PDA

View Full Version : What is your body type?



Light
07-31-2020, 06:34 PM
Hello guys. Knowing your somatotype may be key to getting the results you want from your eating and exercise regimens. Let's say your body type belongs to ectomorph, it may be difficult to gain weight fast and efficiently, when you go to the gym and you spend a sufficient amount of time to do exercises in order to build your muscles and strength it would also be not as easy as you think. In this particular case, you need to have more time and patience

so, there are three somatotypes


ectomorph
mesomorph
endomorph



but, but.. you could also have a peculiar mixed version of both body types. For instance, it is endo-mesomorph or meso-ectomorph.. you can determine your body type by using a special measuring tape to measure your shoulders, your hips, waist etc



Please take a look at these graphics and do not forget to participate in the polls by voting

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/7f/7e/d57f7e8894e22943d67436a08a457f4d.jpg

https://www.dynamicweighttraining.com/images/Male-Somatotypes.png


pure, non-mixed body types

https://i.imgur.com/hpmgc26.jpg

Magnetic
07-31-2020, 06:39 PM
mesomorph with a little endomorph mix

Buxoro
07-31-2020, 06:56 PM
Endo - Meso, wide hips/shoulders, medium stature (1.88), easy to gain fat

alan
07-31-2020, 06:56 PM
I think Ive moved from ectomorph as a late teen/early 20s (when I was about 6ft 2 but only 13-14 stone) to mesomorph by my later 20s. I think the male skeleton definitely often broadens after your height stops increasing. Called 'filling out'. I think I am probably heading for endomorph since aged 40 but I dont think that is bone deep and more to do with getting old and unfit LOL

alan
07-31-2020, 07:16 PM
I have the basic NW European trait of being pretty tall and not especially broad or thickset. Within that group I think I have the slightly more Celtic shape of having an especially long upper body (v tall sitting height). I have a very long back and arms with long reach. My legs are probably an inch/inch and a half shorter for my height than I think would be the case among Germanic sorts. I think Scandis tend to have relatively short upper bodies and long legs given their tallness. Its not huge difference but I think a typically a person of the same height may be an inch or so longer in the body if they are from the Celtic fringe while a Scandi would seem more likely to be an inch or so longer in the leg. And Scandis seem to have noticeably shorter arms than Celtic fringers when they are of similar height. May be why you get so many good boxers from Ireland and the rest of the Celtic fringe compared to Scandinavia. Its quite common in Irish boxing to have these lightweight type boxers with a considerably greater reach than comparable sized people of other nations. Another strange thing in the Celtic fringe ive noticed is small wirey people actually being extremely strong. Almost like the quality of the muscle outweighs quantity. Not sure if its one of those high/low twitch muscle things.

Both my parents must have had at least one and possible two copies of the fast twitch muscle gene. Ive never been tested but my sister has two copies of it. Both my sisters had this weird thing that they were not at all into sports but on sports day at school would just appear and beat all the sporty types at sprinting. I was a good sprinter too as were my mum and dad. We all had explosive speed but I dont think we had great stamina. Also bad swimmers and floaters which again is apparently down to fast twitch muscle.

alan
07-31-2020, 07:26 PM
I noticed on Crete that all the young men and women were slender good looking sorts. Very stylish. But in middle age and older you would never known this was their natural build as they kind of look chunky and thickset at that age. Mind you that is happening to most people I know LOL.

One thing I do notice from personal experience is what terrible runners natural big boned square shaped endomorphs are even when they have little body fat. Some of the slowest people ive ever known are naturally strongly built broad square built people. So the best tactic if you get into a fight with one of them is run away LOL

Finn
07-31-2020, 08:11 PM
I have the basic NW European trait of being pretty tall and not especially broad or thickset. Within that group I think I have the slightly more Celtic shape of having an especially long upper body (v tall sitting height). I have a very long back and arms with long reach. My legs are probably an inch/inch and a half shorter for my height than I think would be the case among Germanic sorts. I think Scandis tend to have relatively short upper bodies and long legs given their tallness. Its not huge difference but I think a typically a person of the same height may be an inch or so longer in the body if they are from the Celtic fringe while a Scandi would seem more likely to be an inch or so longer in the leg. And Scandis seem to have noticeably shorter arms than Celtic fringers when they are of similar height. May be why you get so many good boxers from Ireland and the rest of the Celtic fringe compared to Scandinavia. Its quite common in Irish boxing to have these lightweight type boxers with a considerably greater reach than comparable sized people of other nations. Another strange thing in the Celtic fringe ive noticed is small wirey people actually being extremely strong. Almost like the quality of the muscle outweighs quantity. Not sure if its one of those high/low twitch muscle things.

Both my parents must have had at least one and possible two copies of the fast twitch muscle gene. Ive never been tested but my sister has two copies of it. Both my sisters had this weird thing that they were not at all into sports but on sports day at school would just appear and beat all the sporty types at sprinting. I was a good sprinter too as were my mum and dad. We all had explosive speed but I dont think we had great stamina. Also bad swimmers and floaters which again is apparently down to fast twitch muscle.

I recognize this partly and partly not. I'm of North Dutch stock. North Dutch are the tallest man in Europe 183 cm on average. I'm even 10 cm longer (6 feet 4). With indeed relative long legs compared to the body, but also long arms (a problem with new jackets or shirts etc). So kind of overgrown ;)

I was kind of ectomorph as teenager and in the twenties....afterwards the pounds went up (especially when the family duties came in).

And according to the 'genetic health' parts of sites like your dna or gene plaza I have, besides that I'm an endurance type, more risk of getting obese :\

So after the corona quarantaine and holiday: exercise! Every morning on the hometrainer and three times in the week fitness.....

Light
07-31-2020, 11:21 PM
ectomorph


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/body-ecto.gif


The ectomorph body type is characterised by slender stature, gracile bone structure, light build, and small muscles. Shoulders tend to be thin, chest flat, body fat low. They don't easily gain weight or muscle. Some definitions require long limbs as well, others don't. This page includes short-limbed, but slender and gracile types, otherwise many East Asians would remain undefined. Ectomorphy is strongly correlated with Rohrer's index. The most extreme and very long-limbed ectomorphs are Nilotes with a Rohrer around 0.95. Ectomorphy is widespread in dry tropical climate, thus most African Steppe tribes and most desert groups like Tuareg, Arabs, and Khoisan show slender bodies. In Europe it is found in several Nordic and Mediterranean groups, in Asia throughout India and parts of China and Indonesia. Common in Australian Aborigines, more rare in America, where it occurs in the Sonora desert and the Cuyo.


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/ectomorph.gif





mesomorph


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/body-meso.gif


The mesomorph body type is characterised by athletic stature, large bone structure, and large muscles. Shoulders tend to be wide, chest strong, body rather low. They easily gain muscle and lose weight quickly as well. Mesomorphs have been powerful hunters in Paleolithic societies and good athletes in sports, on the other hand they require more calories than other types, which can be disadvantageous. Mesomorphs are common in African savannah groups, many live rather in humid climate than in dry climate. They are found in Europe, Native North Americans, and in South Australians. In Polynesia and Patagonia, very large mesomorphs (used to) exist with large bodies and a tendency to grow fat.


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/mesomorph.gif





endomorph


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/body-endo.gif


The endomorph body type is characterised by stocky stature, soft features, and often large, but not well-defined muscles. Shoulders and not very wide unlike the hips. Body fat is high. They easily gain weight. There exist almost no long-limbed endmorphs. Endomorphy is strongly correlated with Rohrer's index. The most extreme endomorphs are Inuit and some Polynesian and Araucanian groups with Rohrers above 1.5. In those groups the muscle mass below the fat is often high. Endomorphy is advantageous in cold climate as it offers a better protection against the cold. Endomorphs require fewer calories. The body type is also found in Central, Northern, and Eastern Europe, parts of West Asia, and most of North Asia. As well as some mountains of Indochina and Mexico.


http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/endomorph.gif

Finn
08-01-2020, 08:11 AM
@light isn’t this too rough? I guess I am basically a kind of in between ecto- and mesomorph.

Light
08-01-2020, 11:06 AM
@light isn’t this to rough? I guess I am basically a kind of in between ecto- and mesomorph.




nowadays pure body types tend to be quite rare, an average person could be ecto-meso, meso-ecto, endo-meso and such combinations of physical types. So you could either be a mesomorph(low percentage) or ecto/endo-mesomorph(high percentage). For ectos could be certain restrictions in sport, but they usually suited for endurance events, long-distance running, marathons, soccer, cycling, and triathlons. Personally, your body type is perfect

Buxoro
08-01-2020, 12:03 PM
nowadays pure body types tend to be quite rare, an average person could be ecto-meso, meso-ecto, endo-meso and such combinations of physical types. So you could either be a mesomorph(low percentage) or ecto/endo-mesomorph(high percentage). For ectos could be certain restrictions in sport, but they usually suited for endurance events, long-distance running, marathons, soccer, cycling, and triathlons. Personally, your body type is perfect

What i observed while visiting Europe is that southern euros, especially southwestern males are much more gracile and ectomorphic in comparison to central and northern euros (later are very tall but also quite robust), most of them have little to no muscle mass naturally. Northern western asians (caucasus,iran,turkey) are much more robust and meso/endo than euros.

Finn
08-01-2020, 12:11 PM
nowadays pure body types tend to be quite rare, an average person could be ecto-meso, meso-ecto, endo-meso and such combinations of physical types. So you could either be a mesomorph(low percentage) or ecto/endo-mesomorph(high percentage). For ectos could be certain restrictions in sport, but they usually suited for endurance events, long-distance running, marathons, soccer, cycling, and triathlons. Personally, your body type is perfect

I guess so because I recognize the large bone and muscle structure, broad shoulders, of the meso's but the long limbs and endurance of the ecto's........

drobbah
08-01-2020, 12:24 PM
Used to be an ectomorph my entire life untill I finished high school.I quickly gained weight, which is why at 23 I'm probably an ecto-mesomorph.I used to be very good at 800m & 1500m but I stopped running track as a teen because I just had no interest in it, I instead choose to play youth competitive soccer/football as a winger

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 12:36 PM
Ectomorph-Mesomorph with 1.80 height. IBut I got the typical meditteranean booty fat ass type.Very good at sports as well.

