Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Zeratul-Dark Templar on April 21, 2006, 10:20:01 PM
-
I grow tired of bodybuilding publications attributing fast muscle growth to superior genetics in order to avoid mentioning the prevalence and importance of steroids. From my perspective, the outstanding majority of athletes with truly superior genetics do not necessarily get involved with competitive bodybuilding in the first place. Young kids with athletic potential are pushed in the direction of football, basketball, hockey, baseball, track & field, etc (basically all of the mainstream sports that public schools or private academies provide).
From my perspective, if bodybuilders were the creme de la creme of genetics that they stubbornly insist they are, they would have been real professional athletes. Bodybuilding is sort of an activity turned hobby turned profession that anybody at any level can pick up, whereas with competitive collegiate and professional athletics only the best genetic freaks will be ushered in that direction by discerning coaches and recruiters.
To start, I am not impressed with the young photos of Ronnie, Jay, Chris, etc. They were average, relatively lean kids. If you were to take a sampling of the top 10% youth from any public or private academy, they would have easily put Cormier, Cutler, etc. to shame. Don't even get me started on Nasser, Don Youngblood, Cicherillo, etc. before they were involved in the sport. Obviously there are some exceptions (Arnold, arguably Dorian).
I'm not saying genetics play no role. Bodybuilders always cite that each individual will react differently to an AAS regimen, but this is anecdotal at best because only a small majority have seriously dabbled with the concentrations and dosages necessary to build a pro-calibur physique. And come to think of it, when one thinks of how the AAS market is saturated with counterfeit gear, there simply isn't a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion as to how the average Joe would respond on gear compared to Prince, Cicherillo, etc.
Personally, I think genetics is a crock of shit, similar to the bodybuilding eating fraud. You don't eat 400g of protein daily to build muscle. Its the exact opposite correlation. You eat 400g of protein a day to maintain newly hypertrophied muscle. Of course a guy like Ronnie Coleman needs an insane amount of food, he is over 300 freaking pounds of pure muscle! I think the same issue applies to genetics. Bodybuilding is forced to point the finger at something other than steroids for obvious reasons.
The average natural lifter, in his lifetime, will never put on 10% of the muscle a seasoned veteran can put on in a single offseason. People are only so dumb and recognize that stuffing yourself with food will only give you indigestion and eventually make you fat, so voila, he must be a genetic freak to put on so much quality muscle in such a short period of time. Even though the average man will never administer over 40 injections of bodybuilding substances, painkillers, and poisons, hell even if he did, he would not be Ronnie Coleman! (thats the logic apparently).
You can point to training, but the average Division III college football player trains inordinately harder than the average IFBB pro. Look at Bob Cicherillo. He says you can be "hardcore" training on the Cybex row machine! Give me a f*cking break! There are innumerable athletes who train extraordinarily hard on a regular basis and will never acquire enough muscle to even compete at the National level. The only variable that is absolutely unique to professional bodybuilders is their gear regimen, it is that simple. You have football players and average men out there eating boatloads of food, training for hours on end, busting their asses with the heaviest weights they can manage.
Lastly, it is not a secret that many who become actively involved in bodybuilding have Napoleon complexes. Outstanding physical genetics would never lead to an internal feeling of inferiority or insufficiency to this extent.
Bodybuilders, on average, are shorter and stumpier than usual and not particularly attractive relative to average citizens.
In conclusion, I am just stating my opinion and hope to facilitate some discussion on this topic.
I find it extremely cynical that professional bodybuilders who spend 1000s of dollars on pharmaceuticals readily assume that 95% of the population could not build a comparable physique even if they took an equivalent amount of gear. Its an ignorant assumption and its completely unfounded because most are unable or unwilling to take the requisite measures. Even those that are may struggle to find legitimate gear because the market is absolutely flooded with completely counterfeit shit or vet-grade shit that leaves huge, warm, pussy abscesses.
-
I agree with the basic premise of your post. There are many people that could potentially be better than Coleman if they had the genetics to be stupid enough to inject enough hormones to kill a horse, combined with the ability to work out constantly like a drone - but I must say "lean" kids end up making the best bodybuilders. It's small joints on a wide frame that look impressive once 100 pounds of muscle is added with the chemical aids. Furthermore, Jay Cutler looked very impressive at 18.
-
I agree with the basic premise of your post. There are many people that could potentially be better than Coleman if they had the genetics to be stupid enough to inject enough hormones to kill a horse, combined with the ability to work out constantly like a drone - but I must say "lean" kids end up making the best bodybuilders. It's small joints on a wide frame that look impressive once 100 pounds of muscle is added with the chemical aids. Furthermore, Jay Cutler looked very impressive at 18.
Goodpoint. I'm not saying that anybody could up and become a pro-bodybuilder with access to the necessary provisions. I'm simply arguing that bodybuilders are nowhere near the apex of the genetic pool as they frequently claim.
No doubt Jay Cutler looked good at 18. He was probably a special case to cite, but still there are droves of students, particularly in California and Florida, that look much better physically. Then you have cases like ex-soccer players Nasser, Ruhl, Gunther who were subpar. Don Youngblood looked like an average fat beer drinker before he got involved. Genetically, Ronnie had biceps early on, but as Greg Merritt even admits, thats about it.
I hate how bodybuilding publications throw in asides like: "Chances are, you don't have the genetics to be Mr. Olympia." "You may try to emulate this routine, but chances are, if you don't have bodybuilder X's genetics, you will be overtraining." Obviously a beginner should not delve headfirst into Arnold's double-split regimen, but attempting to imply that a reader has no chance in an endeavor before they even begin is f*cking appalling, esp. when that reader just paid money for assistance, not some blanket statement that they have no chance. I understand the publication's intentions, and I don't agree with supplying readers with cycles, stacks, etc. but the prevalence of drugs needs to be addressed clearly and explicitly. The publications should not even bother to list genetics as a factor, because its relevance pales in comparison to the grocery list of requisite pharmaceuticals. If you train, eat, and juice like Coleman and you're still not National's material, then it may very well be genetics, but very few will have the desire or opportunity to inject so much artificial oil into their tissues and swallow so many pills of unknown origin. I don't care how informed or educated a user is, at that level the extreme dosages amount to sheer recklessness and stupidity, even if you're an endocrinologist for Christ's sake.
-
I'm simply arguing that bodybuilders are nowhere near the apex of the genetic pool as they frequently claim.
Yes they are regarding the abilty for muscular hypertrophy. Whether or not this is an actual good thing (regarding evolution) is an entirely different argument.
No doubt Jay Cutler looked good at 18. He was probably a special case to cite, but still there are droves of students, particularly in California and Florida, that look much better physically. Then you have cases like ex-soccer players Nasser, Ruhl, Gunther who were subpar. Don Youngblood looked like an average fat beer drinker before he got involved. Genetically, Ronnie had biceps early on, but as Greg Merritt even admits, thats about it.
It's not only how you initally look, but how you also respond to training and drugs. They are each significant.
-
So, pro bodybuilders have only average genetics? Oh, really? Then how do you explain that there are tons of guys wishing to turn pro, yet only a few succeed? Money for drugs cannot possibly be an explanation, because they're all originally on a leveled playing field and only those with the best genetics would even get the endorsements, which would allow them to purchase the drugs in the first place.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ok, the fact that you've chosen, as your username, the name of a character from "Starcraft" speaks eons about you. You don't know shit about genetics, geek-boy. So, pro bodybuilders have only average genetics? Oh, really? Then how do you explain that there are tons of guys wishing to turn pro, yet only a few succeed? Money for drugs cannot possibly be an explanation, because they're all originally on a leveled playing field and only those with the best genetics would even get the endorsements, which would allow them to purchase the drugs in the first place. Go back to jercking-off to drawings of naked elve-girls, nerd boy. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
The "tons of guys wishing to turn pro" is still an exceedingly small sample of the general population.
Money for drugs may not be an issue in your example, but availability, purity, and references certainly are.
You don't provide a defense for why you feel the successful professional bodybuilders also have the best genetics.
It does not cost alot of money to go on a baseline cycle. So in many cases, it is simply a matter of perseverance.
You act as though every bodybuilder started training at the exact same time with the exact same resources.
The endorsements are totally unrelated to genetics. King Kamali and Mike Platz were sponsored by MuscleTech!
The companies sponsor either successful bodybuilders or bodybuilders they predict will soon become successful.
If they don't live up to the expectations, they are dropped, despite the fact that their genetics never changed.
Your response is utterly pointless, your examples are irrelevant, and you disrespect me. Go f*ck yourself.
-
Yes they are regarding the abilty for muscular hypertrophy. Whether or not this is an actual good thing (regarding evolution) is an entirely different argument.
Did you even read anything I said? ???
It is impossible to determine whether they are the apex because they are on specially-tailored pharmaceutical cycles that the would-be control group (mainstream society) is not on.
Its like injecting 5% of a lab-rat population with anabolic substances, observing their rapid growth relative to their drug-free peers, then concluding in the thesis that these chemically-altered rats have the best genetics to build muscle.
It's not only how you initally look, but how you also respond to training and drugs. They are each significant
Once again, on what basis can you assume that the current professionals have the best response to training and gear? There is not a large enough sample of the general population, as I stated above.
-
There are hundreds of serious trainees in existence that fit your criteria. It's the same handful of guys (with minor variations) that are top ranked in the world year after year after year. That is statistically significant.
There are MILLIONS of people who lift weights and get nowhere. That is also statistically significant.
-
There are hundreds of serious trainees in existence that fit your criteria. It's the same handful of guys (with minor variations) that are top ranked in the world year after year after year. That is statistically significant.
There are MILLIONS of people who lift weights and get nowhere. That is also statistically significant.
Its now clear that you didn't read my initial post...
The handful of guys who are ranked year after year can afford to devote their entire life to bodybuilding. They inject and swallow 1000s of dollars of pharmaceuticals. The millions who are not getting anywhere either: 1) do not cycle at all 2) cycle with counterfeit gear 3) cycle with considerably smaller quantities than the top guys in the world.
Your statement would be valid if, and only if, everybody was administering the same amount of steroids of the same concentration and purity. Otherwise, the only valid reference is what the professionals looked like naturally in their late teens after puberty and the majority of natural growth has taken place, and when you do, you will see that most pro bodybuilders were quite underwhelming young adults from a physical standpoint.
-
The "tons of guys wishing to turn pro" is still an exceedingly small sample of the general population.
Money for drugs may not be an issue in your example, but availability, purity, and references certainly are.
You don't provide a defense for why you feel the successful professional bodybuilders also have the best genetics.
It does not cost alot of money to go on a baseline cycle. So in many cases, it is simply a matter of perseverance.
You act as though every bodybuilder started training at the exact same time with the exact same resources.
The endorsements are totally unrelated to genetics. King Kamali and Mike Platz were sponsored by MuscleTech!
The companies sponsor either successful bodybuilders or bodybuilders they predict will soon become successful.
If they don't live up to the expectations, they are dropped, despite the fact that their genetics never changed.
Your response is utterly pointless, your examples are irrelevant, and you disrespect me. Go f*ck yourself.
Why are you being such a dick, nerd-boy? Is it because I pointed to the whole board that you're a nerd-boy? Now seriously, your criticism is pathetic. All these guys start from the bottom, so obviously only the ones with the best innate potential get picked by the supplement companies and magazine editors. You don't believe me? Guess what? There is plenty of cheap sauce in Mexico; go there, buy a ton of it and inject it up your ass(I know you'll like that). If it's all about the drugs, then in six months you should be as big as Ronnie and become Mr.O. If not, then shut the f**k up. >:( ::)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
It is impossible to determine whether they are the apex because they are on specially-tailored pharmaceutical cycles that the would-be control group (mainstream society) is not on.
