body types

camel toe

ye u no the way theres the 3 types












how do ye no which one u are? can u be a mix of different types?

is it as rigid as these 3 types or is their a multitude of different types.

Zamboni

camel toe wrote: »

how do ye no which one u are? can u be a mix of different types?

is it as rigid as these 3 types or is their a multitude of different types.

The use of those three words is not very scientific.
They are loosely used to describe body shapes and you could easily share characteristics of two of them.

BossArky

When determining someones body type you would usually rate them on a scale of 1-7 for each of the 3 main categories. The overall bodytype is m mish-mash of the lot.

I'm still not sure which one I am... or even where I fall in those 3 categories.

e.g. I'm skinny compared to some people, and a fatter than others... Who is the golden mean that these things are compared against?

davmol

i think these body types are indications of your genetics and how predisposed you are for certain things for example a naturally skinny person with a small frame might be better suited to long distance running.A large person who gains weight easily might be predisposed to being a body builder or a strong man etc.
Different body types find different activites easier in that a small skinny lad might find marathon running easier and a large lad whos quite muscluar might find exercises with more resistance more appealing or easier.

Theresalwaysone

If you change the hair colour on all 3 to black, Im pretty sure you have the same person albeit, he is skinny in the first picture, then did some weights, and then got bored and ate excessively.

Point is, its not as easy as 3 different categories. With enough work and committment I'd be pretty confident you can change your body to be whatever shape you like.

Someone correct me if Im wrong though.

BossArky

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

With enough work and committment I'd be pretty confident you can change your body to be whatever shape you like.

Exactly what I was thinking.

You could think you are the skinny one because you don't eat or train enough. 5 years down the line your opinion may change if you are eating loads and working out. Another 5 years down the line you may stop working out and continue to eat and put on heaps of fat.

A random observer would just assume you were always like that and classify you as X, Y, or Z... but you have actually been through all stages.

camel toe

but amean people will have naturally bigger legs than others for example...i remember when i was on my football team and all the lads had little twig legs and mine were fairly big...nothing i can do wud have made my legs like this. see i dont know if the big structure is meant to indicate being fat....the left and right ones seem to be to the extreme and the middle one seems to be the best.

Theresalwaysone

BossArky wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking.

You could think you are the skinny one because you don't eat or train enough. 5 years down the line your opinion may change if you are eating loads and working out. Another 5 years down the line you may stop working out and continue to eat and put on heaps of fat.

A random observer would just assume you were always like that and classify you as X, Y, or Z... but you have actually been through all stages.

I agree.

Thing is, as far as Im told, the 3 body types are just indicators to how hard it is for your body to gain muscle/fat and similarly lose muscle fat.

Ectomorph's are believed to find it hard to put on/lose any type of weight. Be it muscle or fat.

Endomorphs are believed to find it easy to do the same.

Mesomorph's are a middle ground. Or at least, thats what I've read.

I find it hard to believe that your body type can be labelled into such neat categories though.

Also, why is the picture of the endomorph fat?

Andyfbt

I'd say I am a mixture between the 2nd and 3rd at the moment. I used to be mesomorph when I played GAA. Gym and dieting is doing me good. Have only really been putting the effort in the last two weeks and I've lost a stone. 12 stone now. 10.5 is what I'm aiming for and I'd say I'd be mesomorph again

Zamboni

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that your body type can be labelled into such neat categories though.

You're right, it's not.

The terms were invented by a psychologist who had no background in anatomy.
Very few people use these terms seriously anymore.
They should be on the shelf collecting dust with words like 'tone'

Theresalwaysone

Zamboni wrote: »

You're right, it's not.

The terms were invented by a psychologist who had no background in anatomy.
Very few people use these terms seriously anymore.
They should be on the shelf collecting dust with words like 'tone'

lol. Shows my newbie stripes here, I was reading that thread the other day and didnt know what was wrong with using the word tone. Glad I got educated though.

Re: the thread at hand. Could you tell me who the psychologist was? I'd like to know how he thought giving people these 3 options of body types and assigning them one would be in anyway beneficial. Unless he used it as some sort of psychological placebo and told everyone they were mesomorphs?

Zamboni

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

lol. Shows my newbie stripes here, I was reading that thread the other day and didnt know what was wrong with using the word tone. Glad I got educated though.

Re: the thread at hand. Could you tell me who the psychologist was? I'd like to know how he thought giving people these 3 options of body types and assigning them one would be in anyway beneficial. Unless he used it as some sort of psychological placebo and told everyone they were mesomorphs?

I can't remember his name. You'll get him on Wiki though.
He tried to assign personality types based on bodyshape.

Theresalwaysone

camel toe wrote: »

but amean people will have naturally bigger legs than others for example...i remember when i was on my football team and all the lads had little twig legs and mine were fairly big...nothing i can do wud have made my legs like this. see i dont know if the big structure is meant to indicate being fat....the left and right ones seem to be to the extreme and the middle one seems to be the best.

Can I ask why you want to find out what "body type" you are? And how you intend to use this information when you do find it?

Ouijaboard

Even though it was meant as some psycobabble to determine personality traits its still a useful reference for people to determine a starting point for training etc. Most people are mixtures of one or more types tho, a useful rule of thumb is to take your thumb an middle finger and wrap em around the wrist of the other hand, if they overlap you are an etco or predominantly etco; if they touch then you're a meso and if they dont touch then you're an endo. It is hardly scientific but its probably more practical than looking at pics to try and determine.

BossArky

:eek:

My wrists are telling me I'm a endo!

kevpants

BossArky wrote: »

:eek:

My wrists are telling me I'm a endo!

I'm a 16.5 stone Ecto apparently

Ouijaboard

Dont be takin the piss

Theres a lot of crap to it alright but it still can be useful for certain training aspects, assuming diet is right, clean, calorie surplus, adequate protein.
For instance ectos will (after they have filled out a bit from compounds) will need to work extra hard to make their the long lean muscle bellies in the limbs fill out, often the will have high insertion points in their arms/legs with longer thinner tendons than their meso and endo friends, ecto will have a worse recovery rate than the others, need longer rest between sets and often extra days of rest to allow the cns to recover adequately. On the flip side they will often have absolutely no difficulty in losing fat. Dont do much cardio if you want to gain muscle.

Mesos can just about do everything wrong and still gain muscle easily
We all know a the odd meso, they can get a get a better shoulder pump by swimming a few lengths of the pool than you can get with a 40 min shoulder session.


Endos are strong as an ox, gains muscle easily enough but never seems to look at good as the meso due to having a hard time maintaining or even acheiving low bodyfat levels, we all know these aswell, these will be the ones who have 14" forearms and 17" calves without ever even stepping into a gym. Lots of cardio required.

The best way of looking is it is forget the types, what is your bone structure like, and once you have determined whether you are 'big boned' or small boned' should give you an idea of where you stand, you cant change your bone structure regardless of whether you are a fat ecto or a skinny endo, put a fat 'ecto' and a skinny 'endo' in the gym and start them off by teaching them the bench press, you can be almost certain that the skinny endo will get 'stronger' faster than the other type, why because the 8" wrists/thicker bones, bigger tendons of the skinny endo will provide better leverage and stabilization than the 6.5 inch wristed fat 'etco'.

A 10 stone etco that starts training and trains for years to become a 17 stone monster will now be a 17 stone ecto, bone stucture wont change, the wrists may still be 6.5 inches the only diff is the forearms may now be 14 inches compared to the 10 inches they were back when he started.

RacoonQueen

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

I agree.

Thing is, as far as Im told, the 3 body types are just indicators to how hard it is for your body to gain muscle/fat and similarly lose muscle fat.

Ectomorph's are believed to find it hard to put on/lose any type of weight. Be it muscle or fat.

Endomorphs are believed to find it easy to do the same.

Mesomorph's are a middle ground. Or at least, thats what I've read.

I find it hard to believe that your body type can be labelled into such neat categories though.

Also, why is the picture of the endomorph fat?

You're right about Ecto's. Endomorphs gain fat much easier than others and Mesomorphs gain muscle easier than the other two body types.

It's said that if you put your thumb and middle finger around your opposite wrist, if your fingers touch you're a meso, if they overlap you're a endo and if your fingers don't touch you're an endo.

There are names for the inbetweenies aswell Endo-Meso, Meso-endo, Meso-ecto, Ecto-meso

Roper

mp1972 wrote: »

There are names for the inbetweenies aswell Endo-Meso, Meso-endo, Meso-ecto, Ecto-meso

So in other words there are 6 different types then? This sounds like needlless bollocks to me. Is this another excuse for people being tubby? Oh it's okay I'm an Endomorph?

Here's a thought, if the lad on the end is an Ectomorph, what is ectoplasm then? Ugh.

J.S. Pill

cougar1 wrote: »

Dont be takin the piss

Theres a lot of crap to it alright but it still can be useful for certain training aspects, assuming diet is right, clean, calorie surplus, adequate protein.
For instance ectos will (after they have filled out a bit from compounds) will need to work extra hard to make their the long lean muscle bellies in the limbs fill out, often the will have high insertion points in their arms/legs with longer thinner tendons than their meso and endo friends, ecto will have a worse recovery rate than the others, need longer rest between sets and often extra days of rest to allow the cns to recover adequately. On the flip side they will often have absolutely no difficulty in losing fat. Dont do much cardio if you want to gain muscle.

This in my opinion, and from my experience is absolutely key for ectos. This is why training hard 4-5 times a week for these guys will often result in pityfull gains.

Hanley

cougar1 wrote: »

The best way of looking is it is forget the types, what is your bone structure like, and once you have determined whether you are 'big boned' or small boned' should give you an idea of where you stand, you cant change your bone structure regardless of whether you are a fat ecto or a skinny endo, put a fat 'ecto' and a skinny 'endo' in the gym and start them off by teaching them the bench press, you can be almost certain that the skinny endo will get 'stronger' faster than the other type, why because the 8" wrists/thicker bones, bigger tendons of the skinny endo will provide better leverage and stabilization than the 6.5 inch wristed fat 'etco'.

A 10 stone etco that starts training and trains for years to become a 17 stone monster will now be a 17 stone ecto, bone stucture wont change, the wrists may still be 6.5 inches the only diff is the forearms may now be 14 inches compared to the 10 inches they were back when he started.

Small bone structure, and big muscles.

You do realise you're describing some of the best bodybuilders to ever live??

Who, if anyone, would be a candidate for pure mesomorph.

brianthebard

Roper wrote: »

So in other words there are 6 different types then? This sounds like needlless bollocks to me. Is this another excuse for people being tubby? Oh it's okay I'm an Endomorph?

Here's a thought, if the lad on the end is an Ectomorph, what is ectoplasm then? Ugh.

This is turning into another genetic determinism thread. That is to say, genetics are used as an excuse. (not saying its your fault, trying to agree with you)
I could claim that I'm some ecto endo misbreed, but I think the truth is I'm a bit tubby and haven't done enough upper body work. Could be fairly easily changed though.

J.S. Pill

brianthebard wrote: »

This is turning into another genetic determinism thread. That is to say, genetics are used as an excuse. (not saying its your fault, trying to agree with you)
I could claim that I'm some ecto endo misbreed, but I think the truth is I'm a bit tubby and haven't done enough upper body work. Could be fairly easily changed though.

Its all too easy to use it as an excuse but its important at least in terms of how you approach diet and training

kevpants

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Its all too easy to use it as an excuse but its important at least in terms of how you approach diet and training

I'm sorry it's complete bollocks. Sweeping generalizations have no place in diet or training.

If you want to look a certain way a mirror is important, if you want to be stronger, the weight is important.

To suggest that the infinite genetic sequences in your DNA can only throw up 3 results is possibly the greatest load I've ever heard.

ecto will have a worse recovery rate than the others, need longer rest between sets and often extra days of rest to allow the cns to recover adequately

That just takes the biscuit. I've skinny wrists therefore I need to take it easier than other guys?

It's quackery.

brianthebard

Kevpants for president!

Roper

I laughed so much there some of my ectomorph ectoplasm went on my screen.

Quackery indeed.

Ouijaboard

kevpants wrote: »

That just takes the biscuit. I've skinny wrists therefore I need to take it easier than other guys?

It's quackery.

I didnt say you have to do anything...In a beginner, yes they will need more time for the cns to recover, of course when the cns has adapted to the overload it will respond resulting in muscle growth and strength gains and a strengthening of the tendons attached to the bone structure, so your recovery rate should change but the underlying bone struture wont change.
Are you suggesting a 98lb 'etco' weakling will have similar recovery rates to a 300lb 'endo' given the same intensity of training?