Finn
08-01-2020, 12:42 PM
What i observed while visiting Europe is that southern euros, especially southwestern males are much more gracile and ectomorphic in comparison to central and northern euros (later are very tall but also quite robust), most of them have little to no muscle mass naturally. Northern western asians (caucasus,iran,turkey) are much more robust and meso/endo than euros.

Basically in every population we see all three types. When I'm in southern Europe actually already in France I see indeed that the people are shorter and much graciler (but also more endomorph).

I gues the Northern Europeans are tall because the the Steppe Herders were 'tall, dark and handsom' (last one is very much in the eye of the beholder, I guess they were kind of rugged :biggrin1: but especially tall. According to Kristian Kristiansen 10-15cm larger than the Neolithic population. But I guess that many of the neolithic funnel beakers were quite muscular, robust, especially the 'sub-neolithic' HG ones.... Their mix are the modern North Europeans.

The Southern Europeans have much higher farmer amount. And due to their sedentary lifestyle and high carbonate menu the famers population were and became smaller, gracile but also more endo?

But just educated guesses.

oz
08-01-2020, 12:53 PM
I was an ectomorph up until late teens. Now I have a big ass and broad shoulders. I have long arms but not long legs. I also gain weight pretty easily but I was never a big eater so I can lose weight pretty easily too since eating little on a daily basis isn't a problem for me and I can get adjusted to it within a week. I think coffee and smoking help to suppress my appetite. If I quit smoking I'd probably gain an extra 20 lbs minimum.

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 01:02 PM
Basically in every population we see all three types. When I'm in southern Europe actually already in France I see indeed that the people are shorter and much graciler (but also more endomorph).

I gues the Northern Europeans are tall because the the Steppe Herders were 'tall, dark and handsom' (last one is very much in the eye of the beholder, I guess they were kind of rugged :biggrin1: but especially tall. According to Kristian Kristiansen 10-15cm larger than the Neolithic population. But I guess that many of the neolithic funnel beakers were quite muscular, robust, especially the 'sub-neolithic' HG ones.... Their mix are the modern North Europeans.

The Southern Europeans have much higher farmer amount. And due to their sedentary lifestyle and high carbonate menu the famers population were and became smaller, gracile but also more meso?

But just educated guesses.

When I was in Netherlands I was supriced that the old folks there were mostly ectomorph. I rarely saw any fat individual above 50 years old. On the other hand the younger generations especially Some girls were actually endomorph to fat. It is not only genes But also the life-style. Thought Dutch men are also ectomorph and very tall.

Riverman
08-01-2020, 01:03 PM
I noticed on Crete that all the young men and women were slender good looking sorts. Very stylish. But in middle age and older you would never known this was their natural build as they kind of look chunky and thickset at that age. Mind you that is happening to most people I know LOL.


I saw that too. The young Cretan people were really beautiful, but I wouldn't say that all of them changed that fundamentally when getting older and since the younger are taller too than the old generation, I wonder how much of a change is happening there because of higher energy food and other changes in lifestyle in comparison to the older generation. People usually get broader over time, some change earlier, others later, some not at all and a minority gets even thinner, rather gaunt. But even within that range of developments, what matters too is the fat distribution. If people get older, get a disease, or just eat too much and don't move enough, the majority will get more body fat. Only some extreme variants don't. But what's different is where they get the fat and how its being distributed on their body. To give an example, an ectomorph will rarely get the typical apple shaped body even if growing fatter.
The best country you can study this is the USA, because there you can find a lot more people which would not grow fat under most circumstances, but they do there. So you can compare how "naturally thin set people" look if getting fat through extreme calory intake with almost no physical activity. The best way to get fat fast, even if you don't are inclined to, is lots of chocolate in my opinion. Because you can eat a lot of it, it has extremely high energy per ounce and you don't get saturated even after eating 1500 calories. At least not for the day.

There was once an experiment with young, healthy and naturally slim people which had to gain some extra pounds in a short period of time, by eating much more than they usually did and moving less. Some struggled with gaining weight, even with a lots of fast food. But chocolate was the solution to their problem. If trying everything, only a very small minority remained which didn't gained weight and these were really genetically special, like one guy gaining muscles only even without any traning, just by eating all kinds of crap with high calories.

Adamm
08-01-2020, 01:11 PM
Always been ectomorph (and still are), always fasted track runner during high-school years.

Finn
08-01-2020, 01:14 PM
When I was in Netherlands I was supriced that the old folks there were mostly ectomorph. I rarely saw any fat individual above 50 years old. On the other hand the younger generations especially Some girls were actually endomorph to fat. It is not only genes But also the life-style. Thought Dutch men are also ectomorph and very tall.

I guess you got a point, about the mismatch obese girls and obese guys, the netherlands are in the low obese region, here is are the young obese percentages of Europe. Seems to be more lifestyle than genes, seen the list:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/4pb370a.09.00.png

Buxoro
08-01-2020, 01:22 PM
When I was in Netherlands I was supriced that the old folks there were mostly ectomorph. I rarely saw any fat individual above 50 years old. On the other hand the younger generations especially Some girls were actually endomorph to fat. It is not only genes But also the life-style. Thought Dutch men are also ectomorph and very tall.

Haven’t been in NL, but dutch tourist girls tend to store a good amount of fat on their thighs with wider hips, that make them appear endo while still being tallest - which is a female hormonal thing as well as males having less fat and more upper body muscle.

jdufh
08-01-2020, 01:22 PM
Always been meso and it's really easy for me to put on/lose mass. Always been a higher muscle comp than other women, even before I was a powerlifter. Trained like I had majority slow-twitch, and it turns out I do! Easy to gain strength too and my stats were competitive for the ladies in my weight-class. Ty mom ty dad

Finn
08-01-2020, 01:27 PM
When I was in Netherlands I was supriced that the old folks there were mostly ectomorph. I rarely saw any fat individual above 50 years old. On the other hand the younger generations especially Some girls were actually endomorph to fat. It is not only genes But also the life-style. Thought Dutch men are also ectomorph and very tall.

My explanation about the boy and girl fat thing is that, just like in Denmark, the Netherlands have quite liberated woman so in a student town in which I life woman drink also beer etc. And woman gain more easy fat when they have the same lifestyle as man.

But may be there is a better explanation (because within the Swedes this seems not the case).

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 01:28 PM
I guess you got a point, about the mismatch obese girls and obese guys, the netherlands are in the low obese region, here is are the young obese percentages of Europe. Seems to be more lifestyle than genes, seen the list:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/4pb370a.09.00.png

Ye in Greece you can find obese everywhere no matter the age or region. And it is because of life-style, junkfood, alcohol etc. You seeing young people meditterenean ectomorphic and they ending up with a fat belly lol because they eating all Day gyros, souvlaki and drinking beers xD.

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 01:34 PM
My explanation about the boy and girl fat thing is that, just like in Denmark, the Netherlands have quite liberated woman so in a student town in which I life woman drink also beer etc. And woman gain more easy fat when they have the same lifestyle as man.

But may be there is a better explanation (because within the Swedes this seems not the case).

The liberal fat Lady it is mostly connected with british tourist here thought. The women from Netherlands and Scandinavia have the macho-manly stereotype of being tall and in Some way very athletic. I Have seen Swedish women with muscles bigger than mines xD. I think Germanics besides their liberated life-style have good genes and if I am not mistaken you do 3 meals they Day. In Greece people eating all Day and there is Not a Specific time for dinner...lol!!!

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 01:38 PM
Haven’t been in NL, but dutch tourist girls tend to store a good amount of fat on their thighs with wider hips, that make them appear endo while still being tallest - which is a female hormonal thing as well as males having less fat and more upper body muscle.

From my trips in Netherlands I can say that fat people are actually rare to see. As I mention above it was mostly youngers and more Specific young girls. That is not the case in UK.

Riverman
08-01-2020, 02:46 PM
I guess you got a point, about the mismatch obese girls and obese guys, the netherlands are in the low obese region, here is are the young obese percentages of Europe. Seems to be more lifestyle than genes, seen the list:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/4pb370a.09.00.png

I wouldn't take those numbers literally though, because being "obese" by the BMI alone can mean quite different things. For males it can also mean they are "heavily build" with just some extra fat, if at all, whereas for the female part being truly in the obese segment by BMI almost always means a heavy fat excess. There are also ethnic differences like the lean BMI for South Asians is different, but to sum it up for Europeans, something like 25 percent female "obesity" based on BMI alone means much more than the exact same number for males. So if its 30:25 its probably equal, if its 25:25 females are already severely more obese in numbers.

jstephan
08-01-2020, 03:24 PM
For all these characteristics such has height, body structure, body fat, I believe there is always a reason to look at in the environment.

I noticed than in most countries over the globe, young people tend to get taller and slimmer over time, there are little exceptions really.

Natural selection is also influenced by environnement I believe. In the past, women were more naturally attracted by strong men because these men had to protect their family. Nowadays, it's much less the case because there is less need to protect your own family that way anymore, because we have laws for this.

Body fat was also rather an advantage in term of evolution, people with that characteristic were able to survive longer starving, but this is not really the case anymore, now you just go to the supermarket for this.

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 03:47 PM
For all these characteristics such has height, body structure, body fat, I believe there is always a reason to look at in the environment.

I noticed than in most countries over the globe, young people tend to get taller and slimmer over time, there are little exceptions really.

Natural selection is also influenced by environnement I believe. In the past, women were more naturally attracted by strong men because these men had to protect their family. Nowadays, it's much less the case because there is less need to protect your own family that way anymore, because we have laws for this.

Body fat was also rather an advantage in term of evolution, people with that characteristic were able to survive longer starving, but this is not really the case anymore, now you just go to the supermarket for this.



Correct but women are still attracted by strong men especially with strong pockets xDD :bounce::laugh:

Chatzianastasoglou
08-01-2020, 04:42 PM
Ye in Greece you can find obese everywhere no matter the age or region. And it is because of life-style, junkfood, alcohol etc. You seeing young people meditterenean ectomorphic and they ending up with a fat belly lol because they eating all Day gyros, souvlaki and drinking beers xD.
Its not only due to nutrition. Greeks are generally tending to become fat. I think it is a genetical thing, too, perhaps even in the first place. Slim people above 45 are truly rare in Greece

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 04:51 PM
Its not only due to nutrition. Greeks are generally tending to become fat. I think it is a genetical thing, too, perhaps even in the first place. Slim people above 45 are truly rare in Greece

It is because as i mention above the Greek people do not care about their appearance and their health eating/drinking all day unhealthy stuff.The only phenotype in Greece who tends to be fat even without unhealthy diet it is actually the Alpine race.I know people from my background with such a phenotype and they have been born fat and still after spending so much time in gym,sports etc,follow a diet as well.. they still remain the same endomorphic individuals.Me on the other hand eating a lot of meat and junk food,drinking a lot of alcohol with limited gym in my life and still i am 78-80kg ectomorph to mesomorph.Genes playing an important role to it but ofc you need a limit.Young Greeks are obese because they exceed it...

jstephan
08-01-2020, 05:22 PM
Wealth became the key to survive in our modern society . Most people today live in houses, can protect from cold, heat or sun wherever they live, can easily get food if they have the money, so I wonder if this has already or will impact natural selection and the way we look. There is no real need to hunt, fight or stock fat anymore. It's also possible that these characteristics become again important in the near future though.

