Bodytypes?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions