Somatotropes don't exist. The people they represent do. If you're an ectomorph, it's not genetics, it's the fact you don't eat enough etc
But could you not say that some people are genetically predisposed to being thin (ectomorphic), or on the other hand mesomorphic? For instance, my dad is short but very broad and so I have taken the same development - of being relatively short but broad, and so coming under mesomorph (as my body shape fits in to that category - though I did lift a lot when younger so that confounds my example a lot).
So though it can be due to diet (and other factors), surely this has a strong genetic component?
But could you not say that some people are genetically predisposed to being thin (ectomorphic), or on the other hand mesomorphic? For instance, my dad is short but very broad and so I have taken the same development - of being relatively short but broad, and so coming under mesomorph (as my body shape fits in to that category - though I did lift a lot when younger so that confounds my example a lot).
So though it can be due to diet (and other factors), surely this has a strong genetic component?
You are missing the point. If someone happened to have this genetic predisposition to being skinny that you speak of, they just need to eat more.
You are missing the point. If someone happened to have this genetic predisposition to being skinny that you speak of, they just need to eat more.
I dunno. Being an ectomorph would include body shape (which I assume would be highly heritable), not skinny per say in terms of increased fat or muscle mass. The fat type of phenotype I'm assuming has no genetic component, and just sounds silly to me. Bare in mind I haven't looked at sports med research on all this. Which is why I'm inquiring.
They look good... But steroids have been referenced since the 1930s believe it or not. Charles Atlas was a tiny bit earlier than Steve and Reg I think.
The fact people think Zyzz looks like an "average gym rat" just shows the modern standard, considering he was way above the FFMI of a natural lifter. In fact, I think his FFMI is higher than even Jeff Seid.
Zyzz weight has been called into question countless times. To be 100kg he'd have to have some bad genetics to lack the size at that level of bodyfat, clearly he didn't have bad genetics. I'm the same height as Zyzz, I'm 99kg, I'm currently carrying as much muscle as he was (not being deluded, genuinely) and yet I'm a bit over 15% bodyfat.
I dunno. Being an ectomorph would include body shape (which I assume would be highly heritable), not skinny per say in terms of increased fat or muscle mass. The fat type of phenotype I'm assuming has no genetic component, and just sounds silly to me. Bare in mind I haven't looked at sports med research on all this. Which is why I'm inquiring.
I believe in somatotypes to a degree - the part about skeletal shapes certainly holds value. As to whether certain people are more likely to be fat or skinny, nothing to do with these so called somatotypes - if you overeat you'll gain fat, if you don't then you won't.
Gonna jump back in, not to argue, but to be fair not everyone is skinny just because they don't eat enough
Not everyone, some people have progressive wasting diseases for example. In general, though, he's right, if you don't eat enough then you don't gain weight.
Not everyone, some people have progressive wasting diseases for example. In general, though, he's right, if you don't eat enough then you don't gain weight.
Posted from TSR Mobile Quite, but I suffer from hyperthyroidism which resulted in an inability to gain weight, however I do agree.
But could you not say that some people are genetically predisposed to being thin (ectomorphic), or on the other hand mesomorphic? For instance, my dad is short but very broad and so I have taken the same development - of being relatively short but broad, and so coming under mesomorph (as my body shape fits in to that category - though I did lift a lot when younger so that confounds my example a lot).
So though it can be due to diet (and other factors), surely this has a strong genetic component?
How fat you are is your diet. If you wanted to make yourself an ectomorph, train and run a marathon. I'm naturally very broad shouldered, yet training and running the marathon, I looked ectomorphic
How much muscle mass you can carry is genetic, stuff like wrist circumference inferes that. But it doesn't affect you unless you want to be on the Olympia stage
I dunno. Being an ectomorph would include body shape (which I assume would be highly heritable), not skinny per say in terms of increased fat or muscle mass. The fat type of phenotype I'm assuming has no genetic component, and just sounds silly to me. Bare in mind I haven't looked at sports med research on all this. Which is why I'm inquiring.
I believe in somatotypes to a degree - the part about skeletal shapes certainly holds value. As to whether certain people are more likely to be fat or skinny, nothing to do with these so called somatotypes - if you overeat you'll gain fat, if you don't then you won't.
Skeletal shapes is muscle mass not really on your ability to gain fat, eat, etc
Not everyone, some people have progressive wasting diseases for example. In general, though, he's right, if you don't eat enough then you don't gain weight.
That's like <1% of the population. If you infer that, you can infer anything
How fat you are is your diet. If you wanted to make yourself an ectomorph, train and run a marathon. I'm naturally very broad shouldered, yet training and running the marathon, I looked ectomorphic
How much muscle mass you can carry is genetic, stuff like wrist circumference inferes that. But it doesn't affect you unless you want to be on the Olympia stage
See above
Skeletal shapes is muscle mass not really on your ability to gain fat, eat, etc
That's like <1% of the population. If you infer that, you can infer anything
Depending on your exact type of hyperthyroidism - take your meds and you're pretty much normal
<1% is not a valued concept for fitness advice really.
But my point is, as people are at their baseline, either mesomorphic or ectomorphic, surely that gives validity and value of those terms. In that, without training, some are very muscular and have sturdy bodies whilst others are thin and have low levels of muscle. I understand that it can change to some degree - with marathon training you would become more ectomorphic, but I would assume nowhere near the extent (or with the ease) that a naturally ectomorphic person would.
Do we also not differ in the amount of certain type muscle fibres we have as well, which lends weight to the notion of 'phenotypes'?
Again, pinch of salt - not looked at this stuff in forever.
Edit: That isn't to say people are one or the other, but somewhere along a continuum.