• Our popular and beloved forums are finally back, after being down since April 2018 due to hosting and server issues. We have now switched to a better platform, while maintenaing all data as it was before (contents and user names) . Thank you for your patience and loyalty. If you have any questions, need to report an error, or are having trouble logging in, please email us at: assyrianvoice@rogers.com

What's your body type?

What is your body type?

  • Ectomorph (slender built)

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Endomorph (meaty built)

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Mesomorph (muscular)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A combination of the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Cascade

New member
These are three body types that many of us would fall into (however, some of us CAN be a combo of these):

Ectomorph: Lean and long, often have difficulty building muscle.
Endomorph: Big with high body fat, often pear-shaped, have a high tendency to store body fat.
Mesomorph: Muscular and well-built, having a high metabolism and responsive muscle cells.

For my considerably short height, I am surprisingly the first one (as a child, I was an endomorph though :/). Ectos aren't the most attractive looking, but being "lean and long" gives the illusion of appearing taller. :p
 

Googoo

Member
Hmm, I don't know if I'm naturally muscular or, because I've always been an athlete (I did gymnastics, football and horse riding back in school). But, yeah I'm quite fit and never gain fat so easily so slender-muscular, I think.
 

Cascade

New member
Googoo said:
Hmm, I don't know if I'm naturally muscular or, because I've always been an athlete (I did gymnastics, football and horse riding back in school). But, yeah I'm quite fit and never gain fat so easily so slender-muscular, I think.
Yeah, you're probably a mix of ecto and mesomorph.

mrzurnaci said:
endomorph? mesomorph? Why are you using an archaic body type system?
Yes, they are archaic and inaccurate to a degree. I know so many ectos who become endos, and vice versa. However, there are still fat and skinny folks who look the same all their life (can't lose weight and can't gain weight, respectively) - You see, there still exists those few people who "stereotypically" fall under these body types and can never change. Let's admit this.
 
M

member 326969 Global

Guest
In terms of inherited genes, these classifications are merely that, classifications. They are quite arbitrary in their relation to inherited genes and therefore can be very misleading to a lot of people. As a result, much of what is discussed about them is pure sophistry.

They are almost akin to me classifying people into the following three groups I just made up:

Pasta-chocs: People who like pasta and chocolate.
Pasta-anti-chocs: People who like pasta but not chocolate
Anti-pasta-chocs: People who do not like pasta and chocolate.

Now, there is nothing wrong about the above classifications in themselves, but common folk will assume much from this. They will erroneously extrapolate nonsense that will quickly develop into the following kind of intellectually repulsive discourse:

Pasta-chocs are sociable and fun. They like to go out and try new things even if it's not quite something they're used to. Sometimes they can be in their own world but they they envision a better world for everyone. They will face many ups and downs throughout their life and they will befriend new people who hold different views to them.

Pasta-anti-chocs are flexible. They like to have things their way but also try to make compromises. They might not like chocolate but they can really show love and affection at certain times. Pasta-anti-chocs are likely to appreciate the small things in life that people often don't notice. They are likely to hold conflicting goals at the same time but will often come to a particular decision.

Anti-pasta-chocs: are unique. Pasta-anti-chocs are likely to face challenges that they will overcome with the help of a friend sometimes. They usually try to see things for what they are and don't like people bossing them around. They will still try to do what they think is best but at the same time, their paths will cross with others and their goals in life can change accordingly.


 
M

member 326969 Global

Guest
Also, my pasta-choc, pasta-anti-choc and anti-pasta-choc is a far superior paradigm. It exhausts all possibilities whereas the somatypes do not. Because the somatypes don't exhaust all possibilities, they trick people into thinking that they fit into one of the three. They do this in the presumption that somatoypes perfectly represent the entire expression of individuals that create society. This is kind of like thinking "ABCDE" is the only combination of letters in the English alphabet.

To be fair on the somatotypes, they do have some purpose. Their appropriate usage is very narrow though. From a Darwinsitic perspective, one might argue that they serve as three distinct typical models that can each have superior clout over the others depending on the particular circumstances. To make it relevant to us, they would then have to argue that various groups of humans have evolved towards emulating each of these clusters of characteristics. The problem is it really doesn't seem that way at all. Different groups of humans have each evolved to have specific sets of characteristics that are purely reflective of what natural selection favours which has often resulted in many groups of humans developing characteristics that do not fit the somatotype paradigm. Therefore, Smatotypes seem mostly pointless.
 

Cascade

New member
^Sharakinu, very surprised that you find somatotypes bogus (as I do). I thought that you'd be an advocate here....Lol.

Don't you think that "big boned" people (since you "believe" in that idea) can rightfully be endomorphs or mesomorphs and the "small-boned" ectos?

I don't know, but this thing seems very homogeneous to your thinking. ;)
 
Top