Body types

D

domesticated om

Stickler for details
Valued Senior Member
I forget which exact year I visited the Smithsonian institute -- it was sometime in the early 90s-- but I remember seeing an exhibit displaying the different "human somatypes". Ever since then, I was under the impression they simply represented classifications for the human body's frame (short with tendency to be fat; tall with tendency towards being lean, etc). Unfortunately, my skills in absorbing important details were faulty, and I overlooked the hokey psychological profiling packaged along with these supposed classifications. I guess the anachronistic context of the display zipped right past me.

At any rate, my question: have scientifically valid classifications for the different human anatomical body frames ever been established?
 
Most people are an amalgam of somatotypes. Like ideal body weight, they are merely representations of a discrete value which is arbitrary and based on anecdotal information.
 
Ideal Body Weights are based on height weight ratios from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tables, based on a correlation between body weight and mortality statistics.

The Quetelet Index also known as Body Mass Index (weight/[height][sup]2[/sup]) is also derived from the same.

There are no ideal body types.
 
S.A.M. said:
Ideal Body Weights are based on height weight ratios from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tables, based on a correlation between body weight and mortality statistics.

The Quetelet Index also known as Body Mass Index (weight/[height][sup]2[/sup]) is also derived from the same.

There are no ideal body types.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree, but there are non-ideal body types.. weighing 500 pounds cannot in any way be said to be ideal.
 
S.A.M. said:
Most people are an amalgam of somatotypes. Like ideal body weight, they are merely representations of a discrete value which is arbitrary and based on anecdotal information.
Click to expand...

Can you give me a little bit more information on this?
How is it similar to the concept of "ideal"? Are their any specific cases that exemplify why body type definitions would be arbitrary?

Seems like there should be certain level of objective definition in a sort of mechanical context-- perhaps, similar to the way cars are defined (ie -- sub-compact, compact, sedan, station wagon, etc). In a similar sense, you could say "dwarf" is not a subjective definition. There are also subdefinitions that define the various dwarf forms.
 
Enmos said:
I kind of agree, but there are non-ideal body types.. weighing 500 pounds cannot in any way be said to be ideal.
Click to expand...

Based on what?

domesticated om said:
Can you give me a little bit more information on this?
How is it similar to the concept of "ideal"? Are their any specific cases that exemplify why body type definitions would be arbitrary?

Seems like there should be certain level of objective definition in a sort of mechanical context-- perhaps, similar to the way cars are defined (ie -- sub-compact, compact, sedan, station wagon, etc). In a similar sense, you could say "dwarf" is not a subjective definition. There are also subdefinitions that define the various dwarf forms.
Click to expand...


The concept of an ideal body type is based on the generation of Metropolitan Life Insurance height weight tables in the 1940s. They introduced the concept of a desirable body weight that was linked to the mortality and weight statistics. But in reality body weight is a very rough estimate of health. It omits for example, body composition, disease and factors like physical activity and diet. A muscled man would come off as overweight and a cancer patient as healthy, if that were the only criteria used. Defining a person as an ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph gives no information as to his underlying health status.
 
have scientifically valid classifications for the different human anatomical body frames ever been established
Click to expand...

Thin, medium build and fat perhaps are three.:shrug:
 
Did you mean something like this:

"Constitutional psychology is a theory, developed in the 1940s by American psychologist William Sheldon, associating body types with human temperament types. Sheldon proposed that the human physique be classed according to the relative contribution of three fundamental elements, somatotypes, named after the three germ layers of embryonic development: the endoderm, (develops into the digestive tract), the mesoderm, (becomes muscle, heart and blood vessels), and the ectoderm (forms the skin and nervous system).

In his 1954 book, Atlas of Men, Sheldon categorised all possible body types according to a scale ranging from 1 to 7 for each of the three "somatotypes", where the pure "Endomorph" is 7–1–1, the pure "Mesomorph" 1–7–1 and the pure "Ectomorph" scores 1–1–7. From type number, an individual’s mental characteristics could supposedly be predicted.

The Three Types
Sheldon’s “somatotypes” and their supposed associated psychological traits can be summarised as follows:

* Ectomorphic: characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; usually referred to as slim.
* Mesomorphic: characterized by large bones, solid torso, low fat levels, wide shoulders with a narrow waist.
* Endomorphic: characterized by increased fat storage, a wide waist and a large bone structure.

The idea that these general body-types may correlate with general psychological types did not originate with Sheldon. In general outline it resembles ideas found, for instance, in the Bhagavad Gita and Plato's "Republic" and propounded in the twentieth century by George Gurdjieff. Sheldon's ideas may also owe something to Aristotle's concept of the soul."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype
 
Enmos said:
Did you mean something like this:
Click to expand...


Yes.
My original question in the first post (which also included a hyperlink to that same wiki article) was asking if there were any valid classifications for the body frames since "somatypes" were bologna.
 
domesticated om said:
Yes.
My original question in the first post (which also included a hyperlink to that same wiki article) was asking if there were any valid classifications for the body frames since "somatypes" were bologna.
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm sorry, I didn't pay attention.

By valid you mean officially recognized by modern medicine or something like that ?
I don't know to be honest, but I doubt it.
People make up body types all the time though.

Examples:
http://bodytypes.com/about.htm
http://www.girl.com.au/bodytypes.htm
http://www.beautyden.com/bodytypes.shtml
http://www.getanabolics.com/2007/01/body-type-training-regimen.html

Edit: the one from the wiki article seems to be in use a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top