Bodytypes?
Replies
-
Ecto/meso/endo might as well be small/medium/large or skinny/average/fat0
-
KyleGrace8 wrote: »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.
With this logic Serena Williams can look like Maria Sharapova if she had a faster metabolism... Ok0 -
-
ThoughtFood wrote: »
Your frame can be small even I'd you are tall and vice versa. I'm considered tall for a woman but I have a small frame. if you look at a person's joints you can typically determine what sort if frame they have. I guess it has to do with bone thickness and density maybe?0 -
I think bipedal hominids dominate here.1
-
ThoughtFood wrote: »
Your frame can be small even I'd you are tall and vice versa. I'm considered tall for a woman but I have a small frame. if you look at a person's joints you can typically determine what sort if frame they have. I guess it has to do with bone thickness and density maybe?
Yeah that's true about the frame size. And I would add it's also how your genetics handles muscle and fat on your frame. We're all different. to some degree. This blanket human form vibe I'm getting from some people here is top quality banter.0 -
The point is that eco/meso/edo have nothing to do with being tall or short, pear or apple. It's not about an athlete and a model. That is a separate thing all together. You could be a meso pear, ecto pear or and endo pear. If you take people who in their natural state, not actively training or dieting and people fall into different categories naturally. There are people who are naturally thin and they come in different shapes but that's not this subject. The subject is that they're naturally thin and have a hard time gaining fat or muscle. That's an ecto. There are people who don't lift weights and also come in different shapes and heights but have natural muscle definition given to them by genetics (all are by genetics). Those are meso. There are people who naturally have more fat on their bodies, endo.1
-
KyleGrace8 wrote: »The point is that eco/meso/edo have nothing to do with being tall or short, pear or apple. It's not about an athlete and a model. That is a separate thing all together. You could be a meso pear, ecto pear or and endo pear. If you take people who in their natural state, not actively training or dieting and people fall into different categories naturally. There are people who are naturally thin and they come in different shapes but that's not this subject. The subject is that they're naturally thin and have a hard time gaining fat or muscle. That's an ecto. There are people who don't lift weights and also come in different shapes and heights but have natural muscle definition given to them by genetics (all are by genetics). Those are meso. There are people who naturally have more fat on their bodies, endo.
There we go. Nicely put
0 -
The classical notions of the somatotype have been debunked, but people do have genetic differences when it comes to skeletal structure, appetite, metabolism, where they store fat, what percentage of growth is muscle, etc. These genetic differences manifest themselves such that some people have a harder/easier time losing fat, gaining muscle, etc., than others. That's what the general categories of ecto/meso/endomorph are attempting to describe. When these words are used, they don't come with the implication that personality is being roped in too.
But, they have limited utility. When it comes to improving body composition, there isn't much difference in terms of what people in each general category ought to do. Ectomorphs need to eat a ton of calories for the same results an endomorph (like me) will get eating far fewer, all other things being equal. I've seen it happen; a friend of mine who weighs 30 pounds less than I do has a TDEE of about 2000 calories per day higher. He's always shredded, eats as much as he can, does no cardio, whereas I have a harder time losing weigh eating less than half of what he does. The ecto/meso/endomorph categories describe us, and many others, very well. It's not a completely useless topic.1 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »The classical notions of the somatotype have been debunked, but people do have genetic differences when it comes to skeletal structure, appetite, metabolism, where they store fat, what percentage of growth is muscle, etc. These genetic differences manifest themselves such that some people have a harder/easier time losing fat, gaining muscle, etc., than others. That's what the general categories of ecto/meso/endomorph are attempting to describe. When these words are used, they don't come with the implication that personality is being roped in too.
But, they have limited utility. When it comes to improving body composition, there isn't much difference in terms of what people in each general category ought to do. Ectomorphs need to eat a ton of calories for the same results an endomorph (like me) will get eating far fewer, all other things being equal. I've seen it happen; a friend of mine who weighs 30 pounds less than I do has a TDEE of about 2000 calories per day higher. He's always shredded, eats as much as he can, does no cardio, whereas I have a harder time losing weigh eating less than half of what he does. The ecto/meso/endomorph categories describe us, and many others, very well. It's not a completely useless topic.
*Virtual fist bump* Cheers for s-p-e-l-l-i-n=g it out for the one size/blanket human denomination among us. You're the real MVP here.1 -
Thanks for this. I'll admit to being completely ignorant of all of this, but based on your (excellent) breakdown, I guess I'd fall into the endo category.itsthehumidity wrote: »The classical notions of the somatotype have been debunked, but people do have genetic differences when it comes to skeletal structure, appetite, metabolism, where they store fat, what percentage of growth is muscle, etc. These genetic differences manifest themselves such that some people have a harder/easier time losing fat, gaining muscle, etc., than others. That's what the general categories of ecto/meso/endomorph are attempting to describe. When these words are used, they don't come with the implication that personality is being roped in too.
But, they have limited utility. When it comes to improving body composition, there isn't much difference in terms of what people in each general category ought to do. Ectomorphs need to eat a ton of calories for the same results an endomorph (like me) will get eating far fewer, all other things being equal. I've seen it happen; a friend of mine who weighs 30 pounds less than I do has a TDEE of about 2000 calories per day higher. He's always shredded, eats as much as he can, does no cardio, whereas I have a harder time losing weigh eating less than half of what he does. The ecto/meso/endomorph categories describe us, and many others, very well. It's not a completely useless topic.
1 -
Ugh.. I have no idea.0
-
Canine1
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