Talk:Body shape

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Muzizimu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Somatotypes are pseudo-science

Please remove "Types of Bodies" section...

Somatotypes has some references, along with Somatotype and constitutional psychology, that state that modern science rejects these categories as quackery.

68.54.162.15 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I removed the line saying females can't develop well defined muscles as it is complete nonsense. The person who wrote is probably never visited a gym or saw female athletes on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.248.126 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article sounds like an excerpt from a talk show. I edited the section on shape of female breasts - gravity and clothes do not determine the shape of breasts. It depends on age, gernes, body weight etc. I removed the phrase "improve breast side", as it suggests there is a "good" size to which females should strive. Beseides, physical excercise can affect breast size - by losing weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.248.126 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I altered the line about clothes 'forcing the body into shapes that defy gravity' because it was hilariously wrong. If they defied gravity, they'd be impossible. I am tempted to also change the line following it that high-heeled shoes alter bodily proportions, but I am uncertain about its intention. Is it referring to altered gait, muscular changes due to altered gait, or changes forced upon the foot due to constriction over time? Whatever the case, it could be clearer. --Saerain (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Body shape → Human body shape – The current name shows WP:Systematic bias in favor of human biology. Lots of things have bodies that are not humans, such as other animals, or cars, car body shaping is a field of intense study in the car industry, so is aircraft body shapes. Recent activity on spacecraft body shapes for the COTS programs show that technological body shapes are also of much research and funding. Ergonomics deal with human use object shaping. Body shapes of animals is studied by evolutionary biologists, such as how Darwin came to the theory of Evolution by studying the morphology of pigeons and finches. 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("...much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"). Of the first 200 Google hits for "body shape", 198 for human body shape. One is for a guitar body shape and the other for aerodynamic body shape and we have articles on neither at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  00:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISION. -- Trevj (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Material

There s material about women's body shapes at US_standard_clothing_size#History. Actual measurements produced far more body shapes in women than in men. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed edit page content from article

I removed the following text from the "Wider hips (in females)" section of the article as it was obviously meant for the talk page and not for the article itself. I have no idea when this edit was made or who made it, but I thought I'd put it in its proper place. Bookbaby2004 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"The reference cited by the author to provide evidence for female body shape causing a hip sway does not in fact make any assertion of the kind. It is merely an article stating that women who sway their hips are considered to be more attractive. Please either provide a reference that actually includes this information, or remove this portion of the article."

Male body shape

Why does Male body shape redirect here while Female body shape is its own article? Talk about asymmetrical. Nongendered (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. Ridiculous sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.83.15 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This disparity is currently being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, with the discussion leaning towards the creation of a separate Male body shape article.Dialectric (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this matter still being discussed as it seems no action was taken? 45.53.232.95 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There's not enough content at present to merit a separate article on male body shape. It's not something that needs to be discussed further. Someone just needs to actually create that content.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Is anything currently being done about this? No action has been taken. It was stated above that there was not enough content to warrant a separate male body shape page however this was 6 years ago. I would be open to collaborating with others on this. Dancelover0800! (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You're free to open a new RFC. TAXIDICAE💰 13:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Body skills

Body build is associated with specific athletic skills—the best fencers, oarsmen, and basketball players, for example, tend to be tall and lean; top swimmers, divers, and pole vaulters are likely to be broad-shouldered and slim-hipped; champion wrestlers, shot putters, and weight lifters are apt to be thick-trunked and short-limbed. While body type does not guarantee athletic prowess, it can contribute to success in certain sports. Similar considerations apply to vocal and instrumental musical aptitudes wherein unique combinations of such anatomical structures as lips, teeth, larynx, tongue, eyes, ears, hands, and arms can facilitate the attainment of virtuoso skill.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_548.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130021737/http://www.unl.edu:80/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm to http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_548.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927075821/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609161936/http://www.healthywomen.org/columns/drpeekescolumn/dbcolumn/waistlineworriesturningapplesbackintopears to http://www.healthywomen.org/columns/drpeekescolumn/dbcolumn/waistlineworriesturningapplesbackintopears

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No section on trans/ non-binary

I have noticed that the only body shapes mentioned are those of men and women, with no sections on trans or non-binary. Does anyone else think that there should be a section on this as this page currently has a binary-approach, which is unrepresentative of the population. I would be open to collaborating with others to discuss this further. Dancelover0800! (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments on creation of a male body shape page

Should there be a separate page for the male body shape, given there is one for the female body shape? Dancelover0800! (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dancelover0800!: Why have you gone straight for RfC without, so far as I can tell, having first exhausted the avenues described at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - plus the answer to "should/could there be a separate page for the male body shape" is fairly clearly yes, so you could just create one. But this article is pretty weak, so should probably be expanded first. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it "very clearly yes"? Obviously, it logically should be, but if there simply isn't enough material in sources out there, we cannot create content out of thin air!

As for why the material might be lacking: 1, most academics in general are, to begin with, heterosexual males; 2, most people generally that are likely to focus on subjects such as body shape are going to be males, regardless of scholar status; most males, in turn, are heterosexual; 3, with this subject's scholars being overwhelmingly male heterosexuals due to factors 1 and 2, consequently the vast majority of material they produce would be on females. As the old schoolyard joke goeth...men have two heads, and in this case they're thinking with the one that is unique to their sex. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm entirely certain there is enough material in RS, but this is a pretty poor article that doesn't even scratch the surface. I don't believe in your arguments at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also agreed. I'm inclined to close this RFC; is there any discussion necessary? This is kind of a WP:SPLIT, but the section in question in this article is currently super terse. The first step would be expanding the Body_shape#Male_traits section and creating a new article as appropriate. Suriname0 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed the RFC tag. Not adding Template:closed rfc top, since it seems like discussion might be ongoing. Suriname0 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close per WP:RFCBEFORE. And I oppose this because we don't split articles just for the sake of paralleling genders. There is no WP:SIZESPLIT warranted here. If there are enough reliable secondary sources with significant coverage, then a split can be on the table. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Cobra shape body" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cobra shape body. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Cobra shape body until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Body Type Science

Hello:

As per Wikipedia:External links

"Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

What is unacceptable about this for the topic Body shape:

The three current body shape (type) standards used by mainstream medical doctors include the standard human body image, sometimes referred to as a Standard Body Type One (BT1), found in any scientifically approved human body anatomy book with all skeletal structures, vertebrae, and muscles, no less, fully developed. Presently, every human being is a Standard BT1 unless otherwise diagnosed by their doctor -- but even then, they are still a BT1 just with a specific diagnoses (like scoliosis or Poland's Syndrome). The second standard is Body Mass Index (BMI). The third standard is basal metabolic rate (BMR). These are the three main Standards any licensed medical doctor uses to judge whether their patient is "normal" and healthy. All these standards are inaccurate because they fail to take into account genetics including any form of skinny fat such as normal weight obesity. BMI is further inaccurate as it does not properly calculate excess muscles/muscle mass (think Dwayne Johnson, who is not obese but likely his BMI says he is).

Body Type Science (The Four Body Types) is a new field of science that began in 2003. Previously, all body types were unscientific, including the somatotypes. Body Type Science scientifically researches the theory that body type is genetic and based on how developed or undeveloped each human body is in terms of no less than skeletal structure, vertebrae, and muscles/muscle mass. It is a genetic fact that any part of the human body can be underdeveloped, to whatever degree. The scientific research data to date supports the theory that genetically underdeveloped muscle(s) negatively influences vertebrae and thus posture, BMI, and BMR. Moreover, genetically underdeveloped muscles/muscle mass explains skinny fat, especially in young people who have experienced some form of skinny fat from birth and have never been a BT1, contrary to mainstream doctors claims that they are a BT1 once within safe BMI.

Furthermore, to date mainstream scientists and medical doctors hold firm to the idea that obesity is merely an energy imbalance -- consistently eating too many calories daily above BMR which leads to an overweight or obese BMI. Cleaning up diet, exercise, and lifestyle is considered the only solution. However, as the obesity epidemic worsens, countless people worldwide of all ages, including kids and adolescents, have done the work and successfully lost the weight to be within safe BMI but they still experience skinny fat including normal weight obesity (which carries with it the same general risks as obesity) even though they are within their safe BMI. As well, doctors have no explanation for the obesity paradox or metabolically healthy obese (MHO) people, whom have normal readings for typical health indicators including blood pressure, heart rate, cholesterol, A1C (blood sugar), etc. Body Type Science addresses all these concerns and is working to strengthen the three current Standards (BT1, BMI, BMR).

Marcnelson11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to link your website, nor to advertise your dieting plans. Biomedical claims (including claims about body types and/or weight loss) have stringent sourcing requirements, which you may read at WP:MEDRS. Your site does not even come close to satisfying those requirements. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We are not advertising diet plans. Please send along evidence of us advertising anything. We are simply adding our scientific research to the information on body shape.

Again, you are allowing unscientific, unproven body shape info in your articles, yet fully rejecting our information based on your false claims and allegations. We are not advertising. We are sharing 18 years of hard work on Body Type Science on a page that is riddled with unscientific, unproven nonsense. Somatotypes were debunked long ago.

None of the following is backed by any science whatsoever, yet you allow it? Somatotypes were debunked long ago. 0% of any of the following is backed by any peer-review papers or science. Your few mentioned studies in no way prove that any of the shapes are scientific or that the body shapes you accept in the articles are real or valid. The studies mentioned are about invalid, unproven body shapes - "A study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University circa 2005, for apparel, found that 46% were rectangular, just over 20% spoon, just under 14% inverted triangle, and 8% hourglass. Another study has found "that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s" and that women in 2004 were taller and had bigger busts and hips than those of the 1950s. Note however that a 2021 study found that slight changes in measurement placement definition can recategorise up to 40% of women into different body shapes, meaning cross-research comparisons may be flawed unless the exact measurement definitions are used."

Please show us and your wikipedia users the scientific evidence that backs up rectangular, spoon, inverted triangle, and hourglass body shapes....

Why are we being held to a double standard. Hypocrisy. Our research is real and growing and the only scientific research on body shape or type, yet you accept all other unscientific body shapes and types and reject ours alone? Why?

• V shape: Males tend to have proportionally smaller buttocks, bigger chests and wider shoulders, wider latissimus dorsi and a small waist which makes for a V-shape of the torso.
• Hourglass shape: The female body is significantly narrower in the waist both in front view and profile view. The waist is narrower than the chest region due to the breasts, and narrower than the hip region due to the width of the buttocks, which results in an hourglass shape.
• Apple: The stomach region is wider than the hip section, mainly in males.
• Pear or spoon or bell: The hip section is wider than the upper body, mainly in females.
• Rectangle or straight or banana: The hip, waist, and shoulder sections are relatively similar.

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:

• Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s
• Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
• Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
• Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
• Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
• Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
• Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

Marcnelson11 (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. If you want to edit here you will have to follow it. MrOllie (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide all the reliable WP:MEDRS.sources for all of this info already in the articles. But, you cannot, because there are none.

• V shape: Males tend to have proportionally smaller buttocks, bigger chests and wider shoulders, wider latissimus dorsi and a small waist which makes for a V-shape of the torso.
• Hourglass shape: The female body is significantly narrower in the waist both in front view and profile view. The waist is narrower than the chest region due to the breasts, and narrower than the hip region due to the width of the buttocks, which results in an hourglass shape.
• Apple: The stomach region is wider than the hip section, mainly in males.
• Pear or spoon or bell: The hip section is wider than the upper body, mainly in females.
• Rectangle or straight or banana: The hip, waist, and shoulder sections are relatively similar.

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:

• Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s
• Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
• Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
• Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
• Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
• Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
• Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

Marcnelson11 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kathyljy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kathyljy (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)