Male body types can help hone what diet and exercise you need
There is no universal diet or exercise program.
- In the 1940s, William Herbert Sheldon, Jr. invented somatotypes to differentiate male bodies.
- Understanding your physical composition can help you choose a workout plan and diet.
- There is variation between heights and muscle composition, so fine-tuning is necessary.
Yesterday morning I was discussing body types with my workout partner. I mentioned what it would take for me to put on mass—quite a lot. At 6'3", I've weighed roughly 175 pounds for 25 years. In somatotype terminology, I'm a classic ectomorph: tall and ropey, with broad shoulders (fortunately) and thin legs (unfortunately). My friend is a standard mesomorph, so it's easier for him to put on mass, though a double-edge sword as that mass can go to his center if he's not mindful of his diet.
Psychologist William Herbert Sheldon, Jr. dreamed up somatotypes in the 1940s to differentiate male body types. He also stereotyped each somatotype with psychological qualities that didn't reflect reality in any way, making him a minor laughing stock on the psychology scene. Yet his body typing system remains influential, and for good reason: look around.
With so much emphasis on female bodies in the media, we sometimes forget that males have body issues too. Given the number of men I regularly see pulling up their shirts to stare at their abs in the gym, how they look is of utmost importance. And if they want to optimize their workout and diet, each one has to come to terms with their genetics.
Endomorphs are short and stocky, making it easy for them to put on muscle yet challenging to keep off fat. Mesomorphs are the average of averages, in the 5'9" to 6'0" range that can be bulkier or leaner. Finally, ectomorphs are the gangliest of the bunch, though, as with all types, categorization is not destiny; we can bulk up with some work or tone with plenty of lean muscle.
Within each type, Sheldon scored on a one-to-seven scale; it's quite possible to be short and thin (like many world-class marathon runners) or tall and bulky (NBA and NFL players). Understanding what you're best suited (or not suited) for helps you devise a plan of action.
According to the trio at Bony to Beastly, short guys are built to throw weights around: lift them above your head, push them away from you, swing them in circles. Denser bone structure supports higher loads, as in bench pressing and squatting. By design, weights are to your advantage, with shorter lever lengths and explosive force coming from thicker musculature:
An endomorph's muscles respond well to lifting too. According to the research of Dr. Casey Butts, guys with thicker bones are able to build muscle far more easily than those with narrower bones, and ultimately become far more muscular.
By contrast, cardio is tougher; the added density creates more impact force when running. Of course, this would not affect them as much when cycling or swimming, and everyone needs to get their V02 max levels in order.
On the dietary front, BTB recommends foods rich in micronutrients while low in calories. Junk food is not your friend—but really, beyond occasional satiety, when is it?
Photo: Quino AI / Unsplash
Average height has advantages, such as a tendency to be constructed with leaner middles and better muscle composition. They're also more coordinated than guys shorter or taller then them. As can be expected, recommended workouts and diet is, well, average. You can pretty much go anywhere with it.
If they want to get leaner, they'll want to eat more like an endomorph, but may need to be more wary of losing muscle mass. If they want to get stronger, they'll want to eat more like an ectomorph, but may need to be more wary of gaining fat.
Common sense. They also recommend a 40-30-30 macronutrient guideline, which is the basis of The Zone diet, and where did Barry Sears get us? The problem with diets in general tend to be less on what food we're consuming and more on what time (and how often) we're eating. The median timeline for the majority of Americans is 14.75 hours, meaning they eat pretty much from waking to sleeping. That is not a good approach for any type. Of all the types, however, mesomorphs seem most flexible.
Apparently, however, the tallest among us have the least problems keeping weight off—though, as BTB notes, there are plenty of overweight taller people. They advocate for 50-60 percent of calories from carbs, though as I've written about extensively, lowering my carb intake cleared up many long-standing problems. I'm not a fan of gorging junk food, the following makes a bit of sense, given how many shorter people I've known that eat very little and still cannot lose weight:
Because of our smaller appetites, rampaging metabolisms, higher carb tolerance, and higher calorie tolerance, we don't need to focus as much on restricting junk food as the other body types. It helps to think about eating more good stuff, not less bad stuff. Otherwise, it's going to be too hard eat enough to grow bigger, stronger muscles and denser, sturdier bones.
Finally, workouts: big cardio fans they are. Again, you have to look big picture—longer lever lengths make joints less stable. I've torn my labrum a few times and have had one knee surgery thanks to running. I generally stick to cycling and HIIT now, along with rowing and the assault bike. Bulking up, well…
While our hearts are strong, our bones and muscles are not. While we can quite literally run a wildebeest into the ground, we may have quite a lot of trouble picking it up afterwards.
To be clear, strength is subjective as well. Are you strong enough to pick yourself up off the ground? Can you move objects pain-free? While a fan of throwing kettlebells around, we also need to stay focused on the goal: living a healthy life. Loading is essential for your bones and muscles, especially as you age, though it's not the final marker of health. How heavy isn't the real issue. Sometimes "some" is an appropriate response.
Yet being realistic is important. Goals are important, but if you're overly ambitious and unrealistic as to your type you're only going to be disappointed. Instead of focusing on what's not going to happen, start where you are and see what's possible. A good roadmap is handy, but it's never the territory.
- The meaning of the word 'confidence' seems obvious. But it's not the same as self-esteem.
- Confidence isn't just a feeling on your inside. It comes from taking action in the world.
- Join Big Think Edge today and learn how to achieve more confidence when and where it really matters.
- Prejudice is typically perpetrated against 'the other', i.e. a group outside our own.
- But ageism is prejudice against ourselves — at least, the people we will (hopefully!) become.
- Different generations needs to cooperate now more than ever to solve global problems.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
The team caught a glimpse of a process that takes 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
- In Italy, a team of scientists is using a highly sophisticated detector to hunt for dark matter.
- The team observed an ultra-rare particle interaction that reveals the half-life of a xenon-124 atom to be 18 sextillion years.
- The half-life of a process is how long it takes for half of the radioactive nuclei present in a sample to decay.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.