Ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph
Replies
-
trigden1991 wrote: »Anyone, especially female, who thinks they gain muscle quickly or easily is grossly mistaken.
Compared to a guy? Nope. Compared to other women? Yup.0 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies
Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
Unless a girl is going to go into contest prep mode, that will likely be unachievable. Most women i know would end around the 16 to 20% range. But the client i had at 14% looked very good.
Well this is becoming a little unpleasant
When we start to talk about sub 21% BF on a woman who is not comp prepping being an ideal IT becomes a little discomfiting considering healthy ranges for women are generally considered to be 20-33% and sub 21% can be considered underfat
4 -
Leadfoot_Lewis wrote: »
What do you mean by this? I have always read that women gain weight more slowly, but never that we gain more fat than do men.
Well, women statistically have more fat than men. It's not our fault, we're built to make babies Perhaps that's what was meant to be said? I have never heard that woman gain more fat than men. That's totally incorrect.
generally, women don't look good with low body fat anyway.
As a male i disagree.
What body fat percentage do you like on a female? I was thinking less than 14%
Unless a girl is going to go into contest prep mode, that will likely be unachievable. Most women i know would end around the 16 to 20% range. But the client i had at 14% looked very good.
Well this is becoming a little unpleasant
When we start to talk about sub 21% BF on a woman who is not comp prepping being an ideal IT becomes a little discomfiting considering healthy ranges for women are generally considered to be 20-33% and sub 21% can be considered underfat
It also depends on age too. It's easy to be sub 21 when you are younger.
0 -
Doesn't testosterone & estrogen have a huge part in someone's ability to build muscle/lose fat? If a woman has a high amount of estrogen, would she have a harder time seeing results?0
-
Testosterone levels do help in building muscle0
-
I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.1 -
tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
I have to admit that I need carbs in order to have energy. I eat more protein than I used to bc my diet used to be just carbs pretty much.
If I eat a low carb diet, I am tired and foggy. Low carbs works for other people though.
Do what works for you bc honestly, I often get very conflicting advice on MFP and if I listened to everyone, I'd be spinning my wheels.2 -
Testosterone levels do help in building muscle
Some women have lower levels of estrogen and higher levels of testosterone. Those women will build muscle more easily than a woman with higher levels of estrogen.
A PT at my gym told me that older women can actually gain MORE muscle bc their estrogen levels are lower.
Again, conflicting information is everywhere0 -
tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
But none of this has anything to do with somatotypes...1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
But none of this has anything to do with somatotypes...
I think the point is that somotypes have been debunked, but we still try to categorize ourselves into neat little packages.
We all have different genetics and I think that's what these ladies are trying to express.1 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
LOL Bro Science @LolBroScience
@ktfranke ..get a decent programme that has progression built in ...you've already taken on the calorie advice which was a good move
No! if you carry out reps at 3 seconds per rep you are in Muscle build zone (20 - 40 seconds per set) when you do 12 Reps. at 15 reps you will be doing each set for about 45 seconds and are moving into stamina training.
13 or 14 reps will do you no favours whatever your training for0 -
tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
if 1200 is a deficit it does not matter and your weight loss will be the same over time. The only benefit you get from low carb is losing water weight at first, which gives the appearance of losing weight "faster"..
unless of course you have a medical condition that you have not informed us of...0 -
This has been a fun thread to read. It took a few meandering turns and ended up in a different place.
Strictly by the shape of my body, I guess I'm a mesomorph. But based on the date of my bithday I'm a Leo, and born in the year of the dog. So there's that. It's fun, but ultimately meaningless.2 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
LOL Bro Science @LolBroScience
@ktfranke ..get a decent programme that has progression built in ...you've already taken on the calorie advice which was a good move
No! if you carry out reps at 3 seconds per rep you are in Muscle build zone (20 - 40 seconds per set) when you do 12 Reps. at 15 reps you will be doing each set for about 45 seconds and are moving into stamina training.
