Advantages of different body types

I know this might sound like a bait thread, but I'm genuinely asking: What are the different benefits of different body types? I'm quite interested in understanding how different bodies are better adapted for different activities and how one can maximise their athletic potential by knowing what kind of body they have. By this, I mean skeletal structure and proportions as well as muscle fibre composition or tendons and ligaments.

For bodybuilding and strength based sports in general, it seems like a thick and wide skeletal frame is preferable, but does a more gracile bone structure provide other benefits? I'm guessing there might be some link to such structures being better endurance-wise in the long run due to less weight, or perhaps facilitating more flexibility or agility.

What about shorter people, or people with negative ape indexes, or longer torsos than legs? Some people are even hyper-mobile and I hear it's not necessarily a disadvantage, depending on where you're hyper-mobile and to what extent?

I'd be very curious to hear what you guys have to say about this.

Ape Out, Gorilla Mindset Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Ape Out, Gorilla Mindset Shirt $21.68

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please respond : 0

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    gracile lanky people are usually these east africans who are good at marathon running
    manlets and people with proportionally shorter legs but bigger torsos are better at wrestling and proportional strength/power but aren't as flexible or fast but sometimes have strength endurance talents, wide frames help with striking as well as wrestling, long limbs with good reach help usually means you're a trickier striker who keeps opponents at a distance, or can do headkicks.
    i only know fighting, other "pure" sports should be obvious in advantages/disadvantages.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    gracile feminine men are meant to be hard fricked by me, this has 2 main advantages
    - their defective genes won't be passed down to others
    - they still get to experience sex

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Manlets are better soldiers than tallcels.
    >need less calories
    >smaller targets
    >less weight to carry
    >more nimble
    >stronger relative to size due to square cube law
    There is a reason runaway selection didn't produce 3m giants, even if all women would like to mate with the tall guy, hard times of famine and war always kill off the tall, inefficient men first.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's a really good point. People shit on South east Asians (especially Indians) due to having a lean physique with abdominal adipose, but that's because it's a more efficient body type designed for periods of famine. A super tall and muscular person is more inefficient in this environment and such a physique isn't sustainable which, again, is a good reason that sorter people make good soldiers.

      gracile lanky people are usually these east africans who are good at marathon running
      manlets and people with proportionally shorter legs but bigger torsos are better at wrestling and proportional strength/power but aren't as flexible or fast but sometimes have strength endurance talents, wide frames help with striking as well as wrestling, long limbs with good reach help usually means you're a trickier striker who keeps opponents at a distance, or can do headkicks.
      i only know fighting, other "pure" sports should be obvious in advantages/disadvantages.

      I think I've heard that people with short legs and good torsos are also good at swimming and that people with high calf insertions are better at sprinting but worse at endurance based sports. Short limbs are also harder to trap in martial arts and can accelerate to punching-range quicker, which gives you an advantage in in-fighting in boxing (like a spear up close versus a dagger). Conversely, taller fighters have way better range, which tends to be king in combat sports. I know a girl who is 5ft tall and benches 80kg cuz her leverages are so good.

      gracile feminine men are meant to be hard fricked by me, this has 2 main advantages
      - their defective genes won't be passed down to others
      - they still get to experience sex

      I think there's probably advantages to that body type unironically, but of course there are many advantages to a huge thick frame as well. It's just that we already know what those are, so discussing that ain't as interesting.

      Whole different thing, but this can also be applied cognitively. People shit on Aboriginals for being dumb, but they're very good at some memory related tasks because of their environment.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >People shit on South east Asians (especially Indians) due to having a lean physique with abdominal adipose, but that's because it's a more efficient body type designed for periods of famine
        You are half right. It's true that it's an advantageous body type when your diet lacks animal products, but if you want to go to war (and win) you need a more even distribution. More even distribution of fat means higher punching/kicking power and better balance.

        Makes sense as to why Meds tended to have good armies. They wouldn't have as many elite forces of giants, like the Norsemen did, but they had people who were basically all built to be good soldiers.

        Exactly
        >less cargo for the ships
        >shields covered more of a person
        >needed less material for armor

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        high jumpers are lanky and thin, it also helps for distance walking and running, but it seems thats about it. maybe some can be strikers like israel adesanya, but i think that idea is also kind of overrated since real fights aren't purely stand-up, and without gloves people will bum-rush eachother, in which case having a massive torso and short legs will end up being a big advantage.

        >People shit on South east Asians (especially Indians) due to having a lean physique with abdominal adipose, but that's because it's a more efficient body type designed for periods of famine
        You are half right. It's true that it's an advantageous body type when your diet lacks animal products, but if you want to go to war (and win) you need a more even distribution. More even distribution of fat means higher punching/kicking power and better balance.
        [...]
        Exactly
        >less cargo for the ships
        >shields covered more of a person
        >needed less material for armor

        SEA stand out in how they all have massive calves and feet, not sure about hands but maybe those aswell. it also happens thais for example invented muay thai, i dont think its a coincidence that they started fighting with a lot of high power kicks and very close range clinching with knees and elbows, while whites never tried to use kicks but instead have a rich history of wrestling, takedowns and boxing, with some occasional stomps to the knee in full suits of armour.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Kicking is kind of a meme anyways in a fight tbh idc what people say lol. I'm not saying you can't kick with devastating efficacy, but it's an awkward motion that puts you in a vulnerable position. I actually trained with a 2 time kickboxing world champ for a session cuz he's my friend's friend and he told me I was a natural at kicking, but I don't like kicking. Grappling is just much more interesting to me

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Kicking is kind of a meme anyways in a fight
            It's a meme in a fight because no one trains it and it's not an intuitive motion. If you have good balance, power/speed, low telegraphing, then kicking is okay. I much prefer knees though.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's not useless for sure, but I'd say out of punching, grappling and kicking, it's the hardest one to learn and the one with the highest risk. I don't think it's pointless to learn to kick, but I'd use it the least if I were a fighter.

              >I assumed the lighter weight of the skeleton would be a negligible advantaged compared to having more muscular potential
              Look at all the best climbers in the world, like Magnus Midtbø. Look at olympic gymnasts. They all have slender, gracile skeletons.
              It's not clear that, all other things being equal, larger bones result in greater proportional strength.
              Being a short and gracile 60kg man is far more advantageous in climbing and gymnastics than being a slightly stronger 80kg or 90kg man.
              An 80kg man has 33% more weight to lift and carry and control during these activities, but he is not 33% stronger or having 33% more endurance necessary to accommodate this extra weight for the same duration and intensity of exercise.

              That's fair, but we're talking about weight overall in those cases. I'm asking about specifically JUST the gracile skeleton itself, nothing else. I wonder if any studies have been done, or if we can trace any kind of objective correlation between athletes.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kicking is fine, you just have to get away from the kickboxing paradigm. Think wearing heavy steel toed boots and kicking knees, shins or balls from all angles.

                Manlets are better soldiers than tallcels.
                >need less calories
                >smaller targets
                >less weight to carry
                >more nimble
                >stronger relative to size due to square cube law
                There is a reason runaway selection didn't produce 3m giants, even if all women would like to mate with the tall guy, hard times of famine and war always kill off the tall, inefficient men first.

                Yup. In war, the big guys die first.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm asking about specifically JUST the gracile skeleton itself, nothing else
                The gracile skeleton itself is reducing the weight that someone needs to carry. All other factors being the same between two athletes, if one has a more gracile skeleton, he will either weigh less, which is advantageous directly, or he will weigh the same but more of his weight will be muscle instead of bone.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Makes sense as to why Meds tended to have good armies. They wouldn't have as many elite forces of giants, like the Norsemen did, but they had people who were basically all built to be good soldiers.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        "Med" isn't a race you fricking mongoloid. Race science becomes more moronic each day, all thanks to zoomers and their imbecilic wojak memes.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's no such thing as a race to begin with. Ethnicity is a spectrum with variations that can be as specific as region to region, never mind country to country. I said med as a catch all term for people in that area of the world because both Iberian and Italians, since ancient times, have had successful empire and share physical traits.

          >People shit on South east Asians (especially Indians) due to having a lean physique with abdominal adipose, but that's because it's a more efficient body type designed for periods of famine
          You are half right. It's true that it's an advantageous body type when your diet lacks animal products, but if you want to go to war (and win) you need a more even distribution. More even distribution of fat means higher punching/kicking power and better balance.
          [...]
          Exactly
          >less cargo for the ships
          >shields covered more of a person
          >needed less material for armor

          Make sense as to why my 5´6" friend is a successful soldier. Ironically, soldiers are usually depicted as huge, hulking men (probably for marketing reasons). I'd say there's no shit build altogether anyways, there are just better adaptations for better circumstances. Unironically a really short but nimble Asian with twitchy muscles would be a bad fighter against a big Samoan, but would be a good gymnast.

          I guess a good way to think of it is

          >The more gracile you are, the better you are at moving your own body
          >The more robust you are, the better you are at moving other things

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no such thing as a race to begin with. Ethnicity is a spectrum with variations that can be as specific as region to region, never mind country to country.
            Color is a spectrum, therefore red is the same thing as blue
            >I said med as a catch all term for people in that area of the world because both Iberian and Italians, since ancient times, have had successful empire and share physical traits.
            …perhaps because Iberians and Italians belong to the same or very similar race?
            Do you imagine yourself as the galaxy brain wojak when you say something as moronic as “race isn’t real”? Like could you look at a black dude and not tell he’s black?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Race is a non-anthropological term, as is "black". As if the word meant anything concrete and not just vaguely "from Africa".

              I'm not having this conversation with you. It's not related to the thread. If you want to talk about race theory, there's another board for that.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao, Elon Musk is black.
                >look at me, I deconstructed a concept
                If you don’t want to get embarrassed then don’t shit up IST with your bunk race cult dogma. Do it on the other board.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about? "race cult"? What I mean is that race is a spectrum and can't be neatly categorized. You posted a picture of Hitler and referred to a black race, so I assume you already have specific ideas on this, but I don't believe in this American mentality that different ethnic groups can be lumped together like that. What does "black" mean, anyways? Do you think all the people in all these countries in Africa with all their different morphological variations (not to mention cultural, but that's a different story) can be neatly grouped into "black" because of superficial similarities? No, Elon Musk is not black, but he isn't white, either. How the frick do you define whiteness? It UNIRONICALLY is a social construct. European might be a better term, but even then it defines a geographical border rather than a genetic similarity. Do you think the French are the same as the Italians are the same as the Danish are the same as the Turks are the same as yadayadayada?

                There are different groups of people, and in a spectrum or scale, they are more or less different than others. We group them all together because it's easier to understand that way and because of tribalism. That's it. Remember that what's considered a race will vary from country to country and from time period to time period.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Stfu with your social science degree homie this the wrong board for that gay shit ong 100 100

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't have a social science degree it's just my genuine opinion. Been on IST since I was 15 and I've met super ultra left wing tumblr types and literal actual real life nazis (one took me to a israeli comedy club) and I'm not easily offended, I just really believe race as most people conceive it is a moronic tribalist concept.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey moron, what the frick is pic related? This isn’t the 1960s, we now have objective and extremely discrete genetic data on human population groups. Do you know why these data vindicate? Every piece of implicit knowledge we previously had about race and then some. You dumb homosexual. Try pulpulling your way out of FST distance, hahahaha. Try social constructing your way out of hard population genetics.
                All you could do in the past was tactically deny obvious facts that we didn’t have numerical data for yet, and now that we have the data, all you can do is seethe and cast out layers of sociology jargon to obfuscate. It’s like trying to disprove gravity.
                Just post nose at this point

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Try pulpulling your way out of FST distance, hahahaha

                calm down, I know this is something you're very passionate about and matters a lot to you but take your time to relax and write out your answer. btw my gf is Bavarian and 8 years younger than me.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You’re not looking good, bud. You got humiliated and you’re backpedaling into “haha calm down”. You should really have a nice day, I think. If you want to calm me down, you should leave this board and possibly also have a nice day.
                No idea what your alleged gf has to do with this. I will bet, however, that my trad greek gf mogs her just like I mog you, and you won’t post body.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                damn you told me to kill myself twice dude

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just post body dude. You can do your smug lowercase nihilism, I just want to see what kind of man your beliefs produced. Let’s settle this now.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                im black btw

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >American post

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah race mixing israelite poster

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kys

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Go back to Tumblr homosexual

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          “Black person dyel” is a race and you will be exterminated

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is probably actually true. Go to a museum like the Smithsonian and look at some of the old military uniforms they have on display. The majority of them from like WW1 and before are very small fits for a tiny frame.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's definitely fricking true. Look at all the countries that had empires. I can only think of Mongols as an exception for bulky people, but maybe they weren't like that back then. Even if they were, they used strong horses a lot, as did Samoans and shit, so they probably managed to deal with the endurance part effectively.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Zulus were tall and somewhat lanky

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but so were the people they lived around. It's all relative.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I can only think of Mongols as an exception for bulky people, but maybe they weren't like that back then.
          Mongols were manlets who rode manlet horses (ponies). Them being giant horsemen with giant horses was a myth created after the fact because people were so embarassed.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because people were so embarassed.
            Which people? They never made it past Poland.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but does a more gracile bone structure provide other benefits?
    Gymnasts, acrobats, climbers, etc all benefit from a lighter, more gracile skeleton and shorter stature.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is that really true, though? How does a gracile skeleton help? I assumed the lighter weight of the skeleton would be a negligible advantaged compared to having more muscular potential

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I assumed the lighter weight of the skeleton would be a negligible advantaged compared to having more muscular potential
        Look at all the best climbers in the world, like Magnus Midtbø. Look at olympic gymnasts. They all have slender, gracile skeletons.
        It's not clear that, all other things being equal, larger bones result in greater proportional strength.
        Being a short and gracile 60kg man is far more advantageous in climbing and gymnastics than being a slightly stronger 80kg or 90kg man.
        An 80kg man has 33% more weight to lift and carry and control during these activities, but he is not 33% stronger or having 33% more endurance necessary to accommodate this extra weight for the same duration and intensity of exercise.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >For bodybuilding and strength based sports in general, it seems like a thick and wide skeletal frame is preferable
    No. You want a small skeletal structure with huge muscles for bodybuilding.

    >What about shorter people
    The shorter the better for gymnastics because better leverages.
    Especially:
    > longer torsos than legs
    Long torso manlets are pretty much the perfect gymnasts.

    Also of course short arms are good for bench and short legs good for squats and deadlifts because shorter rom.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      So a small skeletal structure is only good for aesthetics? Someone up there talked about how its advantageous in climbing and gymnastics.

      Why is a long torso and short legs preferable for gymnasts? What about the opposite body type?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >So a small skeletal structure is only good for aesthetics?
        Yes because your muscles will look bigger.

        >Why is a long torso and short legs preferable for gymnasts?
        Again, leverages. Imagine doing planches or front levers with legs that are only half as long as yours, would make things almost laughably easy.

        >What about the opposite body type?
        Long legs? Good for running, both sprinting and long distance simply because you can make bigger steps. Big feet are also good for sprinting and jumping because you get a longer lever with every step, therefore more power.

        >What about the opposite body type?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm asking about specifically JUST the gracile skeleton itself, nothing else
          The gracile skeleton itself is reducing the weight that someone needs to carry. All other factors being the same between two athletes, if one has a more gracile skeleton, he will either weigh less, which is advantageous directly, or he will weigh the same but more of his weight will be muscle instead of bone.

          I see, thank you. I was wondering if being gracile had distinct advantages, because a lot of groups of people have gracile bodies. I suppose being gracile skeletally means you're lighter, but I was wondering if it was a negligible advantage or not

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not reading all that but all successful armies have been held up by almost exclusively manlets for some reason

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      its cuz of what we said. Literally just more efficient design for a large army.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not reading a thread that devolved into /misc/cope shitflinging

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think anyone wanted it to

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Inevitable in this shithole for someone to start an argument about races if there's even the most tenuous of links

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Literally 4th reply idiot

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Manlet space marines deployed via orbital drop pods when?

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Short = squats
    tall = strongman
    heavy = strength
    lean = cardio

    That's about all you need to know.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm most surprised that lean skeletal frames have practical purposes more than anything tbh. I thought they were just an objectively worse trait all around.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >lean skeletal frames have practical purposes more than anything tbh
        lean skeletal frames are one of if not the most common bodytype in human history.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          what is common is rarely good and what is good is rarely common yung padawan

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what is common is rarely good
            No, what is common is usually good because if it weren't they would die out.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I will become the CARDIO STRONGMAN

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *