Why are Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Zyzz so many people's heroes if they used steroids?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Despite the lack of evidence for somatotypes there is evidence for the genetic impact on metabolic rates which can and do lead to various body types

Yeah real helpful.

Somatotypes are on the list of "things real lifters must aggressively deride whenever possible", even if they don't know why, other than that's what other real lifters do. Same with the word toning that seems to offend some people so much. It's kind of like reverse bro science.

Somatotypes was about more than just body composition, it was also about

a) certain genetic physical characteristics such as clavicle length, wrist circumference, hand size, skull shape, among others.
b) certain personality traits associated with the classifications that Sheldon derived from the above characteristics.

Now, to the extent of my knowledge (and I'm not expert), it is "b" that has been widely debunked. His research methods have also been called into question. I've never seen scientific refutals of the assertion that people are born with different builds or of Sheldon's classifications of the physical characteristics, but maybe somebody with more knowledge on the subject could provide a link to some (@Angry cucumber)?

How do people know zyzz was on steroids? Also he wasn't even that built so surely you can get like that without taking steroids.

Prettu sure those definitions are to do with rate of metabolism and difficulty of gaining mass rather than how much u eat.

Posted from TSR Mobile
He was trying to be rude and ignorant

Posted from TSR Mobile

Second grade insult

The phenotype characteristics, which have in the past been made to 3 classifications; thin set, wide set, and... for a reason I find difficult to understand... fat.

The former (thin, wide; ecto and meso respectively) I can think that they would be relatively useful and valid descriptors of body types in general. Along a continuum I would assume all people would sit somewhere, often leaning towards one or the other to a reasonable degree - depending on genetics and physical activity.

I would imagine that physical activity would make you go more one way or another from your baseline; but inferred that your baseline would sort of make it more difficult to be ectomorphic if say, you are mesomorphic at baseline, and maybe put limits (to a moderate degree) on your performance in physical activity related to your opposing natural phenotype (long distance running/weight lifting).

Sorry if any didn't make sense.

Absolutely, nothing to do with your ability to gain fat or eat as I pointed out, but skeletal shapes and the amount of muscle mass you carry are two different things. Some of us are born with broader clavicles and wider rib cages, narrower pelvises, "thicker" joints and so on than others. An ecto would be defined as, narrow clavicle region, small hips & waist, think joints; an endo would be defined as the opposite, maybe also with narrow clavicle region; a meso would be inbetween. As I said though, the susceptibility to fat gain is BS.

It's like how some people will always appear "dumpier" even if their bodyfat levels are on the low side because they have a really wide pelvis and waist; whilst with others like me, I had a v-taper even before I started lifting because my clavicle region is wide and I have a good rib cage along with a narrow waist/pelvis region, and I was skinny and bony as **** before I started lifting so my upper body width had nothing at all to do with muscle mass

No there isn't. Base metabolism between people of the same gender vary a couple of hundred calories max for your average person



indeed b) is debunked. There's research out there but life is busy atm and I'm meant to be writing up the lecture I'm currently sat in. Google scholar exists if anyone is really keen. Problem is, is that somatotypes are now commonly used to describe how people look, broad shouldered etc in terms of relationship and other related research hence it's often buried.

The amount of muscle mass you can carry at maximum is related to your bone structure though. Not your fat levels or your "metabolism", contrary to every glossy magazine out there



The look
His brother
His manager
His online accounts
The list is large



No it's how much you eat





Strong princess

All well and good firing shots isn't it?



You can be skinny if you're broad shouldered, you can be fat if you're finer built. There's no such thing at baseline. You either do cardio or don't. You do something that will build muscle or you don't. Once you're in your early teens, these sort of characteristics become very evident. What you look like is based on your lifestyle. Choose to eat and play video games only, you'll be fat, your genetics isn't of big enough significance to affect it



Yes, but it's such a ridiculously wide and variable continuum the terms are redundant and are used as an excuse more than anything. Someone who is defined as an ecto can build muscle and gain weight just fine and can look sexy as hell. Whilst they can be a rake or a blob depending on they're life choices. Etc



I'm a fridge

I'm not talking about weight mate. Feel like you greatly Strawmanned me there!
Body structure which is genetically determined (baseline), as apposed to any reference to metabolic rate (which has relatively little variance between people). With regards to body structure I'm meaning bone and muscle structure more specifically.

As you said I think in that post, bone structure can have significance in some ways (was the line of inquiry I was following):
"The amount of muscle mass you can carry at maximum is related to your bone structure though."

Bone structure influences whether you're going to stand on Mr Olympia, or play elite x sport and not a lot else

I think that's what you are wanting to know? I am trying to help, I may be blunt but I am actually nice

Baseline anything annoys me, people use it as an excuse for whatever purpose

You also referred (I think) to muscle fibre types. Between kids our muscle fibre type is pretty much the same person to person. It's what exercise/ lifestyle you have that influences it

Personally I'm quite a wide person (hips and shoulders), and find developing power, strength, and muscular endurance quite easy. But I find aerobic activity, in contrast, a lot harder to develop. On the other hand, I know people who are thin, lighter, and find running long distances easier to develop. The reference to bone size (as in that phenotypic theory) is because I assume it links to muscle composition (maybe falsely?).

Would this in some way not be related to muscle composition 'at baseline' to some degree? Maybe this has no validity at all, but just curious.

I can understand it would be annoying - the baseline thing strikes akin to the 'baseline metabolism' thing - or 'I'm just big boned'... sort of thing people use as excuses, but have no validity. That annoys me too

I forget the tribe name, however the reason the Ethiopians are awesome long distance runners, they're levers just make them awesome for running. Some people are suited more for it, yes the way they're built - for instance long arms, shortish legs, broad back makes you built for deadlifting but probably not the best bencher etc.



Probably a degree to what you enjoy. Could have exercise induced asthma. Maybe you suck at running but would be better in a pool or on a bike. I haven't come across bone size vs muscle composition as a theory, so Idk on that point.

Do a lot of long distance running, you'll have a higher proportion of slow twitch fibres, lift and spint and you'll change your phenotype some what. Baseline composition is a mix I believe

I see what you mean about levers, that is a point that came to mind.
Enjoyment is probably a significant proportion of it - I'm not a big fan of long distance cardio stuff - though I have done a fair bit of it in the past... like as a challenge looked to see how far I could run on a treadmill and managed about 24km by the end of it for a normal daily attempt - so I understand that we are very malleable. I'm generally a lot better on a cross trainer, I think because it takes my weight (wide frame).

Ultimately I suppose my main point is I think we differ in compositions substantially when we are untrained (at so called 'baseline'). For instance I'm in untrained fatty mode at the moment.

But, even though untrained, I am still quite muscular relative to most people generally - but would be hopeless if I was to attempt to run any longer than 10 minutes (even though I walk a lot). Others I imagine would be able to run substantially further than me, but have less strength or power - there seems to be some kind of trade off, and on there - being somewhere along a continuum.

I remember being taught something to do with slow and fast twitch muscle fibre compositions which would underlie this as a sort of biological basis. Though my knoweldge of muscles is very surface, so can't add more there.

If you are male and eat well through your teens i.e. aren't very skinny. You will often put on muscle mass just from the calories you consume whether you do lots of exercise or not also you'll be heavier - need more muscle to move etc. Hence why fat kids can be quite strong but ofc there's so much lifestyle influencing it. Also if you've got quite a bit stronger in the past, you don't lose it all for a long time unless you're recumbent