[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
There is one very interesting study showing a massive increase in type IIb fibers by taking long off-training periods.
Also, I seem to recall talk of a study where they did some crazy training protocol that involved the subject living in a wheelchair, but doing 1 set of maximally explosive leg press, three times per week, or something. This apparently resulted in transition of fiber type into type IIb.
I could be full of shit though.
BBB[/quote]
I remember seeing both studies, and they both seem to make more sense to me then the consistent thinking that major changes in power/bw is not limited by genetics. It seems like people always list endurance and maximum strength as trainable but power/bw as mostly geneticly based.
Personally I always think environment is such an underated variable, and probably the most important. I don’t know I get this weird sense that it’s not a gene that makes Dominicans predisposed to baseball.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
crod266 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
What he wrote is totally false. Muscular potential is not much less dependent on genetics than any facet of athleticism. The source of the misconception is probably the fact that few people are close to their bodybuilding potential at any given time, so a person who trains can exceed the physiques of more gifted people who don’t train. Neverthless, if everyone trained, it would become immediately apparent that genetics is THE most important factor that influcines physique.
I agree with this. The problem pops up when people who don’t try that hard blame their lack of results on their genetics. Most people on the planet should be able to drastically change how they look. The ones who can do this as well as stand out amongst the elite are much fewer than the general population.
If you can’t build arms over 15", chances are, the problem is NOT your genetics but your lack of effort in the gym and the kitchen.
If you can’t build arms over 19", that may be the result of your own genetics.
prox whats your opionon on genetics when u reach a preety high level of bodybuilding, either ifbb or npc. How far do you think someone could make it would average genetics?
Truly “average” genetics would find most people unable to get arms larger than 18" in my experience. So obviously, there won’t be many “average” people at the truly higher levels of competition if we are discussing heavy weights. There are TONS of people who compete in NPC contests as light heavies and lightweights who aren’t carrying as much size but still look amazing.
A ripped to shreds 18" arm means the guy is walking around with arms over 19" the rest of the year at least. You need to understand things like that when discussing competitors in contest shape. the average guy is walking around AT LEAST 20-30lbs heavier in the off season with most over 50lbs heavier. That is why if you have a goal of weighing 190lbs ripped, you had better be over 220-230lbs in the off season.[/quote]
One often overlooked consideration is the natural selection process at work… all sports tend to attract the participation of individuals who are more talented than average. The average serious bodybuilder does not represent the average person from the general population. The result is that bodybuilders tend to have a skewed concept of what “average” really is.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
One often overlooked consideration is the natural selection process at work… all sports tend to attract the participation of individuals who are more talented than average. The average serious bodybuilder does not represent the average person from the general population. The result is that bodybuilders tend to have a skewed concept of what “average” really is. [/quote]
Doubtful. We/they simply don’t worry about what “average” is. I am fully aware that the “average” man may never get arms bigger than 15". I could also not care less about that since I compare myself to people who lift weights regularly and not sedentary couch potatoes.
You are right, however, that the average bodybuilder is not the same as the “average person who doesn’t lift”…but that should be common sense.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
What he wrote is totally false. Muscular potential is not much less dependent on genetics than any other facet of physical ability. The source of the misconception is probably the fact that few people ever approach their bodybuilding potential, so people who train can exceed the physiques of more gifted people who don’t train. Neverthless, if everyone trained, it would become immediately obvious that genetics is THE most important factor influencing physique.[/quote]
Totally false? That’s a bit strong.
True, if bodybuilding or powerlifting was as popular as football, then genetics would play a larger role in the success of the athlete.
But that does not mean that maximal strength and muscle size are just as dependent on genetics as explosive power.
Maximal Strength is perhaps THE most trainable athletic quality.
And the fact remains, while you can always find powerlifters and bodybuilders who were once very small and weak, you will never find elite sprinters or pro basketball players who were slow and nonathletic until they started training in their late teens.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
The potential volume of a muscle is that of a sphere whose diameter is the length of the muscle belly:
A muscle that is 3 inches long has a potential volume of 14.13 square inches.
A muscle that is 4 inches long has a potential volume of 33.5 square inches.
Conclude what you will.[/quote]
I conclude you are confused. Volume is measured in cubic inches, not square inches and I am not sure how many muscles can be characterized as spheres, they are more cylindrical if we want to stick to simple shapes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The potential volume of a muscle is that of a sphere whose diameter is the length of the muscle belly:
A muscle that is 3 inches long has a potential volume of 14.13 square inches.
A muscle that is 4 inches long has a potential volume of 33.5 square inches.
Conclude what you will.
I conclude you are confused. Volume is measured in cubic inches, not square inches and I am not sure how many muscles can be characterized as spheres, they are more cylindrical if we want to stick to simple shapes.[/quote]
LMFAO, I am humiliated, but that was a typo. I am fully aware that volume is measured in cubic inches. I just fucked it up when it counted.
And, while no muscle will ever approach the shape of a sphere, the practical limitations on muscle growth are proportional to the theoretical ones.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The potential volume of a muscle is that of a sphere whose diameter is the length of the muscle belly:
A muscle that is 3 inches long has a potential volume of 14.13 square inches.
A muscle that is 4 inches long has a potential volume of 33.5 square inches.
Conclude what you will.
I conclude you are confused. Volume is measured in cubic inches, not square inches and I am not sure how many muscles can be characterized as spheres, they are more cylindrical if we want to stick to simple shapes.
LMFAO, I am humiliated, but that was a typo. I am fully aware that volume is measured in cubic inches. I just fucked it up when it counted.
And, while no muscle will ever approach the shape of a sphere, the practical limitations on muscle growth are proportional to the theoretical ones. [/quote]
I knew what you were trying to say, I was just busting your chops.