Your title says pro bodybuilders have "average /below-average genetics." Now you say we can't know their genetics.
I think it's reasonable to assume guys like Cutler (pro at 23), Coleman (college football player, freak a year after taking up bodybuilding), Cormier (pro at 25), Shawn Ray (pro at 21), Phil Heath (pro at 25 after 2 years of training) and many more are genetically blessed to gain muscle. They didn't have time to do much juicing before they blew up. Looking at photos of them as teenagers proves nothing, as virtually no teens look freaky big (note how small the Teen Nationals winner is each year). As pointed out, Cutler was freaky big as a teen though.
I will agree that there are undoubtedly guys who have better genetics for gaining muscle who are currently in the NFL or other pro sports (or they took up other sports and never made it pro, but also never competed as bodybuilders). Maybe Barry Bonds could've been bigger than Coleman with a lot more years of training, eating and, yes, drugging. But that doesn't mean the top pro's aren't also genetically blessed. Most of them are -- with a few exceptions.
-
Its now clear that you didn't read my initial post...
The handful of guys who are ranked year after year can afford to devote their entire life to bodybuilding. They inject and swallow 1000s of dollars of pharmaceuticals. The millions who are not getting anywhere either: 1) do not cycle at all 2) cycle with counterfeit gear 3) cycle with considerably smaller quantities than the top guys in the world.
Insignificant.
You rise to the top because you have the genes. You do not need an inordinate amount of money and drugs. Yes, you eventually will but that is AFTER the fact that you've established that you are gifted in this sport.
-
I agree 100% that the top bodybuilders are there because of great genetics. Sure, enough gear will make anyone big, but not at the same level as others.
-
Why are you being such a dick, nerd-boy? Is it because I pointed to the whole board that you're a nerd-boy? Now seriosuly, your criticism is pathetic. All these guys start from the bottom, so obviously only the ones with the best innate potential get picked by the supplement companies and magazine editors. You don;t believe me? Guess what? There is plenty of cheap sauce in Mexico; go there, buy a ton of it and inject it up your ass(I know you'll like that). If it's all about the drugs, then in six months you should be as big as Ronnie and become Mr.O. If not, then shut the f**k up. >:( ::)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You are an idiot ... you re-worded that tired old argument from your previous post.
I never implied that Ronnie Coleman became Mr. Olympia in 6 months. He has obviously been at it for quite some time and has run an inordinate number of cycles. You are a perfect example of an asshat running his mouth off.
I never claimed I could be Mr. Olympia, but on the same note, you have no right to claim that I could never be.
I haven't taken cycles of Coleman's magnitude for half of my life, so the eventual outcome would be uncertain.
He has a completely different biochemical profile so its futile to even begin to compare. Its the equivalent of comparing a male construction worker with a natural female who trains with weights 3 times a week.
They all come from the bottom? Bullshit ... each athlete is subject to a different set of circumstances.
King Kamali was afforded the ability to live at home while he prepared for his career. That is obviously significantly different from some of the struggling bodybuilders who lived in a f*cking van outside of Gold's Gym in Venice during Haney's era. I already addressed your stupid supplement endorsement argument that you reitterated again.
Mexican gear is not preferential. A great deal of it is counterfeit or vet-grade. QV is particularly shitty and drug dealers like to sell it to young men who don't know any better. Obtaining high quality gear from a reputable source isn't just as easy as walking into f*cking walmart or going south of the border. It takes not only $$, but connections and references. I could call Dave Palumbo right now and he would tell me exactly what I need to take but would not dare to list a source.
I am going to bed. I will address your next post (likely the same shit from the past 2 reworded again) tomorrow.
-
Why are you being such a dick, nerd-boy? Is it because I pointed to the whole board that you're a nerd-boy? Now seriously, your criticism is pathetic. All these guys start from the bottom, so obviously only the ones with the best innate potential get picked by the supplement companies and magazine editors. You don't believe me? Guess what? There is plenty of cheap sauce in Mexico; go there, buy a ton of it and inject it up your ass(I know you'll like that). If it's all about the drugs, then in six months you should be as big as Ronnie and become Mr.O. If not, then shut the f**k up. >:( ::)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Well said, I work at L.A. Fitness, that gym is jam packed with people trying to get "HUGE", yet hardly any of them get over 220 lbs with a good looking physique, that's just one gym out of the hundreds and hundreds of gyms in California. Ever thought of how many gyms are filled with people wanting to get "HUGE" in the United States? Yet what do you see in the magazines? The same people, Gustavo, Coleman, Lee Priest ETC ETC. Why did these guys make it? Wasn't just the steroids, but it's an ultimate willpower, to withstand years and years of training to finally get to the point they're at now and become a sucess.
-
They all come from the bottom? Bullshit ... each athlete is subject to a different set of circumstances.
King Kamali was afforded the ability to live at home while he prepared for his career. That is obviously significantly different from some of the struggling bodybuilders who lived in a f*cking van outside of Gold's Gym in Venice during Haney's era. I already addressed your stupid supplement endorsement argument that you reitterated again.
Mexican gear is not preferential. A great deal of it is counterfeit or vet-grade. QV is particularly shitty and drug dealers like to sell it to young men who don't know any better. Obtaining high quality gear from a reputable source isn't just as easy as walking into f*cking walmart or going south of the border. It takes not only $$, but connections and references. I could call Dave Palumbo right now and he would tell me exactly what I need to take but would not dare to list a source.
The top guys in this sport are not being edged out because of guys not getting access to gyms or being denied quality drugs. You're splitting hairs here.
-
I am going to bed. I will address your next post (likely the same shit from the past 2 reworded again) tomorrow.
I know your ass is tossing and turning in bed as I type this, all worked up and shit. HAHA
-
It matters what you mean by "genetics". Most top-level bodybuilders have very impressive muscle shape and structure, both of which are genetically determined. They also have the metabolism to gain muscle without putting on too much fat, assuming they eat anough. They are not naturally huge or strong people. Arnold and Lou looked pretty lanky before juicing and lifting weights. At the same time, I get the feeling that some bodybuilders are great athletes who were too short to compete in team sports like football.
But still, it is funny to hear these primadonna bodybuilders talk about their "superior genetics" for building muscle. Take away the drugs, and they look no better than a million other naturals who train and compete. Take away the massive drug cocktails, and their "superior genetics" magically vanish into thin air. Many bodybuilders don't even bother to train when they aren't on the sauce, because they don't have the patience and work ethic to gain muscle without chemical assistance. That's the unpleasant truth which ALL steroid monkeys will violently deny.
-
It matters what you mean by "genetics". Most top-level bodybuilders have very impressive muscle shape and structure, both of which are genetically determined. They also have the metabolism to gain muscle without putting on too much fat, assuming they eat anough. They are not naturally huge or strong people. Arnold and Lou looked pretty lanky before juicing and lifting weights. At the same time, I get the feeling that some bodybuilders are great athletes who were too short to compete in team sports like football.
But still, it is funny to hear these primadonna bodybuilders talk about their "superior genetics" for building muscle. Take away the drugs, and they look no better than a million other naturals who train and compete. Take away the massive drug cocktails, and their "superior genetics" magically vanish into thin air. Many bodybuilders don't even bother to train when they aren't on the sauce, because they don't have the patience and work ethic to gain muscle without chemical assistance. That's the unpleasant truth that ALL steroid monkeys will violently deny.
Some of what you say is true, and I've met people who quit working out when they came off, so I agree with that. One fact remains though - even if they (Elite BB'ers) got off the drugs and went natural, they would dominate the natural arena. Again, because of their genetics. Drugs do not turn people with poor genetics into elite bodybuilders, period.
-
people ronnie coleman was a 15th tier bodybuilder in the 1990s.....its takes alot of time for any pro to mature into a big body...its took big ron a while 2 gain pounds and become big.ronnie coleman in my opinion had average genetics..during his age there were alot of pros who were bigger and thicker than coleman and younger than coleman.........it was through colemans sheer hard work and ofcourse steroids that helped coleman..coleman won his first olympia at the age of 34 when pros such as lee haney and arnold retired at comparatively young age such 32 and 28yrs respectively.so its easy 2 say that coleman was not blessed with good genetics.u can see in his videos that coleman lifts hard and heavy 2 make his body grow.dick heads like flex wheeler and cormier were genetically blessed.sad that they still sucked in my eyes.even paul dillett who lifted quite moderate weights grew into a freak..i always like big paul but he could have had been even bigger if he wanted 2....he had one of the best genetics of all.when people asked paul y his calves were so huge and he only trained them pre-contest and paul replied 'ask my mom',she gave me these calves........
-
people ronnie coleman was a 15th tier bodybuilder in the 1990s.....its takes alot of time for any pro to mature into a big body...its took big ron a while 2 gain pounds and become big.ronnie coleman in my opinion had average genetics..during his age there were alot of pros who were bigger and thicker than coleman and younger than coleman.........it was through colemans sheer hard work and ofcourse steroids that helped coleman..coleman won his first olympia at the age of 34 when pros such as lee haney and arnold retired at comparatively young age such 32 and 28yrs respectively.so its easy 2 say that coleman was not blessed with good genetics.u can see in his videos that coleman lifts hard and heavy 2 make his body grow.dick heads like flex wheeler and cormier were genetically blessed.sad that they still sucked in my eyes.even paul dillett who lifted quite moderate weights grew into a freak..i always like big paul but he could have had been even bigger if he wanted 2....he had one of the best genetics of all.when people asked paul y his calves were so huge and he only trained them pre-contest and paul replied 'ask my mom',she gave me these calves........
Ronnie Coleman average genetics?!! HAHA. Come on. It's true he's on top because he busts his ass but he looked better than a lot of juicers when he was still natural. When it comes to his age, you have to take into account he got much later start at BB than many of his peers.
-
You are an idiot ... you re-worded that tired old argument from your previous post.
I never implied that Ronnie Coleman became Mr. Olympia in 6 months. He has obviously been at it for quite some time and has run an inordinate number of cycles. You are a perfect example of an asshat running his mouth off.
I never claimed I could be Mr. Olympia, but on the same note, you have no right to claim that I could never be.
I haven't taken cycles of Coleman's magnitude for half of my life, so the eventual outcome would be uncertain.
He has a completely different biochemical profile so its futile to even begin to compare. Its the equivalent of comparing a male construction worker with a natural female who trains with weights 3 times a week.
They all come from the bottom? Bullshit ... each athlete is subject to a different set of circumstances.
King Kamali was afforded the ability to live at home while he prepared for his career. That is obviously significantly different from some of the struggling bodybuilders who lived in a f*cking van outside of Gold's Gym in Venice during Haney's era. I already addressed your stupid supplement endorsement argument that you reitterated again.
Mexican gear is not preferential. A great deal of it is counterfeit or vet-grade. QV is particularly shitty and drug dealers like to sell it to young men who don't know any better. Obtaining high quality gear from a reputable source isn't just as easy as walking into f*cking walmart or going south of the border. It takes not only $$, but connections and references. I could call Dave Palumbo right now and he would tell me exactly what I need to take but would not dare to list a source.
I am going to bed. I will address your next post (likely the same shit from the past 2 reworded again) tomorrow.
The fact, moron, is that your entire post is non-sensical. Think about it:if being aprobodybuilder were so easy, if all it took were injections, then we;d have tons of pros around. The fact that IFBB pros number slightly more than 100 doesen't tell you something? You could argue that pro bodybuilding is not as attractive as pro football or basketball. Fine. Still, a top pro can make U.S$100000.00 a year, if he lays it right. For many people, that's a LOT of money. So, where's the millions of pros. I mean, being a pro bodybuilder may not be great, but it's still better than being a shoe salesman. Right...?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Very few pros could quit drugs completely and compete against the top naturals. Gunter and Levrone are perfect examples of this. These guys started juicing early on in their lifting careers, which is why they have no natural foundation and therefore lose all their mass in the offseason. It is simply not true that the best juicers would make the best naturals. John Hansen is an outstanding natural bodybuilder who was only mediocre during his steroid days. He has been clean for 15 years. I doubt Dorian Yates or Lee Haney could compete against him without drugs. They would get their asses handed to them.
Drug users just have to stuff themselves full of protein and do a little heavy training here and there to gain muscle. That's all. It takes many years of hard training to build a quality physique without drugs. "Genetics" is the last fucking thing that makes a natural bodybuilder. Skip La Cour and Jeff Willett have average "genetics" for muscle shape, but are near the top of the natural world because so few people have any natural size to begin with. The "pros" are sorely mistaken if they think it would be a simple matter to compete with any of these guys.
-
The fact, moron, is that your entire post is non-sensical. Think about it:if being aprobodybuilder were so easy, if all it took were injections, then we;d have tons of pros around
Now, we are sure : you are a real IDIOT.
-
Personally I maintain that while genetics plays a large role, and likewise gear, maybe even a larger role is the attitude and mindset required to take your body to that 'pro' level.
You could have all the genetics and gear in the world but if you don't have the drive and dedication to achieve the best physique then that will make all the difference.
I mean anyone can take gear in small or moderate dosages and get reasonable gains but I think it takes something 'special' to be able to take massive amounts in spite of your overall health just to be bigger and better than anyone else. Not trying to be smart here either - I have done cycles myself and achieved significant muscle mass but I could never ever contemplate taking some of the amounts that friends have done. I consider I'm a fairly reasonable person but find it hard to relate to this kind of insatiable 'need' to be big at any cost.
Is there any physiological (obviously there will be psychological factors at play) basis to this kind of adrenaline seeking behaviour? Maybe the top bodybuilders would succeed in many other sports because of the intensity and zeal with which they follow their goals.
I don't know but maybe they have a slightly different brain chemistry to the rest of us.
-
Very few pros could quit drugs completely and compete against the top naturals. Gunter and Levrone are perfect examples of this. These guys started juicing early on in their lifting careers, which is why they have no natural foundation and therefore lose all their mass in the offseason. It is simply not true that the best juicers would make the best naturals. John Hansen is an outstanding natural bodybuilder who was only mediocre during his steroid days. He has been clean for 15 years. I doubt Dorian Yates or Lee Haney could compete against him without drugs. They would get their asses handed to them.
Drug users just have to stuff themselves full of protein and do a little heavy training here and there to gain muscle. That's all. It takes many years of hard training to build a quality physique without drugs. "Genetics" is the last fucking thing that makes a natural bodybuilder. Skip La Cour and Jeff Willett have average "genetics" for muscle shape, but are near the top of the natural world because so few people have any natural size to begin with. The "pros" are sorely mistaken if they think it would be a simple matter to compete with any of these guys.
Your last couple of posts were really good Brian.Although I think pros probley do more than a little heavy training as heavy training is easy when you're on.It is funny how all u hear is you need dedication and a foundation of mass before u juice,blah,blah,blah.Most pros were juicin in there teens or within a year of startin training.Real dedication there.Still I do think it probley takes decent genetics do be a pro,probley great stucture more than anything.Thats the problem today,all these new pros have shitty frames.If u wanted to pursue something professionally wouldn't u look at all the variables.OK I have good genetics but my waist is wide and my legs are short(just an example).Do I pursue bodybuilding professionally?NO!Guess nobody accused bodybuilders of being smart though
-
Personally I maintain that while genetics plays a large role, and likewise gear, maybe even a larger role is the attitude and mindset required to take your body to that 'pro' level.
You could have all the genetics and gear in the world but if you don't have the drive and dedication to achieve the best physique then that will make all the difference.
I mean anyone can take gear in small or moderate dosages and get reasonable gains but I think it takes something 'special' to be able to take massive amounts in spite of your overall health just to be bigger and better than anyone else. Not trying to be smart here either - I have done cycles myself and achieved significant muscle mass but I could never ever contemplate taking some of the amounts that friends have done. I consider I'm a fairly reasonable person but find it hard to relate to this kind of insatiable 'need' to be big at any cost.
Is there any physiological (obviously there will be psychological factors at play) basis to this kind of adrenaline seeking behaviour? Maybe the top bodybuilders would succeed in many other sports because of the intensity and zeal with which they follow their goals.
I don't know but maybe they have a slightly different brain chemistry to the rest of us.
Awesome point!I have often puzzled about the mindset it takes to get absolutely HUGE.To be able to inject literally several thousands of miligrams of juice every week on top of growth on top of fatburners,etc.Not minding eating bland food,constantly sweating,having red faces,having no social life and just generally being looked at like a wierdo.Don't get me wrong,in a way I admire the "dedication" pros have and am impressed at taking the human body to its limits.But you definately have some kind of complex or defect when your so mesmerized by size that your overall health is second to it.
-
my friends im going to train right now but i felt the urge to let you know i will make comment about this thread topic later on ;)
-
I would say this however - Coleman must have some kind of gifted genetic predisposition for amassing muscle. I don't believe that he is Mr Olympia just by virtue of taking more than anybody else, or gear of a better quality than anyone else. I have known guys over the years who subscribed to the 'taking more is better than less' theory and ended up looking like, well, shite. And some guys who took relatively small dosages and looked great.
And those guys that trained hard naturally for years before taking stuff pretty much all still look good now. While those guys who juiced early on just disappeared from view - literally.
-
I would say this however - Coleman must have some kind of gifted genetic predisposition for amassing muscle. I don't believe that he is Mr Olympia just by virtue of taking more than anybody else, or gear of a better quality than anyone else. I have known guys over the years who subscribed to the 'taking more is better than less' theory and ended up looking like, well, shite. And some guys who took relatively small dosages and looked great.
And those guys that trained hard naturally for years before taking stuff pretty much all still look good now. While those guys who juiced early on just disappeared from view - literally.
Look at some of the subtle signs. Coleman, Gunther, and Cutler have massive hands. The circumference of their fingers is insane, and if you have ever shaken a pro bodybuilder's hand, its very squishy and spongy. There is a correlation between muscularity and finger size, and this is not related to training. The appositional bone growth of the digits is a tell-tale sign of hardcore GH supplementation. So I think its reasonable to assume that they do take more than the average competitor. They have access to the best shit presumably, plenty of it since money and availability will not be an issue, and the most disciplined bros don't dare to fiddle with recreational drugs or accessory shit.
I agree that a massive drug regimen does not guarantee quality muscle mass. But I vehemently disagree with the pros insistence that they are the best due to genetics, not drugs. I can relate to some extent, because I like to attribute my success to various endeavors to my work ethic and talent, not factors such as affirmative-action, favoritism, connections, etc. I suppose the pros are no different, but its arrogant to readily assume that such a niche-market sport would invariably attract the most gifted genetic athletes from across the world. Its really a circus sideshow for insecure men or washed up athletes unable to compete in mainstream sports at a higher level.
Certainly the training, nutrition, legal supplementation, rest, and water are important factors. Combine these 5, and in the absense of gear, you will not build a national level competitor. Once you factor gear into the equation, there is room for marginal error in any one of the other variables. As you know, some pros are taken with the nightlife and don't get adequate rest. Some pros train like parapalegic elderly men. Some pros eat McDonalds, pizza, and pulled pork sandwiches. Yet not a single competitor can get to that level without high quality steroids, despite the fact that they can cut edges on the other variables.
-
Your last couple of posts were really good Brian.Although I think pros probley do more than a little heavy training as heavy training is easy when you're on.It is funny how all u hear is you need dedication and a foundation of mass before u juice,blah,blah,blah.Most pros were juicin in there teens or within a year of startin training.Real dedication there.Still I do think it probley takes decent genetics do be a pro,probley great stucture more than anything.Thats the problem today,all these new pros have shitty frames.If u wanted to pursue something professionally wouldn't u look at all the variables.OK I have good genetics but my waist is wide and my legs are short(just an example).Do I pursue bodybuilding professionally?NO!Guess nobody accused bodybuilders of being smart though
You are right. It is very easy to train to on gear, and the more direct pros like Craig Titus will readily admit this.
I also agree that a natural base is not necessary. It helps to master the form of the individual exercises and nail down a diet and supplementation plan before one begins a cycle, but implying that you need X lbs of natural muscle is a joke.
I love how naturals like to claim that their muscle is permanent ...
Sure, they won't lose their gains by coming off-cycle, but they can just as easily lose them to basic illness, food poisoning, or a training injury. Natural muscle does come back through muscle memory but it still takes forever, nearly as long as it took to originally put on, and then the overall amount of natural muscle growth is somewhat trivial.
Keep in mind that pros train "heavy", but heavy is so relative its nearly irrelevant. In addition, its difficult to determine what sort of training regimen is truly more intense. Is a Dorian Yate's workout of 1 hardcore set of 6-8 reps w/ additional forced reps and negatives as intense as volume training for an insane number of sets with 25second rest?
Its truly a value judgment. Personally my strength is far better than my endurance, so I would much rather handle a Yates' calibur workout as opposed to a Jay Cutler rapid pace high volume routine. I know many would beg to differ. There is a massive black man in my gym who seriously weighlifts like 3 hours daily with very minimal rest between sets but he would never dare to "max out" or lift heavy enough to where he could only manage a rep range below 10. Then you have cases like Chris Cormier who, as of late, trains his chest exclusively on hammer strength and dumbbell flyes!
Many of the top professionals have major deficiencies with their frames. I think you underestimate their ability to compensate for their flaws. Gunther and Jay, for instance, have waists that are entirely too wide. This is largely genetic though no doubt exacerbated by modern bodybuilding drugs. Though this is a problem, it does not negate them from bodybuilding altogether, they simply have to excentuate their quad sweep and deltoid width.
I hate to say this, but if bodybuilding was based exclusively on genetic potential, every competitor would be black.
I'm even willing to argue that greater than 50% of the population of black males currently in the United States have better genetic potential than competitors like Cicherillo. Pros like Titus echo this sentiment. 99% will never fulfill this genetic potential due to environmental circumstances. Blacks in the inner-cities have to deal with respiratory illness. 50% of black kids in Harlem have chronic respiratory problems due to the pollution. Others will succeed in mainstream sports. Some will end up in jail, others will pursue normal careers and not take exercise as anything other than fitness and leisure.
Bodybuilding is highly opportunistic, similar to golf and tennis. A poor man cannot be a bodybuilder. It takes alot of time and alot of money. Its just like golf, a poor man can't become a champion golfer because the clubs and membership fees are expensive, private lessons are almost always necessary, and there just isn't the opportunity for an individual that is not of financial means to break in. The upper echelon of bodybuilding is somewhat esoteric as well.
-
Drug users just have to stuff themselves full of protein and do a little heavy training here and there to gain muscle. That's all. It takes many years of hard training to build a quality physique without drugs. "Genetics" is the last fucking thing that makes a natural bodybuilder. Skip La Cour and Jeff Willett have average "genetics" for muscle shape, but are near the top of the natural world because so few people have any natural size to begin with. The "pros" are sorely mistaken if they think it would be a simple matter to compete with any of these guys.
Well said! I love how pro bodybuilders attribute the protein intake to their muscle growth. The protein is necessary to maintain the muscle that they have already built, since muscle cells require nutrients and aminos for obvious reasons like repair. The supplement companies really profit from the previous misconception.
You want muscle?! Eat 300g of quality protein daily and supplement with Nitro-Tech like Jay Cutler!
No, Dr. Heuer, you douche, build a 300lb physique like Jay Cutler and that level of protein intake will be necessary to remain that size. Its not the other way around.
By the way, does anybody else think its f*cking hilarious how Dr. Heuer always wears a stethoscope in the advertisements despite the fact that he is in the laboratory setting and not a clinical one with any patients!? LOL
I didn't know Cell-Tech had a heartbeat.
I agree with the content of your posts entirely Brian.
I think genetics is just a pathetic excuse to downplay the role of drugs in their career.
-
You are right. It is very easy to train to on gear, and the more direct pros like Craig Titus will readily admit this.
I also agree that a natural base is not necessary. It helps to master the form of the individual exercises and nail down a diet and supplementation plan before one begins a cycle, but implying that you need X lbs of natural muscle is a joke.
I love how naturals like to claim that their muscle is permanent ...
Sure, they won't lose their gains by coming off-cycle, but they can just as easily lose them to basic illness, food poisoning, or a training injury. Natural muscle does come back through muscle memory but it still takes forever, nearly as long as it took to originally put on, and then the overall amount of natural muscle growth is somewhat trivial.
Keep in mind that pros train "heavy", but heavy is so relative its nearly irrelevant. In addition, its difficult to determine what sort of training regimen is truly more intense. Is a Dorian Yate's workout of 1 hardcore set of 6-8 reps w/ additional forced reps and negatives as intense as volume training for an insane number of sets with 25second rest?
Its truly a value judgment. Personally my strength is far better than my endurance, so I would much rather handle a Yates' calibur workout as opposed to a Jay Cutler rapid pace high volume routine. I know many would beg to differ. There is a massive black man in my gym who seriously weighlifts like 3 hours daily with very minimal rest between sets but he would never dare to "max out" or lift heavy enough to where he could only manage a rep range below 10. Then you have cases like Chris Cormier who, as of late, trains his chest exclusively on hammer strength and dumbbell flyes!
Many of the top professionals have major deficiencies with their frames. I think you underestimate their ability to compensate for their flaws. Gunther and Jay, for instance, have waists that are entirely too wide. This is largely genetic though no doubt exacerbated by modern bodybuilding drugs. Though this is a problem, it does not negate them from bodybuilding altogether, they simply have to excentuate their quad sweep and deltoid width.
I hate to say this, but if bodybuilding was based exclusively on genetic potential, every competitor would be black.
I'm even willing to argue that greater than 50% of the population of black males currently in the United States have better genetic potential than competitors like Cicherillo. Pros like Titus echo this sentiment. 99% will never fulfill this genetic potential due to environmental circumstances. Blacks in the inner-cities have to deal with respiratory illness. 50% of black kids in Harlem have chronic respiratory problems due to the pollution. Others will succeed in mainstream sports. Some will end up in jail, others will pursue normal careers and not take exercise as anything other than fitness and leisure.
Bodybuilding is highly opportunistic, similar to golf and tennis. A poor man cannot be a bodybuilder. It takes alot of time and alot of money. Its just like golf, a poor man can't become a champion golfer because the clubs and membership fees are expensive, private lessons are almost always necessary, and there just isn't the opportunity for an individual that is not of financial means to break in. The upper echelon of bodybuilding is somewhat esoteric as well.
-
I think the best way to see how great a pros genetics is is by comparing them after they retire and how long they are off the drugs. How much muscle do they really retain and how they stay in shape after. Oh, and of course how long they live.
-
Now, we are sure : you are a real IDIOT.
HA HA HA! Ok, newbie. And your opinion is REALLY important...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Very few pros could quit drugs completely and compete against the top naturals. Gunter and Levrone are perfect examples of this. These guys started juicing early on in their lifting careers, which is why they have no natural foundation and therefore lose all their mass in the offseason. It is simply not true that the best juicers would make the best naturals. John Hansen is an outstanding natural bodybuilder who was only mediocre during his steroid days. He has been clean for 15 years. I doubt Dorian Yates or Lee Haney could compete against him without drugs. They would get their asses handed to them.
Drug users just have to stuff themselves full of protein and do a little heavy training here and there to gain muscle. That's all. It takes many years of hard training to build a quality physique without drugs. "Genetics" is the last fucking thing that makes a natural bodybuilder. Skip La Cour and Jeff Willett have average "genetics" for muscle shape, but are near the top of the natural world because so few people have any natural size to begin with. The "pros" are sorely mistaken if they think it would be a simple matter to compete with any of these guys.
You're arguing in circles man, we can go back and forth about what pro got off and is better/worse than what natural, etc, etc. In many of those cases, the pro who gets off falls into the "stop working out completely" category, so they can't be used in an sound argument. There's too just many variables.
My point is that the top bb'ers in the world have above average genetics. Yes, many do shitloads of drugs but that doesn't mean they're still not gifted or work hard.
If you took BB1, who had average genetics and put him against BB2, with great genetics. Had them train identically, eat and sleep identically, and gave them exact same drugs, BB2 would look better and be bigger. This is simple logic, it can't be disputed, and is the point I'm trying to make.
-
Genetics are the most important factor in bodybuilding, though very few guys have "perfect" genetics. They're especially important when it comes to muscle insertions. Genes are the reason Cook will never have much of a chest or abs, but also why he has insane calves, full round arms, stupid wide clavicles and tiny hips. Cicherillo always had weak hams though he placed extra emphasis on them for 10 years, but he also won the Jr. Nationals at 21 and was 2nd at the USA at 23, and he has ridiculously wide clavicles (and therefore a very wide back and shoulders). He definitely has above average genetics for bodybuilding (top 10%, though maybe not in the top 1%). Lee Priest won the Mr. Australia twice as a teen and turned pro at 20 and was virtually as big then as he is now, 13 years later. He's stated that everyone in his family is short but freaky muscular, most without ever having worked out. He also contends to barely take any gear and NO GH, and others who've lived with him back this up without much incentive to lie (Paul Dillett, ex-wives...). Dexter Jackson barely even diets for a show and never does cardio. That can't just be about drugs, when every other pro has to diet for 14-18 weeks and do 60+ minutes of cardio daily. And on and on.
Drugs matter a lot, of course, but genes are more important. They're what separate the pro's from the thousands and thousands of guys doing even more gear, and they're also what separates the guys in the posedown (like Dex) from the guys who aren't there (like Mike Morris), who are also often doing much, much more gear.
-
If you took BB1, who had average genetics and put him against BB2, with great genetics. Had them train identically, eat and sleep identically, and gave them exact same drugs, BB2 would look better and be bigger. This is simple logic, it can't be disputed, and is the point I'm trying to make.
Yes, because we know its a perfect world and every professional bodybuilder has equal, unimpeded access to plentiful AAS of equivalent sterility, quality, potency, and concentration.
Of course we also know that every man on the planet is an aspiring bodybuilder actively training to fulfill his pursuit of physical perfection.
Everyone can readily afford 50,000 annually for fresh flounder and steamed vegetables, as well as the requisite break every 2 hours to consume a freshly prepared pound.
Thats it, the top bodybuilders are the pinnacle of human genome perfection. ::)
You are missing the point of this thread entirely. Of course genetics, ceteris paribus (all other variables equivalent), is an important factor. However, other variables of greater importance are rarely, if ever, identical.
-
Drugs matter a lot, of course, but genes are more important. They're what separate the pro's from the thousands and thousands of guys doing even more gear, and they're also what separates the guys in the posedown (like Dex) from the guys who aren't there (like Mike Morris), who are also often doing much, much more gear.
You honestly believe that there are amateur or recreational trainers that take as much AAS as Coleman, Cutler, or Martinez?
You cite Dexter Jackson as an example, but he is known for his lines and proportions, which are genetic.
The initial concern of the thread was sheer muscular development. Jackson's muscular development alone is not sufficient enough for the top tier of bodybuilding (similar to Darrem Charles) so he has to rely on his aesthetics - a fancy word for proportion and symmetry in the absense of major muscularity.
Drugs are more important than genes.
You can take a woman with fantastic genetics and a man with average or subpar genetics.
Put them on a training program, do not administer any anabolics to either, and the man will prevail.
Invariably.
Why? The man has more testosterone. It is that simple.
The woman may look better aesthetically due to the male's flaws...
... but the man will invariably develop more muscle.
So you have fools like Tom Prince spouting off pretensions of genetic superiority in an attempt to undermine the perceived importance of his anabolic regimen in order to support his 300+lb bodyweight. He is not special. He was an average white guy before he started to train. He wasn't a freak of nature along the same lines of guys like David Boston in college, Tommie Harrison, Reggie Bush, etc. 80% of black men would build more mass than Tom Prince did under comparable circumstances.
Aesthetics are another matter entirely and aesthetics are independent from muscular development. Aesthetics are heavily dependent upon genetic predisposition, but at the same time, modern bodybuilding has demonstrated that a greater quantity of muscle mass can compensate for less than ideal shape, symmetry, and flow.
-
I agree with the main post to a certain extent.
Genetics play an important role as how to how quickly you can grow and gain access to the national spotlight. There are also those with "normal" genetics who still reach a high level status in the industry purely from hard work and dedication.
I think it's tough to judge the role of genetics with Ronnie and Jay. Some people aren't naturally huge when they're young, see Jay, but the second they start lifting they put on massive amounts of muscle, much more than someone else who was doing the same rep scheme. Tom Prince was supposedly like this, I have a friend who has good genetics and his strength increases faster than mine.
Either way, I won't ignore the role genetics play but it's understandable how one can be frusterated when others state it's the primary reason why someone's a pro. I think you can overcome anything through persistance, even with average genetics.
"It's not how fast you get there but how far you go"
While your friends with great genetics are skyrocketing in strength, your slowly but steadily improving. When they stop, you keep going.
Bodybuilding is a longterm deal, not some 1 year get-quick mass plan.
-
I've only read about 6 posts on the first page and you noobs should know that Zeratul is an old Getbig poster that used to go by the member name "Overmind". He's very intelligent, articulate, earned a degree in medicine, but can't stand anyone challenging his posts. You're welcome to agree with him and add your thoughts, but once he's stated something as true you must never challenge him.....it's an ego thing. A lot of what he says is true and some is not, but always remember that he feels you are beneath him and arguing with someone with that type of mentality will get you nowhere fast.
-
great post's ......
-
I've only read about 6 posts on the first page and you noobs should know that Zeratul is an old Getbig poster that used to go by the member name "Overmind". He's very intelligent, articulate, earned a degree in medicine, but can't stand anyone challenging his posts. You're welcome to agree with him and add your thoughts, but once he's stated something as true you must never challenge him.....it's an ego thing. A lot of what he says is true and some is not, but always remember that he feels you are beneath him and arguing with someone with that type of mentality will get you nowhere fast.
lol thats true v true indeed
also can neone post the muscle tech ad pics of jay and cormier and kamali if tehre were others also. the ones when they were kids. at 18 jay just looked big and broad not particularly muscular.
i also agree with thin joints comments. u take a kinda heavy stocky tho built 18 yr old and add 100lbs muscle he looks like a ball
-
Yes, because we know its a perfect world and every professional bodybuilder has equal, unimpeded access to plentiful AAS of equivalent sterility, quality, potency, and concentration.
Of course we also know that every man on the planet is an aspiring bodybuilder actively training to fulfill his pursuit of physical perfection.
Everyone can readily afford 50,000 annually for fresh flounder and steamed vegetables, as well as the requisite break every 2 hours to consume a freshly prepared pound.
Thats it, the top bodybuilders are the pinnacle of human genome perfection. ::)
You are missing the point of this thread entirely. Of course genetics, ceteris paribus (all other variables equivalent), is an important factor. However, other variables of greater importance are rarely, if ever, identical.
Sorry bro, I'm not missing the point, I'm dead on. You claim that genetics ARE NOT the most important factor and I say they ARE. By your theory, Ronnie would have to take the most drugs and have access to the best nutrition. We’ve all seen guys on much more shit than Ronnie burn out (organ failures, death) years before him. Meanwhile, he’s still alive and healthy, winning the Olympia year after year. Just admit it, his genetics are fantastic.
You can ramble on about superior fish and such, haha, or men verses women test levels (WTF?) But the point is, it's the genetics are the key. Drugs/training/nutrition are huge, but they don't outweigh good genetics. Without good genetics, no matter how hard you work or what drugs you take, you will not be standing on stage with the top 10. Period.
-
Its obvious when weeing pics of the top bodybuilders from their teens/first competitions that they were special. They had those special genes that favored anabolism, period.
There are MANY folks out there that train, and even diet as har maybe even HARDER then some PROS! But they cant even win a SHOW! And perhaps in some cases they are using as much gear! Because not everyone has the genes to be a Jay Cuter/Ronnie COleman/Levrone/Flex and no Shawn I didnt forget you!.
See my point? There are many PRO BODYBUILDERS out ther eI didnt mention right? But they arent in the same league as these guys, meaning they just dont got it...GENETICALLY! You KNOW they are TRAINING their balls off, dieting, gear, etc..
SO, next time you or someone else says "WELL IF I DIDNT HAVE TO WORK, AND COULD TRAIN ALL DAY AND EAT AND DO THE GEAR THEY DO, ID LOOK LIKE THAT" Wake up MORONS NO YOU WOULD NOT!
I cant BELIEVE SOME of you think GENETICS play a small role in being a TOP BODYBUILDER! Thats INSANE!
-
It's funny how this Zeratul guy Supports Getbig every time someone disagrees with him ;D
-
From my perspective, if bodybuilders were the creme de la creme of genetics that they stubbornly insist they are, they would have been real professional athletes. Bodybuilding is sort of an activity turned hobby turned profession that anybody at any level can pick up, whereas with competitive collegiate and professional athletics only the best genetic freaks will be ushered in that direction by discerning coaches and recruiters.
I always liked your threads man....good to see you on.
From my perspective....I agree with you...but not entirely. I think you're correct in saying that if Pro Bodybuilders had superior "athletic" genetics.....they would possible may have taken the path to a different profession (football, baseball, etc...). I do believe they have superior genetics in gaining a large amount of muscle on the human frame. As you stated, most have shorter limbs which does make it a lot easier to had size & volume.
I think gentics plays a huge role in bodybuilding. Not everyone is born with the same slow & fast twitch muscle fibers.
You can point to training, but the average Division III college football player trains inordinately harder than the average IFBB pro.
I agree but then again....the two have different desired results. I would not train a Defensive Lineman like a Wide Receiver. I also wouldn't train a Powerlifter like a Bodybuilder.
Look at Bob Cicherillo. He says you can be "hardcore" training on the Cybex row machine! Give me a f*cking break! There are innumerable athletes who train extraordinarily hard on a regular basis and will never acquire enough muscle to even compete at the National level.
Are you including all the out of shape linemen in the NFL? I've met some (which I think most people will in one time or another) & I wasn't impressed. Big & Blocky but I know if I had to go on the ground with them (in a fight), they would be sucking air. Then again.....a Professional Bodybuilder would probably be worse - lol.
Lastly, it is not a secret that many who become actively involved in bodybuilding have Napoleon complexes. Outstanding physical genetics would never lead to an internal feeling of inferiority or insufficiency to this extent.
I'm not sure about this one. We all see quite often where Professional athletes in all sports have their issues with self-esteem & a feeling of inferiority. Then they do something stupid & get caught with a boat load of coke in the Bentley.
Bodybuilders, on average, are shorter and stumpier than usual and not particularly attractive relative to average citizens.
Hey....I'm not ugly!!!! ;D
In conclusion, I am just stating my opinion and hope to facilitate some discussion on this topic.
I find it extremely cynical that professional bodybuilders who spend 1000s of dollars on pharmaceuticals readily assume that 95% of the population could not build a comparable physique even if they took an equivalent amount of gear. Its an ignorant assumption and its completely unfounded because most are unable or unwilling to take the requisite measures. Even those that are may struggle to find legitimate gear because the market is absolutely flooded with completely counterfeit shit or vet-grade shit that leaves huge, warm, pussy abscesses.
Well, how about people like Lee Priest that say they don't use a lot of gear....just Decca?
-
Look at some of the subtle signs. Coleman, Gunther, and Cutler have massive hands. The circumference of their fingers is insane, and if you have ever shaken a pro bodybuilder's hand, its very squishy and spongy. There is a correlation between muscularity and finger size, and this is not related to training. The appositional bone growth of the digits is a tell-tale sign of hardcore GH supplementation. So I think its reasonable to assume that they do take more than the average competitor. They have access to the best shit presumably, plenty of it since money and availability will not be an issue, and the most disciplined bros don't dare to fiddle with recreational drugs or accessory shit.
Good points....but explain this...
Back in the 70's.....bodybuilder's like Arnold are the same way, but GH wasn't present back then?
Ever saw Arnolds hands & fingers? Look at his jaw & forehead.
-
Ya nerdo whatever the fuck your name is. All you keep stating is that you cant prove anything about their genetics.
but enough about that, who gives a fuck, you're really just a big nerdo jerk. suckmymuscle was arguing wiht what you said n then you went and were a bitch. honestly you're not one to talk with such a nerdy ass name.
Also, you should so a study about juicin up, i'll be one of your test subjects, but you must pay for the gear ;)
-
Many of the top professionals have major deficiencies with their frames. I think you underestimate their ability to compensate for their flaws. Gunther and Jay, for instance, have waists that are entirely too wide. This is largely genetic though no doubt exacerbated by modern bodybuilding drugs. Though this is a problem, it does not negate them from bodybuilding altogether, they simply have to excentuate their quad sweep and deltoid width.
Arnold's waist was wide as well. He just posed in a way to give a smaller appearance. I would have to say almost every human has a genetic flaw, even your professional athletes. Look at Barry Bonds...the guy has no calves.
I hate to say this, but if bodybuilding was based exclusively on genetic potential, every competitor would be black.
I'm even willing to argue that greater than 50% of the population of black males currently in the United States have better genetic potential than competitors like Cicherillo. Pros like Titus echo this sentiment. 99% will never fulfill this genetic potential due to environmental circumstances. Blacks in the inner-cities have to deal with respiratory illness. 50% of black kids in Harlem have chronic respiratory problems due to the pollution. Others will succeed in mainstream sports. Some will end up in jail, others will pursue normal careers and not take exercise as anything other than fitness and leisure.
Look a Tiger Woods....the guys a beast. ;D
Bodybuilding is highly opportunistic, similar to golf and tennis. A poor man cannot be a bodybuilder. It takes alot of time and alot of money. Its just like golf, a poor man can't become a champion golfer because the clubs and membership fees are expensive, private lessons are almost always necessary, and there just isn't the opportunity for an individual that is not of financial means to break in. The upper echelon of bodybuilding is somewhat esoteric as well.
Now thats not true. Gay for pay will get a lot of guys an opportunity at competitng with an expensive drug routine.
Arnold came from a poor ass family & he had to do what it takes.
;)
-
I've only read about 6 posts on the first page and you noobs should know that Zeratul is an old Getbig poster that used to go by the member name "Overmind". He's very intelligent, articulate, earned a degree in medicine, but can't stand anyone challenging his posts. You're welcome to agree with him and add your thoughts, but once he's stated something as true you must never challenge him.....it's an ego thing. A lot of what he says is true and some is not, but always remember that he feels you are beneath him and arguing with someone with that type of mentality will get you nowhere fast.
& before being known as Overmind....he was BGWell.
;)
-
Its obvious when weeing pics of the top bodybuilders from their teens/first competitions that they were special. They had those special genes that favored anabolism, period.
Special? Compared to who ... their competitors?
Big deal ... such a small % of youth will ever don posing trunks this statement has no meaning.
I never said that their genes were not superior to the exceedingly small pool made up by their competition.
My point is that the competition itself is not representative of the real world, it is a skewed representative population.
Competitive bodybuilding requires resources that so few have access to, and many of the genetically gifted who may have access to the necessary provisions will pursue mainstream sports as well. Bodybuilding is not an elite sport, it is often made up of athletic rejects or those who never had any potential who succeed in mainstream sports that actually mean something to a significant portion of the population. Youth bodybuilders don't look like outstanding athletes relative to the All-Americans that high schools in Texas, California, and Florida produce.
There are MANY folks out there that train, and even diet as har maybe even HARDER then some PROS! But they cant even win a SHOW! And perhaps in some cases they are using as much gear! Because not everyone has the genes to be a Jay Cuter/Ronnie COleman/Levrone/Flex and no Shawn I didnt forget you!.
You actually think that there are amateurs or recreational lifters who juice as much as the professionals?
You support my argument with your initial statement, it is evident that the training an dieting are not critical factors.
All that really remains is steroids, yet the pros stubbornly insist its their genetic predisposition to build ungodly mass.
Does Bob Cicherillo seriously believe that his genes are superior to a real athlete, albeit smaller, like Tim Montgomery?
See my point? There are many PRO BODYBUILDERS out ther eI didnt mention right? But they arent in the same league as these guys, meaning they just dont got it...GENETICALLY! You KNOW they are TRAINING their balls off, dieting, gear, etc..
Nope. East Coast bodybuilders, by and large, don't have access to the same gear that West Coast bodybuilders do.
Its no coincidence that East Coast IFBB pros are stationed primarily in NYC or Florida.
Lab grade as opposed to vet grade is still an issue, as well as the funds to support an ample amount, on top of the money necessary for the requisite food and shelter. Not to mention you assume every professional has an identical intention: to become Mr. Olympia. A new IFBB pro like Eryk Bui may have no desire to add additional mass because perhaps he doesn't have the height to become Mr. Olympia. Perhaps Mark Dugdale is not willing to up the ante on his regimen due to his respect for his wife and three daughters. Stop acting as though every bodybuilder is exhausting every possibility in an identical fashion.
Look at Gustavo Badell's rapid improvement after hooking up with Milos.
Did Milos introduce Gustavo to a new species of fish?
Did Milos completely transform Gustavo by teaching him the Weider Rest Pause Principle?
Obviousy Milos could not tamper with his genes, so guess what, Gustavo - who everybody had dismissed as a never will be - is suddenly Top 3 material because he has nailed down some aspect of his contest preparation. Some important aspects. STEROIDS
SO, next time you or someone else says "WELL IF I DIDNT HAVE TO WORK, AND COULD TRAIN ALL DAY AND EAT AND DO THE GEAR THEY DO, ID LOOK LIKE THAT" Wake up MORONS NO YOU WOULD NOT!
How do you know that? This is the same ignorant reasoning I cited earlier. Are you sure you're not an IFBB pro?
Most people will never have the opportunity, so it is the moot point, but you look ignorant by merely dismissing them with a blanket assumption. Its the equivalent of saying an inner city could not produce a good golfer simply based on an endemic genetic predisposition, while in realitiy it is because he/she does not have access to the necessary equipment, lessons, and training facilities. BULLSHIT! If you think nobody could emulate Ronnie Coleman under similar circumstances than you are mistaken.
I cant BELIEVE SOME of you think GENETICS play a small role in being a TOP BODYBUILDER! Thats INSANE!
Small role relative to the importance of steroids.
-
You should realize that great genetics for track are not the same thing as great genetics for bodybuilding. I agree with you that it is hard to know someone's ultimate potential for mass. Palumbo was a distance runner who was able to put on large amounts of mass. Of course, he wasn't all that aesthetic.
-
I always liked your threads man....good to see you on.
From my perspective....I agree with you...but not entirely. I think you're correct in saying that if Pro Bodybuilders had superior "athletic" genetics.....they would possible may have taken the path to a different profession (football, baseball, etc...). I do believe they have superior genetics in gaining a large amount of muscle on the human frame. As you stated, most have shorter limbs which does make it a lot easier to had size & volume.
I think gentics plays a huge role in bodybuilding. Not everyone is born with the same slow & fast twitch muscle fibers.
Glad to be back. Good to see you too. :)
Slow or Fast twitch will not necessarily influence the ability to gain muscle. Rather, one will have to learn through trial and error to adapt their training routine to their body's specific needs. No doubt an HIT regimen would be more appropriate for athletes with predominantly white, explosive fibers, whereas a Jay Cutler blood volume pump routine would be more appropriate for red endurance fibers. So in this case, genetics would be important in powerlifting, but muscular hypertrophy is not really related to the performance capacity of the muscle in question.
In all honesty, the only people who may not be ideally suited genetically for mass building are ectomorphs. Even this statement is not entirely true, because it looks as though bodybuilders like Kickinger, Nasser, Dennis James, Gunther, etc. were ectomorphs as young adults. Mesomorphs are obviously the most inclined to build muscle easily. Endomorphs have no problem with muscle gain either, just managing their bodyfat.
Edit: Thank you Lucius for catching the mistake.
-
Glad to be back. Good to see you too. :)
Slow or Fast twitch will not necessarily influence the ability to gain muscle. Rather, one will have to learn through trial and error to adapt their training routine to their body's specific needs. No doubt an HIT regimen would be more appropriate for athletes with predominantly white, explosive fibers, whereas a Jay Cutler blood volume pump routine would be more appropriate for red endurance fibers. So in this case, genetics would be important in powerlifting, but muscular hypertrophy is not really related to the performance capacity of the muscle in question.
In all honesty, the only people who may not be ideally suited genetically for mass building are ectomorphs. Even this statement is not entirely true, because it looks as though bodybuilders like Kickinger, Nasser, Dennis James, Gunther, etc. were ectomorphs as young adults. Mesomorphs are obviously the most inclined to build muscle easily. Ectomorphs have no problem with muscle gain either, just managing their bodyfat.
Don't you mean endomorphs in that last sentence? I win ;D
-
ectomorphs. Even this statement is not entirely true, because it looks as though bodybuilders like Kickinger, Nasser, Dennis James, Gunther, etc. were ectomorphs as young adults. Mesomorphs are obviously the most inclined to build muscle easily. Endomorphs have no problem with muscle gain either, just managing their bodyfat.
Edit: Thank you Lucius for catching the mistake.
I'm not sure that's true. People say Markus was an ectomorph - but when I look at his pics as a youth I see he has a good amount of lean muscle for a young teen. You can see the potential is there - he just hasn't finished puberty yet - so he's not going to be a "mass monster" at this stage. Furthermore, what constitutes good genetics for football will be different for bodybuilding.With bodybuilding you need a wide back with relatively small joints. Some people are naturally huge - but they look like a barrel if they weight train.
(http://www.zegatao.muscle.nom.br/antesedepois/markus/MARKUS,%2019%20ANOS.jpg)
(http://www.zegatao.muscle.nom.br/antesedepois/markus/MARKUS%20HULLL%20%5B1%5D.%201994,%20COM%20100KG.jpg)
Jay Cutler supposedly has a 34 inch waist in his 20s - I'd call that average. Not particularly wide.
These guys - Cutler and Coleman definitely DO have above average genetics for bodybuilding. Are there many people with equal or superior genetics that don't compete. Yes. But one could argue the single-minded dedication and willingness to play Russian roulette with their bodies is genetic. It takes a certain mindset - or psychological profile.
Whatever the case - Drugs definitely play a greater role in bodybuilding than "genetics" for the simple fact that they could not even get on stage without them. Titus and Tom Prince shrinking down to average man size is all you need to know. I don't think it will be that extreme when Jay and Ronnie retire though.
-
IMO there are 3 criteria for becoming a pro.
1) Genetics1:
While you do not need to be a total mesomorph it does help if your joints are small, shoulders naturally wide and waist naturally small.
2) Genetics 2:
How your body responds to training and 'supplements': This is a real key area , some guys muscles are predispositioned for muscle growth, I personally beleive it may be to do with fast and slow twitch fibres. Those with fast twich fibres tend to have muscles that are very explosive. If you are born with a high number of these compared to slow twich it may help your response to putting on muscle.(a good example are sprinters. you do not develop into a world class sprinter unless you are already fast this is due to them having a majority of explosive fast twitch fibres ) You may have two guys both who look identical but will have totally differing responses to training due to internal genetic make up, not just what they look like.
3) Attitude and motivation: This is self explanitary.
So in answer to the question PRO bb's have average genetics you need to see the whole picture, not just what they look like before they start.
-
You should realize that great genetics for track are not the same thing as great genetics for bodybuilding.
Great point! Most people don't have the genetics to run a sub-ten second hundred meters. But I somehow doubt than everyone who has the elite sprinter genetics to run this fast also has the genes to be a top IFBB pro. And I'm also quite confident that the majority of NFL football players (regardless of the position they play) would not have necessarily been Olympia contenders if they had chosen to do so (one might ask why on earth they would chose the IFBB over the NFL, but that's another topic entirely).
The same could also be said for boxers, NBA players, pro baseball players, powerlifters, etc. Larry Holmes was a great boxer, but was shaped like a pear. Karl Malone and Shaq are far more muscular than most other NBA stars. But as tall and long limbed as they are, they would probably have a hard time in bodybuilding competition. They would probably fare better than Manute Bol (sp?), however. Bodybuilding isn't really an athletic endeavor - at least not in the same sense as the above mentioned sports.
Although I agree with the basic thread premise that the magazines downplay drugs and overplay training, diet, supplementation, and (to a lesser extent) genetics, it is obvious that there are some genetic components to bodybuilding success.
And I tend to be skeptical of the idea that Coleman and Cutler have better connections for more potent, purer gear than guys like Palumbo and Kovacs. Regardless of how hard they get, Palumbo and Kovacs just don't look very good on stage. Coleman and Cutler look at least good enough to place first and second consistently. Better drugs won't change their (Kovacs's and Palumbo's) structures.
Despite his recent troubles with the counterfeit GH, Palumbo strikes me as a very intelligent, largely revered (and probably well-connected, due to his status in the bodybuilding community) figure. I'm sure that he can get whatever he wants from whomever he wants.
I believe that Kovacs lives in Canada, a country whose drug laws are quite relaxed. With the money and backing he got from Kennedy / Muscle Mag / MuscleTech, I'm sure money was not an issue for him either. So I would be skeptical of drug purity / quantity / potency being an issue for him.
Also, the whole somatype thing is not the be-all, end-all so many think it is. Most people are a combination of the three types. There are some 98lb apparent ectomorphs and 300lb lardass endomorphs who look like mesomorphs after a couple of years of training and eating right.
-
Great point! Most people don't have the genetics to run a sub-ten second hundred meters. But I somehow doubt than everyone who has the elite sprinter genetics to run this fast also has the genes to be a top IFBB pro. And I'm also quite confident that the majority of NFL football players (regardless of the position they play) would not have necessarily been Olympia contenders if they had chosen to do so (one might ask why on earth they would chose the IFBB over the NFL, but that's another topic entirely).
The same could also be said for boxers, NBA players, pro baseball players, powerlifters, etc. Larry Holmes was a great boxer, but was shaped like a pear. Karl Malone and Shaq are far more muscular than most other NBA stars. But as tall and long limbed as they are, they would probably have a hard time in bodybuilding competition. They would probably fare better than Manute Bol (sp?), however. Bodybuilding isn't really an athletic endeavor - at least not in the same sense as the above mentioned sports.
Although I agree with the basic thread premise that the magazines downplay drugs and overplay training, diet, supplementation, and (to a lesser extent) genetics, it is obvious that there are some genetic components to bodybuilding success.
And I tend to be skeptical of the idea that Coleman and Cutler have better connections for more potent, purer gear than guys like Palumbo and Kovacs. Regardless of how hard they get, Palumbo and Kovacs just don't look very good on stage. Coleman and Cutler look at least good enough to place first and second consistently. Better drugs won't change their (Kovacs's and Palumbo's) structures.
Despite his recent troubles with the counterfeit GH, Palumbo strikes me as a very intelligent, largely revered (and probably well-connected, due to his status in the bodybuilding community) figure. I'm sure that he can get whatever he wants from whomever he wants.
I believe that Kovacs lives in Canada, a country whose drug laws are quite relaxed. With the money and backing he got from Kennedy / Muscle Mag / MuscleTech, I'm sure money was not an issue for him either. So I would be skeptical of drug purity / quantity / potency being an issue for him.
Also, the whole somatype thing is not the be-all, end-all so many think it is. Most people are a combination of the three types. There are some 98lb apparent ectomorphs and 300lb lardass endomorphs who look like mesomorphs after a couple of years of training and eating right.
I think that the idea that some pros look better because of better gear is bullshit. Gear can make you bigger, bit it cannot gove you ideal muscle shape and proportion. Nor can it give you the frame that you want. Palumbo was very large in his prime, as was Kovacs, but they didn't look as good because of genetics.
-
Great point! Most people don't have the genetics to run a sub-ten second hundred meters. But I somehow doubt than everyone who has the elite sprinter genetics to run this fast also has the genes to be a top IFBB pro. And I'm also quite confident that the majority of NFL football players (regardless of the position they play) would not have necessarily been Olympia contenders if they had chosen to do so (one might ask why on earth they would chose the IFBB over the NFL, but that's another topic entirely).
The same could also be said for boxers, NBA players, pro baseball players, powerlifters, etc. Larry Holmes was a great boxer, but was shaped like a pear. Karl Malone and Shaq are far more muscular than most other NBA stars. But as tall and long limbed as they are, they would probably have a hard time in bodybuilding competition. They would probably fare better than Manute Bol (sp?), however. Bodybuilding isn't really an athletic endeavor - at least not in the same sense as the above mentioned sports.
Although I agree with the basic thread premise that the magazines downplay drugs and overplay training, diet, supplementation, and (to a lesser extent) genetics, it is obvious that there are some genetic components to bodybuilding success.
And I tend to be skeptical of the idea that Coleman and Cutler have better connections for more potent, purer gear than guys like Palumbo and Kovacs. Regardless of how hard they get, Palumbo and Kovacs just don't look very good on stage. Coleman and Cutler look at least good enough to place first and second consistently. Better drugs won't change their (Kovacs's and Palumbo's) structures.
Despite his recent troubles with the counterfeit GH, Palumbo strikes me as a very intelligent, largely revered (and probably well-connected, due to his status in the bodybuilding community) figure. I'm sure that he can get whatever he wants from whomever he wants.
I believe that Kovacs lives in Canada, a country whose drug laws are quite relaxed. With the money and backing he got from Kennedy / Muscle Mag / MuscleTech, I'm sure money was not an issue for him either. So I would be skeptical of drug purity / quantity / potency being an issue for him.
Also, the whole somatype thing is not the be-all, end-all so many think it is. Most people are a combination of the three types. There are some 98lb apparent ectomorphs and 300lb lardass endomorphs who look like mesomorphs after a couple of years of training and eating right.
The Only athletes that would have good bbing potential would be Defensive backs, safeties and rb's from the nfl. Middleweight and light-heavyweight boxers And maybe a few major leaguers. Everyone else would be too big to fill out. Most pros are relatively short while most pro athletes are six feet or better with long limbs. There really is no correlation.
I agree in principle with Zerak the dark dickmuncher's post but he is trying to make genetics an afterthought. I think what makes a pro bodybuilder is (in no particular order) Genetics, outstanding discipline, gear and being dedicated/crazy/stupid enough to want to do that to your body. Which is no small feat, As stated before there are a LOT of young guy that want to be huge but they won't REALLY DO what it takes to get there. I know plenty of guys that talked about competing, took a shitload of gear and trained like fvcking animals, but you could find them at the club on three times a week,fvcked out of there faces and guzzling beer.
-
Dark-whatever, some of what you say is true.
most of the people who take up bbing, even most of the 'pro's', do have average genetics, on average.
but the top-tier bbers are at the top for a reason-they have better genetics than everybody else.
look at sergio oliva for example: extremely low insertions all over his body-forearms than insert into his wrist, biceps that go almost past the elbow, massive tri's, low lats, a tiny waist and wide shoulders, good calves even though hes black, the ability to eat tons of junk food and stay lean...
most bber's dont neccessarily have great genetics-but the top ones most certainly do.
-
I do believe that BB have average genetics,
I myself weigh over 250, and if I would cut to below 8% I would still maintain +230. It took me almost 10 years of training, and I'm turning 26 in a month.
I don't know what would happen if got a nice cocktail, never used before cause first I hadn't had the money, and know I have, I don't really believe in AAS, but I think I could reach 280, and maybe 250 at 8%.
The fact that I don't really believe in AAS, is cause it's a risc, both emotionally and physically.
-
What makes you think you don't have above-average genetics? Besides, BGWell is obviously a troll who likes to pretend he graduated from medical school.
-
The Only athletes that would have good bbing potential would be Defensive backs, safeties and rb's from the nfl. Middleweight and light-heavyweight boxers And maybe a few major leaguers. Everyone else would be too big to fill out. Most pros are relatively short while most pro athletes are six feet or better with long limbs. There really is no correlation.
And I'd even doubt that the majority of athletes in those positions in those sports would have top 10-15 Olympia genetics. I'd imagine that the majority would suffer from the same randomly scattered bodybuilding deficiencies most of the rest of do - such as high calves, narrow clavicles, wide hips, short muscle bellies, inferior muscle shape, etc. Of course even the pros have structural flaws, but they are generally far less pronounced than for the average trainee.
I'm not a big Ellington Darden fan, but I recall thumbing through one of his HIT / Nautilus books and seeing training photos of numerous professional and amateur athletes. There were some photos of a black guy (a running back for the Bengals who was known for having one of the league's top physiques) doing exercises while shirtless and wearing shorts. He was quite well developed, but it was obvious that even if he walked away from football and took up competitive bodybuilding, he lacked aesthetics, muscle shape, v-taper, etc. There are some things that no amount of drugs or training can correct. Added mass often makes these aesthetic flaws worse, in fact.
I agree in principle with Zerak the dark dickmuncher's post but he is trying to make genetics an afterthought. I think what makes a pro bodybuilder is (in no particular order) Genetics, outstanding discipline, gear and being dedicated/crazy/stupid enough to want to do that to your body. Which is no small feat, As stated before there are a LOT of young guy that want to be huge but they won't REALLY DO what it takes to get there. I know plenty of guys that talked about competing, took a shitload of gear and trained like fvcking animals, but you could find them at the club on three times a week,fvcked out of there faces and guzzling beer.
Of course there are those like Cormier and others on the pro level who develop world class physiques despite being notorious party animals. Perhaps some of this may be attributed to more / better gear, but I am inclined to believe that much of this is genetic also.
-
Glad to be back. Good to see you too. :)
Slow or Fast twitch will not necessarily influence the ability to gain muscle. Rather, one will have to learn through trial and error to adapt their training routine to their body's specific needs. No doubt an HIT regimen would be more appropriate for athletes with predominantly white, explosive fibers, whereas a Jay Cutler blood volume pump routine would be more appropriate for red endurance fibers. So in this case, genetics would be important in powerlifting, but muscular hypertrophy is not really related to the performance capacity of the muscle in question.
In all honesty, the only people who may not be ideally suited genetically for mass building are ectomorphs. Even this statement is not entirely true, because it looks as though bodybuilders like Kickinger, Nasser, Dennis James, Gunther, etc. were ectomorphs as young adults. Mesomorphs are obviously the most inclined to build muscle easily. Endomorphs have no problem with muscle gain either, just managing their bodyfat.
Edit: Thank you Lucius for catching the mistake.
Good post.
-
Zeratul, I agree with you for the most part. Kids who look like they lift with muscular arms and torso without ever touching a weight oftentimes take up other sports. Look at Herschel Walker, guy supposedly never lifted. He did like a thousand push-ups and chin-ups daily. He was obviously very muscular. However, if he were not so genetically gifted, he would not have taken up football. I agree with Zeratul, most bodybuilders were not genetic phenoms when younger. A lot of them did have a reason to go to the gym, because they were often the outsiders looking in. However, where I think the top bodybuilders (the Colemans, Cutlers, Jacksons, Ruhls, etc) are different is that they responded to gear really well. I don't think it all responders to gear necessarily develop great physiques. A lot of powerlifters who use a ton of stuff look like shit. However, they do have the genetic receptors to get amazingly large and strong. I surmise that a guy like Mesomorph (if he really is natural) could make an amazing pro. If he took the quantities of AAS, GH, insulin etc and worked out like mad he could be amazing. However, I think you can predict pretty easily who won't get large despite all the drugs in the world. An ectomorph like the kid in tgeh movie Road Trip could take all the drugs in the world but still be a shrimp. So yeah, bodybuilders don't necessarily have the best genetics before they start training, but the top ones have the genetic disposition to respond to gear like few others. Guess you don't really know who that is going to be until all is said and done. I think that is the point Zeratul is making.
Here is that kid from the movie. Do you guys agree.
-
I'm very skeptical of Hershel Walker's claim that he never lifted weights. Mike Tyson used to claim the same thing, despite the fact that it was pretty common knowledge that he did lift regularly since the beginning of his boxing career.
For whatever reason, it has somehow always been fashionable for athletes to deny lifting weights, even when its obvious that they weight train religiously. I guess it has something to do with the old stereotypes of weightlifters being "vain", "queer", "insecure", "inadequate", "cheaters", etc.
-
What makes you think you don't have above-average genetics? ...
Cause I started out with 180.
Mentallity, good gym, high level of training is the most important aspect I believe. Somebody who works in construction will gradually beef up and adapt to his enviorment. He can't do the job lifting al kind of materials all day long if he's just 160/170.
The same for olympic weightlifters, they have an other problem, they have to try to keep low in weight, cause it counts to your totals.
-
Ronnie Coleman average genetics?!! HAHA. Come on. It's true he's on top because he busts his ass but he looked better than a lot of juicers when he was still natural. When it comes to his age, you have to take into account he got much later start at BB than many of his peers.
Look how full his bicep is there. Guys like Coleman have one in 10,000 genetics at the least.
-
Genetics are the most important factor in bodybuilding, though very few guys have "perfect" genetics. They're especially important when it comes to muscle insertions. Genes are the reason Cook will never have much of a chest or abs, but also why he has insane calves, full round arms, stupid wide clavicles and tiny hips. Cicherillo always had weak hams though he placed extra emphasis on them for 10 years, but he also won the Jr. Nationals at 21 and was 2nd at the USA at 23, and he has ridiculously wide clavicles (and therefore a very wide back and shoulders). He definitely has above average genetics for bodybuilding (top 10%, though maybe not in the top 1%). Lee Priest won the Mr. Australia twice as a teen and turned pro at 20 and was virtually as big then as he is now, 13 years later. He's stated that everyone in his family is short but freaky muscular, most without ever having worked out. He also contends to barely take any gear and NO GH, and others who've lived with him back this up without much incentive to lie (Paul Dillett, ex-wives...). Dexter Jackson barely even diets for a show and never does cardio. That can't just be about drugs, when every other pro has to diet for 14-18 weeks and do 60+ minutes of cardio daily. And on and on.
Drugs matter a lot, of course, but genes are more important. They're what separate the pro's from the thousands and thousands of guys doing even more gear, and they're also what separates the guys in the posedown (like Dex) from the guys who aren't there (like Mike Morris), who are also often doing much, much more gear.
Very well said.
-
I grow tired of bodybuilding publications attributing fast muscle growth to superior genetics in order to avoid mentioning the prevalence and importance of steroids. From my perspective, the outstanding majority of athletes with truly superior genetics do not necessarily get involved with competitive bodybuilding in the first place. Young kids with athletic potential are pushed in the direction of football, basketball, hockey, baseball, track & field, etc (basically all of the mainstream sports that public schools or private academies provide).
From my perspective, if bodybuilders were the creme de la creme of genetics that they stubbornly insist they are, they would have been real professional athletes. Bodybuilding is sort of an activity turned hobby turned profession that anybody at any level can pick up, whereas with competitive collegiate and professional athletics only the best genetic freaks will be ushered in that direction by discerning coaches and recruiters.
I don't see the correlation between being a great athlete and being a great bodybuilder? Or a great athlete having great genetics to be a bodybuilder. Arnold admitted he was a sub par swimmer and soccer player and wasn't real athletic yet he had an immense propensity for putting on muscle. You take an incredible athlete like wayne Gretzky and its pretty obvious he hasn't got the least bit of genetics for bodybuilding. Great athletetic genetics and great bodybuilding genetics are two totally different things.
-
So, pro bodybuilders have only average genetics? Oh, really? Then how do you explain that there are tons of guys wishing to turn pro, yet only a few succeed? Money for drugs cannot possibly be an explanation, because they're all originally on a leveled playing field and only those with the best genetics would even get the endorsements, which would allow them to purchase the drugs in the first place.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Thank you. There are plenty of guys in gyms I've worked out at who take boat loads of gear and still look like shite!
The pipe dream that it's just the roids that make these guys pros, makes those who'd like to be but can't feel better about themselves. I couldn't disagree more with the thread title.
-
Like I said before,
dedication is important,
training every week on almost daily basis.
I know plenty of guys who train for years know and look like shit.
The first thing they do every time,
15 minute of warmup on the treadmill. Or other people who believe that it is possible to train you whole body on one day. Other ones who have a hangover on friday, saturday, sunday and monday and make the conclusion that weighttraining sucks cause the don't make any progress.
There is also a whole chapter about diet and the preassumptions.
-
I'm very skeptical of Hershel Walker's claim that he never lifted weights. Mike Tyson used to claim the same thing, despite the fact that it was pretty common knowledge that he did lift regularly since the beginning of his boxing career.
For whatever reason, it has somehow always been fashionable for athletes to deny lifting weights, even when its obvious that they weight train religiously. I guess it has something to do with the old stereotypes of weightlifters being "vain", "queer", "insecure", "inadequate", "cheaters", etc.
There is a rash of people and athletes, seemingly always black, who are very muscular and claim not to work out ::) I'm black myself and I don't buy it at all.
-
There is a rash of people and athletes, seemingly always black, who are very muscular and claim not to work out ::) I'm black myself and I don't buy it at all.
So it's a "black thing"?... ;D
-
So it's a "black thing"?... ;D
It seriously is ;D. I've never heard a white guy make the claim.
-
I think it is ridiculous to say that genetics not important in bodybuilding. This is BS. I don't understand why it is so hard for people to accept the role of genetics. Everyone says "oh it is all about drugs". On the professional level obviously steroids play a huge part. I also hear everyone always saying how the only way these guys got to be the best BBers in the world is JUST drugs. But why do people conveniently forget about genetics and their role in BB. When it comes to genetics for BB it determines everything muscle shape, muscle size, size of your waist, width of your clavicles, metebolism, etc. Some people are born very smart, some very dumb, some fat, some skinny, some with muscles that don't grow, and some with muscles that grow easily. Do people actually think a man that can bench press 700lbs or squat 900lbs started out as the weakest person in their high school gym class and then just took some juice to turn them into a powerlifting beast. I highly doubt it they were almost certainly the strongest people in school when they were teenagers.
