180lbs aiming for 200lbs - advice?
brizzlar
Posts: 86 Member
Ectomorph leaning body type, 6'2 in height. Current diet: 3480 calories per day.
0
Replies
-
Advice: you're not an ecto, you're an undereater. Eat more or move less. Get on a optimal strength program that has been proven to work and had structure. Sleep, eat more, lift right and repeat.4
-
Add about 500 more calories, you should be OK. Just gained about 9 pounds in 2 weeks.1
-
Thanks for the advice Pinggolfer. How did you determine that I'm not an ectomorph?1
-
Thanks for the advice Pinggolfer. How did you determine that I'm not an ectomorph?
Because it's a fitness myth. Somatotypes are not a thing. You might find the below beneficial for high calorie items to eat. Also, if you want muscle gain, then you should be following a structured lifting program
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read#latest
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you#latest1 -
I hit 200 last yr during a big powerlifting cycle. Hurt RC, lost most of my mass. Started up again a couple weeks ago. Currently 160lb eating 5500-6000 per day. It's alot of food, but it works. I tend to stay fairly lean, so no worries of fat gains. As for what i eat, really anything. Steak, chicken, seafood, Fast food, ice cream, gainer shakes, PB, nuttela, choc milk. Legit 6k cals. I have tracked it before.1
-
-
Ectomorph body type = slim boned, long limbed, lithe and have very little body fat and little muscle.1
-
Ectomorph body type = slim boned, long limbed, lithe and have very little body fat and little muscle.
Somatotypes are a myth. They were made up by a psychologist and have nothing to do with strength training or muscle gain.
OP, read the links provided by psulemon above. Here are a couple of very detailed articles from a highly respected trainer who knows what he's talking about:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/muscle-gain-mistakes.html/0 -
People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.1 -
All except the part that somatotypes aren't a real thing.People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.
I could make up an imaginary term and call them zlygfusts, and then zlygfust would be a perfectly apt term to describe them too - except it would be a made up term that didn't mean anything, just like ectomorph.
0 -
To me the problem comes when people start to use the terminology to dictate dietary strategy as though someone's general shape or structure has a significant influence on the tactics they should use in order to get to their goals.
Additionally, the amount of body-fat one carries could drastically skew what "type" they identify with. Think of a contest bodybuilder in stage condition vs at the end of the offseason.
But mainly what I'm getting at here is that if an ectomorph at 11% bodyfat wants to bulk, they do the exact same thing that an endomorph or mesomorph would at that bodyfat level. They eat in a controlled surplus and train on a progressively demanding program with adequate volume.
They don't say "hey I'm an ectomorph, I think I'll YOLO and gain 3lbs/week"
At least, they shouldn't.3 -
All except the part that somatotypes aren't a real thing.People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.
I could make up an imaginary term and call them zlygfusts, and then zlygfust would be a perfectly apt term to describe them too - except it would be a made up term that didn't mean anything, just like ectomorph.
My understanding is that somatypes as they pertain to psychoanalysis and personality have been discounted, but that the underlying body types are still used as descriptors in research. In that respect, somatypes as they refer to a body type (minus the psychological component), are a real thing.
Edit:grammar. Sometimes mine sucks.1 -
-
Ectomorph body type = slim boned, long limbed, lithe and have very little body fat and little muscle.
Somatotypes = garbage psychology and worse physiology bodies change over time as do personalities etc. You could certainly say that the observation of certain body types is true just to denote differences but when does an ecto become a meso or an endo? When do ecto-meso's come in? I was an ecto then and endo and now a meso so what does that mean?
It's just fuzzy and contorted junk science.
0 -
ItsyBitsy246 wrote: »
All except the part that somatotypes aren't a real thing.People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.
I could make up an imaginary term and call them zlygfusts, and then zlygfust would be a perfectly apt term to describe them too - except it would be a made up term that didn't mean anything, just like ectomorph.
My understanding is that somatypes as they pertain to psychoanalysis and personality have been discounted, but that the underlying body types are still used as descriptors in research. In that respect, somatypes as they refer to a body type (minus the psychological component), are a real thing.
Edit:grammar. Sometimes mine sucks.
William Sheldon was a psychologist, but I think he was behavioural IIRC and not a psychoanalyst. Not sure what research is using these descriptors since they are fuzzy definitions and there are now something like 21 descriptors. Body shapes are real but somatypes are not real because they change overtime.0 -
-
Best advice, don't give yourself a goal in number form unless it's a pr with weight. Who knows what you'll look like at 200 pounds.1
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ItsyBitsy246 wrote: »
All except the part that somatotypes aren't a real thing.People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.
I could make up an imaginary term and call them zlygfusts, and then zlygfust would be a perfectly apt term to describe them too - except it would be a made up term that didn't mean anything, just like ectomorph.
