Eat right for your body type
- Thread starter Fausto
- Start date
Bulldog
Active Member
Well I didn't read the whole page. But skimming over it I can see that one part of that page makes sense.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) If you aren't losing...
You're not in a negative energy balance
2) If you aren't gaining...
You're not in a positive energy balance</div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) If you aren't losing...
You're not in a negative energy balance
2) If you aren't gaining...
You're not in a positive energy balance</div>
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Oh my god, not this body type crap again. </div>
Tot, not that I'd like to p... you off, but why do you react like that about the body type thing, it makes senses to me?
How about a rational explanation? Maybe I'm buying into something irrational? Don't think so...but a good argument may convince me...perferably with a scientific basis not based on personal opinion.
Deal?
Tot, not that I'd like to p... you off, but why do you react like that about the body type thing, it makes senses to me?
How about a rational explanation? Maybe I'm buying into something irrational? Don't think so...but a good argument may convince me...perferably with a scientific basis not based on personal opinion.
Deal?
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">somatotyping is garbage.</div>
Aaron, that is a poor scientific argument and you're a scientist, I just wanna see why you say it is.
Please show me, as it is I see a lot of different body types, which could easily fit into these categories.
Aaron, that is a poor scientific argument and you're a scientist, I just wanna see why you say it is.
Please show me, as it is I see a lot of different body types, which could easily fit into these categories.
RUSS
Member
a word from the infamous Lyle :
Here ya go:
Quote:
Somatyping was originally an attempt to model temperament based on physical traits. /It was never based on physiology./ It was long ago discredited in the field of psychology, but the vestiges of somatyping linger on in areas related to fitness. It has been the mere propogation of stereotype.
If anybody wants to get an "academic" view into the silliness of somatyping, go to your local university library and see if they have any book explaining how the measurements are done. Then try it out on your friends and family. "Golly, you're a 1-1-7 and I'm a 3-4-4!" By the time you finish, you'll be laughing. Read the book some more, and you'll see that /there is not even an attempt at a connection between the characteristics being measured and cellular response./
If you are feeling less academic, another way you can see the irrelevancy of the stereotypes is to actually train people with closely matching physical characteristics. You can also see the irrelevancy of somatyping when you consider a person's personal history. Have they passed the age at which "filling out" might be expected? Did they have decent eating habits when they were young? Did they prevent themselves from growing through too much physical activity, or through bad habits? With an older person (as in somebody past the teenage and college years), have they always had that build?
Physiologically:
There are no ectomorphs.
There are no mesomorphs.
There are no endomorphs.
There is no transitioning between them.
When you say that somebody is a "classic ectomorph/mesomorph/endomorph" all you are really saying is "that person appears to conform to the stereotype from a now-discredited psychological model." You are saying very little if anything about that person's history or their response to training or their potential to transform their body. So why propogate the stereotype?
If you are dissatisfied with your own body (aren't we all) don't attribute it to a somatype. Don't even use the somatype as a shorthand to describe your /current/ physical characteristics. Let the stereotypes die.
No doubt you will find that your response to training will have its limits. Adaptations are predomininatly biochemical in nature. A person's biochemistry is very hard to see from the outside. "If you order these special glasses for only $99.95..." you'll be out $99.95! You can't gauge biochemical response from outward appearance. There is no somatyping of biochemistry.
Don't imagine or predict limitations. The real ones will be work enough to overcome.
Quote:
It's clear that you don't understand how the determination is even made. Somatotyping (the actual measurements taht are made in terms of bodyfat, muscularity, limb length) were never correlated with inherent biology in the first place. All of that pseudo-interpretation to biology was made up later but never shown.
Put differently, let's say you meaure someone and you determine that they are an ectomorph. Low muscularity, long bones. Now you put 40 lbs of muscle on them. By the somatotype scale, they are now a mesomorph. Or you fatten them up and now they are an endomorph.
Has the fact that their position on the somatotype scale changed their genetics?
Quote:
Somatotyping was invented for psychological reasons: as an attempt to correlate body type with behavior patterns (ectors were typically high strung, endos laid back, mesos in the middle I guess). And it was no more scientific than phrenology in this regards. It's like thinking you can look at someone, or measure them, and know that they are a criminal.
Quote:
Ok, yes, the classic
ectomorph: is lean and skinny
mesomorph: is muscular and lean
endomorph: is fat
But that's not how the system (such as it was) was originally designed. And nobody is one but not the others. Everybody ranks from 1-9 on all three scales (to undersand this, you have to learn about how the rankings are actually made).
So you have an ectomorphy rating, an endomorphy rating, a mesomorphy rating. A complete ectomorph might be 1-1-9 (let's use endo,meso,ecto for the order). A complete mesomorph is 1-9-1, a complete endomorph is 9-1-1. Most peple will be somewhere in the middle but they might be slightly more dominant in one.
Which, as I said means that a fat powerlifter might rate high on the meso and endomorphy scales (muscular and fat) but probably low on ectomorphy. A lean powerlifter high on meso but low on the other two. Etc.
You can also have someone who is dysplasic, who has a high rating on one scale for part of their body but a high rating in a different scale for a nother. Think about your average fit female, who may be lean in her upper body (high ectomorphy rating) but fat in her lower (high endomorphy rating).
Does this mean that her upper body has the biology of an ectomorph but her lower the biology of an endomorph? what doess it tell you about her overall biology (except that she has typical female genetics)? Waht about her behavior patterns (again, what somatotyping was originally used to try and describe)? I mean other than absolutely ****ing nothing.
If you haven't gotten the point just how useless these ratings are yet (i.e. that they are only descriptive, telling you absoltley nothing about underlying biological processes), you're not paying attention.
Lyle
Sorry for my laziness , but it seemed easier to just quote him ( which I agree with) than to actually be original - but if I had - it would have displayed as least twice the genius in half the rambling ....just kidding Lyle
Here ya go:
Quote:
Somatyping was originally an attempt to model temperament based on physical traits. /It was never based on physiology./ It was long ago discredited in the field of psychology, but the vestiges of somatyping linger on in areas related to fitness. It has been the mere propogation of stereotype.
If anybody wants to get an "academic" view into the silliness of somatyping, go to your local university library and see if they have any book explaining how the measurements are done. Then try it out on your friends and family. "Golly, you're a 1-1-7 and I'm a 3-4-4!" By the time you finish, you'll be laughing. Read the book some more, and you'll see that /there is not even an attempt at a connection between the characteristics being measured and cellular response./
If you are feeling less academic, another way you can see the irrelevancy of the stereotypes is to actually train people with closely matching physical characteristics. You can also see the irrelevancy of somatyping when you consider a person's personal history. Have they passed the age at which "filling out" might be expected? Did they have decent eating habits when they were young? Did they prevent themselves from growing through too much physical activity, or through bad habits? With an older person (as in somebody past the teenage and college years), have they always had that build?
Physiologically:
There are no ectomorphs.
There are no mesomorphs.
There are no endomorphs.
There is no transitioning between them.
When you say that somebody is a "classic ectomorph/mesomorph/endomorph" all you are really saying is "that person appears to conform to the stereotype from a now-discredited psychological model." You are saying very little if anything about that person's history or their response to training or their potential to transform their body. So why propogate the stereotype?
If you are dissatisfied with your own body (aren't we all) don't attribute it to a somatype. Don't even use the somatype as a shorthand to describe your /current/ physical characteristics. Let the stereotypes die.
No doubt you will find that your response to training will have its limits. Adaptations are predomininatly biochemical in nature. A person's biochemistry is very hard to see from the outside. "If you order these special glasses for only $99.95..." you'll be out $99.95! You can't gauge biochemical response from outward appearance. There is no somatyping of biochemistry.
Don't imagine or predict limitations. The real ones will be work enough to overcome.
Quote:
It's clear that you don't understand how the determination is even made. Somatotyping (the actual measurements taht are made in terms of bodyfat, muscularity, limb length) were never correlated with inherent biology in the first place. All of that pseudo-interpretation to biology was made up later but never shown.
Put differently, let's say you meaure someone and you determine that they are an ectomorph. Low muscularity, long bones. Now you put 40 lbs of muscle on them. By the somatotype scale, they are now a mesomorph. Or you fatten them up and now they are an endomorph.
Has the fact that their position on the somatotype scale changed their genetics?
Quote:
Somatotyping was invented for psychological reasons: as an attempt to correlate body type with behavior patterns (ectors were typically high strung, endos laid back, mesos in the middle I guess). And it was no more scientific than phrenology in this regards. It's like thinking you can look at someone, or measure them, and know that they are a criminal.
Quote:
Ok, yes, the classic
ectomorph: is lean and skinny
mesomorph: is muscular and lean
endomorph: is fat
But that's not how the system (such as it was) was originally designed. And nobody is one but not the others. Everybody ranks from 1-9 on all three scales (to undersand this, you have to learn about how the rankings are actually made).
So you have an ectomorphy rating, an endomorphy rating, a mesomorphy rating. A complete ectomorph might be 1-1-9 (let's use endo,meso,ecto for the order). A complete mesomorph is 1-9-1, a complete endomorph is 9-1-1. Most peple will be somewhere in the middle but they might be slightly more dominant in one.
Which, as I said means that a fat powerlifter might rate high on the meso and endomorphy scales (muscular and fat) but probably low on ectomorphy. A lean powerlifter high on meso but low on the other two. Etc.
You can also have someone who is dysplasic, who has a high rating on one scale for part of their body but a high rating in a different scale for a nother. Think about your average fit female, who may be lean in her upper body (high ectomorphy rating) but fat in her lower (high endomorphy rating).
Does this mean that her upper body has the biology of an ectomorph but her lower the biology of an endomorph? what doess it tell you about her overall biology (except that she has typical female genetics)? Waht about her behavior patterns (again, what somatotyping was originally used to try and describe)? I mean other than absolutely ****ing nothing.
If you haven't gotten the point just how useless these ratings are yet (i.e. that they are only descriptive, telling you absoltley nothing about underlying biological processes), you're not paying attention.
Lyle
Sorry for my laziness , but it seemed easier to just quote him ( which I agree with) than to actually be original - but if I had - it would have displayed as least twice the genius in half the rambling ....just kidding Lyle
If you are going to base something on body type then you might as well base it on any number of things.
Here are some examples:
Eating right for your ethnicity
Eating right for your religious affiliation
Eating right for your eye color
Seriously, go read about what bodytyping actually entails. Everyone knows the terms mesomorph, endomorph and ectomorph, but noone seems to know what they actually mean. The actual meanings are totally idiotic. Like being shy has anything to do with your metabolism or how your body will look. How many naturally muscular guys do you know that have natural charisma and leadership skills? I mean, if that were true then wouldn't you expect all the presidents of the united states to have been huge, muscular guys? All comedians to be fat, jolly guys? All scientists to be skinny, spindly fellows who hate talking to people?
Not really how the world works.
Bodytyping these days has become even more of a joke. People use it as an excuse for their lack of dedication. "Oh, I'm an ecto, that's why I'm so skinny." No, you miss half your workouts and don't even bother watching your diet, that's why you are so skinny. Etc etc.
Here are some examples:
Eating right for your ethnicity
Eating right for your religious affiliation
Eating right for your eye color
Seriously, go read about what bodytyping actually entails. Everyone knows the terms mesomorph, endomorph and ectomorph, but noone seems to know what they actually mean. The actual meanings are totally idiotic. Like being shy has anything to do with your metabolism or how your body will look. How many naturally muscular guys do you know that have natural charisma and leadership skills? I mean, if that were true then wouldn't you expect all the presidents of the united states to have been huge, muscular guys? All comedians to be fat, jolly guys? All scientists to be skinny, spindly fellows who hate talking to people?
Not really how the world works.
Bodytyping these days has become even more of a joke. People use it as an excuse for their lack of dedication. "Oh, I'm an ecto, that's why I'm so skinny." No, you miss half your workouts and don't even bother watching your diet, that's why you are so skinny. Etc etc.
Fausto
HST Expert
Thanks Russ, I am convinced by Lyle's argument.
Tot...fine, you don't really want to get me going
I still have a problem though,how does one calssify some body types then,becuaes although they can be "modified" via weight training for instance, the body type stays predominantly true...what does one call it then...is it a genetic predisposition that one has a more atheltic wiry appearance and is perhaps not as sensitive as someone else to carbs for instance?
Beats me. But I am seriously interested in knowing, specially because I believe that we "handle" food intake differently and that our bodies react differently to different foods just as Berardi wrote.
This thread if we handle it properly could become very interesting...specially if we eventually have a scientic way of answering my question for the benefit of all
Tot...fine, you don't really want to get me going
I still have a problem though,how does one calssify some body types then,becuaes although they can be "modified" via weight training for instance, the body type stays predominantly true...what does one call it then...is it a genetic predisposition that one has a more atheltic wiry appearance and is perhaps not as sensitive as someone else to carbs for instance?
Beats me. But I am seriously interested in knowing, specially because I believe that we "handle" food intake differently and that our bodies react differently to different foods just as Berardi wrote.
This thread if we handle it properly could become very interesting...specially if we eventually have a scientic way of answering my question for the benefit of all
RUSS
Member
<div>
(Fausto @ Aug. 23 2007,13:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Beats me. But I am seriously interested in knowing, specially because I believe that we "handle" food intake differently and that our bodies react differently to different foods just as Berardi wrote.
This thread if we handle it properly could become very interesting...specially if we eventually have a scientic way of answering my question for the benefit of all
</div>
I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable regarding the complexities of nutritional/diet manipulation as most on this board - but I have observed how manipulating carbs works differently for myself compared to my brother-in -law/lifting partner.
I think some of the "for profit guru's" are guilty of trying to oversimplify by way of classification as this seems to appeal to basic human nature wether it's somatype , astrological signs , I.Q. scores , racial profiling ect.ect.
Just logging on to MYSPACE one is inundated with tests like "what kind of lover RU" , "which celebrity personality type RU like" ect.ect. The urge to classify ourselves and others is almost overpowering it seems - and I think this gets taken advantage of sometimes as the appeal equals dollars/followers (ultimately).
And I agree with your appeal for scientific evidence as a benefit for all.
(Fausto @ Aug. 23 2007,13:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Beats me. But I am seriously interested in knowing, specially because I believe that we "handle" food intake differently and that our bodies react differently to different foods just as Berardi wrote.
This thread if we handle it properly could become very interesting...specially if we eventually have a scientic way of answering my question for the benefit of all
I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable regarding the complexities of nutritional/diet manipulation as most on this board - but I have observed how manipulating carbs works differently for myself compared to my brother-in -law/lifting partner.
I think some of the "for profit guru's" are guilty of trying to oversimplify by way of classification as this seems to appeal to basic human nature wether it's somatype , astrological signs , I.Q. scores , racial profiling ect.ect.
Just logging on to MYSPACE one is inundated with tests like "what kind of lover RU" , "which celebrity personality type RU like" ect.ect. The urge to classify ourselves and others is almost overpowering it seems - and I think this gets taken advantage of sometimes as the appeal equals dollars/followers (ultimately).
And I agree with your appeal for scientific evidence as a benefit for all.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
You know what amazes me.
Majority of us here are pretty damn smart or...shall I say smarter than the average muscle head.
We know what to do and how to do it...on nutrition and training.
Now we all dont always do it b/c of life/ career/ boredome, laziness etc...but we all are smart enough and have learned enough to do it.
I say all that though to sit back and laugh at all of us b/c even though a lot of knuckes don't know what they are doing lots of them still make gains!
Its makes you wonder......
Majority of us here are pretty damn smart or...shall I say smarter than the average muscle head.
We know what to do and how to do it...on nutrition and training.
Now we all dont always do it b/c of life/ career/ boredome, laziness etc...but we all are smart enough and have learned enough to do it.
I say all that though to sit back and laugh at all of us b/c even though a lot of knuckes don't know what they are doing lots of them still make gains!
Its makes you wonder......
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
Maybe we should think of phenotype instead of somatotype.
Genetic mutations resulting in real metabolic disorders aside, proper nutrition is the same for everyone. How you balance the ratio and quantity of macronutrients is determined by your goals, in the sense that you want to alter your phenotype.
Eye and hair color, height, weenie size, nose length etc... are not phenotypes that one can really change. LBM and Fat mass are really the only phenotypes one can alter without extraordinary means.
What is your true phenotype regarding LBM and Fat mass?
For me, I only realized my true phenotype after I lost alot of body fat. Prior to this, everyone considered me a "big" dude with a big bones. But the "big" was just "fat" giving the outward impression, or phenotype, that I was a big dude.
In fact, I have a rather slender body type. I should have been a wide receiver or defensive back when I played high school football instead of a offensive guard. Better yet, I should not have played football at all.
okay to the point: why was I fat?
Answer I ate bad food.
What is bad food?
My answer after 41 years of eating is simply. Bad food is anything processed and any liquid that contains calories.
This eliminates ALOT of foodstuffs and a few industries.
Again how you balance your macro-nutrients is determined by your goals.
I need more coffee.
Genetic mutations resulting in real metabolic disorders aside, proper nutrition is the same for everyone. How you balance the ratio and quantity of macronutrients is determined by your goals, in the sense that you want to alter your phenotype.
Eye and hair color, height, weenie size, nose length etc... are not phenotypes that one can really change. LBM and Fat mass are really the only phenotypes one can alter without extraordinary means.
What is your true phenotype regarding LBM and Fat mass?
For me, I only realized my true phenotype after I lost alot of body fat. Prior to this, everyone considered me a "big" dude with a big bones. But the "big" was just "fat" giving the outward impression, or phenotype, that I was a big dude.
In fact, I have a rather slender body type. I should have been a wide receiver or defensive back when I played high school football instead of a offensive guard. Better yet, I should not have played football at all.
okay to the point: why was I fat?
Answer I ate bad food.
What is bad food?
My answer after 41 years of eating is simply. Bad food is anything processed and any liquid that contains calories.
This eliminates ALOT of foodstuffs and a few industries.
Again how you balance your macro-nutrients is determined by your goals.
I need more coffee.
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Majority of us here are pretty damn smart or...shall I say smarter than the average muscle head.</div>
Exactly why this thread should turn educational with proper information going forward so that we end up smarter not dumber.
My question remains, how do we classify the different body types as they definitely do exist? I am quite clear now though that ecto, meso or endo cannot cut it!
And yes Doc, phenotype sounds a lot more correct, but we do not want to over-complicate things just rather not have to digest BS and reasons why we should not!
Exactly why this thread should turn educational with proper information going forward so that we end up smarter not dumber.
My question remains, how do we classify the different body types as they definitely do exist? I am quite clear now though that ecto, meso or endo cannot cut it!
And yes Doc, phenotype sounds a lot more correct, but we do not want to over-complicate things just rather not have to digest BS and reasons why we should not!
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
Berardi is a commercial animal and does everything in his power towards complicating a very simply concept: proper nutrition.
<div>
(Fausto @ Aug. 24 2007,01:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">somatotyping is garbage.</div>
Aaron, that is a poor scientific argument and you're a scientist, I just wanna see why you say it is.
Please show me, as it is I see a lot of different body types, which could easily fit into these categories.
</div>
That is not an arugment, that is a statement.
The backing behind somtatotyping is garbage as well.
A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.
(Fausto @ Aug. 24 2007,01:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">somatotyping is garbage.</div>
Aaron, that is a poor scientific argument and you're a scientist, I just wanna see why you say it is.
Please show me, as it is I see a lot of different body types, which could easily fit into these categories.
That is not an arugment, that is a statement.
The backing behind somtatotyping is garbage as well.
A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.
TunnelRat
Active Member
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 24 2007,04:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.</div>
Look at recombinant DNA -- there's a fortune to be made in designer genes...
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 24 2007,04:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.</div>
Look at recombinant DNA -- there's a fortune to be made in designer genes...
Instead of putting the onus on someone to disprove bodytyping using scientific evidence, I think it should be the other way around. I've yet to see a single shred of science behind bodytyping, only pseudoscience just like you see with things like phrenology, chiropractics, etc.
<div>
(TunnelRat @ Aug. 25 2007,04:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 24 2007,04:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.</div>
Look at recombinant DNA -- there's a fortune to be made in designer genes...
</div>
Its cheaper to just buy some plain old jeans...
(TunnelRat @ Aug. 25 2007,04:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 24 2007,04:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A few years ago I was a mesomorph (using hte formal identifying system)
Now I am a endomorph
I guess my jeans must be different now.</div>
Look at recombinant DNA -- there's a fortune to be made in designer genes...
Its cheaper to just buy some plain old jeans...