# Ectomorphs assemble!



## theo (Dec 6, 2012)

So I'm about 6"1 (185.5cms) and I weigh 152lbs (69kg).

I recently joined the army reserve and almost got rejected on the fact that my BMI is so low. My general fitness is pretty good, earlier this year I did a lot of hill running (incl steps), I Still do a fair amount of karate and I play netball once a week (pretty damn good cardio workout if you play hard).

Anyway, I'm thoroughly tired of being so skinny. I was going to start a new years resolution to gain weight and start hitting the gym (I have a free work pass), but why wait? Decided that now is better than later.

I've found this website and it looks pretty promising in terms of nutrition and general workout knowledge: Bony to Beastly &ndash; The Program

So I'm going to log a diary here along with progress pics. I'll get a before shot up later tonight.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 6, 2012)

Their claims of gaining 20-30lbs of muscle in 90 days seem a bit exaggerated and a lot of the weight gained will be water/fat... But it's never a bad idea to start eating more and training to get bigger and stronger.


----------



## Murmel (Dec 6, 2012)

6'2", or 188cm for those using a system that actually makes sense, 75kg. 
Started at around 67-68kg in the spring this year, those extra 7-8kg are definitely noticable. I'm still skinny, but I like having a slim silhouette so I'm not going to aim for more than 80 then cut.

I have a really small frame to work with, so 80kg isn't going to look all that much. I have a good hip/shoulder ratio though.


----------



## Alex6534 (Dec 6, 2012)

I'm 188cm at 74/75kg, came down from 107kg and trying to bulk up. For anyone looking to do some research on proper nutrition and good bodybuilding/strength training regimes look at Bodybuilding.com Forums - Bodybuilding And Fitness Board

Only problem for me is NO WHERE I look has basic bare bones equipment i.e bench + barbell + squat rack. It's all these fancy new isolation machines that are kinda shit for a full body workout.


----------



## SkullCrusher (Dec 6, 2012)

Where can I find the mesomorph group?


----------



## Murmel (Dec 6, 2012)

Alex6534 said:


> Only problem for me is NO WHERE I look has basic bare bones equipment i.e bench + barbell + squat rack. It's all these fancy new isolation machines that are kinda shit for a full body workout.



I have a really hard time believing there is no gym with a bench and a barbell with a squat rack in Edinburgh. It's not some small town.


----------



## Alex6534 (Dec 6, 2012)

^I put I'm in Edinburgh, but I'm in West Lothian in a tiny village  I'm an hour away from Edinburgh, otherwise I'd be set


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 6, 2012)

5'10" 140 lbs and have an extra few inches of fat on my gut to get rid of still.

I can lift anything that I ever need to lift - why do you need to be stronger?


----------



## prashanthan (Dec 8, 2012)

Check out Starting Strength mate. I did it a couple of years back when I was 5' 10" and 55kg (i.e. severely underweight). I drank 6 pints of full fat milk a day with it and ate a LOT of McDonald's (5000 - 6000 kcal a day wouldn't be an outrageous estimate), and I'd gained 20kg within 3 months. I gained a lot of fat as you'd expect, but for the most part, got very favourable comments on my physique change, and got significantly stronger. Thighs, chest and shoulders in particular blew up in size. Had tried quite a lot of things before that to gain weight, but nothing else really worked. Squats, milk and McDonald's will do the job.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

^ you went from slightly underweight to nearly overweight dude... BMI of 17 up to 24 when the healthy range is generally 18-25. For Asians you're already overweight starting at 23, noticeably increasing your risk of heart disease. 

I don't get the obsession with being overweight in men and underweight in women... 5'10" 150 lbs with low body fat is considered "ideal" according to many calculations, yet here in 'murrica most men seem to think they should be 25-50 lbs heavier than that or more for no fucking reason.


----------



## Murmel (Dec 8, 2012)

75kg at 178cm isn't overweight. Especially not if he gained some muscle on that as well. It's not close to being in the danger zone.
If he had been like 165cm, then it'd be another story.

And I'm not sure where you're getting 5'10" 150lbs being ideal for a man, that's underweight from everything I've learned.


----------



## prashanthan (Dec 8, 2012)

Solely considering BMI tells you nothing regarding body composition, so you can't use it to reasonably determine what's healthy and what isn't. Is an American football player or a heavyweight MMA fighter like Alistair Overeem obese and at significant risk of heart disease because of their 30+ BMIs? By the time I stopped my milk and McDs, I went from 8% body fat to 16% body fat (low to average levels); I don't think anybody would dispute that being moderately muscular with an average body fat level is healthier than being massively underweight.

Anyway, that's just my suggestion for the OP for gaining weight. I have a very difficult time gaining weight and this is simply what worked for me. Whether it's sports, aesthetics or whatever else, I don't think anybody should have to justify losing/gaining weight to anyone but themselves.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

18-25 BMI, i.e. the healthy range, at 5'10" is 57-79kg. No, 75kg is not overweight but it is up near the top of the range. Just like his 55kg was not severely underweight - it's a mere 2kg out of the range. My point was he didn't need to gain 20kg to be 'healthy' he only needed 2.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

How the fuck is 2kg below the normal range "massively underweight"? That's asinine.

I also really doubt any doctor would tell you that you are more healthy at 16% bf 75kg than you were at 8% and 55kg. But whatever, it's a fatass world


----------



## Murmel (Dec 8, 2012)

What's this "normal range" you're talking about? 

Edit: Obviously 55kg of pure muscle would be healthier than if he was 55kg skin and bones, and from my understanding those "ideal weight" lists are pretty hard to read because they don't specify the physical condition of the person. 57kg "ideal" could either be 57kg skinny fat or 57kg ripped.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

Easy example:

Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: BMI: About Adult BMI | DNPAO | CDC

They use a slightly smaller range at 18.5-24.9 but it's a similar deal.


----------



## Murmel (Dec 8, 2012)

Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 164 pounds

Your BMI is 21.1

Well, I'm still skinny and the majority of my weight is in muscle mass.
The problem with these calculators is that they don't take into account actual fat/muscle mass. I mean, if I were to be 210lbs ripped that thing would still say I'm overweight.

A healthy mountain of muscle isn't going to have a higher risk of heart disease than a guy equally tall but skinny-fat and 155lbs. It would probably be the skinny dude having a higher risk, unless the mountain has a lot of fat, but let's say he doesn't.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

And you would still *be* overweight... you won't carry all of the health risks that a fatty would at the same weight, but on average you will still be more likely to die than a lighter person with the same fat %.


----------



## Murmel (Dec 8, 2012)

^
How is that even remotely logic?

210lbs dude does nothing but eat clean and lift and run. 10% bf.
155lbs dude does nothing but sit at his xbox, eat chips and drink mountain dew, but he has high metabolism so he stays skinny. Also 10% bf.

I don't believe for a second it's less healithy to be big dude in that scenario.


----------



## prashanthan (Dec 8, 2012)

Who would be more likely to die, someone within the "healthy" BMI range (which is ALWAYS 18.5 to 24.9, it doesn't change) or someone below it?


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

Murmel said:


> ^
> How is that even remotely logic?
> 
> 210lbs dude does nothing but eat clean and lift and run. 10% bf.
> ...



You're not taking into account that carrying around 35% more weight and processing way more calories every day stresses the hell out of your body, as does the amount of exercise needed to keep up a physique like your first example. 

You don't think that being hard on your body is more likely to decrease lifespan than doing things in moderation?


----------



## SenorDingDong (Dec 8, 2012)

I actually have an overactive thyroid, which caused me to have many of the symptoms of being an "ectomorph." It was terribly difficult for me to gain weight, and I would go months eating 4000 calories a day and see no results, or, when I did, gaining a pound or two every few months. 

I didn't find out I had an overactive thyroid until about six or seven months ago. Since then, I've been able to work with a dietitian to create a diet that helps me maintain with my very active lifestyle. 

Currently I do parkour mainly, gymnastics a bit for form work, as well as running and extensive body weight conditioning. I eat around 4500 calories a day now, with a 40/60 high GI/low GI carb ratio (all from good sources--fruits and grains and such) and a higher amount of fats (good fats, such as flax, avacado, et cetera), as well as two 1000 calorie weight gainers a day. 

A year ago, I was 135lbs. Right now I'm a steady 150lbs. I'm 5'6", and last I got my body fat checked (last month at the doctor's office) I was just over 9%. Still not ideal body fat (I'd like to have a bit more) but I've put on some serious poundage just by going to the doctor over and over until things were figured out. I mean, I tried a million and one ways to clean eat and gain weight, and it never really worked for me until I sat down with a dietitian and they told me exactly what I needed to be taking in (less low GI carbs, contrary to what you would read most places).


All that being said, if you are a true, legitimate "ectomorph," none of these "bubbles to brawn" programs will work for you; you simply do not have the genetics to become a towering mass monster. The guy's size they showed is about as realistic as you can possibly get if you are, in fact, an "ectomorph." At my height, that's about the size (arm thickness, proportions) I am now.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

Also, WTB overactive thyroid


----------



## Murmel (Dec 8, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> You're not taking into account that carrying around 35% more weight and processing way more calories every day stresses the hell out of your body, as does the amount of exercise needed to keep up a physique like your first example.
> 
> You don't think that being hard on your body is more likely to decrease lifespan than doing things in moderation?



Yes of course it takes a lot of stress on your body. But my example wasn't moderation, it was either nothing or everything.

Most things are best in moderation, both of those I posted will fuck you up one way or another most likely.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 8, 2012)

Sure, but the vast majority of people over the age of 16 or so will never maintain 10% body fat without a halfway decent diet and some exercise - the example was not very realistic.


----------



## theo (Dec 8, 2012)

Had my body fat calculated at the gym last week and it read 6%.


----------



## Watty (Dec 9, 2012)

theo said:


> So I'm about 6"1 (185.5cms) and I weigh 152lbs (69kg).



Inb4 anyone else bitches about it; I'd almost kill to weigh a buck fifty (we're the same height). I'm definitely overweight, though it's not all that apparent just by looking at me; your weight would be a problem I'd gladly live with.

At a certain point, you just have to realize genetics has a huge influence on what your overall body shape happens to be. However, in order to help "contribute," I heard a wrestling coach in HS tell a guy to eat lots of rice after working out in order to move up to the next weight class. Apparently it worked for him...

In today's world, with today's food, being able to slam 4000 calories a day (i.e. ever closer to being "regular") and not gain anything is phenomenal, and not something you should be bummed about. Last I checked, women look at the scrawny guys as a close second to the walking muscles while the heavier fellas get the bronze, but only if they're funny.


----------



## theo (Dec 9, 2012)

Good thing I'm hilariously funny then ;P


----------



## Uncreative123 (Dec 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> 5'10" 140 lbs and have an extra few inches of fat on my gut to get rid of still.
> 
> I can lift anything that I ever need to lift - why do you need to be stronger?




You need to quit dogging on people for wanting to build strength and muscle. It's getting really old. 



Also, BMI is a WORTHLESS calculation for anything. I don't know why people put any stock into what their "BMI" is. According to their formula nearly everyone in the NFL is obese or "overly obese". 

Vernon Davis: 6'3" 250 lbs.
BMI of 31.2 right here- he's in the OBESE range:








"Vernon Davis can run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds. He can squat nearly 700 pounds. His vertical leap has been measured at 42 inches high. To put it quite simply, the 6'3", 250-pound tight end is superhuman. "

Tell me again why BMI matters?


----------



## theo (Dec 9, 2012)

super low BMI matters though.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 9, 2012)

I always thought that wrestlers were trying to _drop_ weight classes to be stronger than the competitors. The wrestling coach at my HS would kill anyone eating rice to gain weight. 

Also, I'm 5'11" 170. I used to be 150 forever, but I worked out like a madman for about 5 years and finally got big. Now I'm sure I have a higher body fat content, and am decidedly less strong, and get called "skinny" all the time. I can empathize with the OP, because in my experience girls go for average to heavy guys in America, because Americans have a skewed view of what is an appropriate weight. I would say the skinny guys are the _last_ on the list, from a girl's perspective.

Regarding BMI, doctors take muscle mass into account when using it. It's designed for the average, non-bodybuilding individual. And it was designed for the purposes of linking weight to health. NFL guys are definitely not obese, but they're also not the average person.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 9, 2012)

Uncreative123 said:


> You need to quit dogging on people for wanting to build strength and muscle. It's getting really old.



I'll quit as soon as people stop insisting that 200+ lbs is a healthy weight for someone who isn't well over 6 feet tall. 250 lbs doesn't put you in normal range unless you are 7 feet tall.

Studies correlate high BMI to early death - Why is that worthless? The studies don't exclude people who have a high muscle mass. To a certain extent, mass is mass and it causes extra stress on your body whether it is muscle or fat.

Do you have any sort of proof for your claims? Do NFL players live longer than people with similar fat percentages but who weigh less than 200 lbs?


----------



## Uncreative123 (Dec 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> I'll quit as soon as people stop insisting that 200+ lbs is a healthy weight for someone who isn't well over 6 feet tall. 250 lbs doesn't put you in normal range unless you are 7 feet tall.
> 
> Studies correlate high BMI to early death - Why is that worthless? The studies don't exclude people who have a high muscle mass. To a certain extent, mass is mass and it causes extra stress on your body whether it is muscle or fat.
> 
> Do you have any sort of proof for your claims? Do NFL players live longer than people with similar fat percentages but who weigh less than 200 lbs?





Does BMI factor in smoking, drinking, drugs, diet, or unsafe hobbies like sky-diving and cliff jumping? All of those can lead to early death too. 
BMI is not a measurement for life expectancy- it tells you whether or not it considers you, right now at this moment, to be fat or not. That's it. Even in your BMI life-prediction fantasy you can see that the whole concept is flawed as it takes a mere two factors (height/weight) into consideration. Do you honestly think that's all that matters when it comes to determining the length of a persons life?


Even all of that is beside the point since I said you were dogging on someone for wanting to gain STRENGTH/MUSCLES- not gaining weight. If you have some insecurity complex about other guys gaining muscle and strength then that's your hangup. I think you're going to have a really hard time convincing anyone that gaining a little more strength and getting in better shape is BAD for them. 
And sorry dude, but I think Vernon Davis is much, much healthier than you are.


Good luck with your future goals of living to be 1,000 years old.


----------



## Uncreative123 (Dec 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> To a certain extent, mass is mass and it causes extra stress on your body whether it is muscle or fat.



Wow, I didn't even read that carefully enough. That is an INCREDIBLY FALSE statement. 


Muscle is more dense than fat- i.e. fat takes up more space. And ultimately what you're trying to say is that a person who weighs less at the same bodyfat % WILL live longer and be healthier. So using your own logic- I guess that means a little person/dwarf will live even longer at the same bodyfat than a standard person because they weigh less.

We obviously all know that's not the case as little people often have shorter life expectancies and more health issues than a normal person. You've listed the upper cut-off weight at 200 lbs- so now where's the lower cut-off? 150lbs? 125lbs? Are you starting to see the problem with your statements? You can't just make blanket statements proclaiming somebody who weighs less at the same bodyfat will live longer. It's ridiculous and not backed by anything scientific. 


Here's some stuff you probably won't read because it talks about the dangers of FAT (and not the dangers of weight or muscles):


* The Dangers of Fat*

An estimated one in three Americans has some excess body fat; an estimated 20 percent are obese. Excess body fat is linked to major physical threats like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. (Three out of four Americans die of either heart disease or cancer each year; according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, approximately 80 percent of those deaths are associated with life-style factors, including inactivity.) 
For example, if you're obese, it takes more energy for you to breathe because your heart has to work harder to pump blood to the lungs and to the excess fat throughout the body. This increased work load can cause your heart to become enlarged and can result in high blood pressure and life-threatening erratic heartbeats. 

Obese people also tend to have high cholesterol levels, making them more prone to arteriosclerosis, a narrowing of the arteries by deposits of plaque. This becomes life-threatening when blood vessels become so narrow or blocked that vital organs like the brain, heart or kidneys are deprived of blood. Additionally, the narrowing of the blood vessels forces the heart to pump harder, and blood pressure rises. High blood pressure itself poses several health risks, including heart attack, kidney failure, and stroke. About 25 percent of all heart and blood vessel problems are associated with obesity. 

Clinical studies have found a relationship between excess body fat and the incidence of cancer. By itself, body fat is thought to be a storage place for carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) in both men and women. In women, excess body fat has been linked to a higher rate of breast and uterine cancer; in men, the threat comes from colon and prostate cancer. 

There is also a delicate balance between blood sugar, body fat, and the hormone insulin. Excess blood sugar is stored in the liver and other vital organs; when the organs are "full," the excess blood sugar is converted to fat. As fat cells themselves become full, they tend to take in less blood sugar. In some obese people, the pancreas produces more and more insulin, which the body can't use, to regulate blood sugar levels, and the whole system becomes overwhelmed. This poor regulation of blood sugar and insulin results in diabetes, a disease with long-term consequences, including heart disease, kidney failure, blindness, amputation, and death. Excess body fat is also linked to gall bladder disease, gastro-intestinal disease, sexual dysfunction, osteoarthritiis, and stroke. 

* Reducing Body Fat Reduces Disease Risk*

_The good news is that reducing body fat reduces the risk of disease_. At the University of Pittsburgh, researchers studied 159 people as they followed a weight management program. The subjects were under age 45 and 30-70 pounds overweight. Those subjects who were able to shed just 10-15 percent of their weight and keep it off during the 18-month study showed significant improvement in HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels, waist-to-hip ratio, and blood pressure.* In fact, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, body fat reduction is a more powerful modulator of cardiac structure than drug therapy. *For people with a family history of heart disease, an active lifestyle can slow or stop the process for all but those with serious genetic disorders. Studies by Dean Ornish, MD, have shown that a comprehensive intervention program that includes regular physical activity, a low-fat diet and a stress reduction program can even reverse the heart disease process. 