I think people that think it "is all about the drugs" and disregard genetics are jackasses that just can't accept the facts and make excuses for the way they look and say stupid shit like "I could look that way if i was on as much drugs as Ronnie or Jay". Wake up and smell the coffee, NO you couldn't! Well that is unless u have great genetics.
-
Most of all, genetics are important for shape and structure. Isn't there a saying for IGF-1 that it doesn't take genetics, but makes genetics?
-
I think the whole "genetic" argument that is thrown up constantly by "bodybuilders" is really a way of saying "I wouldn't be shit without drugs and I know it...but I would never admit it." I know a guy here locally who's trying to be a pro and attibutes everything to genes. I guess it's too bad his "genes" hit him everywhere but his back...
-
I grow tired of bodybuilding publications attributing fast muscle growth to superior genetics in order to avoid mentioning the prevalence and importance of steroids. From my perspective, the outstanding majority of athletes with truly superior genetics do not necessarily get involved with competitive bodybuilding in the first place. Young kids with athletic potential are pushed in the direction of football, basketball, hockey, baseball, track & field, etc (basically all of the mainstream sports that public schools or private academies provide).
From my perspective, if bodybuilders were the creme de la creme of genetics that they stubbornly insist they are, they would have been real professional athletes. Bodybuilding is sort of an activity turned hobby turned profession that anybody at any level can pick up, whereas with competitive collegiate and professional athletics only the best genetic freaks will be ushered in that direction by discerning coaches and recruiters.
To start, I am not impressed with the young photos of Ronnie, Jay, Chris, etc. They were average, relatively lean kids. If you were to take a sampling of the top 10% youth from any public or private academy, they would have easily put Cormier, Cutler, etc. to shame. Don't even get me started on Nasser, Don Youngblood, Cicherillo, etc. before they were involved in the sport. Obviously there are some exceptions (Arnold, arguably Dorian).
I'm not saying genetics play no role. Bodybuilders always cite that each individual will react differently to an AAS regimen, but this is anecdotal at best because only a small majority have seriously dabbled with the concentrations and dosages necessary to build a pro-calibur physique. And come to think of it, when one thinks of how the AAS market is saturated with counterfeit gear, there simply isn't a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion as to how the average Joe would respond on gear compared to Prince, Cicherillo, etc.
Personally, I think genetics is a crock of shit, similar to the bodybuilding eating fraud. You don't eat 400g of protein daily to build muscle. Its the exact opposite correlation. You eat 400g of protein a day to maintain newly hypertrophied muscle. Of course a guy like Ronnie Coleman needs an insane amount of food, he is over 300 freaking pounds of pure muscle! I think the same issue applies to genetics. Bodybuilding is forced to point the finger at something other than steroids for obvious reasons.
The average natural lifter, in his lifetime, will never put on 10% of the muscle a seasoned veteran can put on in a single offseason. People are only so dumb and recognize that stuffing yourself with food will only give you indigestion and eventually make you fat, so voila, he must be a genetic freak to put on so much quality muscle in such a short period of time. Even though the average man will never administer over 40 injections of bodybuilding substances, painkillers, and poisons, hell even if he did, he would not be Ronnie Coleman! (thats the logic apparently).
You can point to training, but the average Division III college football player trains inordinately harder than the average IFBB pro. Look at Bob Cicherillo. He says you can be "hardcore" training on the Cybex row machine! Give me a f*cking break! There are innumerable athletes who train extraordinarily hard on a regular basis and will never acquire enough muscle to even compete at the National level. The only variable that is absolutely unique to professional bodybuilders is their gear regimen, it is that simple. You have football players and average men out there eating boatloads of food, training for hours on end, busting their asses with the heaviest weights they can manage.
Lastly, it is not a secret that many who become actively involved in bodybuilding have Napoleon complexes. Outstanding physical genetics would never lead to an internal feeling of inferiority or insufficiency to this extent.
Bodybuilders, on average, are shorter and stumpier than usual and not particularly attractive relative to average citizens.
In conclusion, I am just stating my opinion and hope to facilitate some discussion on this topic.
I find it extremely cynical that professional bodybuilders who spend 1000s of dollars on pharmaceuticals readily assume that 95% of the population could not build a comparable physique even if they took an equivalent amount of gear. Its an ignorant assumption and its completely unfounded because most are unable or unwilling to take the requisite measures. Even those that are may struggle to find legitimate gear because the market is absolutely flooded with completely counterfeit shit or vet-grade shit that leaves huge, warm, pussy abscesses.
How do you explain Jordan sucking at baseball?
-
Baseball is a game of SKILL moreso than athletic ability, just like golf. Jordan's body was made for the basketball court...his ability to read a curveball out of the pitcher's hand was non-existent.
Poor comparison.
I guarundamntee you that there are several guys in the NFL right now that could be Mr. Olympia if they were to quit playing football, work out religious, take gear out the wazzoo and dedicate their life to bodybuilding. Not just one but SEVERAL.
-
If steroids dont work and it al depends on genetics.....then why is it that there are some female bodybuilders that put a lot of "natural" men to shame?
Women dont secrete testosterone as much as men. Tell me why is it that female bodyduilders make the common men and some enhanced men bodybuilders look like sh*t?
You say steroids dont work for every man and all the steroids in the world will not enhance any man to have an Olympia physique or a national level physique .....explain why it works for women then, and why it doesnt wrk for "some" men ....because they arent geneticaly gifted? You gotta be kiding me...steroids and GH do work.....
Its almost nearly impossible for bodybuilding women to build as much muscle as a man naturally because their bodies do not produce as much testosterone as men...yet, when they do take some sort of anabolic substance, they become freakin muscular! For those of you that say its just genetics that determines how big youll become then explain to me why women bodybuilders are huge if its all based on genetic superiority?
Either the guy juicing isnt working out hard or heavy enough or he isnt taking the right stuff....
And as for sports...we know that Gh and steroids are prevelent in the pros.....hence why some are "gentically" superior...it enhances their performance....
-
Zeratul has to be the dumbest person I have seen on this board :D
I enjoy reading your posts though. Cracks me up. :D
Get real homie. You're dumber than your mama thought. Stop hating on the pros you sound like a jealous bitter skrawny kid.
-
Yes they are regarding the abilty for muscular hypertrophy. Whether or not this is an actual good thing (regarding evolution) is an entirely different argument.
It's not only how you initally look, but how you also respond to training and drugs. They are each significant.
Great point there! When people are talking about "good genetics for bodybuilding", that's what they're referring to. No one is suggesting that bodybuilders are superhuman genetically BUT for their chosen sport they are! There are great athletes in other sport have the gifts of speed, agility and eye hand coordination but putting on tons of muscle is NOT necessarily one of them. There are some great basketball players but with the long muscles and bones, you could give them tons of roids and with the exception of 1 or 2 they would not put on the amount of muscle that a pro bodybuilder would. NFL linemen would be size monsters but they wouldn't have the aesthetics or ability to get the low bodyfat that bodybuilders have. It just seems like any chance someone gets to diminish the accomplishments or ability of Pro BB's brings some strange sense of satisfaction on a board that supposed to support them.
GREEN can be an ugly color
-
If steroids dont work and it al depends on genetics.....then why is it that there are some female bodybuilders that put a lot of "natural" men to shame?
Women dont secrete testosterone as much as men. Tell me why is it that female bodyduilders make the common men and some enhanced men bodybuilders look like sh*t?
You say steroids dont work for every man and all the steroids in the world will not enhance any man to have an Olympia physique or a national level physique .....explain why it works for women then, and why it doesnt wrk for "some" men ....because they arent geneticaly gifted? You gotta be kiding me...steroids and GH do work.....
Its almost nearly impossible for bodybuilding women to build as much muscle as a man naturally because their bodies do not produce as much testosterone as men...yet, when they do take some sort of anabolic substance, they become freakin muscular! For those of you that say its just genetics that determines how big youll become then explain to me why women bodybuilders are huge if its all based on genetic superiority?
Either the guy juicing isnt working out hard or heavy enough or he isnt taking the right stuff....
And as for sports...we know that Gh and steroids are prevelent in the pros.....hence why some are "gentically" superior...it enhances their performance....
i chose to quote you for no particular reason so dont get all offended on me,,,
people on this board want to be considered bodybuilers yet they still believe santa is real. you have only ONE SINGLE WAY TO GROW AS A BODYBUILDER,,this way is called hormones.
it is about time you understand once and for all that the reason branch look like he is all made out of hormones while lacour looks more "natural" has nothing to do with the question wether they use drugs. they both use drugs and lots of drugs. we all use drugs. no drugs = no bodybuilding
the reason some look more "on" than others involve genetic response to steroids, the use of anti-estrogens and the smart knowlegable use of the right hormones at the right time for the right purpose. (some bodybuilders are smarter and more experienced than other bodybuilders when it comes to the intake of drugs)
when you enter a gym and see a little bodybuilder take his gatoradepowder drink and bcaa powder in the locker room and think this is the way he put on mass,,,you are severly mistaken. it is 80-90% the drug youre on and the calories that you eat that make you,,as a bodybuilder,, grow.
genetics will determine the muscle shape and how tall you are and how wide your actual bone frame will be. this is the only thing genetics does for you. you can have the best shape muscles in the world but it wont help you if you are 180lb at 5'10 while the guy next to you is 210lb at 5'10 with ordinary muscle shape and same bf% as you.
your genetic response to steroids is important,,especially if you aim at getting your pro card,, but be sure that every one respond to steroids and respond well to them. when i say everyone i mean guys who train seriously and have few years of serious training before jumping in.
the process of gaining muscle on hormones is quite simple,,,but inorder for it to work to the max you gotta have legit hormones, you gotta know what youre doing in the calorie department more than in the gym,,and most important you gotta know when to get off! and on again. it is very important at the beggining stages of steroid use to take some breaks so you can grow better. (first 3 years is very important) past the third and forth year you become very femiliar with your body and you can play a lot more with the time you are on and control it according to your mental state and needs.
people got to understand that this sport is built 90+% on hormones,, it is called body BUILDING. but it is not diff from any other sport around,,,infact it is harder because you gotta know what youre doing on a regular basis 24/7even when you eat shit you gotta know your body well so you know what shit your body likes and respond well to,,,
you are right football players are all using hormones and so are majority of baseball players and many other athletes,,i dont see anything wrong with that because they all use it and have the means and connections to get it so they all compete at the same level and this is also true for majority of bodybuilders.
when you start at 205lb and finish after 2 months at 245-250lb,,,ONLY then you understand how much of a huge part sport drugs are in a bodybuilder's life.
by the way,, you wont get those 40lb from british dragon "gear" or from "swisher labs" ;) but part of being a bodybuilder is learning it by yourself from your own mistakes. age 28-32 is where everything come together for the average competetive bodybuilder.
-
gh15..... I respect you for your honesty.
I enjoyed reading your post.....
-
GH15, you are a visionary. I always re-read your posts because you have so much real information to share and no BS. Thanks!
-
when you enter a gym and see a little bodybuilder take his gatoradepowder drink and bcaa powder in the locker room and think this is the way he put on mass,,,you are severly mistaken. it is 80-90% the drug youre on and the calories that you eat that make you,,as a bodybuilder,, grow.
Exactly what I've been saying. Nutrition and gear are far and away the most important aspects of bodybuilding - far more important than genetics and training.
by the way,, you wont get those 40lb from british dragon "gear" or from "swisher labs" ;) but part of being a bodybuilder is learning it by yourself from your own mistakes. age 28-32 is where everything come together for the average competetive bodybuilder.
I disagree about the British Dragon gear. My source told me it's the gear that gets the best reviews and my friend is on it and has responded very well.