• Stop being afraid of the fat and just bulk
    19 replies, posted
I've seen this happen to many of my friends and even my lifting partner. They would go on a 2 month or even 1 month "bulk", notice small fat gains, and then presume to go on a "mini"-cut for a couple of months. Seriously? Just bulk you skinny fags and stop being afraid of the big scary fat.
I have visible abs on a bulk u mad endophags?
[QUOTE=NotMeh;31168888]I have visible abs on a bulk u mad endophags?[/QUOTE] You did not just claim to be a full blown ecto.
I cut at 2500cals i wonder if i'm ecto [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] also my wrists are 6 inches .....feelsbadman
[QUOTE=NotMeh;31169449]I cut at 2500cals i wonder if i'm ecto[/QUOTE] Has no relations to reality. If you eat 2555 and suddenly start going 2500, you will lose fat. Were you skinny, muscles visible, skinny?
yes anorexicabs visible other muscles nonexistent
somatotypes are retarded and have been debunked many many times. So please stop using those gay ass terms. You had visible abs on a bulk because you were lean to begin with and bulking sensibly doesn't really result in any significant amount of fat gain.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;31170073]somatotypes are retarded and have been debunked many many times. So please stop using those gay ass terms. You had visible abs on a bulk because you were lean to begin with and bulking sensibly doesn't really result in any significant amount of fat gain.[/QUOTE] Only one question. Where were those debunked exactly?
[QUOTE=Seith;31170113]Only one question. Where were those debunked exactly?[/QUOTE] I can't remember the exact sources where they broke down why it was retarded, but i do remember it having a very big impact on me because I had previously subscribed to the theory of somatotypes. But even logically, somatotypes are retarded if you just look at people in general. I mean you can find guys who somatotypes would've told you were endomorphs for life, and then they go lose a shit ton of weight, put on some muscle and end up like 200lbs at sub 10% bodyfat, suddenly they are supposedly mesmo-ectomorphs. Ye it's just straight up dumb. [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] Heh I just remembered the time I got into an argument with some /fit/ nerd who was convinced Zyzz had the "perfect combination of somatotype" supposedly being a meso-ecto. I was like "no you douche, he was a skinny little fuck who put on a fair amount of muscle by eating and training hard + steroids, and he still looks skinny because he has tiny woman like ribcage and you are attracted to him"
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;31170158]I can't remember the exact sources where they broke down why it was retarded, but i do remember it having a very big impact on me because I had previously subscribed to the theory of somatotypes. But even logically, somatotypes are retarded if you just look at people in general. I mean you can find guys who somatotypes would've told you were endomorphs for life, and then they go lose a shit ton of weight, put on some muscle and end up like 200lbs at sub 10% bodyfat, suddenly they are supposedly mesmo-ectomorphs. Ye it's just straight up dumb. [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] Heh I just remembered the time I got into an argument with some /fit/ nerd who was convinced Zyzz had the "perfect combination of somatotype" supposedly being a meso-ecto. I was like "no you douche, he was a skinny little fuck who put on a fair amount of muscle by eating and training hard + steroids, and he still looks skinny because he has tiny woman like ribcage and you are attracted to him"[/QUOTE] Not that retarded actually. Can't find any proof to whatever you said above. Researchers use that term still (up to year 2011) and in conjuction with a lot of studies performance related.