Evidence also shows that an active lifestyle and its help in reducing body fat is associated with a reduced risk for some types of cancers: prostate for men, breast and uterine cancers for women. (Frisch, et al 1985) 
In addition, regular physical activity and a low-fat diet are successful in treating non-insulin dependent diabetes (NIDDM); for some patients, it has reduced or eliminated the need for insulin substitutes. In general, regularly active adults have 42 percent lower risk of developing NIDDM. 
* The Answer: Healthy Eating and Physical Fitness*

But there is hope. Weight loss--of fat, not muscle--and a healthy and active lifestyle--not dieting--have been found to lower health risks and medical problems in 90 percent of overweight patients, improving their heart function, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, sleep disorders, and cholesterol levels, as well as lowering their requirements for medication, lowering the incidence and duration of hospitalization, and reducing post-operative complications eight times less likely to die from cancer than the unfit, and 53 percent less likely to die from other diseases. Fit people are also eight times less likely to die from heart disease.





After reading that are you still going to stick by your 'mass is mass' comment and believe that muscle and fat have have the same effect on the body?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 9, 2012)

Haven't read the above but I'll say this - BMI is overrated bullshit and should not be trusted. BMI does not take bone density, build, muscle mass and water weight in account.
I have a co-worker who is the same height as me and looks to be carrying around approximately the same amount of fat and muscle. He weighs more than me though mostly because he's built much heavier. I have been "blessed" with small lower legs and shoulders whereas he has always had broad shoulders. This difference gives him a higher BMI - does that mean he's less healthy than me?

Heck, even Wiki has a lot of stuff on the limitations of BMI.
Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 9, 2012)

Uncreative123 said:


> After reading that are you still going to stick by your 'mass is mass' comment and believe that muscle and fat have have the same effect on the body?



Who said they have the same effect? I said they both have an effect. Obviously taken to the other extreme it is bad too, that's why I was touting MODERATION. As in, don't beat the shit out of your body and don't carry 50+ lbs of extra weight around for no fucking reason.

Your posts say that low fat is good for health. My posts say that low weight is also good for health. Both are true and not mutually exclusive.

My conclusion from the given evidence is that the MOST healthy way is to have both low fat AND low weight. 

Note that a 150 lb person at 10% body fat is carrying around only 15 lbs of fat whereas a 250 lb person at the same percentage is carrying 25 lbs of fat - 67% more of that stuff which, according to your own information, is VERY bad for you.

Your information is all talking about total fat content, not percentage - so it is implying an even stronger statement than I was making. According to your post, the 250 lb person needs to be down to 6% body fat to be at a similar level of health to the 150 lb person at 10% fat (both carrying 15 lbs of fat).

Do you even read the things you're posting? It supports my argument, not yours.


----------



## Uncreative123 (Dec 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Who said they have the same effect?



You did. You said "mass is mass"- referring to muscle and fat. Essentially stating that they are NO different. Then you completely disregarded everything I had to say about BMI being a worthless calculation. Rather than acknowledge that (which I believe is the whole point of this discussion right now, right?) You chose to focus instead on small minute details of fat percentage. 




> Your posts say that low fat is good for health. *My posts say that low weight is also good for health.* Both are true and not mutually exclusive.


Yep, low fat- not low weight. Low weight isn't the mark for good health. 110 lbs at 6' 1" is low weight, but it certainly isn't healthy. I think you're confusing average weight/low bodyfat with low weight.



> My conclusion from the given evidence is that the MOST healthy way is to have both low fat AND low weight.


_Your conclusion_? Where did you go to medical school? How many years have you been studying the effects of low weight vs. "high" weight on a persons health? Can I read your thesis somewhere?
Can I still smoke and drink and do drugs...as long as I'm low weight and low bodyfat? The argument you're putting forth has made it quite clear that the only things that matter to enjoy a healthy lifestyle are low weight and low bodyfat. 



> Note that a 150 lb person at 10% body fat is carrying around only 15 lbs of fat whereas a 250 lb person at the same percentage is carrying 25 lbs of fat - 67% more of that stuff which, according to your own information, is VERY bad for you.
> 
> Your information is all talking about total fat content, not percentage - so it is implying an even stronger statement than I was making. According to your post, the 250 lb person needs to be down to 6% body fat to be at a similar level of health to the 150 lb person at 10% fat (both carrying 15 lbs of fat).
> 
> Do you even read the things you're posting? It supports my argument, not yours.


And a 100 lb person at 10% bodyfat has 10 lbs of bodyfat- In other words, they're immortal. Nothing I said supports your position. EXCESS fat is bad for you- you still have to have fat to live. You do understand this, right? You understand that having incredibly low bodyfat has health risks as well, right? The point of that article was to point out to you how ignorant your comment was- and that mass does not equal mass. 100 lbs of excess fat is a far greater health risk than 100 lbs of 'excess' muscle. 25 lbs of fat on a 250 lb person is not unhealthy. Not even close. And you'll never find a medical professional to say otherwise.

