PDA

View Full Version : ectomorph goal..



frankm007
08-23-2003, 10:40 PM
retirez

mikey4402
08-23-2003, 11:11 PM
why couldnt you?

Trent_Steel
08-24-2003, 05:08 AM
120lb is very ectomorphic, how tall are you?

thetopdog
08-24-2003, 08:50 AM
I'm 5'10", 200lbs naturally @ probably abour 14-15% bf, it's definitely possible, I've only been training for 6 months and I'm an ectomorph too. Just eat more

thetopdog
08-24-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by frankm007
what was ur starting weight? age?

Last September before I started my first year of university, I weighed around 160lbs and I was 18. When I got to university this guy told me that eating an extra 500cals a day would let me gain a pound a week, so I started trying to eat more food and I ended up around 170 by February but I wasn't training on a regular basis, I probalby only went to the gym 6 times during that period of 5 months.

At the beginning of February I started to take training seriously and I didn't know what I was doing but I learned a lot from comming here. I also started taking NLarge at first once a day and after the first month I took it about twice a day (sometimes only once). The extra 1200cals and 104g's of protein REALLY helps if you're an ectomorph. Of course if you can get that extra from real food it's better, but it's not always realistic for a busy college student.

Anyways, a few weeks ago I hit 200lbs and I'm very happy with my progress. I've gained 40lbs of mostly LBM (I can still see my top 4 abs) in a year and I've only been training hard for about 6 months

Khar
08-25-2003, 01:59 PM
thetopdog: 160 @ 5'10 sounds endomorph to me...I could be wrong in your case.

bradley
08-25-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Khar
thetopdog: 160 @ 5'10 sounds endomorph to me...I could be wrong in your case.

It would be hard to judge someones somatotype from height and weight measurements alone. An endomorph will tend to have a higher bf% where as an ectomorph will have a lower bf%.

In response to the original question, I believe it is quite possible for you to reach your goal naturally, and you should research different training and dieting approaches for ectomorphs. Obvioulsy an ectomorph will have a different diet as compared to an endomorph. The type of training will be different as well.

bradley
08-25-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by frankm007
brad, ive noticed recently your focusing alot of your responses on the basis of somatotypes. Seems clear that you believe this is an effective way to approach a personalize way of training/diet. I will definitely check it out

Yes, I tend to think so. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that an ectompoph will have a low bf%, which correlates to better insulin sensitivity as opposed to someone with a higher bf%. This means that an ectomorph could tolerate more carbs in their diet, where as an endomorph would probably do better sticking with carbs centered around training and also consuming a higher fat intake.

Another thing that comes to mind is the different muscle fibers that make up our muscles. I would tend to think that an ectomorph would have more endurance oriented fibers as compared to an endo, but I would have to do more research to find out. I might be way off base on this and maybe Powerman can chime in and offer a little clarification.:)

thetopdog
08-26-2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Khar
thetopdog: 160 @ 5'10 sounds endomorph to me...I could be wrong in your case.

I'm definitely not an enomorph, if you had seen me last year you would have laughed if anybody called me an endomorph. I've always been skinny and I looked skinny but I had a fairly muscular build so that's why I weighed 160lbs. I had almost no fat on me at all even though I ate whatever I wanted, and a lot of it. I never got my bodyfat checked back then but after a few months of bulking, I was around 12% at 185 I think, so I must have been well under 10% when I started.

Even now, I haven't really had trouble gaining weight so far, but I have been taking in 1200 extra cals a day from weight gainer and basically eating everything I can stomach, and I still can see my abs so I really doubt that I'm an endomorph. Mesomorph maybe

bradley
08-26-2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by frankm007
its odd though, in the beginning..and looking back at my old pics, i would say that i am an ectomorph..but then i ate and grew...easy weight... i tend to gain and loose so easily..even if my bones are relatively small... i feel that im not necessarily an ecto..hmmm

It is possible to have characteristics from different somatotypes, and what you are describing above sounds like the charactersics usually given to mesomorphs.

Scott S
08-26-2003, 03:31 PM
Is there a way to calculate what stats one can achieve naturally based on height? Or is it too tied to individual genetics to be able to generalize?

Right now, I'm 5'8", 160@ 20%. I'm heading for a cut soon, and I'm wondering what my long-term goals should be. Does 190@10% sound reasonable?

Thanks.

bradley
08-26-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Scott S
Is there a way to calculate what stats one can achieve naturally based on height? Or is it too tied to individual genetics to be able to generalize?

I tend to think this would vary too much to give an accurate answer, and there are too many variables that would come into play. You would have to consider everything from diet and training and also genetics (family history, etc.)



Right now, I'm 5'8", 160@ 20%. I'm heading for a cut soon, and I'm wondering what my long-term goals should be. Does 190@10% sound reasonable?


Sure it sounds reasonable, but a better question would be how long will it take you to get there.;)

frankm007
08-26-2003, 04:22 PM
i found the site! the online calculators don't work but u can manually do it yourself! it's very accurate..and..the article makes a lot of sense...

http://www.smartbodybuilding.net/miscellaneous/references/maximum_measurements.htm

opinions!!

Scott S
08-26-2003, 05:41 PM
Thanks for the site! Very informative... I was sure somebody out there had studied this to see if these things could be predicted mathematically.

As for me, I took some measurements:

Height: 68"
Wrist: 6 5/8"
Ankle: 8 3/4"

Maximum size at 8% bodyfat: 182.5 lbs.

Wow, at first I was disappointed because I kept measuring my wrist and ankle too small. (My first estimate was 171.5 @ 8%) However, 182.5 @ 8% isn't bad at all. Now it's up to me to achieve it! :D:D:D

Scott S
08-27-2003, 12:33 PM
Not like anyone is interested, but I did some more calculations. Due to my smaller (I guess) frame, my theoretical maxes go like this:

Arms: 15.75"
Calves: 15"
Forearms: 12.6"

A little disappointing that I most likely won't be able to reach 16" arms, and that my calves only have another inch to grow. Oh well, them's the breaks.

*shrugs

frankm007
08-27-2003, 01:56 PM
u can still grow more u know, my arms are to grow to 16.8 according to the calculations but ive managed to get them to 16.10... :)

WillKuenzel
08-27-2003, 02:04 PM
I was going to say that's all pretty much boogus stuff. My freshman year in high school I was 115lbs @ 5'9".

I'm 189lbs @ 5'10" with a bf% around 6%. My arms are well over 16.5" with calves close to 16". After this little cutting cycle I plan to get quite a bit over those marks. I'm "unassisted" at the moment as well. Those are supposed limits but its not like you can't get larger than that with a good diet and the proper training. It might just take getting a tad more focused and concentration but its possible.

frankm007
08-27-2003, 02:12 PM
i wouldn't say bogus... they make some sense..and the math is there... these are just goals we can set ourselves too..and remember, this is for a proportional look... sure u might get ur arms bigger, or calves, or chest..but will every body part grow equally beyond those set goals... i guess we must wait and see... i'd rather have proportion than just maximum size in random places...

WillKuenzel
08-27-2003, 02:17 PM
I'm not saying just random areas. I'm saying total overall size. I'm sure there has to be a genetic limit but I don't think the equations are going to find it. They might be close but that doesn't mean you can't go beyond them. Don't let those numbers limit what you think you can do. That's all I'm saying.

frankm007
08-27-2003, 03:04 PM
ohh no, of course not..mentally u want to push urself..but u look at the graph of drug free athletes and the predicted calculations and without a doubt, its there...

i take this from them;
-------------------

QUESTION: Are these formulae saying that I can never exceed the predictions?

ANSWER: No. Not at all. What you can conclude from the formulae is this:

The formulae predict the maximum balanced measurements that a person is likely to achieve, but it certainly is possible that people will have genetically gifted bodyparts that can surpass the predictions when those people reach the advanced stages. They may also surpass the predicted values for certain body parts by specializing, inappropriately, on those bodyparts. You could, for instance, specialize on your arms and get them larger than the predictioned measurement, but it's very unlikely that the rest of your physique, as a whole, will reach that standard.

