Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: FermiDirac on September 13, 2016, 12:26:38 PM
-
In terms of strength and muscle growth genetics, which one is at the peak? We can safely assume that Football Americaine attracts a larger amount of people and thus have a larger sample size of the genetic pool compared to bodybuilding, but if we took the best one from each sport (BB is not a sport) who would yield the best result? This is under the assumption that the only difference except for genetics is their way of training, the rest is ceteris paribus.
-
Let's compare
IFBB Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black
NFL Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black
-
(http://thumbs.gfycat.com/TastyAlarmingCoyote-size_restricted.gif)
-
Let's compare
IFBB Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black
NFL Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black
Yes, that's why I said genetics and training aside we can assume ceteris paribus (all other things equal). Like take an NFL defensive lineman (I know they already juice), put him on a bodybuilders drug and food regiment, how big would the most genetically gifted guy get?
Bodybuilding is a very small hobby, with a very small sample size of the population engaging in it. Hence, the very best of bodybuilders are still only the best among a very small sample size. I'm curious about how much improvement we would be able to see within bodybuilding if the hobby had a population sample size equivalent of a sport such as football. I'm convinced that the top bodybuilders represent the upper percentile (like 99th?), but with a larger selection pool like the one of football, would we be able to encounter people in the >99.99% percentile?
It would be interesting to hear from people like coach, who trains and works with people from a bb background as well as football Americano.
-
One is a sport the other is bodybuilding. Let's start there.
-
The only thing that matters is that the subject is a Hebrew.
-
The fact is, Human Genetic Superior, that allowed us to be the dominant species on Earth, was intellectual superiority, rather than physical superiority. Physically, for strength, our close genetic relatives, the great apes, are still superior, but dumb as shit.
-
One is a sport the other is bodybuilding. Let's start there.
Bodybuilding is a muscle themed beauty pageant, so I fully agree that it's not a sport. Though, the question remains on whomever would be the winner in regards to the best genetics.
Sandow GOAT Ronald Dean Coleman was an example of a football player who tried bodybuilding, so in that regard one could consider football producing people with better genetics for muscle growth and Mr Coleman wasn't even a lineman if I recall correctly.
-
The fact is, Human Genetic Superior, that allowed us to be the dominant species on Earth, was intellectual superiority, rather than physical superiority. Physically, for strength, our close genetic relatives, the great apes, are still superior, but dumb as shit.
The genetic superiority in question is in regards to muscle growth, obviously.
By the way, we aren't related to apes, they are just some animals who had the fortune of boarding the Ark in time before the great flood. ;D
Joking aside, I recall reading a sci journal stating that our inferior strength in comparison to the great apes comes from a genetic mutation which occurred during the time when our species branched off from the other great apes. Imagine if science would allow us to genetically reverse engineer this mutation to make it dormant. A damn 50lbs female chimp deadlifted in the excess of 600lbs without a trouble, imagine what a human without the mutated strength gene would able to do; schmoe squatting the entire front row on the Mr Olympia show.
-
The only thing that matters is that the subject is a Hebrew.
(https://s18.postimg.org/de7sdfw8p/image.jpg)
-
(https://s18.postimg.org/de7sdfw8p/image.jpg)
Technically we are all descendants of "hebrews", it's just a matter of tracing back enough generations.
-
NFL goes beyond genetics.
You gotta be mentally tough, have a good work ethic, and be a little crazy.
-
Technically we are all descendants of "hebrews", it's just a matter of tracing back enough generations.
This would be true if all blacks were Hebrews. They are not.
Hebrews are a specific group of people that descend from the transatlantic slave trade world wide. We are not Hamitic Africans. We are Shemitic people. All black people are not the same.
-
This would be true if all blacks were Hebrews. They are not.
Hebrews are a specific group of people that descend from the transatlantic slave trade world wide. We are not Hamitic Africans. We are Shemitic people. All black people are not the same.
Just providing some illustrations...
(https://s13.postimg.org/i42360m3r/image.jpg)
-
Just providing some illustrations...
(https://s13.postimg.org/i42360m3r/image.jpg)
Perfect illustrations. We don't even look alike except by skin. We are shemitic, they are hamitic. Different people. It's one of the reasons they sold us into slavery. We are not their people. We were occupying their land.
-
Let's compare
IFBB Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black, many end up broke 2 years after retiring, large gay following
NFL Pro - Heavy Steroid and HGH Use, Always in denial about it, majority are black, many end up broke 2 years after retiring, large gay following
Some additions.
-
This would be true if all blacks were Hebrews. They are not.
Hebrews are a specific group of people that descend from the transatlantic slave trade world wide. We are not Hamitic Africans. We are Shemitic people. All black people are not the same.
And here I though hebrew was getbig slang for the Sub Saharan people, shame on me for not knowing. Anyway, we are all technically of Sub Saharan origin, it's just that we are differentiated by a couple of generations of mutation. Caucasian features is the result of mutations in genes which benefited the tribes that migrated towards the European regions.
And yes, I do know and understand that there are genetic differences between people of the African continent, just as there are genetic differences among people in other continents.
-
Technically we are all descendants of "hebrews", it's just a matter of tracing back enough generations.
We are all descendants of Africans, and (only) whites got an little Neanderthal too...
-
The "out of Africa" model has been debunked. the current model supported by evolutionary anthropologists is that we are all "out of Australia" - and no, I'm not joking.
At a loss to explain why Aboriginal DNA had NO African component AT ALL, researchers came to discover that the research of Aboriginal Australian Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Aboriginal Australian people, arriving at the same conclusion, the researchers recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:
“the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 …”
BTW this is all very easy to confirm with a simple google , as the Evolutionary anthropology community has been using this model for quite some time now. Sorry to those with an emotional stake in being "the Original people" but chromosomes don't lie , Australian Aborigines are BY FAR the oldest group of people still in existence.
The "out of Africa" shtick has been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a Marxist political doctrine masquerading as science.
Hope this helps...
-
The "out of Africa" model has been debunked. the current model supported by evolutionary anthropologists is that we are all "out of Australia" - and no, I'm not joking.
At a loss to explain why Aboriginal DNA had NO African component AT ALL, researchers came to discover that the research of Aboriginal Australian Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Aboriginal Australian people, arriving at the same conclusion, the researchers recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:
“the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 …”
BTW this is all very easy to confirm with a simple google , as the Evolutionary anthropology community has been using this model for quite some time now. Sorry to those with an emotional stake in being "the Original people" but chromosomes don't lie , Australian Aborigines are BY FAR the oldest group of people still in existence.
The "out of Africa" shtick has been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a Marxist political doctrine masquerading as science.
Hope this helps...
very interesting, good info..
-
Just providing some illustrations...
(https://s13.postimg.org/i42360m3r/image.jpg)
Are you saying Hamites = Not Negro?
-
We are all descendants of Africans, and (only) whites got an little Neanderthal too...
Jimmy Carter
-
Are you saying Hamites = Not Negro?
Yes. Hamites are not Negro. Negro is a specific kind of black people. We come from a different bloodline which makes us Shemitic and them Hamitic. We share the same skin tone. That's it.
-
Are you saying Hamites = Not Negro?
I think you are adressing wiggs. If not I was just posting some pics to illustrate wiggs info. I myself have no substantial knowledge of this subject and I am white with a blond wife and 3 blond kids. Looked up a little about this though but it seems realy realy far fetched.
-
Yes. Hamites are not Negro. Negro is a specific kind of black people. We come from a different bloodline which makes us Shemitic and them Hamitic. We share the same skin tone. That's it.
What type of negro is a prime Pam Grier? Slurp :P
-
What type of negro is a prime Pam Grier? Slurp :P
She's a regular Hebrew aka Negro.
-
She's a regular Hebrew aka Negro.
Thanks. Forgot the pictor.
-
The "out of Africa" model has been debunked. the current model supported by evolutionary anthropologists is that we are all "out of Australia" - and no, I'm not joking.
At a loss to explain why Aboriginal DNA had NO African component AT ALL, researchers came to discover that the research of Aboriginal Australian Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Aboriginal Australian people, arriving at the same conclusion, the researchers recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:
“the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262 …”
BTW this is all very easy to confirm with a simple google , as the Evolutionary anthropology community has been using this model for quite some time now. Sorry to those with an emotional stake in being "the Original people" but chromosomes don't lie , Australian Aborigines are BY FAR the oldest group of people still in existence.
The "out of Africa" shtick has been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than a Marxist political doctrine masquerading as science.
Hope this helps...
The better theory, popular in Asia, is that first hominids spread around the Earth, possibly coming to that level of evolution, in separate events, and evolved into modern humans, Homo Sapien Sapien, in different places, at different times, except in africa, where they never evolved to modern human status, but remained hominids, as in homo erectus, thereby explaining the black african sub-humanity, lack of intellect, and the impossibility of black african civilized behavior.
-
whites are fallen angels white light angelics most beautiful we gave god too much competittion he casted us down
blacks were made of earth they are not the fallen ones
-
Well this thread has derailed ;D