Bodytypes?
Replies
-
Ectomorph0
-
Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Henry Cavill Types...1
-
Musclomorph.
Yea, somatypes are not an actual thing.3 -
Used to be short, fat, and round.
Now I'm still short and fat, but not as much. With a big butt and boobs.
Is this supposed to be a competition? Kinda lame.
2 -
I've always had an athletic build.
I find it easy to put muscle on so I just sit on my butt and eat.
0 -
-
Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
0 -
The type that has loose sagging skin and chub0
-
cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
+10 -
0
-
ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.1 -
Used to be short, fat, and round.
Now I'm still short and fat, but not as much. With a big butt and boobs.
Is this supposed to be a competition? Kinda lame.
How's it any more of a competition than the selfie threads? Honest question, not trying to be snarky. And I think that you're absolutely beautiful, you shouldn't feel insecure about your body.
Because OP said "Let's see who dominates MFP".
I wasn't aware selfie threads were supposed to be competitive either. I thought those were just for us to feel pretty and validated by likes, awesomes, and quotes from internet strangers.
And I'm not being snarky either. Lord knows I post enough in the selfie thread.
Am I pretty???? Someone please tell me I'm pretty!!
And thanks for the beautiful compliment.
0 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.
Body shape and somatype are not the same thing. Body shape obviously is real but somatype has been debunked1 -
^^^ Lady A can certainly look like Lady B but up the point that her genetics will partially determine many factors of the natural shape.. Have the lady add in body composition changes, i.e. build muscle and this changes up things immensely.. actually have the ability to look better than Lady B.. Depends on how much work you are willing to put in.2
-
singingflutelady wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.
Body shape and somatype are not the same thing. Body shape obviously is real but somatype has been debunked
What's your definition of the difference between the two?
0 -
^^^ Lady A can certainly look like Lady B but up the point that her genetics will partially determine many factors of the natural shape.. Have the lady add in body composition changes, i.e. build muscle and this changes up things immensely.. actually have the ability to look better than Lady B.. Depends on how much work you are willing to put in.
I'm not saying she can't look better, of course she can. I'm saying she can look better but she won't have that body shape.1 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.
Body shape and somatype are not the same thing. Body shape obviously is real but somatype has been debunked
What's your definition of the difference between the two?
Body shape is the 'general' shape or 'figure' of a person which is defined mainly by the molding of skeletal structures, as well as the distribution of muscles and fat.. Everyone's genetics determines all of this.
This body TYPE called somatypes are bunk.. not sure what else to say here..0 -
The ecto/meso/endo are not fruit shapes or any shapes. It's about metabolism I believe??? Your body's natural metabolism like ecto's have a hard time gaining muscle or fat, meso's are naturally muscular and endo's are the ones who have a harder time losing fat.0
-
ThoughtFood wrote: »^^^ Lady A can certainly look like Lady B but up the point that her genetics will partially determine many factors of the natural shape.. Have the lady add in body composition changes, i.e. build muscle and this changes up things immensely.. actually have the ability to look better than Lady B.. Depends on how much work you are willing to put in.
I'm not saying she can't look better, of course she can. I'm saying she can look better but she won't have that body shape.
Perhaps you are pulling straws looking for something that has already been defined and described here. She genetically will not have that exact shape of Lady A no, because its not the same Lady..
You said in your post.. quote: And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense. and yes she can..
I am tired and moving on...0 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.
Body shape and somatype are not the same thing. Body shape obviously is real but somatype has been debunked
What's your definition of the difference between the two?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology2 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Somatotypes are a myth. Not even developed by a physiologist but a psychiatrist based on people's behaviors. Don't fall for it. If you're thin it's because you lack muscle and don't eat enough to support adding it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This.ThoughtFood wrote: »
Because science has debuked them many times.
Oh right. With that being said can
Look like
When she loses weight?
That would depend on that particular individual's genetics, skeleton, muscle, etc. They might look like that after losing or they might not.
Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure, sure. But that's not the same thing as the somatypes that the OP is referencing. Somatypes are bunk.
I'm trying to understand you. "Our body shape is dependent at least partially on our genetics and bone structure.." Am I missing something here?
And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense.
Body shape and somatype are not the same thing. Body shape obviously is real but somatype has been debunked
What's your definition of the difference between the two?
Body shape is the 'general' shape or 'figure' of a person which is defined mainly by the molding of skeletal structures, as well as the distribution of muscles and fat.. Everyone's genetics determines all of this.
This body TYPE called somatypes are bunk.. not sure what else to say here..
"Body shape is the 'general' shape or 'figure' of a person which is defined mainly by the molding of skeletal structures, as well as the distribution of muscles and fat" We both agree. That being said if one of any two people holds more/less muscle than the other according to genetics as you've said, how then is the concept of somatype a non topic?0 -
It seems somatotypes were created by a psychologist in the 40s to try to come up with some sort of correlation between body type and personality.
So while somatotypes are not really relevant, there are different body shapes and structures. Some have larger frames and bone structures some have smaller. A person with a large frame will never look the same as someone with a small frame because of genetics. Just as our skin or eye colour is determined so is our frame.
That's my understanding of this I might be wrong but I just speak from experience1 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »^^^ Lady A can certainly look like Lady B but up the point that her genetics will partially determine many factors of the natural shape.. Have the lady add in body composition changes, i.e. build muscle and this changes up things immensely.. actually have the ability to look better than Lady B.. Depends on how much work you are willing to put in.
I'm not saying she can't look better, of course she can. I'm saying she can look better but she won't have that body shape.
Perhaps you are pulling straws looking for something that has already been defined and described here. She genetically will not have that exact shape of Lady A no, because its not the same Lady..
You said in your post.. quote: And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense. and yes she can..
I am tired and moving on...
No one is forcing you to reply but It's better if you don't because you're not making sense.0 -
ThoughtFood wrote: »ThoughtFood wrote: »^^^ Lady A can certainly look like Lady B but up the point that her genetics will partially determine many factors of the natural shape.. Have the lady add in body composition changes, i.e. build muscle and this changes up things immensely.. actually have the ability to look better than Lady B.. Depends on how much work you are willing to put in.
I'm not saying she can't look better, of course she can. I'm saying she can look better but she won't have that body shape.
Perhaps you are pulling straws looking for something that has already been defined and described here. She genetically will not have that exact shape of Lady A no, because its not the same Lady..
You said in your post.. quote: And for the record, debate aside, you and me both know lady A will never look like lady B, stop that nonsense. and yes she can..
I am tired and moving on...
No one is forcing you to reply but It's better if you don't because you're not making sense.
Read the article @dianethegeek posted..0 -
I didn't know it was supposed to be a personality indicator. That makes it a lot sillier to me. It made sense when it was about metabolism but hey, I'm not science; just the peanut gallery.0
-
It seems somatotypes were created by a psychologist in the 40s to try to come up with some sort of correlation between body type and personality.
So while somatotypes are not really relevant, there are different body shapes and structures. Some have larger frames and bone structures some have smaller. A person with a large frame will never look the same as someone with a small frame because of genetics. Just as our skin or eye colour is determined so is our frame.
That's my understanding of this I might be wrong but I just speak from experience
Exactly. My point is the concept of somatotypes is right however It's just not as clear cut as 3 different body types. But to dismiss the theory of it totally is nonsense to me.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions