You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
At present, MRI can directly measure skeletal-muscle volume, but there was no standardized baseline phenotype for human muscular development, no accepted standardized framework for directly measuring total muscle tissue (Heymsfield et al., 2026), and no standardized population reference against which individuals could be compared. This remains true today.
What happens when an institution has to make decisions about a biological characteristic for which it lacks a standardized reference framework? BMI brought the phenotype-classification blind spot into focus by revealing a deeper question: for an individual to be scientifically classified relative to a biological standard, there must first be a defined reference against which that individual can be compared.
Yet a standardized baseline phenotype for human muscular development does not currently exist, even though science relies on an established anatomical model of the complete human body, including all 600+ muscles, throughout anatomy, medicine, biomechanics, and biological science.
There is an important distinction between describing variation and establishing a biological reference for interpreting variation. Descriptors such as “apple,” “pear,” “triangle,” “hourglass,” “rectangle,” and somatotype offer recurring visible body shapes, but they don’t provide a baseline for reference or scientifically establish the underlying biological structures producing those differences.
The established anatomical model provides the scientifically grounded starting point because it represents the structural organization of the human body: the skeleton and vertebral column, musculature, and associated anatomical structures. In practice, this model functions as an implicit anatomical reference throughout medicine and science. When a person visits a physician, their physical structure is evaluated against this established model of normal human anatomy, allowing deviations, abnormalities, or pathology to be identified.
But the anatomical model describes the common structural organization of the human body; it does not explain the enormous biological variation that exists within that organization. It tells us what structures humans have, but not how those structures vary in development across individuals, what constitutes a baseline for that variation, or how differences in their development produce differences in body shape, composition, and physical capacity. The existence of the anatomical model, therefore, doesn’t eliminate the need for a standardized baseline phenotype—it establishes the structural foundation from which such a phenotype can be investigated.
What is missing is the ability to determine how much foundational muscle a person has as part of their natural underlying body composition. That information is fundamental to understanding an individual's metabolism, structure, physical capacity, and health.
Instead, two people with the same BMI but substantially different underlying phenotypes—one with significantly more natural muscle and one with significantly less—receive the same standardized classification, guidance, and general strategy despite fundamentally different body compositions, metabolic characteristics, and physical capacities. They follow the same diet, exercise, and behavioral protocol yet experience dramatically different outcomes.
The one with more natural muscle achieves the physical body shape they seek, while the other repeatedly fails despite comparable effort. When the existing framework cannot identify or measure the underlying biological differences, the explanation is all too often pushed back onto the individual: they must be cheating, lying, miscalculating, or failing to follow the protocol. The absence of a standardized classification and measurement framework for muscular development is too often treated as irrelevant to these differences, when it could not be more relevant.
BT1 is not proposed as another arbitrary body-shape category, but as an empirical phenotype corresponding to the established anatomical model of the human body. While this anatomical model serves as a foundational reference throughout science and medicine, its use as a candidate population-level baseline phenotype for human muscular development has never been formally evaluated.
The central question is not whether human bodies vary—they clearly do—but whether the established anatomical reference corresponds to a reproducible empirical pattern in real individuals. The proposed BT1 baseline phenotype operationalizes that anatomical model as a testable classification hypothesis:
If BT1 corresponds to a reproducible phenotypic pattern aligned with the standard anatomical model, then BT1-classified individuals should exhibit a coherent and empirically consistent set of objective anatomical indicators within the existing 492-participant dataset.
The 492-participant dataset provides an empirical sample in which the proposed BT1 classification can be evaluated. The independent analysis will examine the distribution of BT1 and non-BT1 classifications, assess whether BT1 participants exhibit a coherent pattern of anatomical and phenotypic indicators, and determine whether the proposed classification exhibits sufficient empirical coherence and internal consistency to justify further MRI investigation.
The project is designed around independent scrutiny. The lead scientific researcher will conduct the primary scientific investigation, while three independent data scientists provide protocol review, independent analysis, and methodological assessment. Their analyses are designed to assess reproducibility and identify potential methodological weaknesses, discrepancies, or areas of disagreement. The scientific technical editor will provide independent scientific and methodological review, along with communication and editorial support, to ensure clarity, transparency, and methodological coherence.
Lead Scientific Researcher / Principal Investigator — $24,000
Develop the scientific record for peer-reviewed publication, clarify the existing dataset and classification framework, coordinate independent analyses and methodological assessment, interpret results, and prepare the manuscript and supporting materials for peer-review submission and follow-through to completion.
Independent Analyses — $16,000
A lead data scientist will establish and review the analytical protocol at the outset and conduct two methodological reviews during the project to ensure that prespecified procedures are followed appropriately. Two additional data scientists will independently execute the prespecified analyses using the existing dataset and classification framework, conduct robustness and sensitivity checks, and identify discrepancies, concerns, or disagreement.
Scientific Technical Editor — $3,000
Independent scientific and methodological review, including editing for clarity, accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility.
Open-Access Dissemination — $2,500
Publication and dissemination of the resulting scientific record.
Post-Review Revision — $1,500
Analytical or manuscript revisions arising from external scientific review.
Additional Scientific Requirements — $3,000
Reserved for unforeseen analytical requirements that emerge during independent analysis, methodological assessment, or peer review.
Fees
Timeline — 8 Weeks, Then Peer Review and Finalization
Milestone 1 — Empirical Test Completed
Formalize analytical specifications, analyze the dataset using the prespecified classification framework, and establish the empirical record.
Milestone 2 — Independent Analysis Completed
Independent data scientists will reproduce the prespecified analyses, conduct robustness and sensitivity checks, and document agreement and disagreement across analytical results, as well as any methodological concerns. The scientific review and communication specialist will review clarity, methodological accuracy, copyediting, and references.
Milestone 3 — Scientific Record Submitted
Complete the findings, supporting documentation, and manuscript for peer-review submission.
Milestone 4 — Post-Review Refinement
Respond to external scientific review and finalize the record.
Lead Scientific Researcher/Principal Investigator
3 Independent Expert Data Scientists have been identified and contacted (contract)
1 Independent Expert Scientific Technical Editor has been identified and contacted (contract)
Relevant Peer Review Journals have been identified and researched
The 492-participant dataset is complete and ready. Our track record is successful.
The most likely causes of failure are that the independent analysis of the existing 492-participant dataset may identify methodological limitations and/or may not contain sufficient information to support the proposed baseline Standard Body Type One (BT1) phenotype.
If the project fails to establish a reproducible empirical basis for BT1, the immediate outcome would be a clearer determination of what the existing dataset can and cannot support.
A negative result would therefore still provide useful scientific information: it would establish an evidence-based boundary around the current hypothesis and help determine how future research, including the planned MRI study, should proceed.
None.