Genetics

Training
61

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]DaBeard wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I think that genetics in what interests us is not one thing.

It’s not you have the “bodybuilding gene”… there are several different aspects to it.

  • Genetic predisposition to being lean
  • Genetic predisposition to be able to put on a lot of muscle
  • Genetic potential for round/full muscle bellies
  • Genetic potential for strength development
  • Genetic bone structure that makes you look larger than you are (wide clavicle, small joints)

Etc.

One can be of various levels in each of these (I’m sure there are others aspects too).

Take myself for example… I think that:

  • My predisposition toward being lean are below average(judging from my parents and family members)
  • My predisposition to be able to put on muscle is slightly above average
  • My potential for round/full muscle bellies is above average (but not excellent)
  • My predisposition for gaining strength is above average (but not excellent)
  • My done structure, when it comes to aesthetics is below average (narrow clavicle, long torso, fairly wide waist)

Then you can also factor in other genetic predispositions when it comes to enhanced bodybuilding… for the example genetic response to steroids (some blow up on small doses, some do not gain much from huge doses) and genetic predispositions to avoid side effects of drug use.[/quote]

You hit every nail on the head with this one post.[/quote]

Thanks, I should have added the predisposition to avoid injuries… some people break more easily than others. And we all know that when it comes to building muscle and getting stronger, injuries are one of our worst enemy.
[/quote]

I’m amazed with your performance of the Olympic lifts in the videos I’ve seen even though you’re carrying some serious mass in the shoulder girdle muscles.

62

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:
yes, epigenetics is the term i believe. very interesting [/quote]

Here is some more detail about that. Fascinating that certain traits can be “changed” and inherited in one generation. Many theories such as Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution can have extremely detailed genetic explanations with the advancement of epigenetics to validate it to a law(someday perhaps). I can’t wait for the day that they tie it all together, much like many laws of physics. [/quote]

I think some of you guys are attributing more to epigenetics than is actually the case. Epigenetic regulation does NOT change your genes. It is a means of gene regulation. DNA is normally coiled around proteins called histones, which can be reversibly covalently modified with small chemical groups (methyl, acetyl, ubiquitin, etc.). DNA in the 10nm configuration can be transcribed (and thus its proteins made), but 30nm DNA is kind of a whacked configuration that inhibits proper access by transcription factors (proteins that can bind to DNA and take a direct role in gene regulation, aka TFs). Histones can also be shuffled around by chemical modifications to influence access by TFs and more.

I’m not sure that a failure to “erase” epigenetic regulatory markers would have implications for the Theory of Evolution. The key thing is that these modifications are reversible. I think the biggest issue in germline transmission of these markers (passing it on in the gametes) was alluded to by the scientist in the article: disease. Many gene products have more than one function, and can have separate functions in development. The key thing about development is that timing and quantity of developmental proteins can be vital to normal development.

But don’t take my word for it: I still have a lot to learn and genetics is probably the most rapidly evolving (lol) branch of science in the present day. Or maybe the genetics guys would just like to think so :stuck_out_tongue: The point is that there is still a lot of surprises, and there’s no bigger limiting factor in learning them than hubris.

63

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[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[/quote]
Just as well. The world will need a jacked Gordon Freeman like you to save us from the alien invasion.

64

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I think that genetics in what interests us is not one thing.

It’s not you have the “bodybuilding gene”… there are several different aspects to it.

  • Genetic predisposition to being lean
  • Genetic predisposition to be able to put on a lot of muscle
  • Genetic potential for round/full muscle bellies
  • Genetic potential for strength development
  • Genetic bone structure that makes you look larger than you are (wide clavicle, small joints)

Etc.

One can be of various levels in each of these (I’m sure there are others aspects too).

Take myself for example… I think that:

  • My predisposition toward being lean are below average(judging from my parents and family members)
  • My predisposition to be able to put on muscle is slightly above average
  • My potential for round/full muscle bellies is above average (but not excellent)
  • My predisposition for gaining strength is above average (but not excellent)
  • My done structure, when it comes to aesthetics is below average (narrow clavicle, long torso, fairly wide waist)

Then you can also factor in other genetic predispositions when it comes to enhanced bodybuilding… for the example genetic response to steroids (some blow up on small doses, some do not gain much from huge doses) and genetic predispositions to avoid side effects of drug use.[/quote]

hello

Question, do muscle bellies really matter in natural bodybuilding in terms of size? as far as i understood they only influence the ultimate size you can achieve(and ofc how they look, but i talk only about size) and unless they are stupid high you wont get to this level without chemical enchancement.

