Genetics- Most Important Factor?

Training Bodybuilding
101

[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]

Wow, I didn’t get notifications on this thread for a day and I’m too behind to catch up.

There may be a major semantic component to this whole aspect of the subject, but lemme pull this part of it into the pragmatic realm for a minute. I’m not necessarily disputing what you say, but only wish to view it from a different angle.

If you take 20 noobs of exact age, to the minute, height, weight and body composition, feed them exactly the same thing in exactly the same amounts at exactly the same times and have them sleep exactly the same, I mean EXACTLY. Have the same person train them on the exact same program in the exact same gym with the exact same weights and progressions and assume them all to use the exact same intensity and have the exact same skills with the exercises used. Hell, have them wear the exact same clothes and shoes.

In 2 weeks (or less) the unavoidable innate differences in these individuals will begin to show. In 2 months they will be obvious to casual acquaintances. Some will be fatter, some will be leaner, some will be bigger and or stronger by a decent amount, some will have made much less progress and some may have quit. Call that what you want. I have no doubt there is a range of genetic possibilities within the individual that will manifest themselves differently depending on the stimulus, but there are profound differences from person to person even among those who appear very similar.

I have a feeling you already agree with this and were concentrating on the range within a single individual, but was pointing out what I believe to be valid considerations from person to person.

one thing I absolutely agree with is the fact of how little we presently understand about all this. Also given the inhibitory and expressive adaptations you mention, viewed in light of my hypothetical group of noobs above, they still will happen differently between individuals, no?

102

Geeze you guys use big words ha. I have enough trouble spelling dumbbell right half the time.

103

[quote]scottiscool wrote:
By the way, has anyone seen Flex now? Not a year ago or whatever but this week at the Olympia. He says 4 months of training back and his arms were taped on camera at just shy of 21 inches. That’s muscle memory and tremendous genetics at work my friends.

Edit: And I should add that in the video he challenged anyone who doubted his natural status now to bring a drug test and their money so I’m thinking he’s not lying. 1,000,000 was what he said to put up. [/quote]

Is this video available online?

104

Yeah I saw it on muscular development somewhere. It’s an interview with Dave Palumbo and Flex and them some other guy I didn’t recognize. Sorry I can’t find it again it was given to me in a conversation with someone else.

105

science fact- humans have less genetic variation than most species.

-Neato dude!

There was a “bottle neck” some assload thousand years ago. Thats when a large percentage of the population dies so only certain members genes are passed on.

106

So I know this is off topic but when I was in biology we were discussing his and my prof was totally against extreme medicine for this very reason.

What do you guys think of the tools/crutches that are now available that let lesser bodies/persons (that is a harsh statement I am not good with the wording) continue in the gene pool?

Now anyone can sustain life, exist and procreate.

This is probably the wrong thread.

107

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So I know this is off topic but when I was in biology we were discussing his and my prof was totally against extreme medicine for this very reason.

What do you guys think of the tools/crutches that are now available that let lesser bodies/persons (that is a harsh statement I am not good with the wording) continue in the gene pool?

Now anyone can sustain life, exist and procreate.

This is probably the wrong thread.
[/quote]

This is one big can o worms and you’re right. This honestly isn’t the thread in my opinion.

108

Ive known this for a long time. Ive been lifting seriously for years, and although im in good shape and pretty strong, people have told me that it doesn’t look like I work out. I agree with them for the most part.

I constantly see people in the “300 workout” posts talking about the fact that these guys made such improvements on their physiques. Everyone says of course they did, because they had millions of dollors riding on their success. Well, ive been as dedicated as possible, reading books and websites, trying different routines, I even made kinesiology my major in college. I dont consider myself a failure though, because I keep going to the gym, and keep trying. I wont give up, because I have found that altough my genetics aren’t great for building muscle, I can develop fairly good explosive strength, and recover very well. Working out is fun for me, even if im not making huge physique changes.

There are so many articles out there about training, but very little info about genetics, and working with what youve got. Some people will never look like a bodybuilder without steroids, and should instead use the advantages in their genetics to set reasonable goals. Maybe their an ecto and can lose fat easily, or maybe they have a lot of fast twitch explosive fibers.

Another thing you gotta remember, is just because someone has an impressive physique, or big lifts, doesn’t mean they know a lot about training. Usually the individuals that have to work much harder for success, know a lot more about something.

109

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So I know this is off topic but when I was in biology we were discussing his and my prof was totally against extreme medicine for this very reason.

What do you guys think of the tools/crutches that are now available that let lesser bodies/persons (that is a harsh statement I am not good with the wording) continue in the gene pool?

Now anyone can sustain life, exist and procreate.

This is probably the wrong thread.
[/quote]

I dont think its much of a problem. Humans are a smart species, it only seems natural that as we become more intelecually advanced, that our physical declines. Its probably natures way of keeping us in check.

Think about it, the invention of written language and books, was one of the biggest breakthroughs for humans, because it allowed us to advance much faster. But sitting in a library reading books all day, isn’t going to have great effects on your physical characteristics. Bad eye site, and excess fat, are just two side effects that come to mind.

But, humans adapt really well. We’ve invented glasses, contacts, and laser eye surgery , and are now working on solving the excess fat problems. Research in genetics is getting pretty advanced, also, at the same time you gotta remember, that a majority of the world doesn’t live with the luxuries that advanced countries do, and in many places, survival of the fittest still reigns.

I think our advances as humans wont have negative effects on our species, but has affected other species tremendously. Thats nature though, the strong survive, and the weak die.

Remember though, a species can only prosper so long before some catastrophic event comes to keep that species in check. Be ready for it, and live your life to the fullest.

110

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Wow, I didn’t get notifications on this thread for a day and I’m too behind to catch up.

There may be a major semantic component to this whole aspect of the subject, but lemme pull this part of it into the pragmatic realm for a minute. I’m not necessarily disputing what you say, but only wish to view it from a different angle.

If you take 20 noobs of exact age, to the minute, height, weight and body composition, feed them exactly the same thing in exactly the same amounts at exactly the same times and have them sleep exactly the same, I mean EXACTLY. Have the same person train them on the exact same program in the exact same gym with the exact same weights and progressions and assume them all to use the exact same intensity and have the exact same skills with the exercises used. Hell, have them wear the exact same clothes and shoes.

In 2 weeks (or less) the unavoidable innate differences in these individuals will begin to show. In 2 months they will be obvious to casual acquaintances. Some will be fatter, some will be leaner, some will be bigger and or stronger by a decent amount, some will have made much less progress and some may have quit. Call that what you want. I have no doubt there is a range of genetic possibilities within the individual that will manifest themselves differently depending on the stimulus, but there are profound differences from person to person even among those who appear very similar.

I have a feeling you already agree with this and were concentrating on the range within a single individual, but was pointing out what I believe to be valid considerations from person to person.

one thing I absolutely agree with is the fact of how little we presently understand about all this. Also given the inhibitory and expressive adaptations you mention, viewed in light of my hypothetical group of noobs above, they still will happen differently between individuals, no?[/quote]

Agree with you Tiribulus. And the other poster is correct… human species have less variation than other species.
But its still a lot of variation. And gets better!

Not only variation from birth, but as i typed before, variation due to any stimuli you can conceive.
Including horizontal genomic transference due to infections and interactions with bacteria.

I agree there will be diferences from birth, after all is common genes having more than one funcional type. The part were i disagree with most is the vision that genes are somehow immutable.

In the way i see the pro bodybuilders of today ( not all but some of them) have only a excepcional tolerance to drugs, and are somehow immune to desensibilization.

And what i was implying was that this exceptional response to drugs may be somehow activated/deactivated.

111

[quote]irongutted wrote:

And what i was implying was that this exceptional response to drugs may be somehow activated/deactivated.
[/quote]

This is interesting and if it were possible to active the responses like that someone would become a very very wealthy person in this business.

112

[quote]irongutted wrote:
Agree with you Tiribulus. And the other poster is correct… human species have less variation than other species.
But its still a lot of variation. And gets better!

Not only variation from birth, but as i typed before, variation due to any stimuli you can conceive.
Including horizontal genomic transference due to infections and interactions with bacteria.

I agree there will be diferences from birth, after all is common genes having more than one funcional type. The part were i disagree with most is the vision that genes are somehow immutable.

In the way i see the pro bodybuilders of today ( not all but some of them) have only a excepcional tolerance to drugs, and are somehow immune to desensibilization.

And what i was implying was that this exceptional response to drugs may be somehow activated/deactivated.
[/quote]

OK, fair enough on the mutable nature of genetic inhibition or expression, a topic I’m pretty sure you are far more qualified than I to discuss with authority. Is it not then reasonable to believe that the potential range and nature of said adaptation is itself genetically determined?

If so then we are simply defining more thoroughly, but not essentially changing the content of what is commonly understood by the term “genetics”. In other words, genetically predetermined potential and limitations do exist, but are of a dynamic rather than static nature.

As far as your statements regarding tolerance and desensitization with regard to that being what separates potential top level pros from the rest of us? I don’t pretend to be equipped to have an intelligent opinion. That is at this point, I’m sure, unprovable one way or another and your view of it is undoubtedly more informed than mine, though it does smack of oversimplification at first glance.

113

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

OK, fair enough on the mutable nature of genetic inhibition or expression, a topic I’m pretty sure you are far more qualified than I to discuss with authority. Is it not then reasonable to believe that the potential range and nature of said adaptation is itself genetically determined? [/quote]

Yes you are correct. And is incorrect to say that i can discuss this with authority. Im only a beginner in the subject!

Note that this small change changes everything. One thing is to have a gloom fate that you cant do anything about it, other is too actually have the still totally theorethical possibility of being like those guys, or somewhere near in development, by changing some or other variable… but of course is only a idea :slight_smile:

Yes at the moment remains as only an idea… in my spare time i will look more into the matter and see if more is known.

And again you are correct in saying that is a oversimplification…

But consider this.

You may have an x number of receptors to lets say testosterone and similars, the number defined by the current behavior of your genome. But the number isnt the only thing that matters.

The sensibility they have is very important too!
Sensibility being how many molecules of testosterone they can bind, without losing functionality.

The cell, in response to abundant concentrations of a signal, in this case testosterone, one of the possible responses is to make the receptor of testosterone lose its function.

This is where the mass monsters would shine: their receptors somehow would not lose function, and the signal would continue without further interruptions by other checkpoints.

Or they could just retain freaky amounts of water and fat and somehow trick us into believing its all muscle :slight_smile:

But take this like you are doing, and i hope others too, as a possibility only. They could just as easy have some set of genes that rarely mutate, decided by birth.

Iron

114

[quote]scottiscool wrote:

This is interesting and if it were possible to active the responses like that someone would become a very very wealthy person in this business.[/quote]

One thing i know for sure. This person would not be me!
I saw this hypothesis somewhere in the internet a long time ago. It only made some sense to me now that i study this matters with more depth.