Under 22

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Artem wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Artem wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote
That’s the thing, I think I have what it takes to build the muscle, but I’ve never even seen more than a 4 pack on myself. Does that mean I won’t be able to get lean enough to compete seriously, or will I just need to diet for longer? I’m afraid to lose muscles on a really long diet.

I have no idea. But I will say that it means that you probably wont look like a pro by the time you are 20. If you plan to stay natural for the rest of your training career it would be best not to compare yourself to guys on drugs. Take training advice from them; sure. Nutrition advice; sure, to an extent (you know your body best). But anabolics put people in a completely different ballpark when it comes to max potential.

No dude, I’m saying I think I have the genetics to put on that kind of muscle, but I’ve never been very lean. I’m probably like 2-3% BF (I have no idea) higher and 65lbs heavier than in my profile pics.
Those pics are when I was eating no more than 2000 calories a day though, usually less, and I still couldn’t get lean. I eat 5-6k now.
[/quote]

Oh ok. So I gues you are more ‘mesomorphic’ (if you even believe that word has a meaning, I don’t) than the guys in the videos.

42

Remember body builders muscles are non functional. All those muscles just slow him down, and the extra weight kills his athleticism… oh wait…I guess not.

43

[quote]That One Guy wrote:

Yeah, it seems the general consensus is that you can tell within the first year or so of training if you’ve got the genetics to be the best of the best bodybuilders on the planet, no?[/quote]

Nowadays, yes. Back in Yates day that wasn’t the case yet (not quite, anyway), and that wasn’t so long ago…

But hey, it’s only for the absolute elite shows and such… Though genetics can definitely bite you in the ass with some features (short bis AND short tris at the same time are something nobody likes being cursed with :wink:

44

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
I think its interesting about this cassleberry guy though. In those clips he really doesn’t look all that big, but his strength is crazy. I’m impressed

the hell do you consider big then?

[/quote]

What does castleberry do for 5+ reps in the big three? Anyone know?

45

[quote]Artem wrote:

not at all…
I’ve been lifting seriously for more than a year and have not stalled once. I had a period when I didn’t record any progress and just did a bunch of sets to failure every workout, and put on about 20lbs during that period, but I record all progress now and still get stronger every single workout.

I can definitely tell that I put on more mass easily, but I don’t know when I’ll stall and how I’ll look when I do. That’s probably when you start to get an idea.

You do learn how hard you can train without overstraining early on, though. I’ve never “overtrained,” so I can’t say what it would feel like, but my workouts are usually 2-2.5 hours and a lot of people say that they would o"vertrain" if they did that. It works great for me, so whatever…

[/quote]

And are you benching 405+ for 8 etc yet? Got 19+ inch arms yet? Boulder-shoulders?

It’s good that you’re not stalling, but it mainly just means that you’re apparently eating enough and that your training isn’t hindering you (too much). I hope this continues, we’ll see.

Even the elite stall here and there, but they usually gain strength and size so much faster and look so much larger compared to their weight…

46

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That One Guy wrote:

Yeah, it seems the general consensus is that you can tell within the first year or so of training if you’ve got the genetics to be the best of the best bodybuilders on the planet, no?

Nowadays, yes. Back in Yates day that wasn’t the case yet (not quite, anyway), and that wasn’t so long ago…

But hey, it’s only for the absolute elite shows and such… Though genetics can definitely bite you in the ass with some features (short bis AND short tris at the same time are something nobody likes being cursed with :wink:

[/quote]

I agree, there are still those with sub-par genetics that make it in the biz. Paco Bautista comes to mind for one…

I personally am not a fan of his but respect him for getting to the level he is with what crappy genetics he may have for bodybuilding…at least in the aesthetic dept. Same goes for Dave Palumbo, Markus Ruhl (altho I think Ruhl has some amazing genetics for getting f*ckin HUGE!)

DG

47

[quote]Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That One Guy wrote:

Yeah, it seems the general consensus is that you can tell within the first year or so of training if you’ve got the genetics to be the best of the best bodybuilders on the planet, no?

Nowadays, yes. Back in Yates day that wasn’t the case yet (not quite, anyway), and that wasn’t so long ago…

But hey, it’s only for the absolute elite shows and such… Though genetics can definitely bite you in the ass with some features (short bis AND short tris at the same time are something nobody likes being cursed with :wink:

I agree, there are still those with sub-par genetics that make it in the biz. Paco Bautista comes to mind for one…I personally am not a fan of his but respect him for getting to the level he is with what crappy genetics he may have for bodybuilding…at least in the aesthetic dept.

Same goes for Dave Palumbo, Markus Ruhl (altho I think Ruhl has some amazing genetics for getting f*ckin HUGE!)

DG
[/quote]

Well, here we have the different aspects of the genetic issue…
Individual muscle-shape etc (Rühl’s triceps vs. his bis or delts) can be all-over the place or completely crap, but the guy can still blow past his peers due to being able to gain mass/strength so much faster…

And as I mentioned before, some guys can eat relatively little/low protein and still get large, yet for the vast majority of people (even most guys with good genetics for everything else) this would result in instant stalling/regressing.

So Rühl (genetics-wise, and this is just for the sake of discussion ok?):

Necessary Food Intake/Efficiency of nutrient absorption: Normal (I know he eats a ton, though there are guys who eat more)

Rate of Strength-Gain as it pertains to bbing and thus mass-gain (both on and off-gear): way faster than average (also somewhat different depending on which muscle-group we’re talking about. Also very high top levels for some bodyparts, shoulders especially.)

Can stay very lean year-round even when gaining weight? No. (i.e. average in that regard)

Genetically favored bodyparts:

-Shoulders (both strength and size-wise, some of the best genetics ever seen in that area)

-Biceps (Peak-wise, but very noticeable gap between bicep and elbow… Which can make his arms look comically small in t-shirts and such due to his also underdeveloped tris)

-Quads (not in a crazy way compared to Platz or so, but way better than average)

-Abs. Yeah, you read right. He often sports a visible six-pack even in the off-season at drastically higher BF levels. Also imo has much more “symmetrical/better looking” abs than Cutler and Ronnie, just a very large waist…

Genetically weak bodyparts:
-Triceps (no matter what he does for them, they just keep lagging)

His back is “weak” mostly due to exercise-selection imo, so I won’t include it here.

Ok, I think that’s enough over-analyzing for the next 2 decades…
I felt dirty even writing that stuff :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

48

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
I think its interesting about this cassleberry guy though. In those clips he really doesn’t look all that big, but his strength is crazy. I’m impressed

the hell do you consider big then?

What does castleberry do for 5+ reps in the big three? Anyone know?

[/quote]

@405x15

^ 6plates x4 (i know not 5)

^ benching 225x50

49

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
I think its interesting about this cassleberry guy though. In those clips he really doesn’t look all that big, but his strength is crazy. I’m impressed

the hell do you consider big then?

What does castleberry do for 5+ reps in the big three? Anyone know?

@405x15

^ 6plates x4 (i know not 5)

^ benching 225x50[/quote]

Hmm. Waylander has a point about him being smaller than you’d expect imo.

50

Antoine Vaillant has come a long way in adding size. He’s only 21 right now.

Here’s a video of him back from 2004, which would put him right around 16/17, and he already had a pretty good base.

51

you say smaller than expected

i say stronger than expected

you guys are basing off most people who lift his numbers are huge guys, usually pro strongmen or PLers walking around w/ a lot more overall size.

i see it as a kid who trains for BBing that is just ape-shit fucking strong.

theres also nothing small about this guy, he’s 5’10 230 or something w/ abs.

52

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
I think its interesting about this cassleberry guy though. In those clips he really doesn’t look all that big, but his strength is crazy. I’m impressed

the hell do you consider big then?

[/quote]

I’m just saying for someone who puts up that much weight I figured he’d be bigger. I was expecting a more freaky physique.

53

[quote]counterfeitsoda wrote:
Antoine Vaillant has come a long way in adding size. He’s only 21 right now.

Here’s a video of him back from 2004, which would put him right around 16/17, and he already had a pretty good base.

I can’t tell if that guy has gyno or just phenomenally long nipples lol. Nonetheless, hes a beast.

54

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
you say smaller than expected

i say stronger than expected

you guys are basing off most people who lift his numbers are huge guys, usually pro strongmen or PLers walking around w/ a lot more overall size.

i see it as a kid who trains for BBing that is just ape-shit fucking strong.

theres also nothing small about this guy, he’s 5’10 230 or something w/ abs. [/quote]

Er yes live, so he IS smaller than one would expect considering what numbers he’s putting up… You just said the same thing we did in a different way.

I wonder were he’ll end up, size and strength-wise…
Will he have to do 800+ lb squats for 10 reps, 600 lb benches for 10 (ha!) and 1000 lb deadlifts for 8 in order to get to the superheavies?
Or will he get stuck somewhere along the line?

Guess his neuromuscular efficiency is just plain crazy or something…

55

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i wouldnt say Aaron used ease. in his thread he details that he worked out for 2 hours a day and went to the gym instead of doing other activities so like when his friends were partying, he was at the gym. [/quote]

He is far from the only guy doing that. 99 percent of the others did however not get the results he got. That’s what I meant.

[quote]i cant tell you whether or not thats true either, a lot of people like to paint themselves as the hero who had to struggle to get to where they are, regardless. but you cant get big without working at it in one way or another. no one lifts once a week and is big, no one does rec. drugs all day and is big. theres a certain standard you have to adhere to no matter how good your genetics are.
[/quote]

Not really. Wheeler and Dillet come to mind… But those are top of the line genetics, of course.

56

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

…
I felt dirty even writing that stuff :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
[/quote]

lol I know.

I meant that he didn’t have weak genetics, because we all have genetic strengths/weaknesses to some degree.

I think Ruhl was a bad example…Bautista is a good example tho.

My whole point is that there are still some fairly successful bodybuilders with sub-par genetics. So for all the people who give up on bodybuilding because they think they don’t have the genetics need to just stop being a pussy and quit making excuses lol These guys will never beat the Heaths, Wheelers, Ray, etc but you can still manage to compete and make money as a bodybuilder.

DG

57

[quote]Big Aristotle wrote:
Live actually taking a subject seriously???

WHAAAAAAAA?!?!?!?!?[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing, BA!

lol

Good thread, Live!

58

Weird, I definitely expected BC’s deadlift to be stronger than 585x4 considering how big his squat is.

59

I also find his continuous flexing extremely annoying haha. Every video I have watched he busts out a front double by and MM pose before and after his lift. O well, Ive said enough.

60

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
counterfeitsoda wrote:
Antoine Vaillant has come a long way in adding size. He’s only 21 right now.

Here’s a video of him back from 2004, which would put him right around 16/17, and he already had a pretty good base.

I can’t tell if that guy has gyno or just phenomenally long nipples lol. Nonetheless, hes a beast.[/quote]

I don’t know, I heard that one was pierced, and somehow made it look even worst. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know, but either way he’s done a great job overall.