65

[quote]PGND17 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

That is the main reason I say so much against people focusing on “limits” especially when the majority of the population reading is at a stage where they need maximum belief in themselves and what they can do in order to reach it.

There seem to be many lately who seem to actually enjoy making sure no one else thinks they can do too much.

One old saying I heard growing up went something like, “Shoot for the most extreme goal…that way even if you fall short you are still flying above everyone else”.

Lately, the saying seems to be, “make sure you don’t think you can do too much…so you don’t waste time trying to stand out”.

Seems like a Loser Motto to me.

66

[quote]NikH wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:
yes, epigenetics is the term i believe. very interesting [/quote]

Here is some more detail about that. Fascinating that certain traits can be “changed” and inherited in one generation. Many theories such as Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution can have extremely detailed genetic explanations with the advancement of epigenetics to validate it to a law(someday perhaps). I can’t wait for the day that they tie it all together, much like many laws of physics. [/quote]
I wonder how long before they’re creating 8 foot tall 500lb supersoldiers who have 2 hearts and 4 lungs and can deadlift a literal ton.[/quote]

Not likely, a soldier who is 8 feet tall and 500 is too big of a target. I would actually make them 3 feet tall, but fast as an antelope and strong as a gorilla… and with night vision.[/quote]

Actually, have you guys heard about “giant people”? I havent had the opportunity to research it and validate if its true but apparently they were some bigger people… heres a youtube link: (skip to 2min part )
- YouTube [/quote]

While there is a sliver of truth there (the tallest living man on record was 8’ 11"), it’s physiologically impossible for a perfectly proportioned homo sapien to grow to the size of some of the ‘remains’ in the clip. They would either collapse under their own weight or look distinctly non-human. We certainly wouldn’t share a common ancestor unless trees were bigger in the old days. Wait - they wouldn’t need to climb trees.

Ancient documents describing ancient kings as giants should be taken with a king-sized pinch of salt: by exaggerating their size, they were underlining their status. Vital to maintaining power and keeping challengers at bay.

67

I’m pretty sure those pictures of giant humans were an art student’s project…

I’ll try to find a source later but I’m pretty sure they have all been proven to be fake.

68

[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
I’m pretty sure those pictures of giant humans were an art student’s project…

I’ll try to find a source later but I’m pretty sure they have all been proven to be fake.[/quote]
yeah there’s no archeological documents or findings to support these pictures

69

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]coolusername wrote:
yes, epigenetics is the term i believe. very interesting [/quote]

Here is some more detail about that. Fascinating that certain traits can be “changed” and inherited in one generation. Many theories such as Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution can have extremely detailed genetic explanations with the advancement of epigenetics to validate it to a law(someday perhaps). I can’t wait for the day that they tie it all together, much like many laws of physics. [/quote]

I think some of you guys are attributing more to epigenetics than is actually the case. Epigenetic regulation does NOT change your genes. It is a means of gene regulation. DNA is normally coiled around proteins called histones, which can be reversibly covalently modified with small chemical groups (methyl, acetyl, ubiquitin, etc.). DNA in the 10nm configuration can be transcribed (and thus its proteins made), but 30nm DNA is kind of a whacked configuration that inhibits proper access by transcription factors (proteins that can bind to DNA and take a direct role in gene regulation, aka TFs). Histones can also be shuffled around by chemical modifications to influence access by TFs and more.

I’m not sure that a failure to “erase” epigenetic regulatory markers would have implications for the Theory of Evolution. The key thing is that these modifications are reversible. I think the biggest issue in germline transmission of these markers (passing it on in the gametes) was alluded to by the scientist in the article: disease. Many gene products have more than one function, and can have separate functions in development. The key thing about development is that timing and quantity of developmental proteins can be vital to normal development.

But don’t take my word for it: I still have a lot to learn and genetics is probably the most rapidly evolving (lol) branch of science in the present day. Or maybe the genetics guys would just like to think so :stuck_out_tongue: The point is that there is still a lot of surprises, and there’s no bigger limiting factor in learning them than hubris.[/quote]

Thanks for this. My genetics knowledge comes from an intro level biology class in college, so I don’t know shit.

70

Oh, I knew they were fakes, but there are kooks out there who believe they’re genuine and explain it with a host of previsitation conspiracies.

71

[quote]roybot wrote:
Oh, I knew they were fakes, but there are kooks out there who believe they’re genuine and explain it with a host of previsitation conspiracies.[/quote]

This!

It seems to be a strain within the larger rightwing-conspiracy bubble.

In short Alex Jones is one acid trip away from talking about this on his radio show.

72

[quote]Professor X wrote:

One old saying I heard growing up went something like, “Shoot for the most extreme goal…that way even if you fall short you are still flying above everyone else”.

Lately, the saying seems to be, “make sure you don’t think you can do too much…so you don’t waste time trying to stand out”.

Seems like a Loser Motto to me.[/quote]

A loser motto? But doing the reverse would mean actually trying, and we all know that trying is the first step towards disappointment…

Haha on a serious note, I grew up with that saying, too. I believe it went, “shoot for the moon because even if you miss, you’ll still land among the stars.”

Sounds corny, I know, but I ended up taking that very seriously, and I’m glad I did.

73

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

One old saying I heard growing up went something like, “Shoot for the most extreme goal…that way even if you fall short you are still flying above everyone else”.

Lately, the saying seems to be, “make sure you don’t think you can do too much…so you don’t waste time trying to stand out”.

Seems like a Loser Motto to me.[/quote]

A loser motto? But doing the reverse would mean actually trying, and we all know that trying is the first step towards disappointment…

Haha on a serious note, I grew up with that saying, too. I believe it went, “shoot for the moon because even if you miss, you’ll still land among the stars.”

Sounds corny, I know, but I ended up taking that very seriously, and I’m glad I did.[/quote]

It worked for me in life and in the gym.

The guys shooting for smaller goals are first to quit the gym when shit gets rough.

74

On the issue of small goals…this is why setting limits first will hold more people back.

If you start this worrying about where you THINK you will stop no matter what you do, you will no doubt shoot for less than that. That is just human nature.

Ignoring that people are getting really big makes little sense in this area.

75

This is a really interesting topic and there are people working on it right now such as:

University of Maryland Functional Genomics Laboratory
Our laboratory focuses on two different areas of genetics: understanding the role of genetics (gene variation) in explaining how different individuals respond to various exercise programs and why similar people can respond differently to the same stimulus. And, we are examining how exercise/physical activity can influence DNA itself (e.g., telomere biology, epigenetics).

From their website I found this article: The ACTN3 R577X nonsense allele is under-represented in elite-level strength athletes - PMC
Which is one of the few that I’ve seen that has used high level bodybuilders and strength athletes as subjects.

However, although this kind of stuff is interesting it hardly matters to most people who can make great gains towards almost any physique goal even if they’re not as genetically gifted as top level athletes. It will have implications soon in athlete i.d. programs for any organization with enough money to run the tests though.

76

[quote]dcb wrote:
This is a really interesting topic and there are people working on it right now such as:

University of Maryland Functional Genomics Laboratory
Our laboratory focuses on two different areas of genetics: understanding the role of genetics (gene variation) in explaining how different individuals respond to various exercise programs and why similar people can respond differently to the same stimulus. And, we are examining how exercise/physical activity can influence DNA itself (e.g., telomere biology, epigenetics).

From their website I found this article: The ACTN3 R577X nonsense allele is under-represented in elite-level strength athletes - PMC
Which is one of the few that I’ve seen that has used high level bodybuilders and strength athletes as subjects.

However, although this kind of stuff is interesting it hardly matters to most people who can make great gains towards almost any physique goal even if they’re not as genetically gifted as top level athletes. It will have implications soon in athlete i.d. programs for any organization with enough money to run the tests though.
[/quote]

Hell yes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Sequencing technology is advancing so rapidly that the once fabled goal of the $1000 human genome is very near (one nextgen sequencer company claims it already). In the near future, getting your genome sequenced will be in the hundreds and will be a common medical practice, useful to discern genetic predisposition to disease, athletic potential, or genealogy/paternity. The possibility of genetic discrimination is a HUGE topic in ethics already. Sometimes, it’s scary to think about what genetics can do, especially when you consider the fact that it’s still a young branch of science with a lot of potential and is growing rapidly.