[QUOTE=Seith;31170610]Not that retarded actually. Can't find any proof to whatever you said above. Researchers use that term still (up to year 2011) and in conjuction with a lot of studies performance related.[/QUOTE] Some researchers also still think eating fat = bodyfat, so welp. Somatotypes make it easy to quickly classify a group of people at their current body status, but it's retarded in practice because there is much individual variance between people. Hell it wasn't even meant to be used originally as a hard and fast marker for body types, the guy who came up with it was a behavioral psychologist with no background in physiology. The example I used in my previous post is one of many. If somatotypes were an actual reality, then skinny kids would never get jacked, fat guys would forever have trouble getting and staying lean, and supposed mesomorphs would never get fat or lose muscle. However all these things routinely happen with people involved in changing their physiques. Hell I have a good friend who was a fat kid throughout all of his adolescent and teenage years, and it wasn't until he was about 21 that he lost a fair amount of weight and then through hard dieting and training he got to sub 10% bodyfat levels. Classic somatotype literature wouldve suggested this would be a mammoth task for him to accomplish let alone maintain, but the kicker? This guy thrives on large amounts of carbs, and has packed on a shitload of muscle without losing much if any definition. Hell this is a theory that was designed to pigeonhole personality types based on physical structure, if people can't already see how retarded that is let alone applying it to physiology, welp idk. The only legitimate usage for the terms in my mind is for researchers to quickly and remotely classify a group of people that may share similar traits, like high bodyfat levels or low bodyfat levels and muscle mass etc.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;31171307]Some researchers also still think eating fat = bodyfat, so welp. Somatotypes make it easy to quickly classify a group of people at their current body status, but it's retarded in practice because there is much individual variance between people. Hell it wasn't even meant to be used originally as a hard and fast marker for body types, the guy who came up with it was a behavioral psychologist with no background in physiology. The example I used in my previous post is one of many. If somatotypes were an actual reality, then skinny kids would never get jacked, fat guys would forever have trouble getting and staying lean, and supposed mesomorphs would never get fat or lose muscle. However all these things routinely happen with people involved in changing their physiques. Hell I have a good friend who was a fat kid throughout all of his adolescent and teenage years, and it wasn't until he was about 21 that he lost a fair amount of weight and then through hard dieting and training he got to sub 10% bodyfat levels. Classic somatotype literature wouldve suggested this would be a mammoth task for him to accomplish let alone maintain, but the kicker? This guy thrives on large amounts of carbs, and has packed on a shitload of muscle without losing much if any definition. Hell this is a theory that was designed to pigeonhole personality types based on physical structure, if people can't already see how retarded that is let alone applying it to physiology, welp idk. The only legitimate usage for the terms in my mind is for researchers to quickly and remotely classify a group of people that may share similar traits, like high bodyfat levels or low bodyfat levels and muscle mass etc.[/QUOTE] You're using it too loosely. I mean, I wouldn't negtate the abilitiy of one's hypertrophy if he were an ecto in comparison to a meso. Doesn't matter to me. But the thing is, you have a misconception about what is really a somatotype. It wasn't even meant to be used solely for bodybuilding. It was the other way around - using those physical traits (i.e long limbs, fingers etc etc - ectomorph) could indicate the mental being of that specific type. all 3 of those types (3 PURE types, there are 7 but obviously, unpure) are extremes. It started as something brilliant but communites such as bb.com etc, blew it out of porportions creating a massive influx of people claming to be such and such and by thus buying more useless supplements. The theory itself is correct. You're also right, but wrong in your preception of what the true use of this theory is. It wasn't meant for bodybuilding..
That's exactly what I mean however, it was never intended for bodybuilding but somehow it's ended up that way, and retards end up using it as some sort of badge (or excuse rather) for their personal problems with their physique. The original theory may carry some merit in the area of behavioral psychology where it originated from, but when I say retarded, I mean retarded when people try to apply it to physiology and bodybuilding.
lift weights, eat food, rinse and repeat why u no muscular?
JaegerMonster, when I first heard of this Somatotypes, I had understood, that it only classifies your skeleton structure. I think you've got it wrong when you had understood that you could never get "jacked" as an ecto, or lose weight as an Endo. Some have it easier than others, but not in a major scale. Hey look at this image. [img]http://www.fitnessmust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/types.jpg[/img] I've read so many articles, that clarify the reasons you gave out about why you think the Somatotype is retarded. Maybe you should take a new fresh research on the subjet again. Maybe a scientist in the past, didn't got it 100% right. But now, we did. That he was wrong on some things, doesn't make him completely wrong.
in terms of bone structure im ecto as fuck [editline]18th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NotMeh;31169449]I cut at 2500cals i wonder if i'm ecto [editline]17th July 2011[/editline] also my wrists are 6 inches .....feelsbadman[/QUOTE] thats probably why it took like 5 years for you to cut though. I could cut on that much too it would just be uncomfortably slow.
[QUOTE=AnemoneS2;31193610]JaegerMonster, when I first heard of this Somatotypes, I had understood, that it only classifies your skeleton structure. I think you've got it wrong when you had understood that you could never get "jacked" as an ecto, or lose weight as an Endo. Some have it easier than others, but not in a major scale. Hey look at this image. [img]http://www.fitnessmust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/types.jpg[/img] I've read so many articles, that clarify the reasons you gave out about why you think the Somatotype is retarded. Maybe you should take a new fresh research on the subjet again. Maybe a scientist in the past, didn't got it 100% right. But now, we did. That he was wrong on some things, doesn't make him completely wrong.[/QUOTE] It's not meant for bodybuilding How many times am I going to have to say this. Go actually research where somatotypes originated from, it was designed for the field of behavioral psychology. Even basing someone's physique or propensity for physical changes of any type on bone structure is retarded. Some dudes have large ribcages and tiny waists, some dudes have shorter arms and longer torsos etc etc.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;31193711]It's not meant for bodybuilding How many times am I going to have to say this. Go actually research where somatotypes originated from, it was designed for the field of behavioral psychology. Even basing someone's physique or propensity for physical changes of any type on bone structure is retarded. Some dudes have large ribcages and tiny waists, some dudes have shorter arms and longer torsos etc etc.[/QUOTE] I just said, it isn't important how it originated. It is used different now than from being something about behavioral psychology. I know a bodybuilder that is also a nutrilogists that is convinced of the skeleton structures can be classified. Because there are averages. [img]http://reptilis.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bodybuilder_bodytypes.jpg[/img] "Bodybuilder bodytypes" You could say the first one is an Endomorph. And the last an Ecto. It does give the illusion of a bigger person; don't get me wrong, I don't buy all the bb.com myths that were created about it. Just the dang shape. It is a fact, that each body is different and will have an unique shape. Endomorphs, do EXIST. And they aren't always fat people. But hey, just embrace whatever bodytype you are. Ugh Fp is so slow.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;31193628] thats probably why it took like 5 years for you to cut though. I could cut on that much too it would just be uncomfortably slow.[/QUOTE] nah, I initially cut at 2000cals, but was like fuk it and bumped it up to 2500 thinking that it's my maintenance. NOPE after a week I still lost a bunch of weight, then bumped up to 2800 cals. that did the trick it seems
[QUOTE=AnemoneS2;31193858]I just said, it isn't important how it originated. It is used different now than from being something about behavioral psychology. I know a bodybuilder that is also a nutrilogists that is convinced of the skeleton structures can be classified. Because there are averages. [img]http://reptilis.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bodybuilder_bodytypes.jpg[/img] "Bodybuilder bodytypes" You could say the first one is an Endomorph. And the last an Ecto. It does give the illusion of a bigger person; don't get me wrong, I don't buy all the bb.com myths that were created about it. Just the dang shape. It is a fact, that each body is different and will have an unique shape. Endomorphs, do EXIST. And they aren't always fat people. But hey, just embrace whatever bodytype you are. Ugh Fp is so slow.[/QUOTE] Uhhh no Cutler isn't an endo or whatever the fuck dumb classification someone needs to label him with he's just huge as fuck because he's about 10-15lbs heavier than Arnold was in his prime. It has nothing to do with some baseless classification. Arnold looked like an average skinny fucking kid before he got into weight lifting, complete with a tiny ribcage. His ribcage expanded as he got bigger. Frank Zane looks like that because he is about 40-50lbs lighter than Arnold, not because he's an "ectomorph". This is dumb please stop, the amount of variance between people makes these classifications useless as fuck for bodybuilding.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.