“Thanks for the feedback XYZ. For a fit perspective, what’s your body type?”
“Athletic!”
The heck does that mean though? Is it similar to how most Americans describe themselves as “middle class” even if they’re not? 1/3 of Americans who make less than $30K a year still describe themselves as Middle Class, while those on the upper end may not be jumping at the chance to label themselves as rich.
Two questions. First, an easy poll. How would you describe your body type?
Loading ...
And second, to the comments…
What is an “athletic” body type? How do you define it? Is it a certain height/weight ratio? Or does there need to be a certain amount of strength weight? What about body fat? Can you be carrying a bit of a gut (or even a lot of gut) and still consider your body type as “athletic”? Can person A have an athletic body type, but get winded rounding second in beer league softball? Can they have an athletic body type if they’re a rail thin marathon runner?
Leave it all in the comments below.
Top Photo: Simpson Grey
Maybe it’s like Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. Perhaps instead of the catch-all “athletic” body type, we should define by sport. Brock Lesnar and Usain Bolt are both “athletic,” but . . .
I was thinking more like football positions.
“I’m a punter” “I’m a lineman”
“Athletic” seems to mean… outside linebacker? Strong Safety? Y’know, proportionally, without all the insane amount of muscle mass.
If we’re going football, I’d say Richard Sherman is what I think of when I think “athletic.” Clearly in shape, but without any one overly muscled area.
In regards to menswear, I’d say it’s broad shoulders with a narrow waist. It’s no fun when a shirt fits well up top but looks like a maternity blouse in the belly.
A sweaty towel in a heap on the floor is athletic, right?
I believe it has everything to do with the shoulders and chest. Someone who has an athletic build will have wide shoulders and a bigger chest than stomach. This will be seen when they take a suit or sport coat off the rack to try it on.
Agree that ‘athletic’ is an overused and misused term. In my mind, it means that you have a legitimate drop, but otherwise are neither huge nor skinny otherwise. Likely register as the obese range on BMI, but are in shape. I also don’t think it means you’re sub 15% BF either.
See, what you are talking about seems like “average” to me, but since no one wants to be referred to as average, they go with athletic.
When you are naked. Look down, if you can’t see your penis you don’t have an athletic build!
You say shoulders/chest wider than stomach, but then call a legit drop “average”? Seems like we’re talking about similar things here.
That being said, average is a relative term. If you’re talking average American, what I describe is far from that.
Tell that to this guy.
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Behdad+Salimikordasiabi+Asian+Weightlifting+-b0uAkkWmU7l.jpg
To clarify, when I say neither huge, nor skinny, and register as obese on BMI, that is to say that being “athletic” in my mind requires a good bit of muscle, but does not require the “I workout 3 hours a day” and/or roid rage size.
I wouldn’t call his build athletic. I would, however, call him athletic. And, sir, to his face.
Shoulder to waist ratio is the most important factor.
Also if your chest does not protrude further than your stomach, then that’s an automatic disqualifier for those claiming an athletic build.
Can you see your bicep vein when you flex? I’d have a hard time calling anyone’s build athletic if they don’t have some bicep and forearm vascularity.
Definitely talking about similar things, specifically with the drop, but the BMI requiring to be over 15 is where I would disagree.
And we definitely agree on the average American, however despite being American, I refuse to call that average.
Perhaps average is the wrong term. Perhaps the lack of a term I can think of quickly may be why so many just go with athletic.
Indeed, but there are also plenty who are boxy through the torso, naturally, or don’t have the widest shoulders, yet don’t carry much fat at all. I’m not sure that the inverted triangle, the Michael Phelps body, fits all “athletic types”.
When I see people use the term “athletic” in relation to clothes, I usually see it as a qualification of their general body shape when they talk about their “stats.” For example, someone who is an “athletic” 5’9″ and 190 lbs is going to look a lot different than someone who is 5’9″ and 190 lbs and legitimately overweight.
Other than that, the term “athletic” when used to describe body shape fails simply because it is so broad that it could describe a hundred different body types. A professional marathoner and an Olympic heavyweight weightlifter are both athletes but their body types are about as different as they can possibly be.
Trying to boil down what it looks like or means to be “athletic” in terms of chest-to-waist ratios or veins popping just devolves into a silly peacocking contest, IMO. “I’ve got an 8-inch drop and I think I’m athletic, so obviously, you’re not athletic if you don’t have an 8-inch drop.”
i think that there are two “athletic” body types. Those that are trully athletic, wide shoulders narrow waist type. You know, chest muscles that can fill out even brooks brothers classic shirts, thighs that can tear acid wash jeans like some 80’s super hero.
Then there is my type, the type that once was in really good shape, wide shoulders narrow waist, but we’ve softened, added a few curves, so that we aren’t fat, we just have still have our large shoulders, slightly larger than average chest, but our waists no longer taper to quite as narrow.
Some points: I cannot wear charles tyrwhitt slim fit shorts, my shoulders are too wide, but the waist fits pretty well. Slim fit pants are often too tight around my thighs.
Indeed, I believe it’s awfully possible to discuss what means what without diving into personal statistics.
I’m 5’9″ / 165 and a regular runner / gym guy. I consider my body type athletic. Here’s a picture of me climbing a wall last weekend:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j164/frostnyc/Spiderman_zpsd7092ae4.jpg
I think there is a category between ripped and heavy and strong. I am not ripped but if we’re talking chest to waist my chest is 12″ bigger. I’m not heavy either. I consider myself athletic but with your category I might be somewhere between ripped and heavy in the powerlifter meat head category.
Or “dad fit,” as I like to refer to it.
Underweight former D-1A O-lineman. Was 260lbs when I played, now 225 and dropping, 6’1″. Playing days I had a 40″ waist, 40″ thighs, and a 52″ chest, down to a 37″ waist, 30″ thighs, and a 46″ chest. Either way, heavy, strong, and pretty dang zippy.
Underweight former D-1A O-lineman. Was 260lbs when I played, now 225 and dropping, 6’1″. Playing days I had a 40″ waist, 40″ thighs, and a 52″ chest, down to a 37″ waist, 30″ thighs, and a 46″ chest. Either way, heavy, strong, and pretty dang zippy.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to discuss what the term means. But it’s so ambiguous that it seems futile to try to pin a measurable, objective definition onto it. The only objective definition for an athletic body type is a body type possessed by an athlete. Trying to define the term more specifically than that gets you into subjective preferences that are as varied as the people who hold them. Since most men (particularly those of us vain enough to frequent style blogs and forums…) prefer to see ourselves as active and “athletic” in some fashion, a lot of us will default to our own body types as objectively definitive of “athletic.” That’s where the peacocking part tends to come in.
If we’re just talking about an “athletic fit,” then as far as I can tell that’s just a “slim” or “tailored” fit garment that’s being marketed at bros who think “slim” is a bad thing.
There are also plenty of guys who are rail-thin, little fat or muscle, with naturally broad shoulders. I’ve known tons of guys like that who I wouldn’t describe as athletes.
Then perhaps the question is less about what does “athletic” mean, and more about what can be substituted for the term? See the poll above. I think: “I’m a cyclist” or “I’m a competitive powerlifter” says a lot more than “athletic”, and could be of much more use to those discussing fits on the web.
Being under 15% BF I’d say that you’re pretty “lean & mean” or “ripped” (going on Joe’s poll options, depending on how much muscle). Then again, I’m nearly 30 (age, not BF, thanks!), so my views on that have changed since I was eating 4000 kcal daily and losing weight in high school / college, with no BF to speak of. Desk jobs really do a number on ya.
And to add on, I agree that no one wants to be average, but I’d also never think what I am as average–even in NYC where everyone is significantly thinner than most places in America.
All this is meant for good discussion, btw, just interesting to hear different views on this.
I had to google Brock Lesnar.
What the…. How can he even turn his head with those traps!?
I’m not sure what to make of “strong”. I’ve been overweight all my life and still think of myself as such, despite losing enough weight that it’s not nearly as apparent (when I’m standing with good posture, I’m basically flat, helped by a barrel torso). I’ve never been one for serious exercise, so in an arm wrestling match anybody who played sports in high school would probably nail me. At the same time, I do some some natural strength from a lifetime of carrying around a ton of fat (and heavy brass instruments). I’m definitely heavy, what’s the threshold for strong?
I think of athletic as anyone who generally works out, but not intensely, and isn’t an obvious weightlifter/marathon runner. doesnt have a gut. etc.
Was actually thinking about this earlier. Good timing. “Athletic” is really anything but completely out of shape. No one wants to openly put themselves down.
None of these right now, but “heavy and strong” is the closest, I suppose — six feet, 215, and I lift twice a week (though I only started in the second half of last year, and missed about two months with a knee injury followed by a kidney stone, so…).
As for “what is athletic,” I think it’s somewhere in what I’m going to call Michael Westen territory, since I’ve been watching a lot of Burn Notice lately. While power lifters are unquestionably athletic people, I don’t think their bodies generally qualify as “athletic.” If you think of someone who lifts weights twice a week and does cardio — hiking, running, swimming, whatever — a few times a week, and has been doing so for a long time… that’s probably athletic. Enough muscle to notice, little not enough to make you go “holy shit,” and little enough fat that what muscle is there is not concealed.
Just my opinion, not trying to insult or spark personal emotions.
My frame frame (6’1″) could support a wide weight range and still be “healthy” or “athletic” in most eyes. I personally disagree,as most people are not professional athletes so there should be a lower weight range associated with height. Since no one has six hours a day to train, my personal opinion ties athletic to more strict guidelines. For reference, at 6’1″, 165lbs, and lifting heavy 3x’s a week, I still don’t consider my frame “athletic”.
I think vascularity is a bad measure. Would you call powerlifters athletic? I would, but a lot of them are carrying 20% bodyfat, sometimes more, and distinctly lack vascularity.
“I cannot wear charles tyrwhitt slim fit shorts, my shoulders are too wide.”
If you can’t wear slim-fit shorts because of wide shoulders, you might have more problems.
(I kid, I kid!)
15% body fat can also just be someone who is light and skinny with little muscle. Doesn’t necessarily mean you’re “athletic”.
Depends on what the training is for,right? Lifting max weight? Get bigger. Crossfit? Get lean. Etc.
But he can’t move anyone else on the field with pure strength, so he can be overmatched even in his own sport. I think the specific area for training relates to what “athletic”means. Sherman is arguably the best CB, but he’d be far from the best LB, DT, OL, QB etc.
Have to mention it because I haven’t read it yet. “Primetime” Sanders is the prototypical athlete. Show me someone else so dominant in multiple pro sports and I’ll reconsider.
10 inch drop or more, and an ass that causes you to size up at least twice in the pants.
Side note: where the hell can I buy suits?
Funny my tailor told me to look for athletic fit jackets or suits. I’m a tad heavy these days but I jogg a couple of miles a few times a week and lift every other day. 44short shoulders and a 36 waist 5 8. I have no idea what that makes me. A lot of 44 suits tend to be a little too big for me in the front/waist though
BMI is an outdated joke that we need to stop using. BF% is way better measurement.
Agreed, I am one of those who are more boxy through the torso naturally. I’m more of an inverted trapezoid than an inverted triangle…
After skimming the comments I saw a lot of talk of shoulder/chest ratio to waist, but what about waist ratio to lower body? My two biggest clothing frustrations are having to size up in shirts to fit shoulders and chest, resulting in a billowing torso area, and having to size up a waist size in pants to get them to fit my thighs and derriere; these are the reasons I classify my body type as “athletic.”
I would say athletic body types are most like a gymnast. Big shoulders, legs, arms and chest with a trim small to smaller waist. Someone who can’t wear skinny jeans without looking like they’re wearing tights
As I think a few others have already pointed out, there’s some confusion of the issue here. The question isn’t what it means to be athletic, it’s what it means to have an athletic body type. And since this is a menswear cite, I think we can interpret that question to be what type of body needs an “athletic fit.” For me, that’s easy–broad shoulders and chest, narrow waist.
Of course, not everyone who’s athletic will fit that description, nor will everyone who fits that description be athletic.
I describe myself as athletic. But at 6’5″ and 170 lbs, I would never describe my body type as athletic when I’m looking for clothes. Lanky, lean, slim, gangly, whatever. But never athletic 🙂
My doctor actually called me skinny fat. That was a few years ago, and I’ve been putting a lot of effort into just getting bigger in general. I was in the high 120s lbs at the time and now I’m 138, my goal is to reach the 150 or 160 by the end of the year.
It’s based on how good do you look naked
As other people have said, it’s a term that can be applied pretty broadly…but here’s my take on it:
I see a lot of guys who post pictures of themselves asking for fashion advice, or just to show off a new outfit that they’re proud of. The most common element I can pin down to guys who call themselves “athletic” is…being big. Every guy would like to claim to be athletic, so a lot of guys I see who have high percentages of body fat still say that they have an athletic build. In fact if they have any kind of size on them they say that they are athletic or have a “muscular build”. Most of these guys are what my mother used to call “husky” – think late Friends era Joey.
Agree with Josh. Skinny guys and big guys can of course BE athletic, but when it comes to clothing fit I think the term refers to having big shoulders or a thick chest and a smaller waist (or, to a lesser degree, big arms), which makes a lot of clothing fit weird. If we want an objective test then let’s say it’s a drop of at least ~8 or 10 inches between chest and waist (so 42 jacket and 32 waist qualifies), which makes buying traditional suits nearly impossible and makes traditional dress shirts all poofy and gathered at your waist.
I think “athletic” is just a marketing euphemism for “regular” (which unfortunately generally means overweight). I don’t think I’ve come across a shirt labeled “athletic” that had a bigger chest than waist. If I’m giving the designers the benefit of the doubt, then I might say “athletic” is designed to fit every body type within it. Granted, most will be swimming in it.
hahah, its a great typo!
The reason chest/waist drop is mentioned so much is because there is a lot more diversity in chest/waist than there is in waist/thigh. I have the same problem as you, though, and have completely written off entire brands of pants because of it. I have to get CT Extra-slim shirts tailored, too, which seems absolutely silly.
I think this misses the point, however. The “athletic” designation on clothing isn’t at all about actual athletic ability (it’s not like anyone makes you run a sub 4.6 forty to buy their shirts), it’s just about the fit of that piece of clothing, and in that context it typically refers to items cut bigger through the chest and shoulders and trimmer at the waist. (And if the somewhat-arbitrary naming of clothing dimensions indicated actual physical characteristics, I suspect guys would be less concerned with buying “athletic” and more concerned with buying “extra long”.)
The obvious problem is that “athletic” means different things for different body types. Someone can be athletic at 6’2 185 lbs just as they could at 5’10 210 lbs. The defining factor for me has always been where a person carries their weight. In a vaccuum, if your weight is in your chest/shoulders, not stomach, you could be considered athletic. On the other hand, if it’s carried in the thighs and butt (which is where the biggest muscles occur naturally) you likely wouldn’t spark that same reaction from people.
We can get into a battle of semantics and argue who is truly athletic and who isn’t, but ultimately we must remember that most clothiers are manufacturing clothes to fit generic body types that fit a wide range of people. You might believe that it takes a 10″ to 12″ drop from chest to waist to be considered to have an athletic body type, but that fit won’t work for very many people. In most cases if you take your definition of an athletic fit and scale it back one notch, that will probably be closer to the actual fit.
Yeah, or even just a more flattering descriptor than “slim”
This
backed up by the highly scientific observation of needing to size up to
an XL or possibly a 2X (in the Target athletic-fit polo mentioned in the
Dappered polo roundup a few days ago) despite not being even slightly built like Hugh Jackman.
DJP, I find your definition best and explanation about the men’s misunderstanding of “athlethic” and its association n to “extra long” funny (yet on point).
By football standard we would really go by a chris johnson, adrian peterson type would be the epitome of been athletic. All the other positions are a push in one or the other direction-too big or too small. The truth is the cb are probably the perfect look for the corporate world while the rb look is the best look when it comes to showing off
I believe “athletic” refers to a larger build. I think you can be an athletic build and in shape or not, because it has more to do with muscle density than body fat percentage. Me for instance I’m not in great shape now, I could stand to lose 15-20 pounds. I have thick legs, arms and neck, and big shoulders. When it comes to shirts, I think athletic fit refers to a certain chest to waist ratio where even though the build is not slim, the waist is still significantly smaller than the chest. I don’t find many shirts advertised as athletic fit, so my best fits usually come from sizing up a size or two on slim fit shirts. In spite of the fact that I’m not slim, shirts that fit me in the neck/shoulder/arm. generally don’t fit in the chest/waist. My options are to wear a large shirt with an open collar, or a large or extra large slim fit.
42 jacket 34 waist here. If I dropped a waist size though I’m still not sure I could comfortably wear a 40 jacket.
Hahaha…. so glad you posted this. I feel like every person who asks a fit question for the first time in the forum describes himself as “athletic.”
Plenty of people are “athletic,” but when using it as a descriptor when talking about menswear, it should only refer to Jim Brown in his prime.
This could also just be a self selecting bias. People who don’t have an odd body type can find clothes OTR just fine and don’t need to ask questions about how to find a shirt that fits properly without going bespoke.
Speaking in terms of how clothes fit – not all athletes have an athletic body type. Marathon runners for example would probably not be classified as such. Wide shoulders tapering to a narrower waist and hips would be how I would describe it. As clothes of this cut generally look better on most people than the ‘classic’ American fit (less extra fabric and all), people who wear athletic fit clothing probably tend to describe themselves as having an athletic body type. Also, it sounds nicer than husky, etc.
Same here. We’re probably even the same size. I’m not particularly in my prime physical shape, but I do have a 12″ drop with a larger neck and relatively shorter arms than how most shirts are cut. If I buy something traditional fit, I end up with wads of cloth tucked in around my waist.
I once had a little puke sales rep at a higher end dept store ask me if I was aware that the shirt I was buying was a trim fit as if those shirts were only for beanpoles like my younger brother.
One big plus to this site for me was that Joe’s body was similarly built to mine. I’m 5’11” 180, but as an avid lifter I have bigger shoulders, chest, arms, and thighs. Its stupid hard to make clothes look good on me OTR.
I used to define myself as “athletic,” but hell if I know what I am… bodybuilder lite?!?
That’s where I think the conversation here is getting lost. Powerlifters are athletic. But is their build “athletic”? I would say usually not, based on the folks I know. As “athletic” fits go these days, it is usually the inverted triangle shape.
Misses the point? I thought part of the point of the discussion was to debunk the silliness surrounding arbitrary and inaccurate fit labels like “athletic.” To say that broad shoulders + narrow waist = athletic, either in terms of body types generally or just to describe a particular clothing fit, would make my rail-thin, professional chain-smoker acquaintances more “athletic” than a barrel-chested rugby player. The term “athletic” loses whatever meaning it has if it is simply used to describe an arbitrary set of body proportions that have little or nothing to do with athleticism.
Agreed, but I was using it as a measure of size to height in describing the “athletic” figure — not a measure of health. For that purpose, I think it actually works well as a descriptor.
True, Mark, which is why I noted the BMI level – I was assuming a base level of size, so assuming a reasonable BF%, then that leaves bone and muscle mass making up the rest.
As evidenced by the general lack of agreement in the comments on how to even define the term “athletic,” especially as it pertains to fit, one might easily conclude the word to be a meaningless descriptor or something akin to vanity sizing. To add to the confusion, an athletic fit label from one brand can have a completely different fit from another, so it’s not as if there’s an industry consesnus either.
Okay, I’ll write it again: No one’s suggesting that “athetic fit” clothes have anything to do with actual athleticism; it just denotes the way a piece of clothing is cut. If I buy an athletic cut shirt I expect it to be roomy in the chest and taper at the waist. Using the term that way doesn’t mean it loses its meaning, it’s just a different meaning than if we use the term in the context of sports and fitness. It’s the same way that if I buy a “Lazio” suit from Suit Supply it just means that I’m buying a suit with a particular cut and I’m not somehow becoming a resident of central Italy.
Wasn’t arguing, just tagging in. Problem is, anyone who isn’t severely overweight seems to classify themselves as “athletic”. Not saying anyone on here is within this stereotype, but people don’t like to admit faults.
Legarrette Blount or Jerome Bettis = epitome of athletic 😉
Athletic seems to cover the middle ground between skinny and super-jock football player endomorph, I guess that’s why I choose it (although I did choose skinny fat in the poll).
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make, or why you think I don’t already understand that “athletic” in terms of clothing fit is not equal to “athletic” in terms of, you know, what the word actually means. That discordance is precisely what I’m criticizing.
What you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that because you have accepted that clothing manufacturers use words to mean something other than what they actually mean, the rest of us shouldn’t criticize the ambiguous or inaccurate use of those words?
Obviously someone is suggesting that athletic fit clothes have something to do with athleticism, or else there would be no appeal in using the term in the first place. The manufacturers themselves are appealing to the vanity of their target audience, and certain consumers buy into that appeal and wear “athletic” fit clothing to affirm their own body image.
If manufacturers use the term “athletic” to describe a clothing fit that is only marginally connected to actual athleticism, that’s worth criticizing. Calling a garment a “Lazio” or “London” is giving it a name that only vaguely suggests the style or cut may be influenced by regional preferences. Calling a garment “athletic,” on the other hand, is giving it (and the wearer) a concrete description – an entirely inapt one in many circumstances.
Regardless of whether you or the majority of shoppers or commenters have accepted that incongruity, it is still worth criticizing IMO.
If you have a fitness model 6 pack and are above genetic limits for weight, eg. 6′ 200 lbs You’re on steroids/peptides and I would classify that as RIPPED. This we be some football players and all pro bodybuilders/fitness models
Athletic if you look at most soccer/hockey players aren’t overly huge muscle bound upper torso. I think what most people view as “athletic” is more along the lines of an aesthetic bodybuilding competitor.
sorry this made me lol. but remember when Blount went through 6 guys?
This is what I was thinking.
In America though “Athletic” seems to commonly be identified as your basketball players, sprinters, wide receivers/tight ends/running backs in football
I’d say athletic is more what I think of in a swimmers build. Soccer players are sometimes the opposite of that, broader at the leg/hip.
BenR – I think you articulated the point very clearly. I too share your frustration with the fact that the clothing industry uses “Athletic Fit” as an analog for “broad shoulders, tapered waist.” It is certainly worth criticizing, as there are many athletic people that don’t fit those proportions. However, similar to DJP’s suggestion, until they find a more appropriate term, “athletic” serves as a decent indication of the intended shape of the garment.
My main complaint is actually the fact that the execution of said ratio is wildly inconsistent. If I were to order an “athletic” fit shirt from 5 different brands, I could have five wildly different results. I know that this is similar the variances in “slim” fit – but it can make ordering something online a nightmare.
In short, if you’re going to use a overly simplified, vanity-driven term – at least be consistent.
Roid rage is a myth, the guys were messed up long before they increased their hormones. Pretty much a great majority of pro athletes have taken PED and you don’t see these crazy killing sprees going on.
Another great example are the Mr. Olympias on their CRAZY doses, pretty calm, nice guys. Lance Armstrong did them and he was a scrawny little bugger as well.
BMI is terrible, I’m Obese at 6′ wearing a 32 pant(well not any more my thighs don’t fit anything fitted) 😀
Definitely not athletic build, upper arm freak hells yes.
I consider an athletic body type to be well-rounder, pretty lean, and with a moderate drop.
I don’t confuse this body type with being athletic or particularly good at sport. Your average, mid-level crossfitter is going to look more “athletic” than Mo Farrah or Joaquim Rodriguez but the crossfitter isn’t bringing home 6-7 figure paychecks based on their athletic ability.
Yes, but I also remember multiple times when he hit the hole only to be brought down from behind by the opposite side DE who caught up to him from across the field. He’s a good smash-mouth runner who fit a team need last year.
I’m FAIRLY sure my linebacker+ legs and posterior will never make me an “athletic” fit…
I would agree for the most part, but as someone with 19″ shoulders and a 31-32″ waist, you need to include height. I am 5’5″ and don’t fit into most “athletic” fit things as they are made for a much longer torso.
Couldn’t agree more
Skinny fat, checking in.
With all due respect, I really don’t get the frustration or why this is an issue for anyone. If we all know what the word “athletic” is intended to mean functionally when used to describe clothing fit (albeit without ideal consistency, though the same is true of “medium”, “large” and every other clothing fit term), then it has practical utility and means something i nthis context. If the way clothing stores characterize fit has any ability to move the needle on any guy’s self esteem one way or the other, he has more serious issues. I have a 10 inch chest to waist drop, and would buy a well-made, decently priced dress shirt that accomodates that without tailoring whether it’s called “athletic” or “trim fit” or “tailored” or “purple unicorn” — I can’t understand why anyone would really care about the name.
If I read one more
silly/ignorant and inaccurate article on the internet about body types with
regard to exercise and fitness, I think I might have to write yet another book
to clear up the stupidity alone describing them…and, the fashion websites are
also guilty as they keep writing articles on “how hard it is for women to find
clothing that looks good” on plus-size body types.
Repeat after me
people: Words like “athletic” or “plus-size” are not body types…and some of the
other names that these fitness and fashion people give to body types are not
only confusing and wrong, but have absolutely no credence to them. For
example, there are a plethora of articles still being written on which
exercises an ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph should be performing…and while
there may be an understanding that these body types (Endomorph, Ectomorph &
Mesomorph) are commonly described and discussed, they actually have nothing to
with fitness, and do not even come close to describing true and accurate
descriptions on how people are naturally built. The inventor and creator
of these body types, Dr. William Sheldon in the 1940’s created these names to
merely describe personality types and the physical
characteristics associated with such. They were not created by Dr. Sheldon
to educate people on body type-specific exercises because at the time he
described them many years ago, very few of the exercises/fitness equipment even
existed and more importantly, that was not his area of interest nor
expertise.
In addition, none
of the characteristics for any of the three body types hold any medical or
scientific credence and are confusing as well as the recommended exercises that
accompany them. Over the years, depending upon who is writing an article
on the body types that Dr. Sheldon created, the information given to the public
changes from writer to writer and as a result, no clear and cut logic
exists.
More recently,
we’ve heard of other body types; apple, androgynous, pear, parsnips,
banana, carrot, the rectangle, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond, rounded
oval, wedge, etc…and although some of them may describe which diseases one may
be more susceptible to, these body type names at best describe how someone
might be built like, as no human is truly constructed like any of these fruits
as I don’t know anyone who is actually built like an apple and besides, what if
you’re a small-framed, skinny person with a big stomach, would that make you a
“thin apple” with a paunch? I think everyone gets the point here…Additionally,
none of the body types or body shapes have any research, data or information
regarding what to do fitness-wise and if they do, and are indeed accurate, are
in copyright, trademark and patent infringement of Edward Jackowski, Ph.D.’s
body types and advice – as he created them all well before any of these body
type names/exercise recommendations came along…
To date, there is
only one company that has been documenting for over 25+ years, specific
aesthetic results when certain exercises are performed on different body types.
At exude.com
fitness, they explain the real physiology through the world’s only
medically-proven, patented and trademarked fitness system for body types
for both men and women by demonstrating and explaining the best exercises for
Hourglass®, Spoon®, Ruler® and Cone® shaped individuals. This is the key
to changing and ridding your body of problem-areas and the most
important factor to achieving your aesthetic goals while exercising.
To
get accurate, insightful and helpful info on all aspects on lifestyle, fitness,
weight loss issues, please go to: http://www.exude.com
Exactly. We can argue all day about body types. Athletic as a type only really makes sense as it applies to CLOTHING. You can be athletic as hell and a slim fit will work for you, but there are a bunch of folks out there who have a 9, 10″+ drop from chest to waist which makes clothes shopping really irritating unless you like button strain across your chest or a parasail out back.
If clothing companies who are doing “super extra f&$#ing slim fit” would make something called an “Athletic Fit” it would (or should) be a big shoulder/chest-to-waist drop. This is my dream scenario.
Athletic build / fit = Chest size > waist size. (eg. Have to ask tailor to chop waist out of suits and shirts; shopping for something that fits shoulders / chest and having it brought in)
To me “athletic” body type means you have a V taper. Thick chest, wide shoulders but fitted waist.
Athletic fit is often just another form of vanity sizing. Makes you feel good to buy it, even if it isn’t true. Kinda like how Ralph Lauren polo shirts come in “classic” and “custom”, though all it means is that a large “custom” is exactly like a medium “classic” (tried both on in the store the other day, no noticeable difference in actual cut). Either you feel good buying “custom” or you feel good buying a smaller size. Same thing if you feel good buying “athletic”, even though it isn’t cut all that well. Just marketing.
I’ll stick to a clothing minded definition here and say athletic means not afraid to wear tighter clothing. If you’re worried about covering up your love handles or belly, however big or small, then you’re body isn’t “athletic.”
For the purposes of men’s body type or fit, I’d say that “athletic” makes me think of generic masculine characteristics. A drop 6 or 7 in a suit (probably a 40/33-34). Noticeable difference between upper arm and forearm. The kind of person who wants clothes that are shaped like their body, but that don’t fit too closely (to cover their 12-16% body fat). Decidedly masculine, if not otherwise outstanding.