So the formulae predict the largest measurements you are likely to achieve throughout your entire body. It's a set of full body measurements that you'd need to achieve to be on an equal footing, size-wise, with the greats of the drug-free era. Of course, I'm not saying that no one can surpass that, but to put it in perspective, you'd need to be carrying more muscle (with respect to your skeletal frame size) than a prime Reg Park in order to do it.

---------
also...

QUESTION: I already exceed some of those predictions and I'm not near the limits of my genetic potential. What do you say to that?

ANSWER: Well, like I said, some people will have bodyparts that will exceed these predictions. But before you get carried away, did you measure yourself properly? For instance if you sucked in a big mouthful of air and flexed your lats then your chest measurement will be much bigger than if you took the measurement properly. Same thing goes for all the other body parts also. Read the first Q & A in this section and make sure you take your measurements as indicated.

Are you at about 8% body fat? Those measurement predictions are for somebody in contest shape (for the pre-drug era). That's pretty lean. If you're not that lean then it's quite easy to exceed the predictions. For example, do you really think if your thighs are "fat" now that you wouldn't lose significant size off them if you dieted down to ~8% body fat? You have to compare apples to apples if you want these predictions to mean anything.

A lot of people overlook the body fat issue and then say that they are bigger than the measurements predict. A few percent change in body fat can make a big difference when you get down in the low body fat ranges. For instance, Reg Park competed with 18.5" arms in 1951. A short while after the competition, when he was just 10 lbs heavier (largely gaining back the fluid he had lost in the last days before the show), his arms were up to 19".

For many people the biggest "muscular" loss when getting down to contest shape is thigh size. It isn't unusual for people to lose several inches off the thighs when trying to get them ripped. Even people who are already fairly lean can lose that much. But, of course, there are always exceptions.

Calves are very much genetically governed. They're, by far, the hardest body part to get an accurate fit of data for. If you are lucky in the calf department then you can probably exceed the calf prediction without ever even training calfs (I do), but if you're not lucky then you've got a lot of hard work ahead of you.

With all that said, there probably is the odd person who can surpass these predictions. If you're one of them then you're a lucky man. Take a look at John Grimek or Reg Park at their peaks - you're going to be bigger than them. To put that into perspective, go to a few natural Bodybuilding shows. In all the years I've been following the Iron Game I've never seen a truly drug-free, contest-condition Bodybuilder that was bigger (and certainly not stronger) than Reg Park in the early 1950s.

frankm007
08-27-2003, 03:06 PM
that's VERY true... if u arent at 8% body fat... then anyone can be way over these predictions...

Scott S
08-27-2003, 03:37 PM
Don't get me wrong... I'm not discouraged now. If anything, I'm pumped, because now I have goals I know I can accomplish. I don't *have* to beat myself up if my biceps never get to 18", or my calves to 17" or whatever.

I'm sure I'll look good once I've fulfilled my genetic potential, regardless of how the numbers end up. :D

WillKuenzel
08-28-2003, 10:08 AM
I still am very doubtful about this. If you're saying its genetic that you can only reach a certain size then steriods shouldn't matter. They don't alter your genetic makeup so why then are they able to continue growing. Does your body just quit working so it won't get any bigger?

I'm sure the body likes to have a happy medium but (if still training naturally) I don't see why if you can't grow if you aren't still training right and eating right. Progress can slow down but it doesn't have to stop.

I'd also be alot more inclined to agree if there were more studies other than just this guy's opinion. I'll see if I can find some one way or the other.

Scott S
08-28-2003, 12:00 PM
Interesting points, Homeyield. Chris Mason has mentioned that the human body can carry more muscle if the bodyfat % isn't very low.

baldguy
08-29-2003, 04:54 PM
Apparently I have some chest work to do! It says my chest can be 55.2 inches, and I'm only at 50 inches. Actually, that's good because I can actually get shirts to fit.