My understanding is that somatypes as they pertain to psychoanalysis and personality have been discounted, but that the underlying body types are still used as descriptors in research. In that respect, somatypes as they refer to a body type (minus the psychological component), are a real thing.
Edit:grammar. Sometimes mine sucks.
William Sheldon was a psychologist, but I think he was behavioural IIRC and not a psychoanalyst. Not sure what research is using these descriptors since they are fuzzy definitions and there are now something like 21 descriptors. Body shapes are real but somatypes are not real because they change overtime.
I don't know specifically (not my field), but I did a quick search and came up with this example using somatotypes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433966/
0 -
ItsyBitsy246 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ItsyBitsy246 wrote: »
All except the part that somatotypes aren't a real thing.People are genetically different.
Some people have a narrow shoulders
Some people have wide shoulders
Some people have a low amount of natural muscle
Some people have a high amount of natural muscle
The term ectomorph is a perfectly apt term to describe someone lean and slim.
I could make up an imaginary term and call them zlygfusts, and then zlygfust would be a perfectly apt term to describe them too - except it would be a made up term that didn't mean anything, just like ectomorph.
My understanding is that somatypes as they pertain to psychoanalysis and personality have been discounted, but that the underlying body types are still used as descriptors in research. In that respect, somatypes as they refer to a body type (minus the psychological component), are a real thing.
Edit:grammar. Sometimes mine sucks.
William Sheldon was a psychologist, but I think he was behavioural IIRC and not a psychoanalyst. Not sure what research is using these descriptors since they are fuzzy definitions and there are now something like 21 descriptors. Body shapes are real but somatypes are not real because they change overtime.
I don't know specifically (not my field), but I did a quick search and came up with this example using somatotypes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433966/
Somatatypes are still not a valid model since there is no basis in physiology for them, they are the product of people's genetics, environments and activities/behaviours and will change overtime. An endo morph today could be an ecto morph in the future or could have been one in the past. Since the types would be fluid their can be no external validity. This is why you can't find much on them, if they were a valid model they would be discussed extensively in other research since researchers would want to know how their variable affected them just as they are concerned how age and sex affect the outcomes of various exercise and diet programs right now.
The research article you have stated isn't particularly interesting and only shows that there is a cluster based on sports positions and shows that either people adapt a position based on the requirements (e.g. strength, speed and endurance) or are particularly suited for a position e.g. taller than average.
0 -
Meh. I'll leave the assessment of the validity of the model up to the researchers and those that peer-review the research. Like I said, not my field, not really my interest.0
-
ItsyBitsy246 wrote: »Meh. I'll leave the assessment of the validity of the model up to the researchers and those that peer-review the research. Like I said, not my field, not really my interest.
It's not that interesting.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
I appreciate the follow up mate. So I've been training between 3-5 times a week. Earlier I. The year I was doing single group days like legs one day, chest the next. I try to mix up my method roughly once a month to shock my muscles. Lately I've been doing pyramid training and doing two muscle groups per session.
Food wise: eating around 3,400 cals a day.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
I appreciate the follow up mate. So I've been training between 3-5 times a week. Earlier I. The year I was doing single group days like legs one day, chest the next. I try to mix up my method roughly once a month to shock my muscles. Lately I've been doing pyramid training and doing two muscle groups per session.
Food wise: eating around 3,400 cals a day.
Well, there is no way to "shock" your muscles but training variety can help mentally. As long as your food intake is sufficient you'll gain so aim for a .5 to 1lb gain per week, which is a 250 to 500 calorie surplus per day. My suggestion would be to access your level of lifting by taking a baseline of your max lifts. You can find a calculator here: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.html and then find a lifting program based on your level and goals. You can start researching programs at places like http://www.bodybuilding.com/ and there are a lot of lifters here with experience on various programs that can give you some advice. I like Wendler's Beyond 5/3/1 but PHUL and PHAT are pretty popular as well.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
I appreciate the follow up mate. So I've been training between 3-5 times a week. Earlier I. The year I was doing single group days like legs one day, chest the next. I try to mix up my method roughly once a month to shock my muscles. Lately I've been doing pyramid training and doing two muscle groups per session.
Food wise: eating around 3,400 cals a day.
Well, there is no way to "shock" your muscles but training variety can help mentally. As long as your food intake is sufficient you'll gain so aim for a .5 to 1lb gain per week, which is a 250 to 500 calorie surplus per day. My suggestion would be to access your level of lifting by taking a baseline of your max lifts. You can find a calculator here: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards.html and then find a lifting program based on your level and goals. You can start researching programs at places like http://www.bodybuilding.com/ and there are a lot of lifters here with experience on various programs that can give you some advice. I like Wendler's Beyond 5/3/1 but PHUL and PHAT are pretty popular as well.
Thanks man, means alot.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions