Genetics- Most Important Factor?

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]scottiscool wrote:

Am I getting my point across to some of the more thickheaded people around here yet?

If you take guys with unequal genetics, say Dugdale and Phil Heath, you can put them on the same diet and training and drug program and Phil is always going to come out looking better.

God that was long ha[/quote]

You make fun of us, call us names, imply that we use roids based on our head size,
Then proceed make the same implication that we’re arguing against.

With your example of unequal genetics are you saying phil has better genetics or better genetics for that diet and training program?

62

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

You make fun of us, call us names, imply that we use roids based on our head size,
Then proceed make the same implication that we’re arguing against.

With your example of unequal genetics are you saying phil has better genetics or better genetics for that diet and training program? [/quote]

Better bodybuilding genetics overall. Put Heath on whatever diet Dugdale thinks works best and let him train with him and Phil will still have better shape. And that post before this had a little too much anger in it but the one I responded to addressed the very first thing I talked about, the mindset that pros on boatloads of drugs and that’s what makes them who they are which I think is very naive.

Some people get it and I guess it gives me hope that I’m not alone on this site. But after this comment unless asked to I don’t think I’ll be posting on this thread anymore.

[edited out a part that would just continue the silliness.]

So people can continue to discuss this topic in whatever fashion they want, I’m not interested anymore.

63

[quote]RhunDraco wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

I wonder how many guys become preoccupied with being lean because it seems so much more obtainable than being big.

Well, don’t forget that not everyone who trains, trains to get hee-yooge. A lot of people absolutely hate the big, muscular look >>>[/quote]

OK, but here’s my beef. I can understand guys who don’t want to be Lee Priest though I suspect in the dark secret corners of their minds many would like to be that big if they didn’t have to use to do it which brings me to my next point.

When I speak of being big I absolutely mean as big as that person can get naturally. My major point is that many people don’t really believe they can be impressively big, compared to where they started, without drugs. They also have it somewhere in their minds that everybody training for size has thrown their health to the wind as a goal. There are some people for whom this is true. I am not one of them.

I eat cleaner than anybody you are ever likely to meet. I started training again to beat type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity all of which
I have done and continue to hold very high on my list of priorities. When I say I’d like to see more men train to get big I DO NOT mean steroids, though in the right cases I don’t disapprove.

I also don’t mean eating 10,000 empty calories a day. In all honesty I have more in common with TC on this score then I once realized. I wouldn’t mind at all a return to the golden era of bodybuilding where men trained to be large, healthy and naturally masculine.

64

[quote]Starscream wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

I should have used ethnicities for clarity.

Not to be too much of a nitpicker but ethnicities (things like Khmer, Apache, Ashkenazi, Welsh, etc) aren’t predicated on genetics but rather are also socially constructed.

Generally they are tied together by some combination of distinct language, distinct cultural practices and beliefs (possibly religious), and belief in a shared origin.

Some ethnicities are endogamous (tend due to social rules or isolation to only reproduce with other members of their ethnicity and may not consider children between one of their members and an outsider a member of the group) and thus can over time take on something of a general genetic profile but even this is very limited. I doubt there is any ethnicity that is genetically better or worse predisposed than any others toward strength. [/quote]

EDIT: nothing important or related to the topic

65

This isn’t even a THREAD TOPIC that matters. Not in here! Maybe on an OLYMPIA stage or something.

The problem with these Blowhards screamin “genetics, genetics” is the fact that they will never even reach a level of performance that will bring this into play. In fact, they are going about this achievement thing backwards.

Actually your mentallity, your attitude, your dedication, your hardwork, your diet, your consistency, your intensity, your vision, your enviornment, YOUR MINDSET are all things that will matter MORE to probably 99.9999% of the people on this site …well before genetics come into play for them. They will not even reach near their potential before they can take genetics into account.

So why do they scream this early and before accomplishments are made or set out to achieve? For excuses and reasons why they will fail. They’ve already failed mentally, now lets see if they can match it and fail the entire test by adding genetics to the excuse list.

There a million other things you need to worry about first, long before GENETICS ever stand in your way. Some of you havn’t even made it out of the starting blocks on your potential and you already failed this race. Forget it! Turn in your time card. You lost already. Get the free T-Shirt and go on back home.

For the rest of you, you can go find out for yourself how limited you are or what your potential is… have fun trying to reach that, then you can compare genetics once you get to that level. By that time, you won’t give a shit …that level is an achievement in and of itself.

Genetics just seperate those at the finish line. Genetics won’t make you finish a race. And the average person doesn’t finish regardless of any genetic advantage or disadavantage. The positive mental attitude finishes the race. there are people with no legs that finish that race, then there are perfect specimens that never left the sofa.

Didn’t know we had so many people on this site that already reached their potential and could tell that they were geneticly inferior or superior to others. Wow! I havn’t came close to any limited potentials yet …thank god for those good or bad genetics I got, I’m nowhere close to where it will even matter. Knowing this beforehand made all the difference in the world from my average physique with good or bad genetics (yet to be determined) it made me still just average. Thank god these genetics came into play in my average performance.

Imagine what my other performance would have been had I had good or bad genetics, well hell I’d still be average. Does this make any sense? Its not supposed to. Neither does worrying about your genetics at the start of a race when you have about 150 miles to go. Worry at the end. Don’t psyche yourself out at any point in the race. What fuckin’ good is that?

merlin

66

scott. Rather then get pissed and cuss you out I’m gonna tell you I believe that you misunderstood me. I wasn’t blaming drugs man shit. I ment that mabe his genes weren’t quite as good (mabe he did lots of drugs, mabe no more then anyone else who knows) as his counterparts but his workethic carried him. Not his genes.

And personally I think Lee Priest would make a great olympia champ. (if he was actually in IFBB anymore)

regaulrdless of height (look at franco columbo)

I mean I know gymnist who never touch a weight who look good.

I just don’t want anyone to blame there genes for shity development or laging bodyparts when what they need is a kick in the ass.

Whats sad about all us arguing on here is if we all got together we’d probably have more in common then we think and mabe even make good workout partners.

And you gotta give me a break here and there. I been training for 4 1/2 years but I’m only 18. I don’t know everything. And niether do you. Or anyone here.

And on top of all that everyone here is totally different. Of the people posting on this thread i almost garuntee theres at least 1 new guy, 1 powerlifter,1 guy who lifts just to improve in his sport, some young like me, and probably afew guys 30 or 40 or more.

So our backgrounds are gonna make us form different opinions on the importance of genes.

My opinion on genes is simply that we all have different gifts.

If you been lifting for 5 years and your still skinny but you can run a 5k in 17 minutes even though you haven’t run in a year, your probably never gonna be mr. olympia, but you MIGHT win the New York City marathon.

ect. ect.

67

[quote]merlin wrote:
This isn’t even a THREAD TOPIC that matters. Not in here! Maybe on an OLYMPIA stage or something.

The problem with these Blowhards screamin “genetics, genetics” is the fact that they will never even reach a level of performance that will bring this into play. In fact, they are going about this achievement thing backwards.
…

merlin[/quote]

There are people that never picked up a weight that have more powerful looking physiques than many/most posters here.

Sure with many years of training I finally look stronger than some of the naturally big kids in high school but to pretend genetics isn’t a HUGE factor is silly.

68

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
merlin wrote:
This isn’t even a THREAD TOPIC that matters. Not in here! Maybe on an OLYMPIA stage or something.

The problem with these Blowhards screamin “genetics, genetics” is the fact that they will never even reach a level of performance that will bring this into play. In fact, they are going about this achievement thing backwards.
…

merlin

There are people that never picked up a weight that have more powerful looking physiques than many/most posters here.

Sure with many years of training I finally look stronger than some of the naturally big kids in high school but to pretend genetics isn’t a HUGE factor is silly.[/quote]

I don’t think he’s saying that genetics are not a governing factor. He’s saying that the other factors he mentioned related to a persons mental state will play a much more prominent role, at least for a while, because most people don’t push themselves near the point where they’re testing their genetic ceiling. I agree.

69

[quote]irongutted wrote:
You people talk about “genetics” like the genes have a fixed behavior from birth, which is far from the truth.

The genetic material responds to the environment, responds to sinalization of itself and to n factors, so many that everyday some paper points out a new way that genes express themselves under different stimuli.

I agree that you wont be changing your insertion points, but the scientific community didnt totally elucidated the molecular and genetic bases of muscular hupertrophy, so we really cant tell how much the genes matter besides determining the insertion points, and even that may be far off… only time can tell.

For now what is really decisive for those who dont grow off simply looking at weights, is what scottiscool and others typed. To eat, train hard and rest.[/quote]

OK, but it could be argued that all this still occurs within the boundaries of one’s genetic potential.

70

If genetics don’t matter then why do steroids work?

71

[quote]Dr Duben wrote:
If genetics don’t matter then why do steroids work?[/quote]

?

72

I try not to make excuses for myself. Really if you EAT and TRAIN hard CONSISTENTLY for years you will look pretty damn good-also throw in some drugs-, the diff to elite level almost any normal person wont tell the difference.

Seriously thinking negatively like ‘my genetics are not allowing me to be good’ is bullshit and you should just not think about it.

73

My point, Tiribulus was to point that the term “genetics” is used often in a misleading way.

The genes are capable of many adaptations in response to anything you can conceive, including light. So they can express or inhibit in ways they did not do before. What i was/am trying to say, is that everyone may have the same set of genes ( this is a gross oversimplification) but have not encountered the situation needed to activate or inhibit such genes.

Of course this is speculation, but its just to illustrate that we cant specify “genetics” as a factor, because we simply dont understand genetics to this degree yet.

I really think this discussion of genetics is complicated because of the factor steroids, that people tend to rule out of the equation.

Like every pro does just like the Olympia fairytale : they train all natural up to their max potential, and only then they take the drugs.

If we are talking about natural ability to gain/retain muscle is one thing, but i think the discussion changes as soon drugs enter the equation.

In the end of the day still ones have to bust their asses to some degree, others don’t.

74

[quote]irongutted wrote:
My point, Tiribulus was to point that the term “genetics” is used often in a misleading way.

The genes are capable of many adaptations in response to anything you can conceive, including light. So they can express or inhibit in ways they did not do before. What i was/am trying to say, is that everyone may have the same set of genes ( this is a gross oversimplification) but have not encountered the situation needed to activate or inhibit such genes.

Of course this is speculation, but its just to illustrate that we cant specify “genetics” as a factor, because we simply dont understand genetics to this degree yet.

I really think this discussion of genetics is complicated because of the factor steroids, that people tend to rule out of the equation.

Like every pro does just like the Olympia fairytale : they train all natural up to their max potential, and only then they take the drugs.

If we are talking about natural ability to gain/retain muscle is one thing, but i think the discussion changes as soon drugs enter the equation.

In the end of the day still ones have to bust their asses to some degree, others don’t.[/quote]

Best post again!

You all should just let this guy take over this entire thread and listen to everything he has to say. He’s more on point than any of us here. He will have the best posts because he has the best understanding of the thread topic.

Carry on…

merlin

75

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
From a scientific (biological) standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE. Race is a socially constructed phenomenon (like gender, and even sex to a certain degree). So, any time someone tries to suggest that certain “races” or people have superior genetics or certain physiological characteristics, they are essentially speaking a bunch of (racist) nonsense.

Individuals have superior/inferior genetics, certain physical characteristics, etc… There is no such thing as race.
[/quote]

The correct term would be sub-species, and while bigots tend to overstate the number and type of characteristics that are properly associated with that genetic lineage, there is no denying that there are differences.

76

Unless you’ve just won a gold medal in the olympics, or you’re a professional athlete of some kind the chances that you’ve hit your genetic ceiling are somewhere between zero and none.

77

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
From a scientific (biological) standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE. Race is a socially constructed phenomenon (like gender, and even sex to a certain degree). So, any time someone tries to suggest that certain “races” or people have superior genetics or certain physiological characteristics, they are essentially speaking a bunch of (racist) nonsense.

Individuals have superior/inferior genetics, certain physical characteristics, etc… There is no such thing as race.

The correct term would be sub-species, and while bigots tend to overstate the number and type of characteristics that are properly associated with that genetic lineage, there is no denying that there are differences.[/quote]

Sentoguy said it best!

An “African-American” woman can have a more in common geneticly with a “White man” that looks nothing like her, than this “White” man had in common with his own brother.

Race is highly over-rated and so is PLURALISM for that matter. But, hey we’re in AMERICA …land of free and home of the “slave owner”.

merlin

78

[quote]merlin wrote:
blue9steel wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
From a scientific (biological) standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING AS RACE. Race is a socially constructed phenomenon (like gender, and even sex to a certain degree). So, any time someone tries to suggest that certain “races” or people have superior genetics or certain physiological characteristics, they are essentially speaking a bunch of (racist) nonsense.

Individuals have superior/inferior genetics, certain physical characteristics, etc… There is no such thing as race.

The correct term would be sub-species, and while bigots tend to overstate the number and type of characteristics that are properly associated with that genetic lineage, there is no denying that there are differences.

Sentoguy said it best!

An “African-American” woman can have a more in common geneticly with a “White man” that looks nothing like her, than this “White” man had in common with his own brother.

Race is highly over-rated and so is PLURALISM for that matter. But, hey we’re in AMERICA …land of free and home of the “slave owner”.

merlin

[/quote]

People like you two make me laugh!! They have an opinion on everything and can regurgitate information as if they were a tape recorder. That is probably your best quality, the ability to just repeat anything you read or hear. BUT there is a problem with that.

Your type tries to cheap shot at the “White” American and America whenever possible, but they have no real knowledge of History (there is more than American History btw lol), Anthropology, Genetics, or Biology. In your arguments you attempt to mix them all together, but it doesn’t work.

It doesn’t work because you have never studied the topics, or attempted to use your brain to understand how they think. Your arguments appear as if you took four references and just closed your eyes and started to cut and paste lol.

To prevent you from further embarrassing us on T-Nation please don’t post or please give a disclaimer with each of your post claiming you have no idea what you are talking about.

Last, please note I don’t argue against your topics specifically. This is due to the fact they contradict themselves already, and it is not the purpose of my post.

I wish I didn�??t have to post this :frowning:

79

Huh. This thread is kind of funny.

I AM a hardgainer. I heal slowly, have low volume tolerance, a “fast” metabolism, long recovery periods, thin bones/joints and high muscle insertion points. Really, I shouldn’t be bodybuilding at all. But I do - I lift hard and eat big and slowly, painfully grind out a few extra pounds of LBM every few months. About the only thing going for me is my ability to handle carbs well.

You guys seem to downplay genetics a lot, but the fact is that I have to work harder for less.

80

[quote]Jhuczko wrote:
People like you two make me laugh!! They have an opinion on everything and can regurgitate information as if they were a tape recorder. That is probably your best quality, the ability to just repeat anything you read or hear. BUT there is a problem with that.

Your type tries to cheap shot at the “White” American and America whenever possible, but they have no real knowledge of History (there is more than American History btw lol), Anthropology, Genetics, or Biology. In your arguments you attempt to mix them all together, but it doesn’t work.

It doesn’t work because you have never studied the topics, or attempted to use your brain to understand how they think. Your arguments appear as if you took four references and just closed your eyes and started to cut and paste lol.

To prevent you from further embarrassing us on T-Nation please don’t post or please give a disclaimer with each of your post claiming you have no idea what you are talking about.

Last, please note I don’t argue against your topics specifically. This is due to the fact they contradict themselves already, and it is not the purpose of my post.

I wish I didn�??t have to post this :([/quote]

“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Considering your trainwreck of a post, I’m wondering where you studied…

So you assume that we have not studied any of those subjects before asking? Hmmmm… Interesting. I’m willing to put my college classes up against yours and compare who has the broader range of knowledge. I’ll start, first off I was a math major. What have you studied, if you studied anything at all. Lets start with the small stuff.

merlin