[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Stu, this might be an interesting question to have you answer… What are your thoughts on your genetics?
I’m sure you’ve given it some thought, as we all have. I’d be interested in hearing a Natural Pro’s thoughts on their own genetics.[/quote]
Very cool question. Coincidentally someone asked me the same thing fairly recently, and it really does make me stop and think. I don’t believe too many people, competitors and not, are capable of fully stepping back and viewing themselves with 100% objectivity. Heck, I do my best to always be my own worst critic because I believe it brings out the best in whatever I undertake, but can anyone ever truly be 100% unbiased?
There’s a saying I like, about how the smarter and harder I trained, the better my genetics got. It applies a lot of the time to people who always seem to feel, whether correct or not, that they really are doing everything optimally. However, even if you are doing everything in the most effective and efficient manner possible, you will inevitably reach a point where your DNA pretty much says “yep, that’s about all we’ve got.”
I can’t really look back to my initial years in the gym and state how easy or difficult it was for me to make gains as a bodybuilder. This is because I admittedly did many things incorrectly, or at least less than what I could have been doing to make the most of my training. My strength levels did increas at an almost freakish pace (hence the moniker my mentor and buddy Scott coined, “Mighty Stu”), but that was never really the goal. I would have always given up strength for size. Other people I would meet though, would feel very differently, as they were nowhere near my strength levels, yet looked much closer to the types of comic book physiques I was after.
In hindsight though, and I have watched and rewatched my contest and training videos countless times, I did build quite the heavily muscled and dense physique. It may not have always been in the ideal proportions I was aiming for, but we’ve all got our individual puzzles to solve.
Adding muscle was not an easy task for me. For people that look at photos of my heaviest contest weights (around 2011-2012), seeing that type of physique, with dingle digit bodyfat levels, and especially on a smaller skeletal frame (5’8, tiny joints), it’s very easy to conclude that it was a simple task. Even photos from my first contest convey a considerable about of size, BUT, and I point this out all the time, it was 15 years in the gym before that point. That’s some serious slow progress, even if we allow for blaming typical training and nutrition dumbass-ery.
During my competitive years, I went from 170 stage weight in '09 to 178 stage weight in 2012. For people who don’t have proper perspective, that’s an amazing bit of progress. Make no doubts though, it came from 100% ball busting training, 100% spot on nutrition, and incorporating any supplement that I felt MIGHT make even a slight difference. Was it easy? Hell no, and if anyone ever suggested otherwise, I’d not only be offended, but I’d know that they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.
Naturally strong, no question. If anything, I believe that this is why my training approach developed. I had to work around my natural strength levels. Aching joints are never fun, and I learned (eventually) that getting stronger doesn’t always lead to getting bigger.
My back developed fairly easily compared to my front. The way I always figured was that as I never really cared about how much I was lifting, or impressing anyone else in the gym, I was able to focus early on in learning to actually contract my back muscles without turning everything into an arm exercise.
My chest on the other hand, was a weak point for a long time, despite what I believed was a full understanding of what I was supposed to be doing form wise. Pre-exhaust work, doubling up on frequency during off seasons, and understanding how to use cables to strategically target areas I needed to hit, eventually made the difference I needed, but man it was slow in catching up -lol
Quads were also a lagging bodypart. I attribute this to a few things.
1- I got caught in chasing numbers, and while I once maxed a backsquat at 550 lbs, my legs looked like formless crap (nice plump glutes though)
2- Lower back injury in '07 took squats off my ‘to do’ list for a while. They weren’t a strong point when this happened, so losing even more ground really sucked.
3- For whatever reason, I thought that front squats were just for Olympic lifters. When I finally learned how to do these properly (from an Olympic Weightlifting coach), my quads actually started making progress.
4- Genetically (and I think after 20+ years I can say this without people saying I’m being pessimistic), I don’t have a very good quad sweep. The predetermined shape of my quads is more of a rectangular/oblong muscle. From the side, my legs look good. You can even see the quads peaking out when viewed from the rear. Still, despite making size gains, and posing as strategically as I could, at some point, with some things, you just hit that wall.
Overall, and I say this based on interacting with many people of all different levels over the years, on a scale from 1-10, I would say I’m a solid 7. Definitely had the genetics to build a decent physique, no doubt. Of course while I’m certainly well above the average gym rat, possibly the average competitor (I don’t want to sound arrogant here, but I think I’ve done okay over the years), I’m never going to be a threat to guys like Cordova and Whitacre. Not on my best day. Again, it’s not being pessimistic, it’s being honest 
I’d be curious what other people think on the subject. Not only I rate on such a scale, but they themselves.
Lonnie? How do you think you fare numerically?
S