1 THE SKINNY ON HARDGAINER TERMINOLOGY
Before we really start to get the ball rolling, the first thing we should do is define a couple of terms. Let's start with the three terms that popped up in the introduction, terms that you can bet your bottom dollar you'll see again. These terms are hypertrophy, ectomorph, and hardgainer. Let's start with hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is just a fancy way of speaking of muscle growth. So if we call you hypertrophy-challenged, that is simply our politically correct way of saying that you have a tough time building muscle.
Next, let's discuss ectomorph and hardgainer. Contrary to popular belief, these two terms are not interchangeable. The term ectomorph refers to a particular somatotype: a method for classifying different body types based on specific physical characteristics. The word hardgainer, on the other hand, is a contrived term that's used in the iron game to describe someone who has a difficult time gaining muscle mass. Because of their inability to make progress with more conventional training methods, most ectomorphs just automatically assume that they're hardgainers. When in truth, the very notion of even being a hardgainer is as fabricated as the term itself.
We realize that last statement comes as a bit of a shock. Not only does it fly in the face of just about everything you've ever been told about your inability to make appreciable gains in size and strength, but it also robs you of the best excuse you ever had. After all, it's much easier to throw around some cool-sounding gym lingo than it is to admit that you have no clue how to eat or train properly to reach your goals. Ouch, that had to hurt! But before we shatter your belief system by debunking this whole hardgainer myth, it might help to provide you with some insight into how the idea of body typing came to be in the first place and whether or not it actually holds any merit. At the very least, it will help you gain an understanding about why people respond differently to various forms of diet and exercise.
ENDOS AND MESOS AND ECTOS, OH MY!
There are three different somatotypes commonly used to classify the human body: endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs (see below). Not that it's really that cut-and-dry; few people fit neatly into one specific category. Most of us exhibit characteristics of more than one somatotype at once. This somewhat crude form of genetic stereotyping is the brainchild of a psychologist by the name of William H. Sheldon, M.D. Back in the early 1940s, seeking to draw connections between body type and temperament, Sheldon studied the photographs of more than 4,000 college-age men. Based on his findings, he actually identified several different body types but later consolidated them, reasoning that everyone could be classified as some combination of the three we still use today.
Using a numerical system as a means of quantifying how much of each somatotype a person displayed, Sheldon introduced a unique three-digit code. Setting an order of endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph, Sheldon used a scale of 1 to 7 (the closer the number to 1, the less relation to the somatotype; the closer to 7, the greater) to assign values to each. So, for example, a true endomorph would be assigned a number of 711, a mesomorph 171, and an ectomorph 117. And no, 007 was not James Bond's somatotype; it was his agent number. Of course, since few people fit into one specific mold, numbers such as 541 (a combination endomorph and mesomorph), 246 (a combination ectomorph and mesomorph), and 153 (a combination mesomorph and ectomorph) are much more common.
As you might imagine, Sheldon's findings were widely criticized, mainly because he based his assertions solely on visual inspection of photographs without any hard physiological data to back them up. Many other scientists argued that a person's body-type score shouldn't be based on something as easily altered as appearance. After all, would dropping 50 £ds change someone from an endomorph to an ectomorph? In Sheldon's system, probably. Therefore, researchers were interested in linking body type to some unchangeable physical features. Otherwise, as indicated, a poorly fed endomorph could wind up being classified as an ectomorph after losing a whack of body mass sweatin' to the oldies with Richard Simmons.
WHAT'S YOUR TYPE?
ECTOMORPHS: The typical ectomorph is a person who exhibits low levels of strength and size prior to training. They're usually tall and thin, with relatively low levels of body fat and small, narrow bones. Although their smaller joint structure often serves as an impediment in strength and power sports, they do tend to excel in endurance activities due to what is typically a higher-than-average proportion of slow twitch muscle fibers. Their fast metabolisms often make it difficult to gain weight of any type when following a more conventional dietary approach. Sheldon classified ectomorphs as being introverted, socially anxious individuals who tend to excel at mental tasks.
ENDOMORPHS: The endomorphic body type is considered to be the least desirable of the three major body types. Although endomorphs do tend to exhibit impressive levels of size and strength through training, they have a difficult time shedding body fat and gain weight rather easily. Sheldon believed endomorphs to be more focused on food and pleasure than physical activity. According to Sheldon, endomorphs typically have more jovial, easygoing personalities.
MESOMORPHS: These are the oft-referred-to genetically gifted individuals. They tend to exhibit low levels of body fat and impressive muscular development even prior to training. Their thick, wide bone structure is more conducive to building muscle, giving them a decided advantage in strength and power sports such as football, wrestling, and Olympic lifting. According to Sheldon, most mesomorphs are outgoing, adventurous individuals with action-oriented mentalities.
With Sheldon's system showing real weaknesses, two anthropometrists (that's a fancy term for a scientist who studies body measurements and dimensions), J. E. Lindsay Carter and Barbara Heath (1990) came up with a more scientific system for determining somatotypes. In their system, a skin-fold- thickness measure was used to determine the degree of endomorphy; a height/weight ratio (termed the ponderal index) was used to measure ectomorphy; and the measurement of elbow joint and knee joint width as well as arm and calf circumferences was used to determine mesomorphy.
Carter and Heath's system was a good attempt but still a bit off the mark. True, they did attempt to link body type to actual anatomical characteristics. But, as with Sheldon's system, some of their choices were also changeable characteristics. Okay, maybe not height, but changing one's weight in relation to his height would certainly alter the ponderal index, just as it would alter skin fold thickness. So, although somewhat more objective, Carter and Heath's system was still essentially flawed. In our humble opinions, they should have turned their attention to something that was more finite, such as bone structure. Unlike muscle and fat mass, the overall dimensions of a person's bone structure don't change much once they've reached maturity.
NO BONES ABOUT IT
The ironic thing is that when using skeletal features as a means to assess body type, some of Sheldon's subjective assessments actually correlate rather well. For instance, Sheldon identified ectomorphs as being tall and thin with long limbs, mesomorphs as being broad-shouldered, and endomorphs as having a softer, rounder base. When comparing these descriptions with the skeletal method, we see that ectomorphs are represented by a more rectangular shape. Rectangles tend to be tall and thin, just like ectomorphs with their narrow shoulders and hips. Mesomorphs are depicted as inverted trapezoids. Inverted trapezoids are wider at the top and narrower toward the bottom, just like mesomorphs with their broad shoulders and narrow waists. Endomorphs exhibit a more classic trapezoid shape as a result of their wider bases. While very few male physiques tend to have the classic trapezoid shape of the endomorphic distinction, many men do carry a shape described best as mesendomorphic, characterized by wide hips and shoulders.
While we've been getting pretty technical in this section, the important thing to realize is that regardless of where you lie on this somatotypic, geometric continuum, few people can be pigeonholed into one specific somatotype. While you might be tall and thin, thus appearing to be a classic ectomorph, hiding under those medium T-shirts might be the potential of a godly physique. However, all this potential muscle will remain hidden if you fail to eat enough calories to support muscle growth and/or if you train in a manner contradictory to your goals. So don't immediately scream ectomorph, or worse yet, hardgainer. Too many people constantly use body type as a convenient excuse for their current physical status. Sure, it's a factor, but it's not the physiological scapegoat many make it out to be.
It's also worth noting that many of the telltale signs of a particular somatotype vary in degree from person to person. For instance, it's not uncommon to hear the assertion that many ectomorphs have long femurs (upper thigh bones) and short torsos. As you'll read in Chapter 3, this is something of a biomechanical albatross because it makes exercises such as squats and conventional deadlifts inordinately difficult. However, while certainly a hindrance, much of the added degree of difficulty in performing these lifts is dependent on just how much longer the femur is than the torso. A lifter whose femur is only slightly longer than his torso will have a much easier time than one who has a disparity of several inches. This is why things such as optimal depth on squats or how far to lower the bar during the bench press are individualized and depend greatly upon the relationship of various body segments.
MORPHOMETRICS: THE MEASURE OF A MAN
Believe it or not, labeling yourself an ectomorph isn't as simple as seeing if your fingertips touch when they encircle your wrist. Nor is it enough for you hypertrophy-challenged types to claim that you've "always been thin." Truth be told, there are a lot of potential mesomorphs hiding in skinny bodies. John, for example, went from a scrawny 160-£d guy to a brawny 210 £ds in just 2 years. By the same token, there are probably just as many endomorphs hiding in youthful, skinny bodies. Take a look at some of those skinny guys (who just assumed they were fat-gain-resistant ectomorphs by nature) about 10 years after graduation. They can't still think they're ectomorphs now, can they? These examples should make it clear that there are other factors besides "skinniness" that dictate someone's somatotype as well as their muscle-building potential.
Things such as the relationship between your shoulder and hip breadth, or the length of your femurs (thigh bones) in relation to your torso, are far more indicative of your inherent physical structure. Only when these are combined with information about your predominant muscle-fiber type can you begin to classify yourself with any degree of certainty. Although it should also be noted that hormonal factors come into play here as well, we'll spend more time discussing these factors in Chapter 4. The bottom line is that no one measure will tell you all you need to know about how your body will respond to training. The following measurements, though, should give you some valuable insights into what you'll ultimately be able to achieve. If you're curious about how you measure up, record the following, asking a friend to help as needed:
1. Height
2. Torso length: Measured from the acromion process (bony and prominent area at the top of the shoulder), to the top of the iliac crest (bony and prominent area at the top of the hip).
3. Femur length: Measured as the distance from the greater trochanter (bony and prominent area on the outside of your leg a couple of inches beneath your hip) and the lateral condyle of the knee (bony and prominent area on the outside of the knee).
4. Tibial (lower leg) length: Measured as the distance between the medial condyle (bony and prominent area on the inside of the knee) and medial malleolous of the tibia (bony and prominent area on the inside of the ankle).
TORSO LENGTH
5. Bi-acromial breadth: Measured as the distance between the acromion processes on each shoulder (bony and prominent areas at the top of each shoulder).
6. Bi-iliac breadth: Measured as the distance between the iliac crests of each hip (bony and prominent area at the top of the hip).
WHAT IT ALL MEANS
The shoulder to hip ratio: Take the bi-acromial distance, and divide it by the bi-iliac breadth. The larger this ratio, the more muscle mass you'll be able to carry on your frame. Values greater than 1.46 are optimal for building muscle mass.
The femur length to torso length relationship: A femur that's longer than your torso can compromise your ability to squat and deadlift efficiently because it will cause you to lean forward excessively to reach the desired depth. Of course, a femur and torso of near equal length combined with a shorter lower leg can sometimes pose similar problems, although this can often be effectively managed by improving flexibility around the ankle joint. For now, simply determining the relationship between these body segments to help identify where you might need additional flexibility work once you start the program.
FEMUR LENGTH
TIBIAL LENGTH
The shoulder width to height relationship: The larger the disparity between bi-acromial breadth and height, the more ectomorphic you are. So a 6'4" individual with a 14.5-inch bi-acromial breadth would be more ectomorphic than a 5'8" individual with the same size frame. Mike's shoulder width is 14.4" while his height is 73", giving him a shoulder width to height factor of 0.197. John's shoulder width is 14" while his height is 68", giving him a shoulder width to height factor of 0.206. As you can see from the previous discussion, Mike appears to be slightly more ectomorphic than John.
BI-ACROMIAL BREADTH
BI-ILIAC BREADTH
In the end, the real value in taking these measures isn't to help you classify yourself as having a particular somatotype, but rather to give you an idea about how your individual anatomical structure affects the way you train. For instance, individuals with a bi-acromial to bi-iliac ratio of 1.46 or greater might attribute any difficulty in gaining muscle mass to suboptimal nutritional habits or overtraining, rather than any perceived degree of ectomorphy. This specific ratio, particularly when combined with more of a fast-twitch muscle fiber makeup (we show you how to assess this in the next chapter), has been associated with bodybuilding success. Likewise if you have a torso, femur, and lower leg of near equal lengths, any difficulties you have in performing squats and deadlifts may be more due to flexibility issues than biomechanical considerations. However, even if you do come up with some undesirable numbers, the information contained in the following chapters can still help you level the playing field to a large degree.
Copyright © 2005 by Michael Mejia and John Berardi. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
