I think genetics is a broad term that usually covers the three or four most important dispositions, namely how “fast someone puts on muscle” (a big oversimplification for sure) how resistant he is to typical training stress and injuries and third, his overall frame (wide shoulders, good bone structure etc).
If he juices, genetic “talent” will also determine how productive it is.
Genes are by far the most important and unforgiving aspect of bodybuilding sport. I can’t understand posters who downplay this and put “hard work” ahead. I can only assume they never saw really gifted people or shitty genes at work.
Most talented guys are already well-built or, if they really led a sub-optimal lifestyle, put on muscle with frightening speed when they press the iron and eat right for the first time in their life.
However, there are two big X factors in bodybuilding, which sets it a bit apart from other athletic endeavours:
One is drugs. I’d be hard to find a sport where such a substantial advantage is achieved though proper usage (endurance based races come to mind first).
This can change the whole “talent” discussion completely.
Consider Arnold, who supposedly started juicing at 16 or 17, and who was pretty much always “on”.
perhaps his only real talent was, apart from x factor 2, which I’ll explain in a second, a liver of steel and a genetic disposition to make the best of it.
X Factor two is what substantially removes bodybuilding from 99% of all sports.
Decade-spanning consistency is your friend.
Olympic athletes over thirty better sit atop a horse or play “curling”. Cause injuries and declining physicality will take it’s toll.
A bodybuilder in his thirties on the other hand, is in his prime.
That’s a very unusual, long career.
Both x factors, especially together, can substantially change a “genes” or “talent” discussion.