77

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:
This is a really interesting topic and there are people working on it right now such as:

University of Maryland Functional Genomics Laboratory
Our laboratory focuses on two different areas of genetics: understanding the role of genetics (gene variation) in explaining how different individuals respond to various exercise programs and why similar people can respond differently to the same stimulus. And, we are examining how exercise/physical activity can influence DNA itself (e.g., telomere biology, epigenetics).

From their website I found this article: The ACTN3 R577X nonsense allele is under-represented in elite-level strength athletes - PMC
Which is one of the few that I’ve seen that has used high level bodybuilders and strength athletes as subjects.

However, although this kind of stuff is interesting it hardly matters to most people who can make great gains towards almost any physique goal even if they’re not as genetically gifted as top level athletes. It will have implications soon in athlete i.d. programs for any organization with enough money to run the tests though.
[/quote]

Hell yes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Sequencing technology is advancing so rapidly that the once fabled goal of the $1000 human genome is very near (one nextgen sequencer company claims it already). In the near future, getting your genome sequenced will be in the hundreds and will be a common medical practice, useful to discern genetic predisposition to disease, athletic potential, or genealogy/paternity. The possibility of genetic discrimination is a HUGE topic in ethics already. Sometimes, it’s scary to think about what genetics can do, especially when you consider the fact that it’s still a young branch of science with a lot of potential and is growing rapidly.[/quote]
I find the ethics of it all very interesting. You disclose to a health insurance firm if you smoke, prevelance of heart disease, etc., should they get access to your genome to check your genes as well? Should employers be able to check out your genome to see if there are genes that will hinder your performance? Will coaches start checking out players genomes before signing them up? (Not questioning you personally haha, just postulating)

I don’t know if the answer to any of those questions, or the others that arise, is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but it certainly opens up a whole new world of ethical, philosophical and legal implications.

what I’d love to see would be a retrospective look at great athletes genomes, which I have no doubt will be possible in my lifetime - did they succeed because of their genetics, or in spite of them?

78

[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]

Ronnie Coleman got as big as his attitude allowed, not his genetics.

79

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[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]

Ronnie Coleman got as big as his attitude allowed, not his genetics.
[/quote]

Agreed…which is why those who limit themselves with their own thinking can hold themselves back.

Most of your progress is “attitude based”.

The guy who approaches this as if he is “at war” and will reach a goal will always go farther than the passive guy who thinks he won’t have to put in any extra-ordinary effort.

80

[quote]The Hoss wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]dcb wrote:
This is a really interesting topic and there are people working on it right now such as:

University of Maryland Functional Genomics Laboratory
Our laboratory focuses on two different areas of genetics: understanding the role of genetics (gene variation) in explaining how different individuals respond to various exercise programs and why similar people can respond differently to the same stimulus. And, we are examining how exercise/physical activity can influence DNA itself (e.g., telomere biology, epigenetics).

From their website I found this article: The ACTN3 R577X nonsense allele is under-represented in elite-level strength athletes - PMC
Which is one of the few that I’ve seen that has used high level bodybuilders and strength athletes as subjects.

However, although this kind of stuff is interesting it hardly matters to most people who can make great gains towards almost any physique goal even if they’re not as genetically gifted as top level athletes. It will have implications soon in athlete i.d. programs for any organization with enough money to run the tests though.
[/quote]

Hell yes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Sequencing technology is advancing so rapidly that the once fabled goal of the $1000 human genome is very near (one nextgen sequencer company claims it already). In the near future, getting your genome sequenced will be in the hundreds and will be a common medical practice, useful to discern genetic predisposition to disease, athletic potential, or genealogy/paternity. The possibility of genetic discrimination is a HUGE topic in ethics already. Sometimes, it’s scary to think about what genetics can do, especially when you consider the fact that it’s still a young branch of science with a lot of potential and is growing rapidly.[/quote]
I find the ethics of it all very interesting. You disclose to a health insurance firm if you smoke, prevelance of heart disease, etc., should they get access to your genome to check your genes as well? Should employers be able to check out your genome to see if there are genes that will hinder your performance? Will coaches start checking out players genomes before signing them up? (Not questioning you personally haha, just postulating)

I don’t know if the answer to any of those questions, or the others that arise, is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but it certainly opens up a whole new world of ethical, philosophical and legal implications.

what I’d love to see would be a retrospective look at great athletes genomes, which I have no doubt will be possible in my lifetime - did they succeed because of their genetics, or in spite of them? [/quote]

Straight up out of that movie Gattica.