You've completely missed the mark on this. The point that you're trying to emphasize is that more TOTAL fat=more unhealthy. It doesn't work that way straight across the board and this is easily prooved: In a nutshell a person with 2 lbs of fat is twice as unhealthy as a person with 1 lb of body fat. And a person with 5 lbs of bodyfat is 5x as unhealthy as a person with 1 lb of bodyfat....completely neglecting the fact that all of these people are probably on their death beds as a result of anorexia/starving to death. 

You're grasping for straws. This was a BMI discussion.



BTW, Adonis- isn't your bodyfat well over 15%?


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 9, 2012)

I assumed we were already in agreement that there is a minimum amount of both fat and weight below which is unhealthy. That's why I was using 150 lbs as an example, not 75 lbs...

BMI has proven to be a useful indicator in actual medical studies. Why are you still claiming it to be worthless? You have yet to back up this claim.

Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 0... [Lancet. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

Read on about how worthless BMI is...

Why are you continuing to pull out irrelevant fucking bullshit? Smoke, drink, do drugs - Where are these involved in the discussion? If we're comparing A to fucking B, then that is THE ONLY MOTHERFUCKING THING YOU CHANGE. SAME FUCKING LIFESTYLE. 

Lay off the fucking weights and read a book.


----------



## theo (Dec 9, 2012)

So... anyway. I was going to post a beginning or before pic. Then I realised that I don't know what kind of picture I should be taking, should I be tensing or relaxed etc?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 9, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> I assumed we were already in agreement that there is a minimum amount of both fat and weight below which is unhealthy. That's why I was using 150 lbs as an example, not 75 lbs...
> 
> BMI has proven to be a useful indicator in actual medical studies. Why are you still claiming it to be worthless? You have yet to back up this claim.
> 
> ...


You seem angry. Keep in mind blood pressure can be a risk factor just like weight.
That said, could you cite where it says the studies took muscle mass in account? The only bit I found was a reference to an article (source 24) and that didn't seem very relevant. Have you read the wiki page I linked to a couple posts ago on the limitations of BMI?
I'll agree - BMI can be a decent measurement - for average individuals in a very broad sense. It however has a number of fallacies and that includes calculations for athletic individuals.

Theo, I suggest front/side/back pictures, preferably both flexed and unflexed so you can really see the changes. You could do just flexed or unflexed but just make sure that if your start pics are unflexed your post pics are too, to show the changes more accurately.


----------



## theo (Dec 9, 2012)

Cool, Thanks man. 
Feels kinda lame getting my missus to take photos haha


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 9, 2012)

UnderTheSign said:


> You seem angry. Keep in mind blood pressure can be a risk factor just like weight.
> That said, could you cite where it says the studies took muscle mass in account? The only bit I found was a reference to an article (source 24) and that didn't seem very relevant. Have you read the wiki page I linked to a couple posts ago on the limitations of BMI?
> I'll agree - BMI can be a decent measurement - for average individuals in a very broad sense. It however has a number of fallacies and that includes calculations for athletic individuals.



They did NOT take muscle mass into account, that is the point. High BMI was shown to have negative effects on average - including individuals with various levels of muscle mass.

Is it so hard to believe that carrying extra weight (and processing extra calories to support that weight) exacts some toll on the body?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 10, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> They did NOT take muscle mass into account, that is the point. High BMI was shown to have negative effects on average - including individuals with various levels of muscle mass.
> 
> Is it so hard to believe that carrying extra weight (and processing extra calories to support that weight) exacts some toll on the body?


I would've liked seeing numbers - ie. how much of the high BMI participants had high muscle mass and low body fat, and did they drag down the average, increase it or were the health risks really similar to high fat?


----------



## SenorDingDong (Dec 10, 2012)

I can't say I agree with the BMI, however you have to take in to consideration the fact that many bodybuilders, while possessing low body fat and (mostly) taking in clean calories, have the cardiovascular fitness level of old men. I've seen countless interviews with bodybuilders where the guys are breathing very heavily simply talking. If that's healthy to you, well, I have to disagree. (For those who don't know, heavy breathing is a sign of exertion, and in this case it would mean the act of simply being alive is exerting the bodybuilder, as it is to many obese men. Note that I am not simply targeting the guy in the picture posted.)


----------



## sakeido (Dec 10, 2012)

so much in this thread is just  don't pay attention to anything to do with BMI. It is a seriously flawed measurement. 

I am an ecto, only time I ever had any success gaining weight was when I ate a Baconator from Wendy's every day, post-workout if I could. iirc that burger is 900 calories on its own and rich in protein. My diet had one focus only, which was tons and tons of calories. And that worked to get me from <150 to 165, which I've been more or less stuck at for the last eight years. I started gaining weight again when I was doing heavy squats & deadlifts. Those big lifts like that break down a lot of muscles and release a lot of testosterone into your body so you'll pack on muscle all over in a hurry. I didn't want to buy all new pants, so I stopped and now just hover around 170. 

Never picked up any fat while I was at it, at all. I'm about 5'11".


----------



## Duke318 (Dec 10, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Is it so hard to believe that carrying extra weight (and processing extra calories to support that weight) exacts some toll on the body?


 
This matters how? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone just doesn't want to be small and weak? And also that is has nothing to do with insecurity, but instead an intrinsic desire and the passionate pursuit of strength? You sound super insecure discouraging people to lift weights and get big. You're just projecting your own subconcious by knocking everyone that lifts. Please, continue being mediocre and leave us alone.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 10, 2012)

Duke318 said:


> This matters how? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone just doesn't want to be small and weak? And also that is has nothing to do with insecurity, but instead an intrinsic desire and the passionate pursuit of strength? You sound super insecure discouraging people to lift weights and get big. You're just projecting your own subconcious by knocking everyone that lifts. Please, continue being mediocre and leave us alone.



Yep, I'm so insecure that I go as far as posting conclusions from actual medical studies instead of relying on unfounded claims from big strong guys on internet forums.

If you want to increase your own mortality, go right the fuck ahead. But don't come in here claiming that what you do is healthy without any facts to back it up.


----------



## sakeido (Dec 10, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Yep, I'm so insecure that I go as far as posting conclusions from actual medical studies instead of relying on unfounded claims from big strong guys on internet forums.
> 
> If you want to increase your own mortality, go right the fuck ahead. But don't come in here claiming that what you do is healthy without any facts to back it up.



Most hilarious justification I have seen so far for not working out. This is hella weak stuff man... can it, and lift some weight


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Dec 10, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Yep, I'm so insecure that I go as far as posting conclusions from actual medical studies instead of relying on unfounded claims from big strong guys on internet forums.
> 
> If you want to increase your own mortality, go right the fuck ahead. But don't come in here claiming that what you do is healthy without any facts to back it up.


Somebody's sad they've always been the skinny guy it sounds like. 
Maybe you can lift whatever you need to, but it sure is a lot easier to lift everything when you lift weights. 
I'm 16, 6' and weigh 205. My body fat is around 12%. Should i be trying to cut down to 170 when my genetics have made me this big? No. And is unhealthy to build muscle? No.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 10, 2012)

Welcome to bizzarro-world where tough-guy "u mad bro" type assertions are more relevant than peer-reviewed studies


----------



## sakeido (Dec 10, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Welcome to bizzarro-world where tough-guy "u mad bro" type assertions are more relevant than peer-reviewed studies



I'm not going to put in work to dismantle such a facile argument. 

And really, who cares about how long you will live. Quality of life over everything. If you don't like how you look right now, lift weights. Make the body you want for yourself. Stressing about what's going to happen to you when you are 70+ really isn't worth it.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Dec 10, 2012)

I'd seriously rather be strong now, than be old for 5 more years. 

And by the way, pretty sure Uncreative123 did have a study written down in one of his posts.
Umadbro?


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 10, 2012)

His stuff said that fat loss is good (without going below a certain healthy minimum).

My stuff said that weight loss is good (without going below a certain healthy minimum).

They are not contradictory statements - they are both true according to the available research. Why you guys refuse to acknowledge half of the research is beyond me...


----------



## Jakke (Dec 16, 2012)

Checking in here with 6'7" and 160lbs (roundabout), or in a logical system, 200 cm and 80 kg.

BMI would only be an accurate measurment if muscles did not weigh anything, unfortunately (for BMI) they do.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 16, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Checking in here with 6'7" and 160lbs (roundabout), or in a logical system, 200 cm and 80 kg.
> 
> BMI would only be an accurate measurment if muscles did not weigh anything, unfortunately (for BMI) they do.


Just saying, 1kg is ~2.2lbs and 80 is give or take 176lbs. If you were 160lbs (72kg-ish), I'd start getting really worried


----------



## Jakke (Dec 16, 2012)

yeah, I did a better conversion, and I'm 172lbs


----------



## Bevo (Dec 25, 2012)

I gave up on trying to put on muscle to look bigger and concentrated on putting muscle on to perform better in the sport I choose. 

Now I embrace the Ecto size body and use it to my advantage.
Hockey, I am light, fast and have killer cardio which helps me play 10 times better than anyone else in the second half.

Trail running, I don't look like a skinny marathon runner yet can go as far or further than them not to mention I can power up those hills.

Mountain biking, my lighter weight cardio and strength really helps in the trails, when I fall the muscle keeps the bones in tight so they don't pop out as easy.

I am 5'8" and a bit at 157 ish, bodyfat is pretty low, I can easily see my ribs and abs..
Bench is 140 on a bar, squat is 220 so nothing great but for a cardio guy I am allot stronger than the guys I run with..


----------



## UCBmetal (Dec 29, 2012)

Hey dudes,

Recovering/(hopefully)former skinny fucker here. Just saw this thread and figured I'd chime in on a couple of things I wish I knew when I started working at becoming less gaunt. I'm 6'2'', and thankfully moved up a few weight classes from 165 to around 195 over the last few years, keeping bf% reasonably low and consistent. Anyways, here are a couple things I've picked up along the way, and I hope they help some folks out there. If not, well shit.

1. Eat your face off. Especially right when you wake up and before you sleep. The spoonful of peanut butter even goes a long way right before bed. Also, if you're like me and have no lactose issues, non-fat milk is a god send for getting good protein intake with minimal effort. Also, IMO, eating clean is important even for us ecto's, because jack in the crack will make you feel like shit, and being lethargic is no bueno when you're trying to get a ton of calories in your system. 

2. Lift heavy and differently - big compound exercises can suck, especially when you're not making a lot of gains, but lifting 7 days a week on a crazy super muscle specific split has not been the way to go for myself and skinny fucks I know. Some of my biggest strength/size gains came when I was lifting 3x a week doing full body 5x5 workouts. While the nutrition element mentioned above is probably paramount, the next most important thing I've learned is to lift in a way that shocks your brain into thinking "holy balls what is this idiot doing to his body, if I don't release gallons of hormones right now he's going to kill himself on the squat rack." The fact of the matter is that you don't get the same growth hormone release from isolated lifts than from dl's or squats. 

Also, changing your workouts/lifts/loads/rest intervals etc is crucial. Every 3-4 weeks has been my Modus operandi for years and holy shit does it help with gains. Side benefit, especially if you're long, gangly and injury prone like me, changes in routine help ward off overtraining and injury.

3. Peak hard. This may just be me, but as a former soccer/cross country athlete, I initially found I lacked the anaerobic intensity or mindset needed to successfully go heavy at the gym. Caffeine is AWESOME for this. Black coffee is my jam at the moment, but if you've got the coin, preworkout NO drinks are awesome as well. Just make sure you hydrate enough to be pissing like a camel as well.

4. Party less. This again, is my personal observation. Even though we're skinny, I find boozing to actually hinder gains. Hangovers kill good workouts, good eating habits, and you'll be at higher risk for getting sick and injured. (No joke, tore part of my shoulder benching hungover #neveragain.

Wow that was a rant. I am fucking caffeinated as we speak actually. For any of y'all looking for a great plan, Jim stoppani's shortcut to size on Bb.com has kicked my ass, and I've put on 5 lbs over the last 8 weeks of the plan while actually losing some bf.


----------



## theo (Dec 30, 2012)

Thanks a lot for the info! Sorry for the noobishness, but what's a 5x5 workout?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 30, 2012)

theo said:


> Thanks a lot for the info! Sorry for the noobishness, but what's a 5x5 workout?


5 sets of 5 reps.


----------



## Bevo (Dec 31, 2012)

Nice post UCB, I should of had a coffee first to read as fast as you typed LOL!!


----------



## UCBmetal (Dec 31, 2012)

theo said:


> Thanks a lot for the info! Sorry for the noobishness, but what's a 5x5 workout?



Exactly, 5 sets of 5 reps. One thing I would highlight is that the program is (typically) not 5 sets at or near your 5 rep maximum. I would start at somewhere near 60% of my goal weight and move up 10% each set until you reach your goal 5 rep weight. 

I bring this up because I did the constant weight approach and really wrecked my shoulder from overtraining


----------



## soliloquy (Dec 31, 2012)

i'm not sure if i'd be considered an ectomorph. i'm 5'10 or 11, weigh in at 160-175 lbs (my weight goes up and down without trying). people say i look like bag of bones. my body fat% is a lil higher than average. gaining mass has always been a struggle for me. i just cant put on muscle.

maybe its my lack of eating. i just cant consume the tons i need to gain weight...i do gain strength so i guess thats good, but size usually doesnt...


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Jan 3, 2013)

former skinnyfat ectomorph here, currently 5'6/150-155 lbs and bulking. Lift+eat, repeat for success.


----------