13 or 14 reps will do you no favours whatever your training for
Now now... I have high rep exercises written into my programming. (My current goal is hypertrophy btw) While I typically stay in the 8-10 range, I have a high rep hip thrust day, high rep deadlift day and most of my glute accessory and band work is high rep. So saying it is doing no favours is pretty generalized and not true. If you don't believe it is doing me any good, that is fine, you can check out my results or take it up with Bret (Contreras)
2 -
I've gone by this since I started and most other bits I've read seem to agree with it, fairly closely anyway.
https://ahealthyparadigm.com.au/2013/03/11/resistance-training-explained-part-2-strength-vs-hypertrophy-vs-endurance/ENDURANCE
This is always the starting point for resistance training; it focusses on the ‘lighter weights, more reps’ notion. When doing this sort of training, aim to complete >12 repetitions (for most people 12-20 is sufficient), over 3 sets. Rests breaks can be quite short, with 30 to 60 seconds between each set.
HYPERTROPHY
To promote hypertrophy, follow a program that requires 8-12 repetitions with 3-5 sets. Rest breaks should be between 1-2 minutes and the weight selected should leave you feeling fatigued at the end of the 12th rep. Most people will adopt a split program for hypertrophy training, focussing on only one or two muscle groups during each session. This has the great benefit of allowing one muscle group to have sufficient recovery, whilst still being able to train other muscle groups.
And then strength obviously, but I've never heard anyone say 13 or 14 isn't any good. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »An untrained female could hope to gain 1lb of muscle per month in the first year of training and less as they become more trained. Your legs may get bigger and stronger but muscle is not easily built by females.
i just bought and brought home a whole 'eye of round' from the grocery store a few weeks ago. thing was almost the size of my thigh and it weighed 8 pounds.
not that this is directly relevant, but it kind of put things into useful perspective for me. i was hacking it into smaller slices for freezing and mentally trying to redistribute that much tissue all over my own body - don't think i quite managed to find room for it all. so for me, it turns out that 8 pounds of lean cow is a LOT of muscle - way more than i thought it was. it's kind of derailed me from even worrying about making up numbers about the amount of literal muscle i might be growing.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »tribeachgirl2015 wrote: »I definitely think that health and fitness is very individualistic. Every person has there own genetic makeup, there own hormone levels, there own metabolisms... and not everyone is going to respond the same way to the same foods or workouts. People have intolerances, people have food allergies, and disabilities, people have there own individual obstacles they need to overcome in order to succeed.
I'm still dabbling in different things to figure out what clicks. I've definitely seen big results with resistance training, and am enjoying seeing my body composition slowly changing. But when it comes to fat loss, cutting calories and having the occasion refeed day, just isn't doing it for me. So many people keep telling me, "you can eat cake and ice cream everyday as long as it fits within your daily calories and macros," and that just simply isn't true for me. I've weighed my food, I've logged as accurately as possible, and yet I don't get results.
That's why I started looking into being an endomorph. And part of their genetic discription is that we can't get away with eating whatever we want. when we cheat, it shows immediately on the scale - which is true for me.
All that to say.... I'm not going to completely rule it out... there may be some bits of truth behind it, just like every other diet fad. Whether it be supplements, ketosis, carb cycling, you name it... the reason why it's become a thing, is because it's worked for some people. But I definitely don't think that your "body type," should be an excuse to complain or be lazy. But I do think it gives us a better idea of what we're working with.
I'm just like you and I think people that aren't just can't relate and think that we are mistaken. Wrong. I understand the whole calories in and calories out, but the type of calories makes a world of difference for me. I can eat 1200 carb rich calories and scale doesn't move, but when I do the same 1200 calories in low carb/ high fat foods, I lose weight and also feel so much better as far as mental clarity - it just works for me. And I also understand the science behind low carb and why it results in water weight/ fat loss. I'm just stating that eating the same amount of calories with these 2 different eating styles gives me vastly different results, so there is definitely something to it.
But none of this has anything to do with somatotypes...
I think the point is that somotypes have been debunked, but we still try to categorize ourselves into neat little packages.
We all have different genetics and I think that's what these ladies are trying to express.
Of course genetics play a huge role...but the whole somotype thing is, "your this, so you should eat this way and exercise that way"...or "your that, so you should eat that way and exercise this way"...I put it right up there with blood type dieting and whatnot. I don't think our genetic builds require certain ways of feeding or exercising.1 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
LOL Bro Science @LolBroScience
@ktfranke ..get a decent programme that has progression built in ...you've already taken on the calorie advice which was a good move
No! if you carry out reps at 3 seconds per rep you are in Muscle build zone (20 - 40 seconds per set) when you do 12 Reps. at 15 reps you will be doing each set for about 45 seconds and are moving into stamina training.
