[quote]Professor X wrote:
Their children’s children will look like stuffed roles of cotton candy.[/quote]
HAHAHA, it’ll be Wall-E irl.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Fascinating stuff. Genetics is really much different than it was originally thought to be. I find “genetic memory” especially fascinating. Someone who may not have been genetically predisposed to building strong muscle can work his ass off and literally “change” his genes. If he has a child after transforming his body into badassitude, his child will now start life with better “bodybuilding genes” than if his father hadn’t lifted.
.[/quote]
This is insane, I have never heard of this. Well, I have heard of it as Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired traits, but was taught in high school that it was ‘proven’ false. It looks like there’s some new research into it lately though, which is awesome.
[quote]as wrote:
This is a great topic that I always wondered about.
I do believe that many people use genetics as a cop out for their poor development, but in the end I think genetics is the biggest factor in what people look like.
For example I probably have some of the worst genetics I’ve ever seen on someone;
1)long limbs and short torso
2)narrow clavicles
3)trouble gaining strength or size
4)gain fat easy(basically skinny/fat naturally)
5)high attachments and short muscle bellies
6)and to use Thibs term I break easily, numerous injuries
[/quote]
I am exactly the same, the biggest problem is the clavicles. Most guys of 5’8 are wider than me and i’m almost 6’2. There just isnt enough room on my upper body to fit a big wide chest and my lats will never get truly wide even though they are huge compared to my waist.
Genetic potential is also subject to change to start with
[quote]csulli wrote:
Anyone here ever read into how individuals change their genomes over time and things like genetic memory and such?
Fascinating stuff. Genetics is really much different than it was originally thought to be. I find “genetic memory” especially fascinating. Someone who may not have been genetically predisposed to building strong muscle can work his ass off and literally “change” his genes. If he has a child after transforming his body into badassitude, his child will now start life with better “bodybuilding genes” than if his father hadn’t lifted.
Of course what’s even crazier than that is gene therapy. For now such science is purely focused on curing disease, but actually there have been talks of what you could do with the technology for things like physical enhancement. Genetic engineering isn’t really that farfetched anymore, and it doesn’t even have to take place from an early age or in vitro. It’s something that could potentially one day render steroids nearly obsolete.
You could literally just change your genes such that they would “command” your body to build more muscle around your legs or your arms or your chest or whatever. Or you could even change your genes to make existing muscles much stronger. Theoretically you could just go to a lab and they could turn you into Stan Efferding without you ever having to lift a weight.
It all sounds very sci-fi, and who knows how long it will be before any of this becomes an actual social issue, but the actual science and technology of it is surprisingly achievable even today.[/quote]
This is honestly the type of shit I would’ve got into if I didn’t realize that physics intrigued me more
their schlongs must have been HYOOOOGE
Would someone with low T who sees a doc to fix be considered enhanced???
I’ve always wondered if I had low T while I sit and watch buddies with one third the effort chowing down Chinese food and binge drinking on the weekends almost always “beach ready”
Guess its time for me to find out…
[quote]giograves wrote:
Would someone with low T who sees a doc to fix be considered enhanced???
[/quote]
M personal opinion is the idea of “natural” needs to die because too many supplements lately push the boundaries of “:enhancement”.
In my opinion, yes, they would be “enhanced” simply because naturally they were noticing a decline…assuming this happened naturally and not due to disease.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]giograves wrote:
Would someone with low T who sees a doc to fix be considered enhanced???
[/quote]
M personal opinion is the idea of “natural” needs to die because too many supplements lately push the boundaries of “:enhancement”.
In my opinion, yes, they would be “enhanced” simply because naturally they were noticing a decline…assuming this happened naturally and not due to disease.[/quote]
Not trying to start the whole “natty vs assisted” debate but I agree. When I take MAG-10 and Anaconda for peri-workout nutrition, I am able to lift for a half hour longer and can lift 5-30 lbs more depending on what I’m working. Does this make me assisted? Technically, all supplement are supposed to “assist” you.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]giograves wrote:
Would someone with low T who sees a doc to fix be considered enhanced???
[/quote]
M personal opinion is the idea of “natural” needs to die because too many supplements lately push the boundaries of “:enhancement”.
In my opinion, yes, they would be “enhanced” simply because naturally they were noticing a decline…assuming this happened naturally and not due to disease.[/quote]
Not trying to start the whole “natty vs assisted” debate but I agree. When I take MAG-10 and Anaconda for peri-workout nutrition, I am able to lift for a half hour longer and can lift 5-30 lbs more depending on what I’m working. Does this make me assisted? Technically, all supplement are supposed to “assist” you. [/quote]
This is basically what I was getting at when I brought up AAS.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]giograves wrote:
Would someone with low T who sees a doc to fix be considered enhanced???
[/quote]
M personal opinion is the idea of “natural” needs to die because too many supplements lately push the boundaries of “:enhancement”.
In my opinion, yes, they would be “enhanced” simply because naturally they were noticing a decline…assuming this happened naturally and not due to disease.[/quote]
Not trying to start the whole “natty vs assisted” debate but I agree. When I take MAG-10 and Anaconda for peri-workout nutrition, I am able to lift for a half hour longer and can lift 5-30 lbs more depending on what I’m working. Does this make me assisted? Technically, all supplement are supposed to “assist” you. [/quote]
This is basically what I was getting at when I brought up AAS. [/quote]
Understood…and yeah, there is a huge gray area now.
IMO, there isn’t really a huge gray area in the US. I think steroids and prohormones are on a level completely different than any OTC supplements it doesn’t even make sense to compare them. Again, just my opinion.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
IMO, there isn’t really a huge gray area in the US. I think steroids and prohormones are on a level completely different than any OTC supplements it doesn’t even make sense to compare them. Again, just my opinion. [/quote]
I think the grey area lies in what actually enhances your genetic abilities and what actually helps you go beyond your genetic abilities. I agree in the U.S. the line has been drawn supps enhance and steroids take you beyond.
Logically, I think it’s lacking.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
IMO, there isn’t really a huge gray area in the US. I think steroids and prohormones are on a level completely different than any OTC supplements it doesn’t even make sense to compare them. Again, just my opinion. [/quote]
I think the grey area lies in what actually enhances your genetic abilities and what actually helps you go beyond your genetic abilities. I agree in the U.S. the line has been drawn supps enhance and steroids take you beyond.
Logically, I think it’s lacking.
[/quote]
Yeah, I mean it’s kind of an arbitrary line. But my thoughts are this…on a scale of 1-100, grading how much supplements aid your progress in the gym, if OTC supplements score a 15 and gear scores a 100, with nothing else in between, does it matter if the line is arbitrary?
I mean, to me, from what I’ve seen and from the people who are honest about using, the difference is that drastic. There is almost nothing you can’t accomplish through your diet alone if you took away all OTC supplements, but the same cannot be said of steroids.
That is the difference, IMO.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
IMO, there isn’t really a huge gray area in the US. I think steroids and prohormones are on a level completely different than any OTC supplements it doesn’t even make sense to compare them. Again, just my opinion. [/quote]
I think the grey area lies in what actually enhances your genetic abilities and what actually helps you go beyond your genetic abilities. I agree in the U.S. the line has been drawn supps enhance and steroids take you beyond.
Logically, I think it’s lacking.
[/quote]
Yeah, I mean it’s kind of an arbitrary line. But my thoughts are this…on a scale of 1-100, grading how much supplements aid your progress in the gym, if OTC supplements score a 15 and gear scores a 100, with nothing else in between, does it matter if the line is arbitrary?
I mean, to me, from what I’ve seen and from the people who are honest about using, the difference is that drastic. There is almost nothing you can’t accomplish through your diet alone if you took away all OTC supplements, but the same cannot be said of steroids.
That is the difference, IMO. [/quote]
I agree, but not all supps are created equal. Look at say ephedrine (sp?), it is very effective. Muscle Milk vs. MAG-10, N.O. Explode vs. Anaconda, etc… Some supps are just better. I bench more yesturday using Anaconda than I have ever in both weight and volume (at a higher weight). N.O. Explode has never done that for me.
But you’re right steroids are top dog.
I would still content that AAS use still only helps you reach your true genetic potential, they same way supps do. They are just better at it. Now if Nano bots or something ever comes out that augments your strength (sci-fi I know) then ya I’d say this “supp” is taking you beyond your genetic limits.
Steroids might improve protein synthesis, for example, but your body still has to synthesize protein.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would still content that AAS use still only helps you reach your true genetic potential, they same way supps do.
[/quote]
I would agree with this on the scientific basis in regards to the fact that I think humans should use science to reach their full potential.
Ronnie Coleman got as big as his genetics allowed (through drug use).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would still content that AAS use still only helps you reach your true genetic potential, they same way supps do.
[/quote]
I would agree with this on the scientific basis in regards to the fact that I think humans should use science to reach their full potential.
Ronnie Coleman got as big as his genetics allowed (through drug use).
[/quote]
Exactly. This is exactly what I am getting at.
In my opinion, too many people that try bodybuilding, or just becoming fit in general, succumb to the idea that genetics won’t allow them to look the way the want way too early in the process.
While genetics absolutely plays a factor as far as how strong someone will become or how lean someone will become, many people I’ve encountered don’t realize what pushing one’s limits of size or leanness means.
Whenever I think genetics in bodybuilding the first thing that always comes to mind is structure and natural strength. No one can really comment on their genetics in terms of building muscle unless they’ve spent years training and eating right. It might take 10 years or more for a bodybuilder or athlete to truly know their genetics.