Criticism of the classifications of bodies

The classification of body types into endomorph, ectomorph and mesomorph is one of the most studied in the world of nutrition and fitness. It responds to a distinction that seeks to group body types according to their metabolic, physical and biological characteristics. Although it has become popular over time, it has been criticized by the fitness and nutrition community. Some experts and specialized media have come to consider it a kind of fraud with no scientific basis.

In the following, we will delve into the study of this particular subject, in order to learn about the negative aspects and criticisms surrounding this type of distinction.

Theory of constitutional psychology: One of the first criticisms of this classification lies in the postulates of the well-known theory of constitutional psychology. This happens because the creator of the classifications endomorph, ectomorph and mesomorph was the psychologist William Herbert Sheldon, who in turn relied on these to give birth to the theory of constitutional psychology. This controversial theory states that an individual's personality is defined by the type of body he or she has.

The idea is that a person is intelligent, selfish, cheerful, extroverted, or any other inherent trait of human personality, because it is genetically conditioned by his or her body. The truth is that this theory was nothing more than the impression that its author had gained after years of observation, but it had no scientific basis to support it.

That said, many have insisted that to classify a body by its physical characteristics, alluding to the denominations contributed by William Herbert Sheldon, is to continue with the ill-fated theory.

The truth is that nowadays this denomination of endomorph, ectomorph and mesomorph is not used from the perspective of predicting the personality of an individual, but they are classifications given to dissimilar bodies that have similar characteristics, associated to metabolic and biological processes. Therefore, to say that these classifications are an absurdity, because their creator tried to use them to define the personality of an individual, is a fallacy in every sense. Obesity is not a genetic issue: The argument that obesity is not a genetic issue is one of the most commonly used to disprove William Herbert's classification of bodies. Examples such as that two twins with an identical genetic code can present physical characteristics that allow one to be obese while the other is thin is a compelling element to think that genes have little to say when it comes to body weight. This is true in a certain sense, genes are not determinant in our body weight, although it has been demonstrated that they do have an influence and that there are many genes that can alter our body weight.

But we fall back to the same thing. The classification of bodies is not merely genetic, but there are metabolic and biological aspects that cause a body to have a certain tendency to store body fat, to increase its body mass or not to vary its weight easily.

This is what the current classification of bodies seeks, it does not defend the idea that you are conditioned to have a certain physique only by genetic inheritance, but that there are certain biological parameters that are replicable in many people and that undoubtedly affect our ability to lose or gain weight.

Metabolism influences fat storage, this is a reality demonstrated by science. If your metabolism is slower, your body tends to retain fat, so it would not be silly to think that there are many people with slow metabolism who have a certain tendency towards fat retention and consequently weight gain.

Then we assume that these people on average may have a similar phenotype, associated with the issues raised above, and if we classify these people as endomorphs, it would not seem such an unwise idea to look for other classifications for people who share other parameters.

Perhaps if we did not use the same names that William Herbert used for his theory of constitutional psychology all this would not be a problem and there would not be so many detractors of this type of classification.