
I think that there are different frame sizes and people hold their weight differently. But I don't think that body shape dictates how we lose weight.
Also, I think that some people use the terms ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph to describe body shapes but don't necessarily know about somatypology.0 -
I don't believe in somatotypes, people have different frames and appetites though0
-
In golf they're teaching the swing based on your current body shape. So, for instance, if your shoulders are narrower than your hips, your swing is going to be subtly different.
But that doesn't have anything to do with your ability to change your body shape. Some people carry their weight in different places, but everyone has the ability to lose weight, get in shape and tone up if they put in the hard work and effort. We're none of us special snowflakes.
Frame size, yeah, to some extent that exists. The differences are pretty subtle, though, and a lot of people use unrelated things like bone density (a measure relevant to risk factors for osteoporosis) as a fitness gauge, which it is not.
The other stuff, though? That's just excuses. "Oh, I'm not fat, I'm big-boned". No, actually, you're fat. But that's okay, 'cause the good news is you can do something about that.
In golf, the height factor also dictates the swing plane. Usually it ends with a more upright swing plane compared to a medium height golfer, or a short golfer. This then, results in a whole list of other things relevant to how the swing unfolds to get a square face at the point of contact.
However, I didn't post to talk about golf. I had called myself an "ectomorph" due to my height, small frame and slim/trim physique. Guilty of accepting the moniker that was developed in the 1950's without really studying the original work of how and why those names were chosen by Sheldon. That set off a button with a few people who said the terms ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph were all BS, mythical, and non-scientific. I'm fine with that.
However...I wondered if the work of Sheldon is such a hated myth (for sure the psychological traits he associated with each type), what then do we call body types to not upset anyone with myths?
Height: short, average, tall, super tall
Frame: small, medium, large
Do I call myself a tall, skinny drink of water? Tall, slender male, with a small size frame? A spittin' image of my mother, one of my sisters, grandfather, brothers, cousins, great-grandfather (all who share the tall and slim look - or body type)?
0 -
I've seen a lot of articles and research that claim if your an "apple" shape and carry your weight in the middle you are more prone to diseases etc. If your "pear" shape then you have less risk. Is there any truth to that?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
But that doesn't have anything to do with your ability to change your body shape. Some people carry their weight in different places, but everyone has the ability to lose weight, get in shape and tone up if they put in the hard work and effort. We're none of us special snowflakes.
Agreed: everyone can get into better shape. People tend to be thin or fat but can work against this trend.
Disagree: everyone can become buff, do the age-appropriate number of pull-ups, push ups, etc.
Genetics can be a mutha. (And fatha. Unless one uses parthenogenesis.)
0 -
leanne0627 wrote: »I've seen a lot of articles and research that claim if your an "apple" shape and carry your weight in the middle you are more prone to diseases etc. If your "pear" shape then you have less risk. Is there any truth to that?
This one seems to get more support from the medical community. Though as it turns out, it, too, may wind up being proven false, or at least, incomplete as a theory. That's the thing about science -- old theories keep being debunked as more studies are performed.
The difference here is that the apple vs. pear health risk theory is at least based on medical research and double-blind controlled studies, as opposed to somatotypes which are basically just astrology or numerology under a different guise.
Ultimately body shape is useful in figuring out fashion advice, but it's not a reliable marker for health.0 -
Not for me! I have tiny wrists but all my other bones (shoulders, hips, etc.) are large
0 -
0 -
[quote="jemhh;30582044"]I think that there are different frame sizes and people hold their weight differently. But I don't think that body shape dictates how we lose weight.
Also, I think that some people use the terms ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph to describe body shapes but don't necessarily know about somatypology.[/quote]
Agree with the bold.0 -
I'm short and stocky. I'll never be a delicate little sylph. I could starve myself to 100lbs and I won't look delicately slender like a ballerina. I'll look like a lollipop head. I have short arms and legs and that's never going to change.
Can I get down to a lower and more hydrodynamic weight? Hell yeah.
So yeah, people have different physiques and changing parts of them might require surgery. Some people want that, others don't.
I just wanna be able to swim faster so I don't kill myself in open water swims where the tide is a concern.*shrug* We all have different goals.
0 -
I believe there is some truth to it. The size of the bones at a person's wrist will normally give an indication of the size of the bones elsewhere. More bone means that a smaller percentage of a person's weight is made up of muscle and fat. But none of that has much meaning unless the person is at a "normal" weight. For overweight people, differences in bone size are an insignificant percentage of their total mass.0
-
Seeing as how my wrist size dropped as I lost weight, I would have to go with no.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »I believe there is some truth to it. The size of the bones at a person's wrist will normally give an indication of the size of the bones elsewhere. More bone means that a smaller percentage of a person's weight is made up of muscle and fat. But none of that has much meaning unless the person is at a "normal" weight. For overweight people, differences in bone size are an insignificant percentage of their total mass.
This makes sense to me.
I was always a slightly taller than average, morbidly obese woman with MUCH smaller wrists, fingers, and sometimes even neck or ankles, than the majority of my friends who were average weight or slightly overweight.
Now at a healthy weight, I still have hugely wide hips but everything else about me is somewhat petite if you don't realize how tall I am...so I would honestly say that despite being a larger person overall due to height I DO have a small frame size.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »For overweight people, differences in bone size are an insignificant percentage of their total mass.
Bones are not a static entity -- they grow when you get bigger and they shrink when you get smaller. They make up around 15% of your body mass, regardless of your size.
In other words, someone who weights 150 pounds has around 22 pounds of bone mass. If this same person gained 100 pounds, they would then have around 38 pounds in bone mass, not 22.
The weight gain is in muscle, fat, and bone (and probably veins, tendons, and all the other stuff that we are made of).
Bones are constantly growing and dying. This is why calcium is so important throughout our lives, not just as little kids.
0 -
seltzermint wrote: »I would honestly say that despite being a larger person overall due to height I DO have a small frame size.
I'm medium framed but short, so matter how much weight I lose, I'll always look like I should be in a field picking potatoes for a living.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Bones are not a static entity -- they grow when you get bigger and they shrink when you get smaller. They make up around 15% of your body mass, regardless of your size.
In other words, someone who weights 150 pounds has around 22 pounds of bone mass. If this same person gained 100 pounds, they would then have around 38s pound in bone mass, not 22.
The weight gain is in muscle, fat, and bone (and probably veins, tendons, and all the other stuff that we are made of).
Bones are constantly growing and dying. This is why calcium is so important throughout our lives, not just as little kids.
No.
Our bone density and muscle mass decreases with age. Plus, some people do experience bone loss when they lose weight, mostly because they don't consume enough calcium. That can put many people, especially women after menopause, at increased risk of osteoporosis. Which is why it's so important to focus on getting enough calcium even during weight loss.
The rest of what you quote is untrue. The average man has about 15% of his mass from bone (and the average woman 12%, due to higher average percentage of body fat for women). But your bones don't magically grow and shrink to adjust to weight loss or gain. Most people stop growing around age 18-21, and bones typically achieve maximum density by age 30 or so, after which they start losing bone density.0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »Body type: human, male
Negative, you are a meat popsicle.
hahaha! Made my day!
0 -
I'm not really convinced body types are correct in general since fat storage and bone structure are two different things (eg I have wide hips so my measurements seem like a pear but I don't gain weight in my butt as much as I do my stomach). What happens if you have long fingers? Totally possible, even with an average frame. So using the wrist rule if you're average framed but have long fingers you might think you're small framed, no?
ETA: I do believe there are small, medium and large frames (talking about bones here) though. I'm just not convinced measuring a wrist will tell you what you are.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »I'm short and stocky. I'll never be a delicate little sylph. I could starve myself to 100lbs and I won't look delicately slender like a ballerina. I'll look like a lollipop head. I have short arms and legs and that's never going to change.
Ditto. When I was skinny, my head looked ginormous compared to the rest of my body. If wrist circumference is an indicator of what my frame is supposed to be, then I will also look like a lollipop head.0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »Body type: human, male
Negative, you are a meat popsicle.
Who the hell flags something like this?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »Body type: human, male
Negative, you are a meat popsicle.
Who the hell flags something like this?
people will flag ANYTHING!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions