# Ecto/Meso/Endo



## HDH (Nov 16, 2013)

This was taken from Arnold Schwarzenegger's Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding.

Book two: Training programs

Chapter 2 Learning your body type

Yes, there is a whole chapter on this and it's a pretty good read.

-----------

The Ectomorph: characterized by a short upper body, long arms and legs, long and narrow feet and hands, and very little fat storage; narrowness in the chest and shoulders, with generally long, thin muscles.

The extreme ectomorph's first objective is gaining weight, preferably in the form of quality muscle mass. He will not have the strength and endurance for marathon training sessions, will find that muscle mass develops very slowly, and will often have to force himself to eat enough to ensure continued growth.

-----------

The Mesomorph: large chest, long torso, solid muscle structure, and great strength.

The mesomorph will find it relatively easy to build muscle mass, but will have to be certain to include a sufficient variety of exercises in his program so that the muscles develop proportionately and well shaped rather than just thick and bulky.

-----------

The Endomorph: soft musculature, round face, short neck, wide hips, and heavy fat storage.

Generally, the endomorph will not have to much difficulty building muscle, but will have to be concerned with losing fat weight and then being very careful with diet so as not to gain that weight back.

-----------

Let the friendly discussion begin  

HDH


----------



## Hero Swole (Nov 16, 2013)

I never fully understood these categories. And this post probably made me understand them less. But Id say im somewhere between ectom and meso.


----------



## FreeBirdSam (Nov 16, 2013)

I believe you are genetically predisposed to be a certain weight. (or all babies would be born the same weight)

I believe you can change your body type by eating more or less.  yes.. skinny guys can make themselves monsters.

I could make any 110lb frail nerd 200lbs within a few years if they would keep dedicated to eating the amount of food they have to eat.

and one person would look at that nerd before his transformation and say "that guy is an ECTO"...    and you yourself might look at him a couple years later and say...  "that guys nowhere close to an ecto".

But, if this guy doesn't want to change...   guess how much he's gonna weight for the rest of his life?   and guess what he'll be for the rest of his life?   labelled and ECTO.


----------



## Milo (Nov 16, 2013)

HDH said:


> This was taken from Arnold Schwarzenegger's Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding.
> 
> Book two: Training programs
> 
> ...



I agree with his statement to an extent however Arnold's Encyclopedia has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are things he states that are just plain horse shit. For example, he states that preacher curls are a great exercise to lengthen the bicep. This is of course untrue and merely one example of the many fallacies he puts out in his book. I'm not questioning the credibility of 7x Mr. Olympia but there are practices and theories that were commonplace back then that wouldn't hold water today. 



samcooke said:


> I believe you are genetically predisposed to be a certain weight. (or all babies would be born the same weight)
> 
> I believe you can change your body type by eating more or less.  yes.. skinny guys can make themselves monsters.
> 
> ...



I think the ecto/meso/endo shouldn't be entirely looked at as "this type will look like this". If that were the case you would be right as an ecto with proper diet and training could turn into what would be considered a meso. I view them as the responses they will yield to a certain training regimen.  
An ecto needs a caloric surplus and heavy training to see beneficial results. Whereas an endo would need the complete opposite- low calories and high intensity physical exercise. If we were unable to classify someone into some sort of category it would be not only trial and error but almost guesswork to establish what they needed to make physical change.


----------



## j2048b (Nov 16, 2013)

what i like best is that in arnolds book, it also shows dudes who look very meso at one time or another but when they dieted down and were ripped they were classified as another, i believe u can have the attributes of each, im an ecto/endo based on these features:

ecto:
short upper body, long arms and legs, long and narrow feet and hands

endo:
soft musculature, round face, short neck, wide hips

but i dont carry much fat, have broad shoulders and a thick upper chest/back, imo anyways...and its tuff as shitake to loose fat for me, but havent found a good routine to help me pack on those giant muscles all around...


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 16, 2013)

Thank you for starting this as promised HDH. 

My issues with these labels is they aren't mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. They are nothing but an indicator of where one is at the moment since these 'body types' can and do change frequently (an inaccurate indicator at that). 

They were created by William Herbert Sheldon who was a psychologist attempting to characterize human temperament with body shape, this had nothing to do with BB whatsoever but BB'ers have adopted these terms to refer to under eaters and overeaters. Not only was Sheldon himself a joke, many of his ideas were as well, including somatotyping. 



> In psychology, he developed a new version of somatotypology by classifying people into endomorphic, mesomorphic, and ectomorphic, based on many photographs and measurements of nude figures at Ivy League schools.[4] Ron Rosenbaum writes: "He believed that every individual harbored within him different degrees of each of the three character components. By using body measurements and ratios derived from nude photographs, Sheldon believed he could assign every individual a three-digit number representing the three components, components that Sheldon believed were inborn -- genetic -- and remained unwavering determinants of character regardless of transitory weight change. In other words, physique equals destiny."[1] His work is generally dismissed by modern researchers.[6]
> 
> In numismatics, he is strongly believed to have stolen coins from the American Numismatic Society's Clapp collection of large cents while studying the ANS coins for his famed book, "Penny Whimsey."



So not only are BB'ers following the ideology of a possible thief, they're following the theory of a man who modern day science and researchers have dismissed conclusively. His whole theory was based upon viewing nude pictures of Ivy League students, yes students at the time were forced to pose nude for these photographs...very scientific wouldn't you say? And for those sick bastards out there, apparently Hillary Clinton's pictures were taken by Sheldon but never revealed to the public; so if you're interested in some nudes of her they're out there somewhere hahaha. 



			
				Lyle McDonald said:
			
		

> And this is a large part of why somatotyping is garbage. Take an 'ectomorph' and put 40 lbs on him. Is he still an ectomorph (biologically or whatever)? Because now he will rank higher on mesomorphy (a measure of 'muscularity)?
> 
> One of the assumtions is that somatotype correlates with underlying biology (and amusingly I have recently seen work that finally ties some of this together) but with trainng and diet you change where someone scores on somatotype, has their biology changed?





			
				Alan Aragon said:
			
		

> I think it's fundamentally overassumptive to typecast anyone at one of 3 points along a rather broad continuum of genetic capacity for achieving muscle gain and/or fat loss. However, I would not deny that this variance of genetic capacity for 'ease' of physical achievent does exist. The danger lies in making assumptions that you're on one of the extreme ends, & ultimately selling yourself short.



Arnold isn't exactly the most credible researcher out there in regards to human physiology and his Encyclopedia is mainly garbage IMO. Ppl use somatotypes as an excuse and a crutch and limit themselves based on these pre-conceived notions. I would personally like to never hear the words mentioned again but I know that's being unrealistic.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 16, 2013)

J20 said:


> what i like best is that in arnolds book, it also shows dudes who look very meso at one time or another but when they dieted down and were ripped they were classified as another, i believe u can have the attributes of each, im an ecto/endo based on these features:
> 
> ecto:
> short upper body, long arms and legs, long and narrow feet and hands
> ...



So basically you're a breathing example of why somatotyping is fundamentally flawed and irrevocably worthless?


----------



## j2048b (Nov 16, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> So basically you're a breathing example of why somatotyping is fundamentally flawed and irrevocably worthless?



yup! haha!


----------



## sfstud33 (Nov 16, 2013)

I would say we are genetically predisposed as to how much signaling the brain gives out to eat. And that probably controls our weight to a large degree. 

However, just to throw in a curve ball, there was a great program on PBS a while ago Michael Mosely on Exercise, and it did say that different people respond to exercise differently, from complete non reponders to excellent responders. I would hazard a guess that if you were genetically a non responder you would be likely to be ecto, or if you over eat TOFI (Also known as Skinny Fat or Thin Outside Fat Inside)


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 16, 2013)

J20 said:


> yup! haha!



Same here brother! I've been all over the map from my childhood to now. Undwrweight, overweight, athletic, etc and that's not due to any somatotype. It's bc I was lazy, extremely active, lifting, not lifting, whatever the case was.


----------



## TheLupinator (Nov 16, 2013)

A person's body type is largely influenced by 2 uncontrollable factors:

Bone structure --> lanky vs stocky i.e. how long your torso & appendages are compared to the width of your shoulders & hips
Metabolism --> # of calories burned given a certain amount of muscle mass & activity level

These will influence your appearance but the other 2 extremely important (controllable) factors are your diet and training. Both need to be tailored not only to your goals but also to your bone structure & metabolism


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 16, 2013)

sfstud33 said:


> I would say we are genetically predisposed as to how much signaling the brain gives out to eat. And that probably controls our weight to a large degree.
> 
> However, just to throw in a curve ball, there was a great program on PBS a while ago Michael Mosely on Exercise, and it did say that different people respond to exercise differently, from complete non reponders to excellent responders. I would hazard a guess that if you were genetically a non responder you would be likely to be ecto, or if you over eat TOFI (Also known as Skinny Fat or Thin Outside Fat Inside)



Ghrelin, leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc can all affect your hunger and satiety levels and VO2 efficiency, p-ratio, lipolotic efficiency and mobilization, etc will all affect how well or poorly you build muscle or cut fat when progressing towards your goals. There's a genetic ceiling somewhere along the curve which is based on these genetic factors as well as your lifestyle ones ie diet and training. There's plenty more hormones involved, more genetic markers to consider, efficiency of gene transcription and which genes are expressed vs suppressed so how can 3 somatotyoes with 88 sub types I believe (correct me if I'm wrong someone) accurately portray all these differences between us? The human race as a whole cannot be manipulated into such simple categories especially when the man who created the ideology based it upon nude photographs of students at. Ivy League schools. Especially when you can change your somatotype at will (as lyle asked, does this mean you change your biology?) by gaining muscle or losing fat or vice versa?


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 16, 2013)

I've always been on the sie of Doc.

Genetics is ALL THAT MATTERS with BBing and PLing.

It's the only thing that matters..if it wasn't, then why is it that not everyone gets little to no sides with huge amounts of gear?

Why is that everyone does not get in to the 3/4/5 (bench/squat/dead) club, much less 5/6/7 club in PLing (ps PoB I'm mad you're ahead of me now)

It's genetics..it's the same reason pretty much EVERYONE runs the same compounds/dosages at nationals/pro bb'ing ranks but all of the dont end up lookin that good (cough trey brewer, branch warren, et al)

Same with somatypes...it's stupid and there are way to many variables that affects how a person looks

The ONLY THINGS a person should be worried with:

-how they respond to to gear
–how much food is needed to get huge on gear
-what training (rep range, etc) delivers most results for their goal


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 16, 2013)

I wouldn't say it's all about genetics although I'd admit that it's probably the determining factor at elite levels of sport. It's just as much about other tangible and intangible factors such as training, diet, recovery, motivation, dedication, coaching, etc. Most people could definitely get to the 3/4/5 club and beyond, they just don't know HOW to do it, with or without gear.


----------



## TheLupinator (Nov 16, 2013)

Jesus hulk, you and your GENETICS GENETICS GENETICS. Bet I can run grams of test and what will happen? sweat more and not sleep much, big deal, i dont give a fuq about sides, doesn't mean I can be a pro bodybuilder. If you wanna cop out n blame your genetics for how great and/or shitty you look go ahead. I don't let my fate (or gains) be determined by anything other than my decisions and my determination.

We can debate this till we're blue in the face (or green in hulks case) but I will never submit to blaming my genetics, it's like saying "I'm a poor uneducated jobless scumbag because I was dealt a shitty hand in life"  sure it plays a part but FKUuuuCCKKK excuses


----------



## PillarofBalance (Nov 16, 2013)

Lup there is no denying the role genetics plays in bodybuilding.  It comes first before all others. You can be determined all you want but if you have shit genetics you will never be succesful. Especially as a pro.


----------



## TheLupinator (Nov 16, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> Lup there is no denying the role genetics plays in bodybuilding.  It comes first before all others. You can be determined all you want but if you have shit genetics you will never be succesful. Especially as a pro.



Tell that to Zach Thomas, Victor Cruz, or Wes Welker. These guys who didn't do shit in high school or college but little by little worked their asses off to become great pros. What did their genetics kick in at 25yo?

I'm not saying genetics don't play a part. I'm saying if you admit winning is out of your control you've already lost.


----------



## HDH (Nov 16, 2013)

Hero Swole said:


> I never fully understood these categories.  And this post probably made me understand them less. But Id say im  somewhere between ectom and meso.



From what I gather looking at your avi pic and hearing you say you are  somewhere between ecto and meso, you started off as ecto and built up to  more of a meso shape. Body types aren't permanent. They can change if  we change them. When bodybuilding, for most of us, where we start is not where we end up.

Here are a few paragraphs from the chapter about ecto-meso body types-

*F*rank  Zane on the other hand, is much more ectomorphic. Muscle mass gains  have always taken Frank a long time to achieve, but this did not keep  him from becoming Mr. Olympia 3 times. Bodybuilders like Frank and Shawn  Ray, who at 200lbs have managed to defeat most of the more massive  competitors, are not naturally powerful, muscular individules. Their  muscular development and bodybuilding excellence have come about by  mostly by a lot of hard work, dedicated work. "Muscle did not come to me  naturally," says Larry Scott, the first Mr. Olympia and another  bodybuilder tending toward the ectomorphic. "I was one of those 98lb  weaklings who was motivated to use bodybuilding to get bigger."

*I*n  my own case, I am mesomorphic enough to be able to build muscle mass  relatively easily, and at one point bulked up to a solid 240lbs, but my  natural physique has always tended to be lean, which makes me more an  ecto-meso than pure mesomorph or an endo-meso.

*F*lex  Wheeler, who is so renowned for his shape and proportion, is yet  another ecto-meso. Look at Flex and you will see how relatively small  his bones and joints are, despite his muscle size, especially compared  to a powerfully built competitor like Dorian. In bodybuilding terms,  Flex, Frank Zane and I would be characterized as having Apollonian  physiques (muscular but tending toward the ectomorphic, more aesthetic  than brute powerful), while thicker bodybuilders like Dorian, Nasser El  Sonbaty, Tom Platz, Casey Viator and Mike Mentzer would be classified as  Herculean (very meso or endo-meso). Both apollonian and herculean  physiques can have outstanding aesthetics, but the look is very  different. Nowadays, the the apollonian physique is generally considered  more artistic or beautiful because of it's lines and proportion, but if  you look back at the classic art you frequently find the herculean  physique to be the more admired.


----------



## HDH (Nov 16, 2013)

samcooke said:


> I believe you are genetically predisposed to be a  certain weight. (or all babies would be born the same weight)
> 
> I believe you can change your body type by eating more or less.  yes.. skinny guys can make themselves monsters.
> 
> ...



I totally agree bud. This isn't written in stone.

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 16, 2013)

Milo said:


> I agree with his statement to an extent however  Arnold's Encyclopedia has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are  things he states that are just plain horse shit. For example, he states  that preacher curls are a great exercise to lengthen the bicep. This is  of course untrue and merely one example of the many fallacies he puts  out in his book. I'm not questioning the credibility of 7x Mr. Olympia  but there are practices and theories that were commonplace back then  that wouldn't hold water today.



Not sure if I agree with the preacher curl remark. I have found them  best for the bottom half of my bicep. The next day assures me of it too.  With the angle of the arm, the most weight is felt at the bottom of the  movement. It is also difficult to cheat by swinging or using the  shoulder at the bottom also. Or are you using the term "lengthening" as  the basis of being wrong?  

As far as finding fallacies in a  book, I'm sure we could find them in any magazine or training book put  out, if nothing else, from a difference of opinion.

HDH


----------



## Hero Swole (Nov 16, 2013)

HDH said:


> From what I gather looking at your avi pic and hearing you say you are  somewhere between ecto and meso, you started off as ecto and built up to  more of a meso shape. Body types aren't permanent. They can change if  we change them. When bodybuilding, for most of us, where we start is not where we end up.
> 
> Here are a few paragraphs from the chapter about ecto-meso body types-
> 
> ...



I believe i have small joints for height 6'1 (wrist 7in). But i tend to pack on mass a bit better and look stockier than classic ectomorphs. But i do gotta eat like an ecto high bad/good fats high starchy/complex carbs. I dont see my bf % going past 12-13 any time soon even with all the sheet i eat.


----------



## HDH (Nov 16, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> Thank you for starting this as promised HDH.
> 
> My issues with these labels is they aren't mutually exclusive and  collectively exhaustive. They are nothing but an indicator of where one  is at the moment since these 'body types' can and do change frequently  (an inaccurate indicator at that).
> 
> ...



I agree that they change but I don't think as much as you believe. The  only thing we as individuals need to know, especially getting started in  this adventure, and I say adventure because that's what it is to me,  the only thing that has really ever made me feel alive, is what we are.

Basically, what we need to know is-
Are we skinny and not very strong from the start?
Are we strong, muscular and lean from the start?
Are we strong, muscular and carry a higher percentage of bodyfat?

That's  pretty simple and a good start. This chapter doesn't discuss over or  under eating, that's not what it's about. If a new guy could pick out  what he is closest to with those three questions, the chapter gives  specific approaches for training that we already know, of course there will be tweeking along the way no matter what approach we take. Weather one agrees on the types or not, I'm sure just about  everyone hear could hear a body type and automatically know what type of  training would be their best approach. Knowing body types are useful.

This William Herbert Sheldon sounds like a real doosh and it seems you have dug up dirt on his perverted little habits. LOL

But,  even though he started this for different reasons and seemed to be a  weirdo, it doesn't change the fact that body typing is useful and works  in relation to how we should be training for our different types.


Docd187123 said:


> Arnold isn't exactly the most credible researcher out there in regards  to human physiology and his Encyclopedia is mainly garbage IMO. Ppl use  somatotypes as an excuse and a crutch and limit themselves based on  these pre-conceived notions. I would personally like to never hear the  words mentioned again but I know that's being unrealistic.



You will have to be more specific on the book being garbage. Have you ever sat down and read it?

It's  funny that you make that statement while quoting Alan Aragon. Isn't  this the guy that says the anabolic window for nutrient timing is 24hrs  long? Does that mean when I cycle back on slin I don't need to do post  or pre, I can just wait for the next day to get the same results?

Not everyone holds this guy in high regaurds.

Gotta hit the gym for some cardio, be back in under 2 hrs.

HDH


----------



## Milo (Nov 17, 2013)

HDH said:


> Not sure if I agree with the preacher curl remark. I have found them  best for the bottom half of my bicep. The next day assures me of it too.  With the angle of the arm, the most weight is felt at the bottom of the  movement. It is also difficult to cheat by swinging or using the  shoulder at the bottom also. Or are you using the term "lengthening" as  the basis of being wrong?
> 
> As far as finding fallacies in a  book, I'm sure we could find them in any magazine or training book put  out, if nothing else, from a difference of opinion.
> 
> HDH



It is not physically possible to make a muscle _longer._ We can only make them _thicker._ If that was not the case, what would prevent us from having a bicep that extends beyond the upper arm and into the lower arm?
I absolutely agree that there is error that could be found in almost any publication in regards the weight training. It's simply not an exact science. If it were, we would all have cookie cutter routines that would yield the most beneficial results. It's easy to find a publication written by a PhD stating one thing with documented evidence, and another publication written by another PhD stating the exact opposite.


----------



## HDH (Nov 17, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> Ghrelin, leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc  can all affect your hunger and satiety levels and VO2 efficiency,  p-ratio, lipolotic efficiency and mobilization, etc will all affect how  well or poorly you build muscle or cut fat when progressing towards your  goals. There's a genetic ceiling somewhere along the curve which is  based on these genetic factors as well as your lifestyle ones ie diet  and training. There's plenty more hormones involved, more genetic  markers to consider, efficiency of gene transcription and which genes  are expressed vs suppressed so how can 3 somatotyoes with 88 sub types I  believe (correct me if I'm wrong someone) accurately portray all these  differences between us? The human race as a whole cannot be manipulated  into such simple categories especially when the man who created the  ideology based it upon nude photographs of students at. Ivy League  schools. Especially when you can change your somatotype at will (as lyle  asked, does this mean you change your biology?) by gaining muscle or  losing fat or vice versa?



There are two ways to look at what you are saying. It seems to me the way you are describing this is what helps to make up the body types. If you're looking for an exact science for each individual, you might be into the wrong thing. You are just not going to find it.

Pretty simple and basic stuff here, made out to be difficult. 

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 17, 2013)

hulksmash said:


> I've always been on the sie of Doc.
> 
> Genetics is ALL THAT MATTERS with BBing and PLing.
> 
> ...



Genetics are the biggest factor in what determines a body type.

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 17, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Tell that to Zach Thomas, Victor Cruz, or Wes Welker. These guys who didn't do shit in high school or college but little by little worked their asses off to become great pros. What did their genetics kick in at 25yo?
> 
> I'm not saying genetics don't play a part. I'm saying if you admit winning is out of your control you've already lost.



Don't know the history on these fellas but from the way you are describing it, they just got a late start. Not saying there can't be exceptions.

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 17, 2013)

Milo said:


> It is not physically possible to make a muscle _longer._ We can only make them _thicker._ If that was not the case, what would prevent us from having a bicep that extends beyond the upper arm and into the lower arm?
> I absolutely agree that there is error that could be found in almost any publication in regards the weight training. It's simply not an exact science. If it were, we would all have cookie cutter routines that would yield the most beneficial results. It's easy to find a publication written by a PhD stating one thing with documented evidence, and another publication written by another PhD stating the exact opposite.



I thought that might be what you were referring to. I believe back then it was more like the appearance of it.

I agree on the studies. I wish people wouldn't put every ounce of faith in them 100% of the time.

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 17, 2013)

Hero Swole said:


> I believe i have small joints for height 6'1 (wrist 7in). But i tend to pack on mass a bit better and look stockier than classic ectomorphs. But i do gotta eat like an ecto high bad/good fats high starchy/complex carbs. I dont see my bf % going past 12-13 any time soon even with all the sheet i eat.



LOL, I wish I had it like that.

Of course the grass is always greener...

HDH


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 17, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Tell that to Zach Thomas, Victor Cruz, or Wes Welker. These guys who didn't do shit in high school or college but little by little worked their asses off to become great pros. What did their genetics kick in at 25yo?
> 
> I'm not saying genetics don't play a part. I'm saying if you admit winning is out of your control you've already lost.



That's a horrible example because that is concerned with sports, NOT bodybuilding

You need to admit that you won't win in BBing if you get shit sides/mediocre results with 2g of gear, shit bone structure, shit muscle insertion points/muscle length

Look at Trey Brewer, pretty good/above aveerage skeletal structure/muscle insertions...but a shit responder to gear

He tried more and more doses as he moved forward...shit response to gear, he ended up lookin like shit, fell off the map 

Same with Branch Warren right now- to stay competitive he's uppin doses and looks like SHIT for it now


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 17, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> I wouldn't say it's all about genetics although I'd admit that it's probably the determining factor at elite levels of sport. It's just as much about other tangible and intangible factors such as training, diet, recovery, motivation, dedication, coaching, etc. Most people could definitely get to the 3/4/5 club and beyond, they just don't know HOW to do it, with or without gear.



I don't agree with the whole diet and training part in BBing

I mean look at ****ers like Paul Dillet, lazy as shit but one of the best physiques

Hell I make POB mad because I'm so lazy and lift only 2 days a week and let gear do the work lol

He's gotten on to me though and now I'm eatin clean


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 17, 2013)

TheLupinator said:


> Jesus hulk, you and your GENETICS GENETICS GENETICS. Bet I can run grams of test and what will happen? sweat more and not sleep much, big deal, i dont give a fuq about sides, doesn't mean I can be a pro bodybuilder. If you wanna cop out n blame your genetics for how great and/or shitty you look go ahead. I don't let my fate (or gains) be determined by anything other than my decisions and my determination.
> 
> We can debate this till we're blue in the face (or green in hulks case) but I will never submit to blaming my genetics, it's like saying "I'm a poor uneducated jobless scumbag because I was dealt a shitty hand in life"  sure it plays a part but FKUuuuCCKKK excuses



LOL lupi turn hulk green!

Im talkin genetics=all that matters only  with physiques and top strength levels

Im not talkin sports or life careers, obviously physique genetics only play a small role there lol


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 17, 2013)

HDH said:


> I agree that they change but I don't think as much as you believe. The  only thing we as individuals need to know, especially getting started in  this adventure, and I say adventure because that's what it is to me,  the only thing that has really ever made me feel alive, is what we are.













I'd argue that those changes are pretty extreme. I agree that this is an adventure, a roller coaster of one as well haha. I agree we need to know where we start and want to end to Map out a course of action but I don't think these categories specifically help any. 





> Basically, what we need to know is-
> Are we skinny and not very strong from the start?
> Are we strong, muscular and lean from the start?
> Are we strong, muscular and carry a higher percentage of bodyfat?
> ...



IMO, I don't believe different body types or somatotypes require any differences in training, it's an individualistic thing for sure but I guess what I'm saying is it's not based off body types but other tangible factors.



> This William Herbert Sheldon sounds like a real doosh and it seems you have dug up dirt on his perverted little habits. LOL
> 
> But,  even though he started this for different reasons and seemed to be a  weirdo, it doesn't change the fact that body typing is useful and works  in relation to how we should be training for our different types.



Yes, Mr. Sheldon was quite the character lol but I have yet to see any benefit to body typing. I just don't see it being helpful or an accurate predictor of anything IMO.




