[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve been subjected many times to polygraphs before they even let you onstage for prejudging[/quote]
LOL! Wow that’s awesome.
So here are two questions, part science and part rhetorical/philosophical.
Not what limits us, but why are we as humans limited to a degree as a natural trainee to perpetual gains in muscle growth and strength? Why is it that at some point our bodies will not allow us to continue to make large and noticable gains in that area yet with the simple introduction of a few hormones the rules then instantly break? What purpose does our internal deisgn serve to prevent this? Again, not what does it, buy why does it occur?
Now again we can debate if there is or is not a ‘limit’ until we are blue in the face, but we all(well most of us) can agree that for the natural trainee there is a limit of gains where that trainee will then start to experience dimishing results to an exponential degree in size and stregth. Where or what that said point is I am not really interested in discussing. Kind of like knowing when you die in the event that it will be unavoidable, I’d rather not know. But my second question is what role does advanced training technique, supplements, advanced recovery techinques(things like hyperbaric chambers etc) play in those limits? Does it push us past? Or does it just get us to that point of diminishing returns faster?
Yeah, this thread makes me feel good about what I’ve achieved and a little sad that I probably won’t get a lot more muscular than I am. I think I’m pretty close to peaked out on some of those charts. I guess 14 years of consistent lifting will do that. Fortunately, I train in large part because I love training.
One limiting factor is myostatin. It controls how large the muscles can become. I won’t type a Long explanation because I hate my iPad. Another is just hormones. Hormones regulate how much muscle can be carried and unless exogenous use is applied you can only produce so much.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So here are two questions, part science and part rhetorical/philosophical.
Not what limits us, but why are we as humans limited to a degree as a natural trainee to perpetual gains in muscle growth and strength? Why is it that at some point our bodies will not allow us to continue to make large and noticable gains in that area yet with the simple introduction of a few hormones the rules then instantly break? What purpose does our internal deisgn serve to prevent this? Again, not what does it, buy why does it occur?
Now again we can debate if there is or is not a ‘limit’ until we are blue in the face, but we all(well most of us) can agree that for the natural trainee there is a limit of gains where that trainee will then start to experience dimishing results to an exponential degree in size and stregth. Where or what that said point is I am not really interested in discussing. Kind of like knowing when you die in the event that it will be unavoidable, I’d rather not know. But my second question is what role does advanced training technique, supplements, advanced recovery techinques(things like hyperbaric chambers etc) play in those limits? Does it push us past? Or does it just get us to that point of diminishing returns faster? [/quote]
If I had to make a hypothesis, I would say it’s more to do with sustainability of our life.
The human body has evolved to be a survival machine. Our genetics will do their best to control this ability to survive. At some point, being super large and muscular sounds like it would help you survive, but the amount of energy and resources needed to use, repair, and maintain that level of musculature is significant. It’s along the same lines as our metabolisms adjusting based on how much food we eat.
This would be my guess.
I always find it funny when people warn against limiting natural trainees with theories about how big they can realistically get. Sure we all will reach a genetic limit, but imposing mental barriers and the sort? All you have to do to see the absurdity of such a concern is look at the large number of gym rats who actually use PEDs regularly and still look like crap.
If the belief that you’ll never get huge without PEDs/PEDs will get you huge held any water, then this wouldn’t be the case.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I always find it funny when people warn against limiting natural trainees with theories about how big they can realistically get. Sure we all will reach a genetic limit, but imposing mental barriers and the sort? All you have to do to see the absurdity of such a concern is look at the large number of gym rats who actually use PEDs regularly and still look like crap.
If the belief that you’ll never get huge without PEDs/PEDs will get you huge held any water, then this wouldn’t be the case.
S[/quote]
The problem comes from people having a distorted view on what ‘huge’ is IMO. You get guys who are 5’8"-5’10" thinking the need to push way past 200+ to look huge and chase the fridge and the scale in order to chase an ideal image of a top level competitor or genetic outliar instead of lean out and see they already have a solid amount of muscle.
Not trying to call out DoubleDuce, but he is a pretty great example. Guy admits that he was chasing scale weight and then decided to lean out and now looks fantastic and much more muscular at a much lower bodyweight.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
That puts a lot of stuff in perspective. I’m 5’10 and cutting at the moment hoping to come in at soemwhere between 165-180, think i would be tiny, but looking at those guys they look damn impressive as hell. [/quote]
This is why when people like Walkway throw out out numbers like 165 to you, there’s no need to get defensive, as it’s not negative or anything against you. Glad you’re coming around 
Also, I’m 5’10, low 180’s, for a height comparison at a ‘relatively’ low body fat. I’m obviously not single digit body fat, but I think I’m close.[/quote]
Please post a picture holding a shoe. Therefore we can correcty assess your bf.[/quote]
Will do in my next avatar. Pinky promise.
This reminds me of the day I started lifting and thinking I could walk around 200lb lean in a couple months…
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…
also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]
I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]
i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]
His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]
maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.
Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]
Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.
[/quote]
I wonder how well Zane would do today if he entered Physique…
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…
also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]
I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]
i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]
His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]
maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.
Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]
Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.
[/quote]
I wonder how well Zane would do today if he entered Physique…[/quote]
Really depends. The issue with Physique right now is he judging is inconsistent. There are guys who win shows that look like they could have won in a BB’ing show as well, but then they have guys that are like 6’1" 175 winning other shows (more athletic look). So Zane could literally place anywhere, depending on who the judges are and what they are looking for. It’s one of the other issues with the new category, vague judging criteria along with the board shorts/lack of posing stuff.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…
also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]
I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]
i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]
His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]
maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.
Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]
Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.
[/quote]
I wonder how well Zane would do today if he entered Physique…[/quote]
Really depends. The issue with Physique right now is he judging is inconsistent. There are guys who win shows that look like they could have won in a BB’ing show as well, but then they have guys that are like 6’1" 175 winning other shows (more athletic look). So Zane could literally place anywhere, depending on who the judges are and what they are looking for. It’s one of the other issues with the new category, vague judging criteria along with the board shorts/lack of posing stuff.
[/quote]
The board shorts are ridiculous. I mean look at figure versus bikini for women. They dont make them wear one pieces for one category covering the abs completely from judgement. With physique they take the legs out of the judgingm and Spidey is right about the judging. It is subjective without a true bench mark.
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…
also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]
I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]
i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]
His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]
maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.
Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]
Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.
[/quote]
I wonder how well Zane would do today if he entered Physique…[/quote]
Really depends. The issue with Physique right now is he judging is inconsistent. There are guys who win shows that look like they could have won in a BB’ing show as well, but then they have guys that are like 6’1" 175 winning other shows (more athletic look). So Zane could literally place anywhere, depending on who the judges are and what they are looking for. It’s one of the other issues with the new category, vague judging criteria along with the board shorts/lack of posing stuff.
[/quote]
The board shorts are ridiculous. I mean look at figure versus bikini for women. They dont make them wear one pieces for one category covering the abs completely from judgement. With physique they take the legs out of the judgingm and Spidey is right about the judging. It is subjective without a true bench mark.
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
I agree the board shorts are fucking stupid. I saw a body building show in kuwait on facebook and they guys had full length jeans on!!
When i asked wtf he said it was physique… and then explained it was an upper body body-builder catergory. Not taking anything away from the guys, their upper bodies were enormous
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…
also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]
I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]
i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]
His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]
maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.
Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]
Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.
[/quote]
I wonder how well Zane would do today if he entered Physique…[/quote]
Really depends. The issue with Physique right now is he judging is inconsistent. There are guys who win shows that look like they could have won in a BB’ing show as well, but then they have guys that are like 6’1" 175 winning other shows (more athletic look). So Zane could literally place anywhere, depending on who the judges are and what they are looking for. It’s one of the other issues with the new category, vague judging criteria along with the board shorts/lack of posing stuff.
[/quote]
Aaaron curtis if you know who is, is an Australian BB, he said on fb that he came bottom in physique coz he was too big. And he was easily the best guy on stage by far,
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
Nothing that ensures the Physique guys are natural either.
It is interesting to consider that in 1988 the Mr Olimpia runner-up had a stage weight of 209lbs (Gaspari) and the #4 finisher weighed 176 (Labrada).
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
Nothing that ensures the Physique guys are natural either.
It is interesting to consider that in 1988 the Mr Olimpia runner-up had a stage weight of 209lbs (Gaspari) and the #4 finisher weighed 176 (Labrada).
[/quote]
the physique guys are most certainly not natural…
if a comp is not tested… it’s essentially guaranteed that everyone is using… even if it is tested… everyone is probably doing all they can to cheat without getting caught
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
Nothing that ensures the Physique guys are natural either.
It is interesting to consider that in 1988 the Mr Olimpia runner-up had a stage weight of 209lbs (Gaspari) and the #4 finisher weighed 176 (Labrada).
[/quote]
the physique guys are most certainly not natural…
if a comp is not tested… it’s essentially guaranteed that everyone is using… even if it is tested… everyone is probably doing all they can to cheat without getting caught[/quote]
agrrrreeeeed
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
Nothing that ensures the Physique guys are natural either.
It is interesting to consider that in 1988 the Mr Olimpia runner-up had a stage weight of 209lbs (Gaspari) and the #4 finisher weighed 176 (Labrada).
[/quote]
the physique guys are most certainly not natural…
if a comp is not tested… it’s essentially guaranteed that everyone is using… even if it is tested… everyone is probably doing all they can to cheat without getting caught[/quote]
agrrrreeeeed[/quote]
if ya aint cheaten ya aint trying!
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Also, most Pro Physique guys look like bodybuilders, they just are not pushing 250+ contest shape or short dudes pushing the 220s. Basically the guys who have good physique, just cant compete with the sheer size of the pro level 212’s or heavyweights. [/quote]
Nothing that ensures the Physique guys are natural either.
It is interesting to consider that in 1988 the Mr Olimpia runner-up had a stage weight of 209lbs (Gaspari) and the #4 finisher weighed 176 (Labrada).
[/quote]
the physique guys are most certainly not natural…
if a comp is not tested… it’s essentially guaranteed that everyone is using… even if it is tested… everyone is probably doing all they can to cheat without getting caught[/quote]
agrrrreeeeed[/quote]
if ya aint cheaten ya aint trying! [/quote]
Just breaks my heart how gullible newbs are when it comes to believing celebs and fitness models are natty, I’ve had people try and argue with me that Dwayne Johnson is 100% drug free
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I’ve had people try and argue with me that Dwayne Johnson is 100% drug free[/quote]
I would like to believe that you are joking about that but I know you aren’t.