No, you misunderstand me completely. Of course genetic variation exists. Some people can build muscle much better than other, some are fantastic responders to cardiovascular exercise and others don't respond at all. Some find it very difficult to lose subcutaneous fat.
My point was that you cannot tell by looking at someone where their genetic disposition lies. So don't be calling me ignorant without reading my post properly.
So you can't tell by looking at LeBron James vs. Haile Gebrselassie where their general genetic disposition lies, at least in general terms? You need to have that looked at.
HardLoper wrote:
Metric miler is right, those somatotypes have led to misunderstandings and harmful false beliefs about exercise science, like how you need to diet a certain way depending on which of three body categories you permanently fall into, or how blacks and jews suck. Yes there is such a thing as fat, skinny, and muscular, beyond that is where the pseudoscience begins. We have a much better understanding of things like FT/ST fibers to explain any genetic differences between people.
Yes, plus they're HURTFUL.
Metric Miler wrote:
No, you misunderstand me completely. Of course genetic variation exists. Some people can build muscle much better than other, some are fantastic responders to cardiovascular exercise and others don't respond at all. Some find it very difficult to lose subcutaneous fat.
My point was that you cannot tell by looking at someone where their genetic disposition lies. So don't be calling me ignorant without reading my post properly.
So you basically get it but are still in denial. That's a start.
Sir Edmund Bannister wrote:
Your ignorance is profound on this topic. An endomorph isn't just an overweight person: evidence the obvious physiognomic differences between two people of the same weight, such as Bob Kennedy (endomorph) and Lopez Lamong (mesomorph).
Lomong appears more muscular because he's black. If William Herbert Sheldon were alive today, he would categorize both as an ectomorph on his scale of quackery, and then insult Lomong for being black.
Lomong IS more muscular. Kennedy is a pudgy and pasty honkey.
a&(&*soiwq490jkos wrote:
Yes. 30+ years ago my dad saw a 300 pound guy finish a 10 miler in 57:XX. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been elite at 50 or 60% of his weight.
Not possible.
I'm 5'7" and 135ish lbs at the moment. My physique is very akward because it's looks more like 150ish lbs. I have an hourglass figure, like a woman (seriously). My upper body is bulky but very short, making my arms look freakishly long. I've observed myself standing next to guys who are more like 5'10" and our hip bones start at the same place but their torsos extend 3" higher. To top it all off, I have a size 28 waist.
Metric Miler wrote:
I clearly said that overweight and underweight people obviously exist. And, of course, an overweight kid is not going to make a good marathoner, in his current state. But if he lost a few pounds and started training he might. The endomorph term suggests he is stuck as an overweight kid because he was born like it.
The terms you are using suggest that a person who is currently overweight would have trouble gaining muscle because they are an 'endomorph' and only the 'mesomorph' types can gain muscle well. Just not true. The person could easily just be lazy. A person's genetic ability to build muscle or be better at endurance events is not easily determined by looking at them.
You are an utter idiot. You might just as well say that tall people and short people "don't exist," or that blue and brown eyes "don't exist."
Yes, people are to a large extent "stuck" with different body types. When I was 6'1 and 135 pounds in 10th grade and my friend was shorter and an utter house at over 200, I promise you that it was not just because of minor differences in our diet. (And no, I wasn't running then.) IT IS BECAUSE OF GENETICS. When I did the exact same weight program as my roommate and he gained 30 pounds of muscle while I gained 5, it was not because he had better protein shakes. IT IS BECAUSE OF GENETICS.
I'm sorry if you don't like the terms ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph. If they are too "old fashioned" or you don't like that some moron once conflated them with personality, you can feel free to hop on the treadmill of euphemisms if you want to call them something else (just like you probably have with whatever you call people of various ancestries). But as categories reflecting something called reality, they very much "exist."
Sir Edmund Bannister wrote:
So you can't tell by looking at LeBron James vs. Haile Gebrselassie where their general genetic disposition lies, at least in general terms?
In Metric Miler's world, LeBron James could have been a 2:03 marathoner, or a champion sumo wrestler, if he had just trained right.
What a maroon. Watching him dance and backpedal is a laugh, at least.
great post wrote:
I'm sorry if you don't like the terms ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph. If they are too "old fashioned" or you don't like that some moron once conflated them with personality, you can feel free to hop on the treadmill of euphemisms if you want to call them something else (just like you probably have with whatever you call people of various ancestries). But as categories reflecting something called reality, they very much "exist."
Those terms are euphemisms for skinny, muscular, and fat, and they don't really represent the actual dimensions of body composition, which is why they are outdated. Everything about them has been discredited, not just the racism.
OK you all need to learn to read. I'll say it simply.
Genetic disposition ≠physical appearance.
I know a hell of a lot more about genetics than you do so don't bother trying to pretend I think everyone is the same. I clearly referred to this in an earlier post.
Metric Miler wrote:
I know a hell of a lot more about genetics than you do
I laughed so hard I almost modified some of my genes and became an ectomorph.
I'm sorry it takes this much effort for you to be educated.
Ectomorph doesn't exist as a genome type. Please, if you know, enlighten us all on what exactly an ectomorph is defined as.
Hayduke wrote:
I saw mottram a few feet away at millrose one year. other than his height that guy was about as skinny as any elite runner. pictures make runners look bigger.
He was a pseudo-mesomorph
mwwwin wrote:
a&(&*soiwq490jkos wrote:Yes. 30+ years ago my dad saw a 300 pound guy finish a 10 miler in 57:XX. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been elite at 50 or 60% of his weight.
Not possible.
His name was Kip Sumo
Metric Miler wrote:
I'm sorry it takes this much effort for you to be educated.
Ectomorph doesn't exist as a genome type. Please, if you know, enlighten us all on what exactly an ectomorph is defined as.
Sure it does. It's called Nilotic
See Asbel Kiprop.
Lol...you guys have a skewed view of normal. Pre was not a mesomorph. Just because you have some muscle and are ripped doesn't make you a mesomorph.
If he had quit running and hit the weights, you would have seen him as a mesomorph. He was "situationally skinny" as most top mesomorphic runners are. Within a few months of quitting running due to an injury, and hitting the weights, I put on 20 lbs of muscle. Ectomorphs don't do that. Yet even with the extra weight average people saw me as "very lean". It is as much about potential tendency as it is about phenotype.
Get used to it.. wrote:
Lol...you guys have a skewed view of normal. Pre was not a mesomorph. Just because you have some muscle and are ripped doesn't make you a mesomorph.
Get used to it.. wrote:
Lol...you guys have a skewed view of normal. Pre was not a mesomorph. Just because you have some muscle and are ripped doesn't make you a mesomorph.
Well he wasn't an ectomorph or an endomorph so what else could he be?