Talk:Body type (exercise)

message: Added section Ectomorph Training. 20/04/2005.
Hello, i'm a student from a school in thailand, st.andrews international school, i am doing a course work about muscular power and body types, i would like to know if any body could give me or send me any information about these topics, my physical education teacher asked me about these subject, he sent me to the computer room to research about these topics, i spent 2 hours and a half on researching and nothing interesting about my topics, could any body please help me and inform me as fast as possible.
thank you. somchai T.
------
I removed the part of the first sentence that claimed this classification belongs to human biology and sport science. Firstly, as far as I can see not only is this article about the use of this classification what weight training/body building regards - no other aspects are mentioned as important. Secondly, ectomorphic, endomorphic and mesomorphic body types were regarded science in the 1940s, when the focus was that each body type would correspond to a certain temperament; today this is not seen as science. If the major link to science these words have are their originator William Sheldon and his somatotypes, then this is not much. 
I would really like to see that these terms today are used outside of weight training, and in the academia, before human biology and sports science is put back in the article. /Habj 13:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added

message: This article has no references; is it someone's opinion, or is this actual science? If it's just a guideline or method used by fitness experts/enthusiasts, that should be made much more clear. At the very least it should be referenced, and preferably include a couple of reputable outside links to indicate how widespread and legitimate this system of categorisation is, and in what type of community (health, fitness, alternative health, science, medicine etc).--Anchoress 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Habj says above, the somatotype theory was developed by a scientist, and was once taken seriously by the scientific community. It has since fallen into disrepute in that community, especially the personality portion. However, the thesis has be found to be a very useful model to those trying to increase muscle bulk. Thus the physical aspect of the theory (the content of this page) has some place in the world of science - at least until someone comes up with a better model. With some recent testosterone studies in mind, there may be a correlation between the types, Sheldon's assigned personalities, and levels of androgens and estrogens. But I don't know of any studies on that correlation unfortanately. matturn 06:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: It seems more that the premise of somatotyping is disputed here, not the article's content or coverage of the premise itself. I haven't seen anyone describe how the article itself incorrectly describes the different body types or the associated qualities. 
On the other hand, I have introduced a merge proposal, as most of this information is either redundant or should be removed. See the related discussion thread here. Kafziel 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed?