[quote]dieselallnight wrote:
when are u gonna post a pick of your back prof x ? [/quote]
It’s best to just believe my back is really tiny until I do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]dieselallnight wrote:
when are u gonna post a pick of your back prof x ? [/quote]
It’s best to just believe my back is really tiny until I do.[/quote]
okie dokie
[quote]dieselallnight wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]dieselallnight wrote:
when are u gonna post a pick of your back prof x ? [/quote]
It’s best to just believe my back is really tiny until I do.[/quote]
okie dokie [/quote]
Who cares? I find it more interesting whether we should train hard right now or wait 'till new year’s resolutions.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Interesting topic.
Pretty sure that those that claim poor genetics exaggerate the role of genetics in their lack of success
Pretty sure those that have achieved great results do not give their genetics enough credit, in addition to their effort
Why do people continue to do the same thing workout after workout, year after year, without results?
The genetic problem is there. [/quote]
Because they don’t know how to train - read Thibs’ huge post on page 2 of this thread. You have to do the right thing long enough to evaluate the power of your genetics in building muscle.
Okay I’ll just briefly chime in here. I personally believe that the average genetics standard, that is the genes that most of the population have in relation to building muscle, are better than what most of us would think from looking at people that don’t lift or TRY to. If you get a person with average or even below average genetics and put them in the right environment to facilitate hypertrophy, like Thibs mentioned, that person is going to get jacked. If everyone was educated and motivated enough everyone would have good looking physiques.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is why it is generally held that if you have been training hard for 3-5 years and no one is calling you out based on how big you are (and I am NOT simply talking about some sedentary jackass calling you big because they haven’t seen 15" arms before)…then you likely do not have the genetics for this.
If you want to discuss that further, let’s go.[/quote]
Not being from the USA, I always didn’t understand the term “calling out” and thought it was a bad thing. I realize now it’s only bad if used in the wrong context and the right context (I guess) is to be big and or developed to a point where people notice you (your peers, fellow BB’ers) and “called you out” as a means to fire you up more, to train harder and compete with another to make your results better.
This year I’ve changed my behaviors. And I’m not going to be disappointed with my results as long as I persevere, eat better than 95% clean, train 4 days/week in the 6-8 and 10-12 rep range and change it up regularly, take my supplements, control my blood sugar level, focus on critical exercises - and keep doing this for the next 3 years (considering my current progress, I may need to revise this every 6 months).
It’s ironic Prof X that you bring up this topic, I was just thinking to myself last week in the gym “hey what if in actual fact my genetics were decent? What if I was predisposed to respond well to training? What will I be able to achieve if I keep focusing on this?”.
Thing is, I don’t know what “category” I fall into (BB/PL/SM etc) but I am going to focus on all three in that make my muscles big and defined, keeping breaking PRs for basic lifts, make sure I’m doing sufficient “assistance” exercises, do something regularly that “shocks” my body. At some point I’ll need to decide, but for now I want to be a sub-10% 220lb with 300/400/500 in the 3 basic lifts under my belt. That’s my goal and I’m confident my genetics will support it!
[quote]I was trying to avoid calling people names but that hit me as well.
Mind you, guys who think like that are the main ones over complicating everything when they don’t even understand the absolute basics of what the human body can even do.
There are no people in their 30’s who accidentally got huge “because of genetics”.
You are not going to see some guy with huge fucking shoulders and bodybuilder proportions who never works out in any way at all. They may not train specifically for bodybuilding, but some of you seem to think there are guys walking around with 20" lean arms who don’t workout all because of GENETICS.[/quote]
Sorry guys, I’d just been pumping up my 13 inch guns and was pretty whacked and could hardly type. Let me explain what I was trying to say…
It’s generally ‘accepted’ that a trainer will make fast gains around the age of 18-21 due to their hormonal profile and make rapid progress through their 20’s (and that after a certain age the human genotype is no longer in an optimal muscle-building state). Obviously if they have been training for 15 years since the age of 20, their physique is likely to peak in their 30’s. However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
[quote]I was trying to avoid calling people names but that hit me as well.
Mind you, guys who think like that are the main ones over complicating everything when they don’t even understand the absolute basics of what the human body can even do.
There are no people in their 30’s who accidentally got huge “because of genetics”.
You are not going to see some guy with huge fucking shoulders and bodybuilder proportions who never works out in any way at all. They may not train specifically for bodybuilding, but some of you seem to think there are guys walking around with 20" lean arms who don’t workout all because of GENETICS.[/quote]
Sorry guys, I’d just been pumping up my 13 inch guns and was pretty whacked and could hardly type. Let me explain what I was trying to say…
It’s generally ‘accepted’ that a trainer will make fast gains around the age of 18-21 due to their hormonal profile and make rapid progress through their 20’s (and that after a certain age the human genotype is no longer in an optimal muscle-building state). Obviously if they have been training for 15 years since the age of 20, their physique is likely to peak in their 30’s. However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[/quote]
I kind of understood your question in the beginning. I’d say the simple answer is “NO” to your earlier question. But of course statistics may prove it’s happened before. I think there is a distinction to your question being posed as “pre-trained” or “new to training” - I think it makes a difference if they were one or the other.
If they have been training since 20 for 15 years I don’t think they will peak in their 30s, I would have said they would have peaked in their 20s. I’m sure there are other threads where it has been discussed on the pros of building muscle below 30 being more beneficial than over 30.
Have there ever been selection pressures which favour people who gain muscle more easily in there 30s than at another time? I dunno. You can easily imagine the selection pressures which favour a man 18 - 25 needing the most muscle building capacity however.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
[quote]I was trying to avoid calling people names but that hit me as well.
Mind you, guys who think like that are the main ones over complicating everything when they don’t even understand the absolute basics of what the human body can even do.
There are no people in their 30’s who accidentally got huge “because of genetics”.
You are not going to see some guy with huge fucking shoulders and bodybuilder proportions who never works out in any way at all. They may not train specifically for bodybuilding, but some of you seem to think there are guys walking around with 20" lean arms who don’t workout all because of GENETICS.[/quote]
Sorry guys, I’d just been pumping up my 13 inch guns and was pretty whacked and could hardly type. Let me explain what I was trying to say…
It’s generally ‘accepted’ that a trainer will make fast gains around the age of 18-21 due to their hormonal profile and make rapid progress through their 20’s (and that after a certain age the human genotype is no longer in an optimal muscle-building state). Obviously if they have been training for 15 years since the age of 20, their physique is likely to peak in their 30’s. However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[/quote]
This is what I mean by not even understanding the basics. Your genetics are your genetics. It is your blue print for life that you carry from your first cell division. That means your question is misguided. How could someone suddenly have their genes change so that they work better as they get older? If we assume degradation as someone ages, that means if someone can make gains in their late 30’s or 40’s, they should have made even better progress younger than that.
You may have laypeople claim they gain better in their 30’s, but this is usually NOT coming from someone extremely developed or it is coming from someone who is misjudging a decrease in metabolism (allowing easier weight gain) for some magical change in how their body works.
Also, many people lack the discipline to even stick to a serious work out schedule until they are older which again causes them to assume things somehow are working better when the truth is, had they worked their asses off 20 years before that and ate more, they would have made way more progress.
This again goes back to people wasting the best years of their growth potential with many claiming they have “bad genetics” when what they really have is a fucked up work ethic.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
[…] However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[/quote]
what an extremely weird idea.
The only reason I could think of is because financial security could potentially give some people a better shot at costly supplements and training methods (like hiring a personal coach).
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
[…] However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[/quote]
The only reason I could think of is because financial security could potentially give some people a better shot at costly supplements and training methods (like hiring a personal coach).
[/quote]
Really? I think people would be surprised how “cheap” it does cost to produce great results when they are younger. Gym, good food, home cooked meals, student subsidies etc.
When we are post 30 we HAVE to buy more supplements, watch our nutrition and exercise right to stop us from derailing, when you’re sub-30 you can chose not to care about that, at worst your results will be sub-optimal but not a health risk and the effect won’t be as detrimental as making the same mistakes post-30. Can you imagine being unhealthy and not having the means to “fix” yourself? That’s the real tragedy.
[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
[…] However, my question is, can someone be genetically pre-disposed to make better strength and hypertrophy gains in their 30’s (regardless of whether they are pre-trained or new to training).
Prof X is saying ‘do your genes suck’
I’m posing the question, ‘can your genes suck less in your 30’s’
[/quote]
The only reason I could think of is because financial security could potentially give some people a better shot at costly supplements and training methods (like hiring a personal coach).
[/quote]
Really? I think people would be surprised how “cheap” it does cost to produce great results when they are younger. Gym, good food, home cooked meals, student subsidies etc.
When we are post 30 we HAVE to buy more supplements, watch our nutrition and exercise right to stop us from derailing, when you’re sub-30 you can chose not to care about that, at worst your results will be sub-optimal but not a health risk and the effect won’t be as detrimental as making the same mistakes post-30. Can you imagine being unhealthy and not having the means to “fix” yourself? That’s the real tragedy.[/quote]
We have to buy more supplements?
Most of you buy shit you don’t even need. Unless you are OVER 200lbs, most of you really don’t need a protein supplement since it shouldn’t be difficult to get enough from food alone. Short of creatine and multivitamin, what else do you think people over 30 need that is so different from the needs of a 20 year old? Yes, a slower metabolism means you need to watch your diet closer…but the rules don’t fundamentally change.
He is also correct about the only possibility being a greater source of income. I don’t know about you, but steaks here are not cheap and there is no way I could have eaten the way I eat now 15 years ago.
You mentioned someone younger not making optimal results when that is the whole point. MOST people don’t get their shit together until they get older…when it is too late to take full advantage of whatever genetics they were given.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We have to buy more supplements?
Most of you buy shit you don’t even need. Unless you are OVER 200lbs, most of you really don’t need a protein supplement since it shouldn’t be difficult to get enough from food alone. Short of creatine and multivitamin, what else do you think people over 30 need that is so different from the needs of a 20 year old? Yes, a slower metabolism means you need to watch your diet closer…but the rules don’t fundamentally change.
He is also correct about the only possibility being a greater source of income. I don’t know about you, but steaks here are not cheap and there is no way I could have eaten the way I eat now 15 years ago.
You mentioned someone younger not making optimal results when that is the whole point. MOST people don’t get their shit together until they get older…when it is too late to take full advantage of whatever genetics they were given.[/quote]
I just felt younger people didn’t care too much for the discipline of taking basic supplementation (? - maybe we’re strictly talking about the lifting population in which case they probably ARE disciplined to take the right amount of supplements).
And I guess, yes, there’s not much difference in what we take sub and post 30, maybe we’re more disciplined about it (touches on your last point about getting shit together later in life). I am taking supplements now that I wish I took more of when I was 20 (fish oil, ZMA etc). My loss.
Steak is expensive the world over and my diet is better because I have the means for it. Your last two points are sound.
Exactly, your genetics are YOUR genetics, so there will be huge natural variations. Bear with me rather than blindly dismissing what I am saying. You need to consider your biological age as opposed to your chronological age. I knew kids who had stubbled beards when they were 12 - are you telling me they would peak for hypertrophy at the same age as a kid who didn’t even start shaving until he was 18? No way. Some people are genetically programmed to die young, others are genetically programmed for longevity. Why can’t some people be genetically pre-disposed to build more muscle mass in their 30’s? Some people are biologically 25 when they are 30 (me) and others are 40 when they are 30.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
Exactly, your genetics are YOUR genetics, so there will be huge natural variations. Bear with me rather than blindly dismissing what I am saying. You need to consider your biological age as opposed to your chronological age. I knew kids who had stubbled beards when they were 12 - are you telling me they would peak for hypertrophy at the same age as a kid who didn’t even start shaving until he was 18? No way. Some people are genetically programmed to die young, others are genetically programmed for longevity. Why can’t some people be genetically pre-disposed to build more muscle mass in their 30’s? Some people are biologically 25 when they are 30 (me) and others are 40 when they are 30.[/quote]
What is your educational background?
Biological age variances for development do not span several decades. Some people get their first tooth at 4 instead of 5 or 6…not 25 instead of 4. There is no one going through puberty for the first time at age 35 unless something is VERY wrong.
Unless you are discussing some mutation where someone literally would not hormonally peak (as in puberty) until decades later, you don’t have a point.
Why would someone suddenly make better gains at age 30 unless there was something very wrong with them once they hit maturity?
lol X, you actually made me laugh for once. However, you are being a bit pedantic. I never for a minute said anything about hitting puberty at 30. I’m just giving you an example that everyone is not the same genetically (that was why you started this thread). Ok, so developmental variance may not span decades, but it does span from less than 10 to 18 years in terms of puberty (I know these may be the extreme ranges but it’s still a fact). So, in theory you could have a big variance between 2 guys. Let’s just suppose it was 5 years, one kid at 9 and one kid at 14; when is the optimal growth age for each one? Are they the same? I personally very much doubt it; the early developer could be packing on mass from the age during his early teens while the other guy wouldn’t even be able to significantly if he tried. When I was a kid I played sport with guys my own age who were not athletically gifted, nor very skillful, then suddenly they were man-children. Most of them look about 35+ now days. Since you are saying this optimal hormonal window only stays open for a limited number of years, then it becomes even clearer than there is no definitive fits-all age for optimal growth. Despite not having a background in genetics, I have read significantly about it and some researchers suggest that early puberty may indicate faster cell division and subsequently faster ageing, and that could theoretically mean a shorter window of optimal muscle building at a young age.
I’m not trying to pick an argument, I’m actually trying to have a serious discussion about the potential of this concept.
What do you consider the average ‘anabolic window’ age wise? For example, if it’s 18-22 then you would have guys for whom it would be 16-20 and 22-26. If it’s longer than 4 years then it would take you to your 30’s. Then of course no individual is the same genetically (indeed, it;'s what you say all along,X); thus one guy’s hormonal profile may be good for 4 years, while can’t a guy have a rocking hormonal profile for a decade?
It may be ‘off the wall’, but just think about it.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
lol X, you actually made me laugh for once. However, you are being a bit pedantic. I never for a minute said anything about hitting puberty at 30. I’m just giving you an example that everyone is not the same genetically (that was why you started this thread). Ok, so developmental variance may not span decades, but it does span from less than 10 to 18 years in terms of puberty (I know these may be the extreme ranges but it’s still a fact). So, in theory you could have a big variance between 2 guys. Let’s just suppose it was 5 years, one kid at 9 and one kid at 14; when is the optimal growth age for each one? Are they the same? I personally very much doubt it; the early developer could be packing on mass from the age during his early teens while the other guy wouldn’t even be able to significantly if he tried. When I was a kid I played sport with guys my own age who were not athletically gifted, nor very skillful, then suddenly they were man-children. Most of them look about 35+ now days. Since you are saying this optimal hormonal window only stays open for a limited number of years, then it becomes even clearer than there is no definitive fits-all age for optimal growth. Despite not having a background in genetics, I have read significantly about it and some researchers suggest that early puberty may indicate faster cell division and subsequently faster ageing, and that could theoretically mean a shorter window of optimal muscle building at a young age.
I’m not trying to pick an argument, I’m actually trying to have a serious discussion about the potential of this concept.
What do you consider the average ‘anabolic window’ age wise? For example, if it’s 18-22 then you would have guys for whom it would be 16-20 and 22-26. If it’s longer than 4 years then it would take you to your 30’s. Then of course no individual is the same genetically (indeed, it;'s what you say all along,X); thus one guy’s hormonal profile may be good for 4 years, while can’t a guy have a rocking hormonal profile for a decade?
It may be ‘off the wall’, but just think about it.
[/quote]
There is no doubt there something in what you are trying saying (your just not explaining it very well because it is a hard thing to define) but you are making too much of it, you can never know when your optimum growth age is so why worry about it. 99% of the time you want to be starting this thing as soon as you can, to wait would be a wasted opportunity.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
lol X, you actually made me laugh for once. However, you are being a bit pedantic. I never for a minute said anything about hitting puberty at 30.
[/quote]
I mentioned puberty because the ONLY thing keeping a kid from gaining muscle mass is the necessary hormones…which means the ONLY way someone could somehow not be able to gain until 30 was if their DEVELOPMENT was slowed.
No one was being “pedantic”. You just aren’t keeping up and for some strange reason think I am the one lagging behind you.
You do realize following developmental patterns is a part of what I do for a living?
Fair enough and I’m not doubting your intellect or professional knowledge. However, I do make some valid points for anyone who cares to consider them. Enough said on the matter I won’t detract from the thread anymore. There are differences in the optimal age for growth, in my opinion and to an extent it may be genetic.
You say it can’t be in your 30’s and I will consider that and see how I get on. I never said I haven’t build any muscle mass in my 20’s, simply that I have started getting much stronger recently.