13 or 14 reps will do you no favours whatever your training for
Now that is quite laughable.2 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
LOL Bro Science @LolBroScience
@ktfranke ..get a decent programme that has progression built in ...you've already taken on the calorie advice which was a good move
No! if you carry out reps at 3 seconds per rep you are in Muscle build zone (20 - 40 seconds per set) when you do 12 Reps. at 15 reps you will be doing each set for about 45 seconds and are moving into stamina training.
13 or 14 reps will do you no favours whatever your training for
1 -
Are you all seriously taking the 13/14 rep post seriously?0
-
I've gone by this since I started and most other bits I've read seem to agree with it, fairly closely anyway.
https://ahealthyparadigm.com.au/2013/03/11/resistance-training-explained-part-2-strength-vs-hypertrophy-vs-endurance/ENDURANCE
This is always the starting point for resistance training; it focusses on the ‘lighter weights, more reps’ notion. When doing this sort of training, aim to complete >12 repetitions (for most people 12-20 is sufficient), over 3 sets. Rests breaks can be quite short, with 30 to 60 seconds between each set.
HYPERTROPHY
To promote hypertrophy, follow a program that requires 8-12 repetitions with 3-5 sets. Rest breaks should be between 1-2 minutes and the weight selected should leave you feeling fatigued at the end of the 12th rep. Most people will adopt a split program for hypertrophy training, focussing on only one or two muscle groups during each session. This has the great benefit of allowing one muscle group to have sufficient recovery, whilst still being able to train other muscle groups.
And then strength obviously, but I've never heard anyone say 13 or 14 isn't any good. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.
The only argument to be had would be that it would require a lot more volume that following a low rep program. Overall, there ahould be some balance between high load/low rep and high rep/low load. It would also depend on variables like body part, lifting history and goals. Ultimately volume is the major driver for hypertrophy and how you avhieve that will have some variability in it.
To demonstrate that a bit, below is a good article written by Lyle McDonald after reviewing a recent study dont by Brad Schoenfeld.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/1 -
I'm a Hufflepuff1
-
I've gone by this since I started and most other bits I've read seem to agree with it, fairly closely anyway.
https://ahealthyparadigm.com.au/2013/03/11/resistance-training-explained-part-2-strength-vs-hypertrophy-vs-endurance/ENDURANCE
This is always the starting point for resistance training; it focusses on the ‘lighter weights, more reps’ notion. When doing this sort of training, aim to complete >12 repetitions (for most people 12-20 is sufficient), over 3 sets. Rests breaks can be quite short, with 30 to 60 seconds between each set.
HYPERTROPHY
To promote hypertrophy, follow a program that requires 8-12 repetitions with 3-5 sets. Rest breaks should be between 1-2 minutes and the weight selected should leave you feeling fatigued at the end of the 12th rep. Most people will adopt a split program for hypertrophy training, focussing on only one or two muscle groups during each session. This has the great benefit of allowing one muscle group to have sufficient recovery, whilst still being able to train other muscle groups.
And then strength obviously, but I've never heard anyone say 13 or 14 isn't any good. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.
The only argument to be had would be that it would require a lot more volume that following a low rep program. Overall, there ahould be some balance between high load/low rep and high rep/low load. It would also depend on variables like body part, lifting history and goals. Ultimately volume is the major driver for hypertrophy and how you avhieve that will have some variability in it.
To demonstrate that a bit, below is a good article written by Lyle McDonald after reviewing a recent study dont by Brad Schoenfeld.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/
That was a good read, thanks.0 -
If your maintenance calories are really 2300, that means you could eat that many calories and maintain your weight. From what you are posting, it seems that you are maintaining on less, so that must not actually be your maintenance#. Cut back on refeeds and see what happens. Also, look up progressive lifting programs if you want to get stronger or recomp. 10-15 lb dumbbells is not really enough. Even just the bar for squats isn't really heavy. Work your way up gradually and see how it affects your body.1
-
I have to say im classed as an endomorph and i agree when reading about the traits i have to say they fit the bill!! Sensitive to fat storage and carbs and sugar! Nightmare really lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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