What do you mean? You guess they’re correct or that they’re wrong?
Define “good”.
I think the Internet has inevitably skewed our frame of reference for “exceptional/good/average/poor/bad”.
I’d say that this guy has exceptional/good genetics, because somehow he managed to build a whole load of muscle despite 1700-2200 calories and < 100g carbs,
I don’t think you have bad genetics. I think you have good/average genetics. I have nothing to substantiate this. It’s hard to tell, really, because I do not know enough about you (or the lad I posted about above).
To clarify with an example: I started exercising routinely two years ago. I’d been mostly inactive before then. I ran Stronglifts as a teenager, and got about as strong then as I am now (albeit at a heavier bodyweight and with shoddier form). And before then I tried some sports. But mostly I was a sedantary kid, adolescent, and “adult”.
I could make the mistake of looking at my new social circle of physically active friends and hypothesise that I have “bad” genetics (well, hypogonadism aside…) but being inquisitive I’ve come to realise that while I certainly put the most effort into my fitness out of the group they have decades of lead-time on me.
To be clear: they’ve been playing sports routinely since they were small kiddos, they had more active childhoods than what I made of my own, etcetera. Nor did they ever amass significant amounts of fat. It’d be a mistake to compare what they do in a week now, and what I do in a week now, and draw the conclusion that I have to work harder because of my genetics — rather, I’m still playing catch-up. And to catch-up, I have to do more in a week than they do.
If you are familiar with geometric series I find that’s an excellent model to highlight the disrepancy.
To circle back to the internet remark, as we can go online we can be exposed to more samples of the exceptional and the very good in an hour than a person would come across in their entire life before and thus what’s truly average becomes in a sense denormalised as far as our own mental models go.
But our brain does this kind of thing all the time. It’s not well-equipped to reason at scale, whether that concerns numbers or time which is why we get people that doesn’t want to get “too bulky” believe that a month of hitting the gym will have them looking jacked. Wendler had it right when he suggested thinking about what happens to your body in the timeframe of 36 months. Sure, if you continue drinking and partying like you are for 36 months I don’t believe there are any genetics around that can save you from replacing the six-pack with a one-pack.
But I also don’t think it’s too fruitful to reflect too much on genetics. And, I think people can be so incredibly wrong it’s silly. The only way to know is to reach for the limit and see where you end up.
Does Dorian look genetically gifted to the left?
Can’t help but think of Lamar Gant reading this. How much of your training have you dedicated purely to the pursuit of strength and strength alone?
As an example of someone I think has misread their own genetic potential: Do you think CT has bad genetics? He thinks he does…
I’m someone who was born with the genetics of a worm. I had to work extra hard to achieve even a little bit of success. So when I see someone who has a great frame and obvious muscle-building potential doing endless sets of easy exercises, talk for ten minutes between sets, and doing the same pointless workout over and over again, it pisses me off.