I want to deal with a criticism of somatotyping that keeps coming up in one form or another. It centers around the question: ....what happens if you
diet? Does this mean malnourished people have the same
personality?
That is an obvious question. And it demonstrates the reason why
good science must sometimes research the "obvious". The obvious in
this case is not true. Sheldon was confronted with this most
damaging criticism. This idea springs from a misunderstanding of
what the somatotype is measuring. On one level Endomorphy is
usually expressed in obesity. But one does not cease from being an
endomorph just because they go on a starvation diet. A person
doesn't become an ectomorph by losing weight. Instead an endomorph
who loses weight becomes an emaciated endomorph.
The objective measure that establishes endomorphy and mesomorphy is
what is called the Trunk Index. This is Sheldon's explanation of
the Trunk Index (TI):
"This was simply the area of the thoracic
trunk over the area of the abdominal trunk, measured with a
planimeter on a standard somatotype photograph."
How constant is the TI? Sheldon goes on to explain
"At the University of California in 1929, a long term growth study and
follow-up study of almost 1,000 children was initiated. The
subjects were about equally divided between the two sexes. Nearly
half of them were born during the year 1928-29. For approximately
400 of this series, somatotype photographs were taken at least once
a year until the subjects were fully grown. Many of them were
followed through their twenties, and some through their thirties.
The 400 who stayed with the California project until they were
fully grown are being studied intensively in connection with our
project on the development of the somatotype in children. For all
of the 400 the trunk index remained constat from the first
photograph to the last."
"At the University of Minnesota during World War II, a "starvation
experiment" was carried out on a group of 34 subjects. Under mild
starvation conditions these men lost from 25% to 40% of their total
weight. Somatotype photographs of them were taken before and after
the weight loss. All of these photographs were somatotyped during
1958 at the Texas Instrument Branch of the Constitution Laboratory,
and at this time the trunk indices were calculated. The starvation
changed none of the trunk indices (and, therefore, actually, none
of the somatotypes.)
Somatotype photographs were taken of the class entering the United
States Military Academy at West Point in 1946, and again on
graduation in 1950. These boys had the advantages of closely
supervised body conditioning and muscle developing exercises for
four years at West Point. Many of them changed remarkably in their
general appearance of physical competence and in the surface
manifestations of muscular definition. But for all of them the
trunk index remained a constant.
At Columbia University, somatotype photographs of the entering
freshmen were taken regularly in the years between 1912 and 1917.
In 1955 we photographed 208 of these Columbia graduates at the
Constitution Laboratory in the Columbia Medical Center. None of
the trunk indices had changed, although weight in a few instances
had nearly doubled, and in a few other cases had decreased.
In a series of 46 pairs of identical twins of both sexes studied at
the Constitution Laboratory during the same period, the trunk
indices were identical within each pair, although in a few cases
there were dramatic nutritional differences.
At this time we were running a follow-up study of 412 women and 22
men who had been attending the Columbia Medical Center Nutrition
Clinic for purposes of supervised weight reduction. Some of the
women succeeded in shedding-very temporarily- as much as 150
pounds. But the photographs at maximal and at minimal weight showed
no detectable changes in trunk index. This remained constant
despite nutritional changes."
So, why do you still find textbooks that criticize this aspect of
somatotyping? I think it was Sheldon's fault. He published this
information in an obscure journal. At some point he arrogantly
decided he had nothing to prove to anyone. Unfortunately, if an
idea doesn't have an advocate it dies. That's my purpose. I intend
to advocate this idea until it once again takes root.
I haven't really won this point unless I can convince some people
to be courageous/curious enough to discover their somatotype. You
just can't imagine how powerful that little bit of information can
be. You will never again need to take a personality test. In
fact, once a person gets a good understanding of this theory they
won't be able to take a personality test.