> You will have to be more specific on the book being garbage. Have you ever sat down and read it?
> 
> It's  funny that you make that statement while quoting Alan Aragon. Isn't  this the guy that says the anabolic window for nutrient timing is 24hrs  long? Does that mean when I cycle back on slin I don't need to do post  or pre, I can just wait for the next day to get the same results?
> 
> ...



Imhave read bits and pieces of it not the entire thing. I will try and find a copy and read more. From the parts I did read I was not a fan.

Your argument about slin and Alan Aragon is a strawman argument, his information about the anabolic window is not in reference to exogenous insulin users. For natural athletes and those on basic AAS cycles, it is still 100% accurate. I know not everyone holds him in high regards but he wasn't the only person quoted. And the quotes were meant to simply exemplify my points, not make them. 

Ahhh the dreaded cardio...I hope you enjoy it more than me. We should come up with an HIIT style sex type of cardio lol


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Nov 17, 2013)

HDH said:


> I thought that might be what you were referring to. I believe back then it was more like the appearance of it.
> 
> I agree on the studies. I wish people wouldn't put every ounce of faith in them 100% of the time.
> 
> HDH



Nobody throws 100% faith into each and every study. On the other hand, when studies are replicable, peer-reviewed, and multiple studies support the info, one has to take into account the preponderance of evidence. Studies can always be applied to the wrong scenarios or interpreted incorrectly but that's the fault of the reader not the study. Studies can also prove or disprove much of the old wive's tales in BB from the facts in an objective fashion. Variables being controlled for etc.


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 17, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> Your argument about slin and Alan Aragon is a strawman argument, his information about the anabolic window is not in reference to exogenous insulin users. For natural athletes and those on basic AAS cycles, it is still 100% accurate. I know not everyone holds him in high regards but he wasn't the only person quoted. And the quotes were meant to simply exemplify my points, not make them.
> 
> Ahhh the dreaded cardio...I hope you enjoy it more than me. We should come up with an HIIT style sex type of cardio lol[/COLOR]




If anyone thinks that it matters what time you eat when it comes to gains, then I feel bad for them lol

I never eat except once a day late at night and i grow just fine

Now EXOGENOUS use insulin changes the rules


----------



## Rumpy (Nov 18, 2013)

All I know is I'm fat.  I used to be fat and weak, not I'm fat and slightly stronger.


----------



## HDH (Nov 18, 2013)

Docd187123 said:


> View attachment 688
> View attachment 689
> 
> 
> ...



Yes big differences in the three fella's physiques. Lots of hard work and dedication. I think I'm missing the point of them being posted though unless it's that body types can change but then we would be agreeing. 




Docd187123 said:


> IMO, I don't believe different body types or somatotypes require any differences in training, it's an individualistic thing for sure but I guess what I'm saying is it's not based off body types but other tangible factors.



Here are the suggested ways to train for each of the three body types taken from the book-

*ECTOMORPH*-

1) Include plenty of power moves for a program that builds maximum mass. Your program should tend toward heavy weight and low reps. 

2) Learn to train intensely and make every set count. That way you can keep your workouts relatively short and still make substantial gains. Make sure to get enough rest between sets and give yourself enough time to recuperate between workouts.

3) Pay careful attention to nutrition; take in more calories than you are accustomed to and if necessary, use weight gain and protein drinks to supplement your food intake.

4) Remember, you are trying to turn food energy into mass, so be careful not to burn up to much energy with excessive amounts of other activities such as aerobics, running, swimming and other sports. Some cardio exercise is desirable for and necessary for good health but anyone who spends hours a day expending large amounts of physical energy outside the gym will have a lot more trouble building muscle in the gym.

*MESOMORPH*-

1) An emphasis on quality, detail and isolation training, along with the basic mass and power exercises. You build muscle easily so you can begin working on shape and separation right from the start.

2) Mesomorphs gain so easily that they don't have to worry much conserving energy or overtraining. A standard workout of 16 to 20 sets per body part is fine and you can train with as much or as little rest between sets that as suits you.

3) A balanced diet with plenty of protein which maintains a calorie level within 10 to 15lbs of contest weight all year long. No bulking up 30 to 40lbs and then having to drop off all of that useless weight before competition.

*ENDOMORPH*-

1) A higher proportion of high set, high repetition training, with very short rest periods to burn off as much fat as possible. Doing a few extra sets of a few extra exercises while trying to get lean is a good idea. 

2) Additional aerobic exercise such as bicycling, running or some other calorie consuming activity. Training in the gym burns calories, but not as much as cardio exercise done on a continuous basis for 30 to 45 minutes or more at a time.

3) A low calorie diet that contains the necessary nutritional balance. Not zero anything but the minimum amounts of protein, carbs and fats with vitamin and mineral supps to be certain the body is not being deprived of any essential nutrients.





Docd187123 said:


> Yes, Mr. Sheldon was quite the character lol but I have yet to see any benefit to body typing. I just don't see it being helpful or an accurate predictor of anything IMO.



Hopefully you can see the benefits by the above subpost. It seems pretty accurate and a good start for someone just getting their feet wet. If they take the description of each, get the closest to what they feel is them and apply the individual training description for their body type, they will be off to a very good start. Tweaking will always be an ongoing thing with progress all the way down to macros.

To say that it's useless is, well...




Docd187123 said:


> Imhave read bits and pieces of it not the entire thing. I will try and find a copy and read more. From the parts I did read I was not a fan.
> 
> Your argument about slin and Alan Aragon is a strawman argument, his information about the anabolic window is not in reference to exogenous insulin users. For natural athletes and those on basic AAS cycles, it is still 100% accurate. I know not everyone holds him in high regards but he wasn't the only person quoted. And the quotes were meant to simply exemplify my points, not make them.


 

One thing I like about friendly discussions instead of heated debates, is everyone stays more open to listen and learn, including myself. I'm more of a trial and error, hands on and experience kind of guy. I've never been big on the studies but I'm in no way against them. I believe they have helped the bodybuilding community in many ways. 

I pride myself in not knowing everything which keeps me open to learn. Can you describe the differences in Alan's statement that would exclude the use of exogenous insulin?



Docd187123 said:


> Ahhh the dreaded cardio...I hope you enjoy it more than me. We should come up with an HIIT style sex type of cardio lol



I'm one of the few that enjoys cardio. It's just another excuse for me to be at the gym. 

I was born endo and hit cardio year round. I just adjust the length and intensity with my goals at the time.

HDH


----------



## HDH (Nov 18, 2013)

hulksmash said:


> If anyone thinks that it matters what time you eat when it comes to gains, then I feel bad for them lol
> 
> I never eat except once a day late at night and i grow just fine
> 
> Now EXOGENOUS use insulin changes the rules



Ha, ha, you don't count, with pro genetics, you should be able to eat once every three days. LOL...  J/K

HDH


----------



## hulksmash (Nov 18, 2013)

HDH said:


> Ha, ha, you don't count, with pro genetics, you should be able to eat once every three days. LOL...  J/K
> 
> HDH



Hmm..good idea..LOL

Believe it or not I do water-only fasts every now and then for around 24 hours

It's just a health thing (more of a "be used to going without food if the situation arises", but alas)

Back to the point-HDH when it comes to the "morphology" types, I think the concern should be just put on how one is affected with adipose tissue

If we start worrying about bone structures AND adipose tissue geneticism, then fallacies arise

There's way too many variations with bone structure to make a specific diet and training around it...that's why you don't see many Sergio Oliva skeletal structures/muscle insertions


----------



## jyoung8j (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm a endo and getting big seems easy the diet part sux tho...


----------



## HDH (Nov 26, 2013)

hulksmash said:


> If anyone thinks that it matters what time you eat when it comes to gains, then I feel bad for them lol
> 
> I never eat except once a day late at night and i grow just fine
> 
> Now EXOGENOUS use insulin changes the rules





Docd187123 said:


> Your argument about slin and Alan Aragon is a strawman argument, his information about the anabolic window is not in reference to exogenous insulin users. For natural athletes and those on basic AAS cycles, it is still 100% accurate.





HDH said:


> One thing I like about friendly discussions instead of heated debates, is everyone stays more open to listen and learn, including myself. I'm more of a trial and error, hands on and experience kind of guy. I've never been big on the studies but I'm in no way against them. I believe they have helped the bodybuilding community in many ways.
> 
> I pride myself in not knowing everything which keeps me open to learn. Can you describe the differences in Alan's statement that would exclude the use of exogenous insulin?
> 
> HDH



Sorry guys, it's been a long and stressful week and I haven't been around. Still wondering the difference in no slin and exogenous slin use.

HDH


----------