The vast majority of the time an untrained person who has the wrist circumference of a gorilla will have the greater strength 'POTENTIAL' compared to a untrained thin boned giraffe body type. Never said there werent exceptions of course, but you dont see too many top powerlifters with tiny wrists benching over 500lbs. Its fairly obvious 'training' for either strength or size or both can improve anybody though.

the 'ecto' bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuildingdungeon.com/photopost/data/527/medium/flexwheeler5.jpg



I didnt say I was a spokesperson for quack dr.shelton or whatever is the name of the guy that came up with the somatyping stuff, all I said was it cant just all be reduced to being the crazy ravings of some mad scientist.

J.S. Pill

kevpants wrote: »

I'm sorry it's complete bollocks. Sweeping generalizations have no place in diet or training.

If you want to look a certain way a mirror is important, if you want to be stronger, the weight is important.

To suggest that the infinite genetic sequences in your DNA can only throw up 3 results is possibly the greatest load I've ever heard.

Come on now, You may notice I never suggested anything along the lines of "infinite genetic sequences in your DNA can only throw up 3 results" - I do think thats bollox. My points instead related to how an individual might need to tailor their approach around their recovery abilities. I'm talking specifically about designing a program around rest days & split.

My Story:

I started weight training about 3 years ago when I weighed 9 and a half stone at 5 10". The first 10lbs of muscle came relatively easily. My gains were moderate over the next 2 years and then seemed to completely stop. My response to this was to keep on increasing how hard I trained and how much I ate. Still no muscle gains. For the last 2 years I had been doing a 3 day split consisting of 6-8 exercises with 3-4 sets per workout.

During the summer I changed my approach fundamentally. I started on an abbreviated training program where I arranged my split to minimise the overlap between bodyparts and I cut training to twice a week. This means that I might only train a given bodypart every 10 days. And guess what? it worked. I put on 8lbs in the last 3 months which is more than I put on in the preceding year and all while eating less than I had done in the same year. I'm now up to 12st 4lbs which isn't huge but is a good improvement on where I was. My strength gains have seen great improvements and are consistent and as a bonus I'm less run down and sleep better.

I know the abbreviated training approach as advocated by Stuart McRobert get a lot of stick for being too conservative but there's no denying that it can be a for more productive avenue for a lot of people rather blindly copying what everybody else is doing.

kevpants wrote: »

That just takes the biscuit. I've skinny wrists therefore I need to take it easier than other guys?

It's quackery.

I don't think thats fair at all. From my own example again, I may train less frequently than most people but when I am in the gym I put in an awful lot of effort in. McRobert's approach has a lot of overlap with HIT, afterall there's no point in leaving 10 days between training a bodypart if its not going to get a good pounding.

Hanley

cougar1 wrote: »

I didnt say you have to do anything...In a beginner, yes they will need more time for the cns to recover, of course when the cns has adapted to the overload it will respond resulting in muscle growth and strength gains and a strengthening of the tendons attached to the bone structure, so your recovery rate should change but the underlying bone struture wont change.

That statement alone should be enough for most people to realise you're talking BS. Beginners CNS's are by far and away the quickest thing to recover and adapt. Did you ever wonder why newbies make such fast gains?? It's because their CNS rapidly becomes more efficient.

The longer you're lifting, and the more experienced you are, the longer your CNS needs to recover, and the greater potential there is to over train.

EDIT: And Flex Wheeler's an ectomorph now? BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

brianthebard

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Come on now, You may notice I never suggested anything along the lines of "infinite genetic sequences in your DNA can only throw up 3 results" - I do think thats bollox. My points instead related to how an individual might need to tailor their approach around their recovery abilities. I'm talking specifically about designing a program around rest days & split.

My Story:

I started weight training about 3 years ago when I weighed 9 and a half stone at 5 10". The first 10lbs of muscle came relatively easily. My gains were moderate over the next 2 years and then seemed to completely stop. My response to this was to keep on increasing how hard I trained and how much I ate. Still no muscle gains. For the last 2 years I had been doing a 3 day split consisting of 6-8 exercises with 3-4 sets per workout.

During the summer I changed my approach fundamentally. I started on an abbreviated training program where I arranged my split to minimise the overlap between bodyparts and I cut training to twice a week. This means that I might only train a given bodypart every 10 days. And guess what? it worked. I put on 8lbs in the last 3 months which is more than I put on in the preceding year and all while eating less than I had done in the same year. I'm now up to 12st 4lbs which isn't huge but is a good improvement on where I was. My strength gains have seen great improvements and are consistent and as a bonus I'm less run down and sleep better.

Hang on, are you saying you were doing the same (or very similar) programme(s) for two years? If that's the case then your gains after changing had feck all to do with genetics in the way you think.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

This is turning into another genetic determinism thread. That is to say, genetics are used as an excuse. (not saying its your fault, trying to agree with you)
I could claim that I'm some ecto endo misbreed, but I think the truth is I'm a bit tubby and haven't done enough upper body work. Could be fairly easily changed though.

That's not quite fair brianthebard. Genetics do determine a lot. All anyone can do is maximise their genetic potential.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

That's not quite fair brianthebard. Genetics do determine a lot. All anyone can do is maximise their genetic potential.

Give me two guys, one with good genetics who's a lazy cnut, one with not so great genetics who is prepared to lift and eat his ass off.

Give me 5 years and come back to me and try to guess which ones bigger and stronger.

It's when you get the rare combination of work ethic and desire that the freaks are born.

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

That's not quite fair brianthebard. Genetics do determine a lot. All anyone can do is maximise their genetic potential.

Fair enough but how often does that happen? How many peoples bis for instance are the size they are cause they've maxed out?

Macha

I'm not just talking about putting on muscle. What about running a marathon?

Sure, everyone can do it but some people have a greater genetic ability in that area than others. I'm not saying a tubby mesomorph can't run a marathon, but that s/he will have to work a hell of a lot harder than an ectomorph.

Body types are about natural tendencies.

bdeb (can I call u that? ) - sure, most people don't reach their genetic tendencies. But nevertheless some of this stuff can be useful. For example, I'm a meso-endo (remember the thigh measurements??) and I am quite sensitive to carbs so try to lower my intake. Meanwhile, my ecto, triathlete boyfriend shovels in cereals, bread, pasta and rice all day long and still has 8% bodyfat.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

I'm not just talking about putting on muscle. What about running a marathon?

Well we're obviously talking about it in a lifting context.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

bdeb (can I call u that? ) - sure, most people don't reach their genetic tendencies. But nevertheless some of this stuff can be useful. For example, I'm a meso-endo (remember the thigh measurements??) and I am quite sensitive to carbs so try to lower my intake. Meanwhile, my ecto, triathlete boyfriend shovels in cereals, bread, pasta and rice all day long and still has 8% bodyfat.

Are you a triathlete too?

Macha

I don't quite recall the original post mentioning any particular sport.

No, I'm a lifter. I tried running, did a few 10Ks and it was very painful indeed.

Roper

Interestingly enough, I was talking to a scientist the other day...

No really. The subject wasn't directly about lifting genetics, but it was about sporting potential and his laymans explanation to me was that there isn't really all that much difference between someone with average genetics and good genetics (in a sporting context), and environmental factors are just as important- diet when growing up, amount of time spent playing or in front of a computer etc.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

I don't quite recall the original post mentioning any particular sport.

No, I'm a lifter. I tried running, did a few 10Ks and it was very painful indeed.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that genetics are the reason that your boyfriend, who trains for triathlons, and probably consumes MASSIVE amount of calories in doing so, can chug back carbs all day and not gain weight?

Ouijaboard

Hanley wrote: »

That statement alone should be enough for most people to realise you're talking BS. Beginners CNS's are by far and away the quickest thing to recover and adapt. Did you ever wonder why newbies make such fast gains?? It's because their CNS rapidly becomes more efficient.

The longer you're lifting, and the more experienced you are, the longer your CNS needs to recover, and the greater potential there is to over train.

EDIT: And Flex Wheeler's an ectomorph now? BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Why are you taking what I said completely out of context? I was clearly talking about ecto body type starting out weightlifting will need longer to recover the cns than his meso or endo mates. Nobody is disputing newbie gains, everybody will get them. Neither am I disputing that gains are harder as a lifter gets more experienced and will need to be a bit more creative to adapt. Since you and your mates completely disupte that there's any difference whatsoever in the so called somatypes and their potential thats fair enough, but theres enough beginners that will gain some insight into their own progression by looking a little bit more into it.

Why is flex not an ecto body type? Can you not even admit that his bone structure is small compared say dorian yates. Frank zane was also an ecto i believe. So was serge nubret. Arnold used to say that he was the perfect mesomorph, then again he was an arrogant bstard

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

bdeb (can I call u that? ) - sure, most people don't reach their genetic tendencies. But nevertheless some of this stuff can be useful. For example, I'm a meso-endo (remember the thigh measurements??) and I am quite sensitive to carbs so try to lower my intake. Meanwhile, my ecto, triathlete boyfriend shovels in cereals, bread, pasta and rice all day long and still has 8% bodyfat.

Eh if you want you can call me that. (and yes I remember the thigh measurements ) I'm sure there is something to be taken from genetics, I'm asthmatic so consider myself ill equipped for running and sports involving it. But I was able to play football for many years-unless you have some extremely debilitating genetic condition, I think the majority of genetic issues can be overcome, albeit not as well as someone without them.

Macha

Hanley wrote: »

So, just to be clear, you're saying that genetics are the reason that your boyfriend, who trains for triathlons, and probably consumes MASSIVE amount of calories in doing so, can chug back carbs all day and not gain weight?

Hanley, you really have a nasty way of putting across your point of view. There really is no need to be so aggressive with posters who don't agree with you.

I didn't say genetics are the only reason. I said it was one of the reasons. Even before he started training as much as he does now, he was still as slim. Actually, the 8% bf measurement was from before he had even started training for triathlons-I'd say he's closer to 6% now. His cousin came over to visit a few weeks ago and he's exactly the same: tall, slim and doesn't do any sport.

Meanwhile, I have a father who was played a prop and a brother who is a sprinter with thighs as big as mine It isn't a coincidence

Brianthebard - I'm not saying genetics is all that's involved. I'm just saying it is a factor. So I don't think we're really disagreeing with each other (now Kristeva...)

Zamboni

taconnol wrote: »

I am quite sensitive to carbs

They hurt my feelings once too.
Only joshing

I personally think the use of terms like ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph are about as uselessly generic and as incorrect as saying all black people are criminals and all Irish people are thick.
Some people have more Type II or Type I muscle fibres than others. No big deal. We don't have to categorise everybody in nice little groups. If anything it just complicates matters.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

Hanley, you really have a nasty way of putting across your point of view. There really is no need to be so aggressive with posters who don't agree with you.

I didn't say genetics are the only reason. I said it was one of the reasons. Even before he started training as much as he does now, he was still as slim. Actually, the 8% bf measurement was from before he had even started training for triathlons-I'd say he's closer to 6% now. His cousin came over to visit a few weeks ago and he's exactly the same: tall, slim and doesn't do any sport.

Meanwhile, I have a father who was played a prop and a brother who is a sprinter with thighs as big as mine It isn't a coincidence

Brianthebard - I'm not saying genetics is all that's involved. I'm just saying it is a factor. So I don't think we're really disagreeing with each other (now Kristeva...)

I don't see anything nasty about that post? Perhaps you're just being overly sensitive? But I do apologise if you took offence.

You have to admit, it's a bit of a stretch to say genetics are the reason your boyfriend can get away with eating so many carbs and you can't, when you state your training methods are pretty much polar opposites?

J.S. Pill

brianthebard wrote: »

Hang on, are you saying you were doing the same (or very similar) programme(s) for two years? If that's the case then your gains after changing had feck all to do with genetics in the way you think.

No no no, not at all. I'm talking about the fundamental approach of a 3 day split with 6-8 exercises. The exercises, amount of reps, volume etc. would have been changed around. One of the trainers in my gym would devise a new mix every 2 months or so.

Macha

Hanley wrote: »

I don't see anything nasty about that post? Perhaps you're just being overly sensitive? But I do apologise if you took offence.

You have to admit, it's a bit of a stretch to say genetics are the reason your boyfriend can get away with eating so many carbs and you can't, when you state your training methods are pretty much polar opposites?

Ok sorry you're right I was being too sensitive - I blame the carbs! Really, apologies.

Ok, let me explain it this way: I used to be 19.7% BF (oh, those were the days) and then I was advised to stop doing so much HIIT and to more LIT and not worry so much about my carb intake. 6 months later I was over 22% BF and 3kg heavier. Moral of the story? I need to watch my carb intake and ditch the LIT.

Ouijaboard

Zamboni wrote: »

They hurt my feelings once too.
Only joshing

I personally think the use of terms like ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph are about as uselessly generic and as incorrect as saying all black people are criminals and all Irish people are thick.
Some people have more Type II or Type I muscle fibres than others. No big deal. We don't have to categorise everybody in nice little groups. If anything it just complicates matters.

Yeah agree to a certain extend, nobody likes putting people in brackets and deciding what they can and cant achieve...
Now would you not agree though that skinny small fcekers with small bones and slow twitch muscle fibers would make better marathon runners than a big stocky black dude riddled with fast twitch :rolleyes:

brianthebard

J.S. Pill wrote: »

No no no, not at all. I'm talking about the fundamental approach of the 3 day split with 6-8 exercises. Of course I churned it up a bit, one of the trainers in my gym would devise a new mix every 2 months or so.

Tbh it just sounds like poor programming rather than not meeting genetic requirements that is the problem. How much did the 3 day split change? Was it something along the lines of chest and tris, bis and back, legs and shoulders?

Hanley

cougar1 wrote: »

Why is flex not an ecto body type? Can you not even admit that his bone structure is small compared say dorian yates. Frank zane was also an ecto i believe. So was serge nubret. Arnold used to say that he was the perfect mesomorph, then again he was an arrogant bstard

Traditionally ectos are seen as the skinny guys who struggle to gain weight right?? Well why is flex not an ecto.... Probably because he had the most gifted genetics for bodybuilding ever seen. He was perfectly proportioned and grew like a weed.

Genetic potential isn't always immediately obvious either. It can take years before you realise how far you can go. At an extreme example, Ronnie was a middle of the pack guy for years in the O, then all of a sudden as he matured he EXPLODED and left the others for dust.

The only "pure" thing Arnie ever was, was full of "pure" ****. For someone who claimed to be a pure meso, he was SERIOUSLY lacking in hte leg department. Go to any am. bodybuilding show now and you'll see guys who'd wipe the floor with him.

In my entire life so far I've probably know ONE pure mesomorph. The kid was just a FREAK. He was faster than anything Ive ever seen, and even as I was training hard in the gym, he was still stronger than me. I often wonder what he coulda done if he was dedicated to training.

Hanley

taconnol wrote: »

Ok sorry you're right I was being too sensitive - I blame the carbs! Really, apologies.

Ok, let me explain it this way: I used to be 19.7% BF (oh, those were the days) and then I was advised to stop doing so much HIIT and to more LIT and not worry so much about my carb intake. 6 months later I was over 22% BF and 3kg heavier. Moral of the story? I need to watch my carb intake and ditch the LIT.

No harm. I think people just expect me to be aggressive nowadays even tho I've tried to reign it in!! So even when I'm not, it seems like I am.

I'm definitely not saying that genetics don't have a part to play. Knowing and learning how your own body responds is one of the most valuable things you can do. But at least initially it's not something most people need to be concerned about when it comes to getting big and strong. It's a pretty similar forumla - Hard work + lots of food + time = results. At it's core, that's all it is, for everyone. Some people might need more food, some might need less.

But I firmly believe that if more people were prepared to eat a bit more, and train a bit more efficently, they'd be seeing much better results, regardless of genetics.

J.S. Pill

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh it just sounds like poor programming rather than not meeting genetic requirements that is the problem. How much did the 3 day split change? Was it something along the lines of chest and tris, bis and back, legs and shoulders?

Yeah it was poor programming - too much volume and frequency for me! My current approach is working better than anything I've ever tried & I'm not going to change it until it stops working!

The split I used to be on was very much along the lines of what you've described. Now its more like 1) back & Hamstrings 2) quads, bis & calves and 3) chest, shoulders and tris with core and rotator cuff etc thrown in over all days. But remember the whole point of this particular split is that overlap is minimised and therefore recovery time is extended (inevitably there is going to be some degree of overlap of course). In this case, poor programming is very much tied up with your notion of 'not meeting genetic requirements' so you can't really say it was poor programming rather than not meeting genetic requirements.

You seem very very sceptical about what I'm saying man. I suggest having a read of some of Stuart McRobert's material. As I said, he gets a lot of stick from some quarters (*ahem...t-nation..ahem*) but it can't really hurt to expose yourself to some different ideas.