Caius Agrippa
08-01-2020, 06:33 PM
Wealth became the key to survive in our modern society . Most people today live in houses, can protect from cold, heat or sun wherever they live, can easily get food if they have the money, so I wonder if this has already or will impact natural selection and the way we look. There is no real need to hunt, fight or stock fat anymore. It's also possible that these characteristics become again important in the near future though.

I believe in the future human beings will either be merged with machines and the body will become expendable or we will revert to pre-modern society. There are only two possibilities: extreme acceleration of current trends and the so called singularity in a type of futuristic dystopia or reversion to the hardships of pre-industrial society. I can't see this modern society going on like this for long. Maybe in 100 or 200 years from now there will be no humans anymore, but a cyborg mutant species capable of having any phenotype and physical appearence desired.

jstephan
08-01-2020, 06:38 PM
Yes and appeance, along with intellectual and physical performanceis, are going to become rather a choice than the result of a natural selection. I believe one day people will also be able to reprogram their own genome the way they want. I am not really enthusiastic with all this but this is going to become the norm at some point I guess.

Buxoro
08-01-2020, 07:33 PM
For all these characteristics such has height, body structure, body fat, I believe there is always a reason to look at in the environment.

I noticed than in most countries over the globe, young people tend to get taller and slimmer over time, there are little exceptions really.

Natural selection is also influenced by environnement I believe. In the past, women were more naturally attracted by strong men because these men had to protect their family. Nowadays, it's much less the case because there is less need to protect your own family that way anymore, because we have laws for this.

Body fat was also rather an advantage in term of evolution, people with that characteristic were able to survive longer starving, but this is not really the case anymore, now you just go to the supermarket for this.


Nowadays women tend to settle down with wealthy/socially protective/caring man but at the same time would take the chance to get pregnant by handsome and strong stud, leaving her hubby the duty to raise him with her.

jstephan
08-01-2020, 09:20 PM
Nowadays women tend to settle down with wealthy/socially protective/caring man but at the same time would take the chance to get pregnant by handsome and strong stud, leaving her hubby the duty to raise him with her.

Yes, but what is considered attractive is also something that changes and depends on environmental and social factors. Remember, not long time ago, at feudal time, being fat with milky skin was considered the must of beauty for women in European societies, now it's rather being skinny and tan. Who knows, maybe in the future having a big skull will be the must for men, means you have a bigger brain and higher chances to provide wealth to your family... Anyway, we are already over control of natural selection, so little chance to see any natural changes such as these occurring.

Johnny ola
08-01-2020, 09:34 PM
Yes, but what is considered attractive is also something that changes and depends on environmental and social factors. Remember, not long time ago, at feudal time, being fat with milky skin was considered the must of beauty for women in European societies, now it's rather being skinny and tan. Who knows, maybe in the future having a big skull will be the must for men, means you have a bigger brain and higher chances to provide wealth to your family... Anyway, we are already over control of natural selection, so little chance to see any natural changes such as these occurring.

Well, if you have Alain Delon looks things are different... :lol:

alan
08-02-2020, 01:50 PM
Lockdown has turned me into an endomorph LOL.

cvolt
08-02-2020, 01:54 PM
Thin athletic... whatever that type is

alan
08-02-2020, 02:01 PM
A lot of people are contrasting a tall athletically built northern type with smaller gracile med. types but there is definitely a third type - medium height (say about 5ft 9) but with a 47 inch barrel chest and thick boned arms like tree trunks and naturally muscular (never a day in a gym in their life) extremely powerfully strong types. In my experience people with that build are the strongest of all and the scariest LOL. I once arm wrestled a school matr built like that who was about 5-6 inches shorter than me and it was like his arms were pistons. He never went to the gym. Natural brick 'out' house. My father is law was like that in his prime too. Immensely strong barrel built. Medium height around 5ft 10 but with a barrel chest that must be around 45 inches. He was known for party trick type crazy feats of strength as a younger man of the pulling trucks and lifting absurdly heavy objects type.

Light
08-02-2020, 02:27 PM
Thin athletic... whatever that type is



https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/12/10/roger-the-kangaroo-sanctuary-alice-springs-2_custom-e0dfceba6d2665cc8cc0daa5a57eae2bcda46ad8.jpg



gotta show off a bit how strong muscular body is

jstephan
08-02-2020, 02:36 PM
Post COVID beauty contest, hopefully I don't break the rules of the forum with this ;)

38841

Light
08-02-2020, 03:01 PM
I guess so because I recognize the large bone and muscle structure, broad shoulders, of the meso's but the long limbs and endurance of the ecto's........




the human body type is basically determined by its tiny(ecto), medium(meso) or large(endo) bone type, structure and its function, when your bone is massive and it looks kinda impressive, plus your weight increases quickly within a few days means such individual is certainly an endomorph. Whether he likes or not, constantly and continuously visits the gym/fitness club or not he'll never be physically other to be look like one of the rest mentioned types. I know lots of young people who want to be taller and thin, or robust with average height which is completely meaningless.. as is often the case with teenage people, you know

Michalis Moriopoulos
08-02-2020, 04:04 PM
I'm 33 and have been an ectomorph my entire life. I'm 6'2" and 160lbs, which is the height and weight I've maintained since high school. Only 4% of American males have my BMI (20.5) apparently (https://dqydj.com/bmi-percentile-calculator-men-women-united-states/), which is not surprising given our obesity epidemic.

Regretfully, I've also eaten like shit for the past 15 years (almost daily intake of fast food, soda, and milk chocolate). That's the bachelor life for ya. I've never been able to gain weight and only do aerobic exercise. My insane metabolism left me feeling invincible until I realized last year that I was on the fast lane toward serious blood pressure problems. Since then, I've tried to eat a Mediterranean diet as often as I can.

Here's a body shot. I'm with my dad (northern Euro descent):
https://i.imgur.com/hrUxtnf.png

Revmac
08-02-2020, 04:20 PM
My BMI is 17! I’m finally in the 1st percentile in something!

Nino90
08-02-2020, 04:37 PM
I really don't know.
I am 190 cm and about 100 kg. When I was younger I was long and skinny.
A classic Ecotomorph. Now I would say I am something between Ecto and Endomorph.

Afshar
08-02-2020, 04:42 PM
I am not surprised most people on here are ectomorph. I think 99% of all scientists are the same.

Revmac
08-02-2020, 04:45 PM
I really don't know.
I am 190 cm and about 100 kg. When I was younger I was long and skinny.
A classic Ecotomorph. Now I would say I am something between Ecto and Endomorph.

Your BMI is 28.2.

Finn
08-02-2020, 04:53 PM
I really don't know.
I am 190 cm and about 100 kg. When I was younger I was long and skinny.
A classic Ecotomorph. Now I would say I am something between Ecto and Endomorph.

Recognizable Nino....

Buxoro
08-02-2020, 05:08 PM
I am not surprised most people on here are ectomorph. I think 99% of all scientists are the same.

Likely thats because most people here re northern and southern euros. I am meso-endo, ~110-115, have never been skinny got to thank my central-asian/west asian dad for that.

Afshar
08-02-2020, 05:23 PM
Likely thats because most people here re northern and southern euros. I am meso-endo, ~110-115, have never been skinny got to thank my central-asian/west asian dad for that.

That is also correct, the 1% that is not ectomorph is not of european descent :) we probably like fats too much.

Targum
08-02-2020, 05:50 PM
meso-ectomorph weight stable since adolescence

Buxoro
08-02-2020, 08:21 PM
That is also correct, the 1% that is not ectomorph is not of european descent :) we probably like fats too much.

Whenever i cook national food I just can’t get enough of it and gain some extra pounds in 1-2 days.
Cant overeat Scandinavian food tho

Nino90
08-02-2020, 08:23 PM
Your BMI is 28.2.

Hard training + Some extra body fat.

MitchellSince1893
08-02-2020, 10:03 PM
Before and after super soldier serum

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/65/07/ec/6507ec851738e3949b61a12bdf8c2eb9.jpg

Mr.G
08-02-2020, 11:14 PM
Slender athletic

cvolt
08-02-2020, 11:32 PM
Slender athletic

All natural baby :)

TuaMan
08-03-2020, 07:15 PM
The people who are calling themselves meso or endomorphs, do you guys actually know what your body composition is? Body Fat %, Lean Mass %, Bone Mineral Content/Density, etc.

jdufh
08-03-2020, 07:17 PM
The people who are calling themselves meso or endomorphs, do you guys actually know what your body composition is? Body Fat %, Lean Mass %, Bone Mineral Content/Density, etc.

According to dexa scan and ability to lose fat/gain muscle without really trying - yes.

TuaMan
08-03-2020, 07:21 PM
According to dexa scan and ability to lose fat/gain muscle without really trying - yes.

Is there some rubric out there that tells you where on the scale you fall? I.e, under 12% BF (and a certain total amount of lean mass, adjusted for height) and you're Meso, 12-18% BF you're Meso/Endo, 18%+ and you're Endo?

jdufh
08-03-2020, 07:31 PM
Is there some rubric out there that tells you where on the scale you fall? I.e, under 12% BF (and a certain total amount of lean mass, adjusted for height) and you're Meso, 12-18% BF you're Meso/Endo, 18%+ and you're Endo?

I'm not sure because you can be a certain body type and fall anywhere on the bf% scale. Just like how there are overweight mesomorphs but that doesn't make them meso-endo, they're just overweight. From my understanding, body types refer to your fat distrubution (where it's at), the type of fat, and how easily you lose it/gain muscle. Hormones have a lot to do with it too, which I guess would be dependent on your genetics. I'm only familiar with women's body types so for example, in endo women, usually their estrogen is higher than someone who's maybe a meso and ecto. And that estrogen makes their body hold more subcutaneous fat around their hips, but they also maintain muscle very easily. For overweight mesos, the body fat is generally equal subcutaneous and visceral (maybe more this) and they have it evenly distributed all over their body. I think a lot more goes into this than just looking at these very basic visuals. Too much variation. I mostly base it on hormones, ability to lose/gain and % difference in lean mass from dietary/activity changes.

Riverman
08-03-2020, 09:03 PM
I'm not sure because you can be a certain body type and fall anywhere on the bf% scale. Just like how there are overweight mesomorphs but that doesn't make them meso-endo, they're just overweight. From my understanding, body types refer to your fat distrubution (where it's at), the type of fat, and how easily you lose it/gain muscle. Hormones have a lot to do with it too, which I guess would be dependent on your genetics. I'm only familiar with women's body types so for example, in endo women, usually their estrogen is higher than someone who's maybe a meso and ecto. And that estrogen makes their body hold more subcutaneous fat around their hips, but they also maintain muscle very easily. For overweight mesos, the body fat is generally equal subcutaneous and visceral (maybe more this) and they have it evenly distributed all over their body. I think a lot more goes into this than just looking at these very basic visuals. Too much variation. I mostly base it on hormones, ability to lose/gain and % difference in lean mass from dietary/activity changes.

You are right, the fat distribution is more important than the fat percentage. The strongest build meso-endomorph can be starved to a gaunt figure and only a very small minority of ectos can not be battened, especially from a certain age on. This is also part of the explanation for what some people in this thread reported: They burn enough energy during their growth and youth, even if moving little and eating a lot of crap, but the physiology changes around 30. This is when those with a more extreme physiology split from those which are just regular ectos, because the latter will widen then and start fattening if continuing their lifestyle. And usually, if you settle down, got a job and wife, some kids, you don't move more and eat less, which explains the "dad bod" meme. Its much less about body fat than general body proportions. But these are relative to the basic regional physical variation to some degree, so what qualifies for ecto-meso-endomorph depends on the reference too. Like what's a thin-long framed build is definitely not the same for every region and population.

oz
08-04-2020, 01:46 AM
I personally don't buy into these classifications too much because it's pretty rare that anyone is an extreme example of any of these body types. Especially mesomorph, I don't know about you but I never in my life have seen a person with big muscles who looks shredded that doesn't work out and just sit on their ass all day. There are people who are naturally more skinny and lean and the opposite the ones who gain weight a lot easier. Some people do gain and store more fat and some less. I guess it has to do with metabolism and perhaps hormones. Some people do gain muscle more than average and some less than average if they work out. Nevertheless you're still never going to see someone with huge bodybuilder type of muscles without roids and special supplements and lots of lifting. Even the most genetically gifted mass monster bodybuilders will not look big and muscular if they stop working out, they will look out of shape. Either have a "dad bod" or just look like an average guy.

However genetics do play a role in bone structure and various slight differences in physical anatomy. Also the length of muscle insertions and tendons can vary from person to person and in different body parts. For example biceps and calves are the most noticeable examples of muscle length vs tendons length. That plays a significant role in the fullness of the muscle structure. Although I don't think that this has much of an effect on athleticism and strength.

Riverman
08-04-2020, 12:15 PM
I personally don't buy into these classifications too much because it's pretty rare that anyone is an extreme example of any of these body types. Especially mesomorph, I don't know about you but I never in my life have seen a person with big muscles who looks shredded that doesn't work out and just sit on their ass all day. There are people who are naturally more skinny and lean and the opposite the ones who gain weight a lot easier. Some people do gain and store more fat and some less. I guess it has to do with metabolism and perhaps hormones. Some people do gain muscle more than average and some less than average if they work out. Nevertheless you're still never going to see someone with huge bodybuilder type of muscles without roids and special supplements and lots of lifting. Even the most genetically gifted mass monster bodybuilders will not look big and muscular if they stop working out, they will look out of shape. Either have a "dad bod" or just look like an average guy.

However genetics do play a role in bone structure and various slight differences in physical anatomy. Also the length of muscle insertions and tendons can vary from person to person and in different body parts. For example biceps and calves are the most noticeable examples of muscle length vs tendons length. That plays a significant role in the fullness of the muscle structure. Although I don't think that this has much of an effect on athleticism and strength.

I agree with you Oz that most people are not 100 percent in any of these idealised categories, that's for sure, even more so as you have to actually combine it with sexual characteristics etc. However, mesomporphs are not supposed to have such a low fat percentage, they can be quite "fleshy" so to say, actually that's their normal status. Secondly you can't deduce from modern, Western urbanites, which have such different lifestyles which can alter their inherited body types so much and with their personality and individual preferences about what to eat or do having a huge impact. For proving the point you rather have to look at "naturally living people", which means country people, farmers, herders, hunters and gatherers. There you will see that the same physical types will appear, just less extreme and some exaggerations of fatness or thinness usually not at all. And its particularly pronounced among people having a similar lifestyle in a highly endogamous environment. There you can find in various parts of the world small clans or tribes which have basically the same living style, belong to the basic race and population, but form subpopulations of their own. And they can differ a lot, truly a lot, solely on genetic grounds if its about muscle mass and body fat. The same applies if you look at "old time farmer boys" from many places in Europe. One village will look more this, the other more that way. Yet if their modern descendents move to the cities, completely different environmental factors work on them, making some thinner, others fatter, the next one more muscular because of the extremes in theri lifestyle. In the past craftsmen like butchers vs. smiths vs. tailors were characteristic - remember the respective fairy tales? With some exceptions, the typical butcher, smith and tailor would have been different. And it was known that the less muscular and rather brittle, thin people more often became tailors, whereas the opposite was true for butchers and smiths. There was active and passive selection for those professions and most people knew where they fit the best.
If today some people make body shaping to their life goal, probably even taking supplements, drugs and hormons, while others don't move at all and eat 6.000 calories per day to batten themselves, of course they are not "natural" in the same way as old time farmer boys and even less so than classic farmer, herder or forager societies. This is almost the equivalent to artifical head deformation in Medieval times, just for the body. The natural growth tendency can be so utterly deformed that you can't tell it apart any more.

ThaYamamoto
08-04-2020, 03:43 PM
I'd answer but I don't know if its suttin a person can objectively apply to themselves without attaching their own ideal(s). I always thought I was a pure-meso until I was old enough to notice true pure-mesos when I'd visit parts of Western Kenya [Nyanza]. Also Egyptians and Senegambians over the years. I've had Senegambian guys tap me on the shoulder thinking I'm their own from the back, but that's prolly just my (hyper)brachyskelia throwing em off lol...Imma just say i'm endo since lockdown.

alan
08-18-2020, 06:00 PM
Surely a more important characteristic is actual bone size and structure - like shoulder/chest measurement, circumference of your leg and arm bones etc. Fat and muscle is just too influenced by diet, lifestyle etc.
I definitely see variation of structure in people that is clearly down to the bone. Chest and shoulder measurements for example seem to largely be down to bone except in extreme cases of body building or being obese.

oz
08-19-2020, 07:50 AM
I agree with you Oz that most people are not 100 percent in any of these idealised categories, that's for sure, even more so as you have to actually combine it with sexual characteristics etc. However, mesomporphs are not supposed to have such a low fat percentage, they can be quite "fleshy" so to say, actually that's their normal status. Secondly you can't deduce from modern, Western urbanites, which have such different lifestyles which can alter their inherited body types so much and with their personality and individual preferences about what to eat or do having a huge impact. For proving the point you rather have to look at "naturally living people", which means country people, farmers, herders, hunters and gatherers. There you will see that the same physical types will appear, just less extreme and some exaggerations of fatness or thinness usually not at all. And its particularly pronounced among people having a similar lifestyle in a highly endogamous environment. There you can find in various parts of the world small clans or tribes which have basically the same living style, belong to the basic race and population, but form subpopulations of their own. And they can differ a lot, truly a lot, solely on genetic grounds if its about muscle mass and body fat. The same applies if you look at "old time farmer boys" from many places in Europe. One village will look more this, the other more that way. Yet if their modern descendents move to the cities, completely different environmental factors work on them, making some thinner, others fatter, the next one more muscular because of the extremes in theri lifestyle. In the past craftsmen like butchers vs. smiths vs. tailors were characteristic - remember the respective fairy tales? With some exceptions, the typical butcher, smith and tailor would have been different. And it was known that the less muscular and rather brittle, thin people more often became tailors, whereas the opposite was true for butchers and smiths. There was active and passive selection for those professions and most people knew where they fit the best.
If today some people make body shaping to their life goal, probably even taking supplements, drugs and hormons, while others don't move at all and eat 6.000 calories per day to batten themselves, of course they are not "natural" in the same way as old time farmer boys and even less so than classic farmer, herder or forager societies. This is almost the equivalent to artifical head deformation in Medieval times, just for the body. The natural growth tendency can be so utterly deformed that you can't tell it apart any more.

I'm only talking about males cuz let's face it females can't put on as much pure muscle mass and males naturally have more testosterone on average which is highly essential in muscle growth and is the hormone responsible for masculinity, while estrogen for femininity.
Speaking of modern city life I believe the modern males have a testosterone deficiency. It's visible in their physiques and attitudes. And I'm just trying to make the point that most people fall into two of these categories to a certain extent, the endomorph and ectomorph. You won't have a good mesomorph physique without physical activity like lifting weights, breaking down muscle fibers. And of course all the drugs nowadays that people use give them enhancements to achieve far beyond what's possible naturally.

Riverman
08-19-2020, 07:58 AM
You won't have a good mesomorph physique without physical activity like lifting weights

The same could be said of ectomorphs and endomorphs, because their physical appearance and effectiveness improves with an active lifestyle as well. But that's not the point about body types, some idealised version of it and probably some kind of "superman look" for an ideal ecto-mesomorph or mesomorph. The body typology is about the fundamental growth from which people start from, whether they cultivate their health and body or not. A mesomorph is a mesomorph, whether he trains to get a low body fat percentage or whether he gets thick set because he doesn't. That doesn't change his body type status.
You are right about sexual type, which can be seen independently from the basic body types. There are obviously females with a mesomorphic body too, this is not as much about muscle mass alone anyway, even though RELATIVE to ectomorphic and endomorphic females, mesomorphic females too tend to have more muscle mass as well. Not as much as their male counterparts, but more than other female body types.

dosas
08-19-2020, 08:37 AM
I am mesomorph and good at lifting.

Finn
08-19-2020, 02:41 PM
How about this, your dna portal has some nice features about the body and genetic deposition.

In my case it's says two things: a clear genetic predisposition for becoming obese and at the same time an endurance type.

Isn't endurance pointing at ectomorph?

and

Isn't obese risk pointing at endomorph?

So the result is a kind of skinny fat? ;)

Webb
08-19-2020, 02:52 PM
I am normally a meso-endo but this Corona has got me more endo-meso. I lift weights from home so it's not because of a lack of working out, but a bit higher beer consumption than normal. I went from one beer a day to two beers and sometimes a double shot of Jameson. I am probably eating a little more than normal. I was 195 pre-Corona and I am now at 205 post Corona, I am 5'10 with a very fine skeletal frame, which is hereditary. My grandfather was close to 6 feet in his prime but wore a size 8 shoe, which is small for an American. I am well muscled. I can bench press 210 a few times without a spotter, curl 40 pound dumb bells with good form and use 40 pound dumb bells for tricep skull crushers.

rms2
08-19-2020, 03:07 PM
I tend to be a mesomorph naturally, but for a while I was going endomorph due to age and inactivity.

Now I watch what I eat and make sure to try to keep my insulin levels low via intermittent fasting. I eat during an 8-hour period and will not eat during the remaining 16 hours of the day. So I am done eating each day by 19:00.

I have found Dr. Jason Fung very helpful.

rms2
08-19-2020, 03:37 PM
Check this out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrDRCpQ81GA

Kanenas
08-19-2020, 07:41 PM
My chest is naturally broad, arms and legs long with arms being naturally slender, wrists a little smaller than average with big hands, average height. I can gain muscle significantly easier than average but I can get fat easily too. I I can gain and lose weight easily.
I don't think my body looks like any of the 7 categories, though I am certainly not an ectomorph.

If the mesomorph gets fat, he would look like s***, not like the pictures.

spruithean
08-19-2020, 08:17 PM
Hmm, last I had heard somatotyping is nonsense.

alan
08-20-2020, 12:18 AM
When archaeologists and other specialists look at ancient bones and discuss how robust or gracile they are, they are obviously looking at the bone with perhaps some indications of the muscle attachments left on the bone. So, obviously some of the variation of types is bone deep.

My own impression is very robust boned people with very broad barrel chests, big shoulders etc tend to put on both muscle and fat more readily, sort of giving a muscles but with fat appearance on many as they age. In contrast is more kind of stretched out looking people with a long tall lanky build tend to put on less fat and less muscle. The final type I see is the wiry type - small boned, very lean with muscles but not bulky ones.That just my personal observation.

alan
08-20-2020, 12:27 AM
Hmm, last I had heard somatotyping is nonsense.

It does seem so to me. I do see patterns in real people but I dont recognise them from those pictures at all. Personally I think tall stretched long limbed people tend to neither put a lot of fat or muscle on. Its the square shaped medium stature people with massive barrel chests and shoulders and very heavy boned limbs that seem to me to put on both muscle and far more than others. Those people seem to me to also often have thickset heads too and no necks too LOL. Just all round massive bones and a tendency to put both fat and muscle on depending on age and lifestyle. Some of them are freakishly strong too.

Riverman
08-20-2020, 08:53 AM
It does seem so to me. I do see patterns in real people but I dont recognise them from those pictures at all. Personally I think tall stretched long limbed people tend to neither put a lot of fat or muscle on. Its the square shaped medium stature people with massive barrel chests and shoulders and very heavy boned limbs that seem to me to put on both muscle and far more than others. Those people seem to me to also often have thickset heads too and no necks too LOL. Just all round massive bones and a tendency to put both fat and muscle on depending on age and lifestyle. Some of them are freakishly strong too.

What you describe is exactly the most basic growth tendency, even though it can be refined, which various authors and theories tried. Since they based in on reality and statistical material, its real. However, a large portion of the population is not as clearly to put in one of the extreme categories, but unites different growth tendencies of body and sexual type in particular.

oz
08-20-2020, 09:16 AM
It does seem so to me. I do see patterns in real people but I dont recognise them from those pictures at all. Personally I think tall stretched long limbed people tend to neither put a lot of fat or muscle on. Its the square shaped medium stature people with massive barrel chests and shoulders and very heavy boned limbs that seem to me to put on both muscle and far more than others. Those people seem to me to also often have thickset heads too and no necks too LOL. Just all round massive bones and a tendency to put both fat and muscle on depending on age and lifestyle. Some of them are freakishly strong too.

The taller a person is the more meat it takes to fill up the frame so they tend to be lankier. But they're still the strongest and the biggest when they're big. That Icelandic guy "the mountain" is like 6'9 and is one of the strongest if not the strongest guy in the world. And the American guy I forget his name he's also around the same height, they could play centers in basketball. Pretty much all strongman competitors are over 6 feet tall.
The current strongest weightlifter in the world from Georgia is 6'6.
The linemen, the linebackers and probably most players overall in the NFL are over 6 foot and large human beings.

With professional bodybuilders the medium height frame is the most common, 5'8 - 6'0. And I think all of the Mr. Olympia winners are less than 6 feet tall besides Arnold who was 6'2.

Riverman
08-20-2020, 09:36 AM
The taller a person is the more meat it takes to fill up the frame so they tend to be lankier. But they're still the strongest and the biggest when they're big. That Icelandic guy "the mountain" is like 6'9 and is one of the strongest if not the strongest guy in the world.

Every generally healthy body type has different advantages and disadvantages, but one of the main disadvantages of a body type like that you said already, its that it needs a lot of food to be fed. That's why in the prehistorical context you see such bodies most widely spread where the investment was worth it and the protein-rich, high energy diet easy to get. Like among mammuth hunters of the steppe or fisher people which lived from a plentiful sea. Another disadvantage is that its not economic in extreme heat, but its advantageous in producing and keeping heat, unless it gets extremely cold, which can turn the trend around because of the vulnerability of long limbs. So you won't find it that often in hot climates, but rather in places like Patagonia, with people like the Selk'nam. This directly relates to dietary habits and climatic rules.
Haf■ˇr J˙lÝus Bj÷rnsson reported this diet to keep up his body the way it is, the complete list is quite interesting to read, also this comment:

If that seems like a lot to read, imagine eating all that. (For the record: Bj÷rnsson recommends you don’t try this.) He puts away nearly 6 kilograms of food—about 13 pounds—every day, including nearly a kilogram of protein. Measuring roughly, his macro balance is about 2:1:2 protein to fat to carbs, although he prioritizes protein and gets slightly more healthy fats than that ratio would imply.

https://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/thor-bjornsson-diet-what-mountain-eats-his-strongman-training/

Every big investment needs to pay off and for so much energy intake to pay off, the advantages must be big for an individual and its population to favour it, which is why such extremes are rare.

oz
08-20-2020, 09:53 AM
Every generally healthy body type has different advantages and disadvantages, but one of the main disadvantages of a body type like that you said already, its that it needs a lot of food to be fed. That's why in the prehistorical context you see such bodies most widely spread where the investment was worth it and the protein-rich, high energy diet easy to get. Like among mammuth hunters of the steppe or fisher people which lived from a plentiful sea. Another disadvantage is that its not economic in extreme heat, but its advantageous in producing and keeping heat, unless it gets extremely cold, which can turn the trend around because of the vulnerability of long limbs. So you won't find it that often in hot climates, but rather in places like Patagonia, with people like the Selk'nam. This directly relates to dietary habits and climatic rules.
Haf■ˇr J˙lÝus Bj÷rnsson reported this diet to keep up his body the way it is, the complete list is quite interesting to read, also this comment:


https://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/thor-bjornsson-diet-what-mountain-eats-his-strongman-training/

Every big investment needs to pay off and for so much energy intake to pay off, the advantages must be big for an individual and its population to favour it, which is why such extremes are rare.

His heart is probably the size of a person's head.

alan
08-20-2020, 09:40 PM
The taller a person is the more meat it takes to fill up the frame so they tend to be lankier. But they're still the strongest and the biggest when they're big. That Icelandic guy "the mountain" is like 6'9 and is one of the strongest if not the strongest guy in the world. And the American guy I forget his name he's also around the same height, they could play centers in basketball. Pretty much all strongman competitors are over 6 feet tall.
The current strongest weightlifter in the world from Georgia is 6'6.
The linemen, the linebackers and probably most players overall in the NFL are over 6 foot and large human beings.

With professional bodybuilders the medium height frame is the most common, 5'8 - 6'0. And I think all of the Mr. Olympia winners are less than 6 feet tall besides Arnold who was 6'2.

Yeah but I mean normal people who arent massively into body alteration via pumping iron etc. I think tall people tend to be loose limbed naturally. The most naturally robust people I see are not the tallest ones. They tend to be medium height but built very broad in the chest/shoulders. That down to bone structure.

oz
08-21-2020, 12:24 AM
Yeah but I mean normal people who arent massively into body alteration via pumping iron etc. I think tall people tend to be loose limbed naturally. The most naturally robust people I see are not the tallest ones. They tend to be medium height but built very broad in the chest/shoulders. That down to bone structure.

I would say medium sized people are not stronger on average than tall people, or more robust or have broader shoulders and chest. They're just simply shorter and on average have a more stocky appearance. From my experience the taller guys are always stronger than average. But of course these characteristics can vary depending on the individual regardless of height. So I don't really understand your point but we can agree to disagree.

And when I say taller guys I don't mean freakishly tall obviously, I mean up to about 6'4-ish. As I said before the longer and bigger the bones are the more food and work it takes to put muscle on those bones, which is why on average taller people tend to be leaner and shorter people fatter.

rms2
08-21-2020, 01:26 PM
Hmm, last I had heard somatotyping is nonsense.

I posted in this thread not because I adhere to some sort of theory of somatotyping, whatever it is. For me that's in the category of DGAS (don't give a sh*t). Don't care enough to read that much about it; really don't.

I was merely talking about my basic physical type and about controlling it, which I believe is a good idea.

DMXX
08-22-2020, 06:47 AM
Somatotypes remain useful insofar as rough descriptors of physical constitution (i.e. phenotype) go.

It's the assignment of a "static" character of somatotypes (alongside some of the more farfetched/unscientific/"Bro Science" beliefs) that's heavily disputed (if not falsified).

There's some degree of "somatoconversion" if certain environmental factors are accounted for, as rms2 stated. However, not everyone has the intrinsic make-up and/or the extrinsic capability to achieve it.

A previously "endomorphic" individual with, say, undiagnosed pituitary issues can "transform" into an ecto-mesomorph.

Similarly, a person who'd lived exceedingly healthily throughout young adulthood, but then did every negative environmental thing they could, may shift from a mesomorph to an endomorph.

There's some degree of "anchoring" with respect to certain qualities, such as bone size. Having said that, more of the somatotype elements than not are modifiable to some extent (f.ex. muscle fibre type, hypertrophic response, basal metabolism - although this generally depreciates with age - and fat metabolism).

Magnetic
08-22-2020, 07:02 AM
Somatotypes remain useful insofar as rough descriptors of physical constitution (i.e. phenotype) go.

It's the assignment of a "static" character of somatotypes (alongside some of the more farfetched/unscientific/"Bro Science" beliefs) that's heavily disputed (if not falsified).

There's some degree of "somatoconversion" if certain environmental factors are accounted for, as rms2 stated. However, not everyone has the intrinsic make-up and/or the extrinsic capability to achieve it.

A previously "endomorphic" individual with, say, undiagnosed pituitary issues can "transform" into an ecto-mesomorph.

Similarly, a person who'd lived exceedingly healthily throughout young adulthood, but then did every negative environmental thing they could, may shift from a mesomorph to an endomorph.

There's some degree of "anchoring" with respect to certain qualities, such as bone size. Having said that, more of the somatotype elements than not are modifiable to some extent (f.ex. muscle fibre type, hypertrophic response, basal metabolism - although this generally depreciates with age - and fat metabolism).

no thats not true . losing/gaining weight or muscle mass is not the deciding factor here . when you are an endomorph who loses fat you are still an endomorph. ....just with less fat

when you are an ectomorph who has every characteristic that fits the ectomorph type (like eating a lot without gaining much weight for example) but stuff your face non stop with huge amounts of calories and then become overweight you are just an ectomorph that is overweight

these types are vague and may seem "unscientific" but they still hold truth to a certain extent . obviously

DMXX
08-22-2020, 07:13 AM
no thats not true . losing/gaining weight or muscle mass is not the deciding factor here . when you are an endomorph who loses fat you are still an endomorph. ....just with less fat

when you are an ectomorph who has every characteristic that fits the ectomorph type (like eating a lot without gaining much weight for example) but stuff your face non stop with huge amounts of calories and then become overweight you are just an ectomorph that is overweight

these types are vague and may seem "unscientific" but they still hold truth to a certain extent . obviously

You're relaying the standard perception of somatotypes without making any significant effort to synthesise any of the information I'd provided in the post you'd quoted - Not a particularly helpful response.

It also isn't clear as to what you're disagreeing with - You concede that phenotype classification system is vague and is true to a certain extent, which is precisely my point, albeit simplified.

A narrative review article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128012826000115)reinforcing my point regarding the partially plastic nature of somatotypes.

You will not find scientific literature claiming otherwise to the above because it doesn't exist (unless it's specifically researching a particular patient demographic, like those with growth hormone resistance).

If you've acquired this "you're a meso/endo/ectomorph forever" perception from the usual sources (e.g. fitness blogs, health forums), it's time for an update.

Magnetic
08-22-2020, 07:21 AM
You're relaying the standard perception of somatotypes without making any significant effort to synthesise any of the information I'd provided in the post you'd quoted - Not a particularly helpful response.

It also isn't clear as to what you're disagreeing with - You concede that phenotype classification system is vague and is true to a certain extent, which is precisely my point, albeit simplified.

A narrative review article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128012826000115)reinforcing my point regarding the partially plastic nature of somatotypes.

You will not find scientific literature claiming otherwise to the above because it doesn't exist (unless it's specifically researching a particular patient demographic, like those with growth hormone resistance).

If you've acquired this "you're a meso/endo/ectomorph forever" perception from the usual sources (e.g. fitness blogs, health forums), it's time for an update.

so to put it simple you are agreeing with me that mesomorphs , ectomorphs , endomorphs exist ? answer this question first please before we can talk further . and the link you provided just says that humans are genetically almost identical to each other yet unique to put it simple

what I am disagreeing with you is that you say that an endomorph can turn into an ectomorph and vice versa . that is simply not true

DMXX
08-22-2020, 07:30 AM
so to put it simple you are agreeing with me that mesomorphs , ectomorphs , endomorphs exist ?


What part of this sentence implied otherwise?



You concede that phenotype classification system is vague and is true to a certain extent




what I am disagreeing with you is that you say that an endomorph can turn into an ectomorph and vice versa . that is simply not true

Refer to this paragraph in the review article:



The body type descriptions could be modulated by body composition. Certain diets, exercises, and training techniques may have a role in modulating body compositions. During starvation, an endomorph may resemble an ectomorph, while an athletic mesomorph may look like an endomorph as a result of loss of muscle, and adipose mass, or simply due to the aging process. However, certain characteristics of the somatotype cannot be changed. For example, the bone structure is a fixed characteristic, except for a few changes due to the reduction in the distance between joints due to aging or physical deformities.


This is what I had originally summarised through different words.

Again - This will be a thoroughly unproductive exchange if your response to a recent scientific summary (2018) is dismissal and a repetition of lay ideas derived from schema conceptualised in the 1940's.

Undecided as to whether that's pseudoscience, or science rejection.

Magnetic
08-22-2020, 07:38 AM
I think we both mean the same in the end

I sometimes have trouble understanding what you are writing xD

oz
08-22-2020, 09:26 AM
There is something to be said about muscle fibers thing or whatever it is, that's definitely something you're born with or not, the degree of athleticism. People can naturally be more athletic, have more explosive power and speed naturally, and some don't possess it. I'm sure you've all seen it in school growing up that some kids were more gifted athletically, they were better at sports, while some kids sucked at it. Those people are in the "ecto-mesomorph" type. And there's also the endo-mesomorph types who might be kinda fat naturally but gifted with more strength than the average person. The powerlifter/strongman types. But everyone can get stronger and more muscular and lose fat if they train and eat right. The lifestyle and the mentality are a much bigger factor than genetics.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 09:44 AM
Like I said before, to get an impression of natural variation in normal, healthy body types, just compare classical farmers, pastoralists and hunter gatherers from around the world. Sometimes even one subtribe or clan against the next to see it. What you can say though is that for example height is more strictly inheritable than the exact body type. If we look at Haf■ˇr J˙lÝus Bj÷rnsson family, its quite instructive, because not just himself, but also his father, grandfather and brothers are very tall and large boned. With his brothers: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/366761963404399509/
He is actually the shortest (!) and relatively broader build naturally. And here with his father and grandfather:
https://gossipgist.com/hafthor-bjornsson
As you can see from this and other pictures, he is going mostly in the direction of his grandfather craniofacially and by body build, in comparison to his brothers and father. Looking at his grandfather, this was a naturally strongly build person, even at his age that's quite evident. But of course, without the lifestyle, even if having the potential, he would have never turned into something like Haf■ˇr.
Another reason besides energy consumption and sometimes endurance with speed, to not select too much in this direction is the female part, becaue the sexual dimorphism in humans is not strong enough to have females like Haf■ˇr wife and males like himself that easily within a family:
https://www.legit.ng/1312415-kelsey-henson-bio-hafthor-jul-bjornssons-petite-wife.html
This means selection must go, to produce such very tall and strong males on average for a population, in the same direction for the female part, which is just less likely, because in females its less ideal. There is actually a strongest woman contest too, in which the participants have largely the same body type to compare with.

Finn
08-22-2020, 09:57 AM
Like I said before, to get an impression of natural variation in normal, healthy body types, just compare classical farmers, pastoralists and hunter gatherers from around the world. Sometimes even one subtribe or clan against the next to see it. What you can say though is that for example height is more strictly inheritable than the exact body type. If we look at Haf■ˇr J˙lÝus Bj÷rnsson family, its quite instructive, because not just himself, but also his father, grandfather and brothers are very tall and large boned. With his brothers: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/366761963404399509/
He is actually the shortest (!) and relatively broader build naturally. And here with his father and grandfather:
https://gossipgist.com/hafthor-bjornsson
As you can see from this and other pictures, he is going mostly in the direction of his grandfather craniofacially and by body build, in comparison to his brothers and father. Looking at his grandfather, this was a naturally strongly build person, even at his age that's quite evident. But of course, without the lifestyle, even if having the potential, he would have never turned into something like Haf■ˇr.
Another reason besides energy consumption and sometimes endurance with speed, to not select too much in this direction is the female part, becaue the sexual dimorphism in humans is not strong enough to have females like Haf■ˇr wife and males like himself that easily within a family:
https://www.legit.ng/1312415-kelsey-henson-bio-hafthor-jul-bjornssons-petite-wife.html
This means selection must go, to produce such very tall and strong males on average for a population, in the same direction for the female part, which is just less likely, because in females its less ideal. There is actually a strongest woman contest too, in which the participants have largely the same body type to compare with.

This puzzles me very much Riverman, I resemble those types, tall and large boned, but also very big headed (very breath and long combined ;)

Coon made a illustration of it, don't know if this is very factual, but roughly recognizable (I guess.) I wonder what the root of this phenomenon is....

https://www.mupload.nl/img/evjqaiv4y.52.54.png

Riverman
08-22-2020, 10:20 AM
The combination of a colder climate, plus hunter gatherer ancestry and protein rich diet among other things. If you look at the map, its negatively correlated to Neolithic ancestry and the time since sedentary crop farming societies became firmly established. Just compare Sardinia vs. Denmark. This is mostly related to size in all dimensions and now we know height and size is also related to steppe ancestry.
That doesnt mean the more gracile people can't build up, like Franco Columbu, one of the best friends of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was a Sardinian. Compare the two:
https://www.pinterest.es/pin/116038127878828489/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSiugkjaMD8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Qo0gKFOV8
Basically he was just the smaller version of Arnold.

Finn
08-22-2020, 11:07 AM
The combination of a colder climate, plus hunter gatherer ancestry and protein rich diet among other things. If you look at the map, its negatively correlated to Neolithic ancestry and the time since sedentary crop farming societies became firmly established. Just compare Sardinia vs. Denmark. This is mostly related to size in all dimensions and now we know height and size is also related to steppe ancestry.
That doesnt mean the more gracile people can't build up, like Franco Columbu, one of the best friends of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was a Sardinian. Compare the two:
https://www.pinterest.es/pin/116038127878828489/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSiugkjaMD8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Qo0gKFOV8
Basically he was just the smaller version of Arnold.

I can recognize that. Only the HG factor is difficult this is in in Sweden, Poland and the especially the Baltics much higher.....but are not the most dark spots on the map.
What I so recognize is the amount of Steppe ancestry.
The core of the Coonian illustration, on the North German Plain, is also the core of Single Grave Culture.
https://www.mupload.nl/img/slrwk6768.01.30.png
And later on spread by the Bell Beakers.
At the least the populations with some of the highest Steppe components like the Irish and West Norwegians are hotspots on the L+B map.
The Steppe pastoralist were 10-15 cm taller than the neolithic population (according to Kristian Kristiansen).
But may be already slightly off topic.

alan
08-22-2020, 01:52 PM
Doing weights and generally muscle building gym work was extremely rare in Ireland and the UK among the general pop when I was younger. It only seemed to start being a thing around the turn of the millennium and only really picked up in the last 10 years or so. Prior to that it seemed to me that it was a tiny group of people and they were VERY into it but considered weird. We used to laugh at this magazine in the shops called something like Body Builder and the photos of people with huge bodies and tiny looking heads LOL. I am pretty sure many were popping steroids like sweeties.

alan
08-22-2020, 02:11 PM
Re Height. One of the recent papers (not sure if it was the Irish one or another) found that (contrary to what was expected) the early population with genetic markers for great height were the WHGs (Villabruna derived types). As the achieved stature of the hunters in the west was not high, it shows the role of diet and environment was far bigger in actual stature outcomes than genetics in that period. This is no surprise to me as im about 10 inches taller than my great grandad, 7 inches taller than my grandad, 2-3 inches taller than my dad and that was largely down to a step by step generations shift from poverty to fairly comfortable.

oz
08-22-2020, 02:19 PM
Doing weights and generally muscle building gym work was extremely rare in Ireland and the UK among the general pop when I was younger. It only seemed to start being a thing around the turn of the millennium and only really picked up in the last 10 years or so. Prior to that it seemed to me that it was a tiny group of people and they were VERY into it but considered weird. We used to laugh at this magazine in the shops called something like Body Builder and the photos of people with huge bodies and tiny looking heads LOL. I am pretty sure many were popping steroids like sweeties.

Yeah the use of enhancement drugs has become popular with it. I predict that in the future everyone that goes to the gym will be on something and won't be totally natural. Why wouldn't they? If people can take a shortcut and get better results, it's a no brainer. It's only a matter of time. And with time maybe something even comes along that builds muscle and burns fat without even having to go to the gym and torture your body.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 02:23 PM
Re Height. One of the recent papers (not sure if it was the Irish one or another) found that (contrary to what was expected) the early population with genetic markers for great height were the WHGs (Villabruna derived types). As the achieved stature of the hunters in the west was not high, it shows the role of diet and environment was far bigger in actual stature outcomes than genetics in that period. This is no surprise to me as im about 10 inches taller than my great grandad, 7 inches taller than my grandad, 2-3 inches taller than my dad and that was largely down to a step by step generations shift from poverty to fairly comfortable.

The same applies to head size, it was not the Bell Beakers which had, on average, the largest headsize.

Concerning the generations, this is true to some degree, but I also know the opposite pattern from one great-granddad of mine being quite tall, but my grandparent and mother not. The reason is easy to explain, because his wife was short - so not as extreme as Haf■ˇr case, but going in the same direction. So his son was shorter, his grandchildren varied and most of the great-grandchildren vary too, with taller heights being more common again. So its not all environmental, but also inheritance pattern.

Finn
08-22-2020, 02:36 PM
The same applies to head size, it was not the Bell Beakers which had, on average, the largest headsize.


I guess they did had, see E.A. Hooton's Up from the Ape (New York, 1947). The classification descriptions are nonsense, altered, outdated, nevertheless already the first alinea is underlined by Olalde 70 years later.


In the Bronze Age, or just before the introduction of bronze, Britain
was invaded by tall, massive roundheads who seem to have come from
about the same area near the mouth of the Rhine and northwestern
Germany from which the later Anglo-Saxons sailed. Probably other
brachycephals came to England later during this period, but the custom
of cremation obscures their racial affinities. British anthropologists
have long recognized a contemporary English and Scottish type as
probably surviving from these Bronze Age invaders or as an effect of
recombination of the same subracial elements.

It is tall, heavy-boned, weighty and, in middle and advanced years,
obese. The skin is usually florid or beefy, the eyes blue or light
mixed. Sometimes, however, and especially in Shetland, and in parts of
North England, and Scotland, and Ireland, the hair and skin are dark.
The head is massive, brachycephalic and sometimes rather flattened
behind. If the high, pointed Armenoid-Dinaric brachycephaly exist in
this type, it is uncommon. Brow-ridges are heavy, malars prominent,
and the face rather broad, but not short. The nose is usually long,
wide, and convex-decidely beaky. Beard and body hair are strongly
developed.

It has ordinarily been considered an Alpine-Nordic cross, and it is
clear enough that both of these elements frequently enter into its
composition. However, the nasal convexity and occasionally flattened
occiput perhaps qualify the type more correctly as Dinaric. This is
the opinion of Coon, who points out that the blend could not have been
formed in situ in Britain because of the absence of any antecedent
Alpine type that is an essential ingredient. As a matter of fact, Coon
thinks that the brachycephlic element in the John Bull type is closer
to the ancient massive Borreby type that the supposedly reduced Alpine
derivative.

If the Dinaric theory of British Bronze Age origins is correct, the
type harks back in respect of its nasal convexity to some ultimately
Middle or Near Eastern element, much adultered and modified by
admixture with western European types. As a matter of fact, probably
some of the so-called Bronze Age types are merely crosses of later
Nordic longheaded blonds with the pure Alpines(?).

The Erteb°lle people had very sloping heads and very typical jaws. And compared to the Steppe Pastoralist they were 'little fella's' woman 154 cm, man 166 cm.....

See:
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm#Appearance

alexfritz
08-22-2020, 02:45 PM
The combination of a colder climate, plus hunter gatherer ancestry and protein rich diet among other things. If you look at the map, its negatively correlated to Neolithic ancestry and the time since sedentary crop farming societies became firmly established. Just compare Sardinia vs. Denmark. This is mostly related to size in all dimensions and now we know height and size is also related to steppe ancestry.
That doesnt mean the more gracile people can't build up, like Franco Columbu, one of the best friends of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was a Sardinian. Compare the two:
https://www.pinterest.es/pin/116038127878828489/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSiugkjaMD8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Qo0gKFOV8
Basically he was just the smaller version of Arnold.

for Sardinia inregs to map #93 it is infact a Neolithic coninuity
https://www.egadimythos.it/___MATERIE/02)%20LA%20STORIA/D-AMORE%202010-%20Grotta%20d'oriente.pdf p416 Cluster analysis on the unbiased D2 distance matrix by the UPGMA method produced a dendrogram (Figure 4A) in which the first knot is between prehistoric and recent groups with the exception of Sardinia. The more ancient branch was in turn subdivided into earlier (WEUP plus EEUP) and later prehistoric groups; with tight links between the recent Sardinians and the Neolithic sample from Liguria but as the paper on Sardinia(josephs et al) showed the various prehistoric cranial/facial forms are not dependent on foreign intrusions, as previously believed, but hence infact insitu variants https://www2.muse.it/pubblicazioni/7/26/FlorisG1994_PA26_The%20human%20population%20of%20S ardinia_IMM&OCR.pdf

the Beakers etc. craniae still looked quite different from modern N/NW Europeans

Riverman
08-22-2020, 02:46 PM
It is not clear yet from which people and in which way the Bell Beakers got their headshape and they were somewhat shorter, genetically and phenotypically, than regular early Corded Ware people or Eastern hunter gatherers. Not by much, but still not at the top for both measurements, and genetically as well as phenotypically. As to Western hunter gatherers, they seem to have had a bad spot in their late times and might have varied, I'm not up to date to the best estimates for them.

Finn
08-22-2020, 03:30 PM
It is not clear yet from which people and in which way the Bell Beakers got their headshape and they were somewhat shorter, genetically and phenotypically, than regular early Corded Ware people or Eastern hunter gatherers. Not by much, but still not at the top for both measurements, and genetically as well as phenotypically. As to Western hunter gatherers, they seem to have had a bad spot in their late times and might have varied, I'm not up to date to the best estimates for them.

@Riverman,

This is a BB Skull:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ay81ur462ed2.26.25.png

I can recommend the work of Kurt Gerhardt (1976), he has spent his life time to study the physical anthropology of the Bell Beakers.

He made clear that there is a development of the robust-dolichomorph that he finds characteristic of the West-German Corded Ware (=Single Grave like) to the most typical skull type of the Bell Beakers (their 'marker')!

This evolved from the robust dolicho (SGC) by two developments:
- brachcephaly
- hypsicephaly

....into the BB Steephead.

You see this development in type 1, by Gerhardt 1976. Long time ago but I guess his conclusions are not altered.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/oer9r53x.jpg

The 'prototype' we can already see along a Yamna woman (Shupta):
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ljlqy96o.25.39.png

Riverman
08-22-2020, 03:57 PM
I know that, but as you can see, this was, actually, a reduction in size in comparison to the earlier hunter gatherer skull shape, especially if counting primarily length : breadth. And Gerhardt wasn't that specific about how the new form came up, but rather speculated about it, while delivering more descriptive results. Basically, like in many other cases, neither the physical remains on their own, nor the genetic results on their own can completely resolve such issues, unless we have the knowledge about the genetic architecture which produces different phenotypes.
Which publication of Gerhardt are you talking about with the publication date 1976? I only know his study from 1953, like being mentioned in this recommendable paper:
https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-83400.pdf

The main problem I have with evolutions of this kind without admixture, is, that I think while possible, they usually need more time, especially to spread traits so uniformly. What made them special was not that they had such phenotypes, but that this phenotype was so dominant among them, especially the core group of the Bell Beakers.

Finn
08-22-2020, 04:14 PM
I know that, but as you can see, this was, actually, a reduction in size in comparison to the earlier hunter gatherer skull shape, especially if counting primarily length : breadth. And Gerhardt wasn't that specific about how the new form came up, but rather speculated about it, while delivering more descriptive results. Basically, like in many other cases, neither the physical remains on their own, nor the genetic results on their own can completely resolve such issues, unless we have the knowledge about the genetic architecture which produces different phenotypes.
Which publication of Gerhardt are you talking about with the publication date 1976?
The main problem I have with evolutions of this kind without admixture, is, that I think while possible, they usually need more time, especially to spread traits so uniformly. What made them special was not that they had such phenotypes, but that this phenotype was so dominant among them, especially the core group of the Bell Beakers.

It's not specific reduction in size, it brachycephaly so kind of shortening but also elongating! But it's indeed differentiated from the Erteb°lle type...Kristian Kristiansen think that Pastoralist man took TRB woman.
Gerhardt didn't knew at that time were it came from, of course. We now know that Dutch and British Beakers are and related and full of Steppe (Olalde 2018).
Davidski is very clear SGC>BB. This is presumably. The narrative of Gerhardt fits perfect in this picture.
And of course this took time but as the Pastoralist came in (2850 BC) founded the Single Grave Culture around the North Sea they had plenty of time to evolve into BB incl. BB phenotype. How and what is still enigmatic. But that the steephead phenotype is the most remarkable among them is quite clear. And that this was frequent along the Rhenish and British Beakers also!
This is the whole title:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/glockenbecher-symposion-oberried-1974/oclc/898538305

Riverman
08-22-2020, 04:39 PM
It's not specific reduction in size, it brachycephaly so kind of shortening but also elongating!

But they were shortening, that's what Gerhardt had proven with his study too.


But it's indeed differentiated from the Erteb°lle type...Kristian Kristiansen think that Pastoralist man took TRB woman.

The Corded Ware agro-pastoralists certainly took GAC and TRB women, this was the main source of the Neolithic ancestry in the later Northern populations, but the problem is, these were shorter (could fit) and usually as long or even longer headed (no fit). So if it was just local TRB people, it must have been a specific subset of these, which should have sticked out phenotypically already.

Gerhardt didn't knew at that time were it came from, of course.

He did knew that they mixed, the problem is, he too could only recognise a full package Beaker people moving out and around, mixing with locals. But he couldn't really explain from where exactly and in which exact way they came up in the first place. And, looking at all we have, we are not much better informed in this respect than he was. We now know that they were to a large degree steppe derived (was known), that they mixed with local Neolithic people (was known), and that they are on male side R1b (not known of course). But we still don't even know the exact path they took and how they developed on to the full package we see later.


We now know that Dutch and British Beakers are and related and full of Steppe (Olalde 2018).
Davidski is very clear SGC>BB. This is presumably. The narrative of Gerhardt fits perfect in this picture.

He speculated in different direction, even showed primordial specimen of which he thought they would fit into Iberia. We have more data on them then ever before, but there is still a lot to explore.


And of course this took time but as the Pastoralist came in (2850 BC) founded the Single Grave Culture around the North Sea they had plenty of time to evolve into BB incl. BB phenotype.

I wouldn't say that's plenty of time for such a clear cut in physical appearance. To explore the mechanisms behind it, from mixture, to isolation, selection and up to possible lifestyle and artificial changes, a lot can be still explored.


How and what is still enigmatic. But that the steephead phenotype is the most remarkable among them is quite clear. And that this was frequent along the Rhenish and British Beakers also!
This is the whole title:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/glockenbecher-symposion-oberried-1974/oclc/898538305

Thank you. Unfortunately it is not available online. Do you have it?

Finn
08-22-2020, 04:40 PM
I know that, but as you can see, this was, actually, a reduction in size in comparison to the earlier hunter gatherer skull shape, especially if counting primarily length : breadth. And Gerhardt wasn't that specific about how the new form came up, but rather speculated about it, while delivering more descriptive results. Basically, like in many other cases, neither the physical remains on their own, nor the genetic results on their own can completely resolve such issues, unless we have the knowledge about the genetic architecture which produces different phenotypes.
Which publication of Gerhardt are you talking about with the publication date 1976? I only know his study from 1953, like being mentioned in this recommendable paper:
https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-83400.pdf

The main problem I have with evolutions of this kind without admixture, is, that I think while possible, they usually need more time, especially to spread traits so uniformly. What made them special was not that they had such phenotypes, but that this phenotype was so dominant among them, especially the core group of the Bell Beakers.

Kurt Gerhardt suggests in the symposium that the steephead had a kind of privileged position and/or even shamanic like.
He further states that the BB were very clannish and that this contributed to the spread of the steephead.
So it seems a severe kind of sexual selection.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 04:44 PM
Kurt Gerhardt suggests in the symposium that the steephead had a kind of privileged position and/or even shamanic like.
He further states that the BB were very clannish and that this contributed to the spread of the steephead.
So it seems a severe kind of sexual selection.

That's what I thought too, but its still a too weak explanation for me on its own, because what we see for example in the Rhenish region, is a constant influx of typical Bell Beakers, which often mix with locals, but still prototypical ones coming in. So the question is, from where? Which centre could send quite typical individuals over and over again, keep up the networks and so on. So I guess inbreeding is a major cause of this, because planoccipital headshapes might come up through endogamy much more easily and rather disappear with panmixture. But then again I see it being best explained by mixture with a specific regional pre-Corded Ware people, followed by relative isolation and therefore endogamy. Question is, which population did they mix with, from which they got part of the make up, and where was all this happening.
I think the best route to an explanation will be to find the original R1b-Beaker clans in combination with cultural and physical traits of importance for the category.

Finn
08-22-2020, 04:56 PM
That's what I thought too, but its still a too weak explanation for me on its own, because what we see for example in the Rhenish region, is a constant influx of typical Bell Beakers, which often mix with locals, but still prototypical ones coming in. So the question is, from where? Which centre could send quite typical individuals over and over again, keep up the networks and so on. So I guess inbreeding is a major cause of this, because planoccipital headshapes might come up through endogamy much more easily and rather disappear with panmixture. But then again I see it being best explained by mixture with a specific regional pre-Corded Ware people, followed by relative isolation and therefore endogamy. Question is, which population did they mix with, from which they got part of the make up, and where was all this happening.
I think the best route to an explanation will be to find the original R1b-Beaker clans in combination with cultural and physical traits of importance for the category.

The neolithic people of the NE Dutch and NW German were specific indeed: TRB West.

Bell Beakers:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/32zzrpj.png


See:
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

Finn
08-22-2020, 05:01 PM
But they were shortening, that's what Gerhardt had proven with his study too.
Thank you. Unfortunately it is not available online. Do you have it?

You mean (my language thing I'm not a native speaker) by shortening the posture or brachy?

Yes I have it (Library University).

Riverman
08-22-2020, 05:30 PM
You mean (my language thing I'm not a native speaker) by shortening the posture or brachy?

I mean that the length of the skull got reduced, the breadth increased. In total the skull was not bigger at all. You can find single individuals, yes, but the average, no. If you have the title, check the tables, I don't think he will have published other measurements there than in his other publications.
For the body height we know from both old and new studies on physical remains, as well as genetic testing, that the BB were not taller than Corded Ware regulars or other steppe people, not taller than Eastern hunter gatherers were. They were fairly close to CW though, so no big difference, only a slight decrease on average, with the typical specimen being probably around similar height, but not taller.

Finn
08-22-2020, 05:48 PM
I mean that the length of the skull got reduced, the breadth increased. In total the skull was not bigger at all. You can find single individuals, yes, but the average, no. If you have the title, check the tables, I don't think he will have published other measurements there than in his other publications.
For the body height we know from both old and new studies on physical remains, as well as genetic testing, that the BB were not taller than Corded Ware regulars or other steppe people, not taller than Eastern hunter gatherers were. They were fairly close to CW though, so no big difference, only a slight decrease on average, with the typical specimen being probably around similar height, but not taller.

Weren' t they hypsicranic? I guess that's the clue for the Beaker steephead brachy + hypsi (so high skulled!).
That's why they get coined Dinaric.

I can scan the article....but not at office right now.

Riverman
08-22-2020, 05:57 PM
Weren' t they hypsicranic? I guess that's the clue for the Beaker steephead brachy + hypsi (so high skulled!).
That's why they get coined Dinaric.

Some were higher skulled, yes, but not all. Also, don't confuse absolute and relative measurements. In absolute measurements, they were not bigger headed, that's what I wanted to communicate. This is especially true in comparison Corded Ware and Easter hunter gatherers, where we close the circle.


I can scan the article....but not at office right now.

That would be great!

Finn
08-22-2020, 06:05 PM
Some were higher skulled, yes, but not all. Also, don't confuse absolute and relative measurements. In absolute measurements, they were not bigger headed, that's what I wanted to communicate. This is especially true in comparison Corded Ware and Easter hunter gatherers, where we close the circle.



That would be great!

No not all but the steephead combines very high skull + brachycephaly, that's core for this phenotype.

Of course Gerhardt recognizes other phenotypes along the BB, but this steephead is the 'unique marker.'....

Finn
08-22-2020, 07:22 PM
the Beakers etc. craniae still looked quite different from modern N/NW Europeans

Is this true? Just for fun I did some Dienekes cranial measurements, lay work of course, nevertheless:
Your cephalic index is: 83.8 (brachycephalic)
Your height/length index is: 74.8 (hypsicephalic)
Your height/breadth index is: 89.2 (acrocephalic)
Your facial index is: 88.1 (leptoprosopic)
Your upper facial index is: 56.3 (mesene)
Your nasal index is: 56.9 (leptorrhine)

That's kind of Beaker like!!!

(certainly because I have also a plan occiput Alex!)

Adam A
08-28-2020, 10:02 PM
Mesomorphic leaning more towards ectomorphic. I have an average height and structure and build muscle fairly easily, especially around the chest area

Thrawn
04-03-2021, 04:33 PM
Endomorph (I'm unfortunately Alpine)

Hahns
04-11-2021, 11:40 PM
Ectomorph

peloponnesian
04-13-2021, 08:08 AM
Meso-ectomorph I guess? I lose weight easily but my metabolism isn't as super high as pure ectomorphs. I have the "endurance" genotype on rs1815739 (https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs1815739) and I'm TT on the "fat gene" (https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs9939609) although I haven't had a problem putting some muscle. Maybe I can't be a body-builder but who cares :P