Author Topic: Good genetics...or good receptors?  (Read 11991 times)

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Good genetics...or good receptors?
« on: March 16, 2006, 12:23:56 PM »
I've said many times on here that the main factors in pro bodybuilding are genetics, juice, and nutrition.  But if genetics were really so important wouldn't we see some reasonably big TRUE naturals out there?  Instead we see few or none.

So do these pros have good genetics, or is it just a good response to heavy juice?

More and more I'm starting to think these guys just have a great response to the gear they are on.

monster triceps

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 436
  • RIP slobby :(
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2006, 12:25:55 PM »
If a 5'8 guy is 225 he's still not big, so what the fuck?
young niggah greedy

Oldschool Flip

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Eat Balut! High in Protein!
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2006, 12:27:11 PM »
Matt days of the "Naturals" in Pro competion have been gone since the 70's! Where you been?

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2006, 12:28:37 PM »
these pros are nothing without their drugs.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

monster triceps

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 436
  • RIP slobby :(
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2006, 12:29:42 PM »
these pros are nothing without their drugs.

Just like you are nothing without your daily injection of FRESH MALE SEMEN from the local gay stripclub that you frequent, only thing is you inject inside your BUNS, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OH BROTHER, HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
young niggah greedy

Mars

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 27707
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2006, 12:31:18 PM »
I really wonder if most pro's did train natural for a few years or started juicing at the very beginning.
Look at 120 pounds Tom Prince.

Oldschool Flip

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Eat Balut! High in Protein!
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2006, 12:32:15 PM »
There are a lot of good natural physiques, but they play NFL football not compete in BB contests.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2006, 12:33:30 PM »
At my gym, all the juicers are all juice.  At 190 I know more about gaining muscle naturally than these 220+ guys do and that is PATHETIC.

If people like Layne Norton, Adonis, etc, are indeed natural, then good for them.  That is extremely rare these days.

We live in a society where everything is cured by a drug.  Why would lack of muscle mass be an exception?

Sir William Idol

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3543
  • you got a fight comin
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2006, 12:33:54 PM »
Just like you are nothing without your daily injection of FRESH MALE SEMEN from the local gay stripclub that you frequent, only thing is you inject inside your BUNS, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OH BROTHER, HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks for clarifying the "male semen" part
its comin today

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2006, 12:36:28 PM »
thanks for clarifying the "male semen" part

You don't know what that is?  It comes out of the male penis bro.   :P

Overload

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7464
  • KO Artist
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2006, 12:43:14 PM »
What you said is exactly true...

i know it's not something the pro's like to hear but they are ALL on HUGE amounts of gear and gh. most of them never come off until they retire.

 8)

brianX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Kiwiol has 13" arms!
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2006, 12:47:29 PM »
If you knew so much about gaining muscle, you wouldn't be a 190 lb weakling.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Harry R. M. Pitts

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
  • large lover
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2006, 12:58:49 PM »
I've said many times on here that the main factors in pro bodybuilding are genetics, juice, and nutrition.  But if genetics were really so important wouldn't we see some reasonably big TRUE naturals out there?  Instead we see few or none.

So do these pros have good genetics, or is it just a good response to heavy juice?

More and more I'm starting to think these guys just have a great response to the gear they are on.

Of course the pros have unbelievable steroid receptors,  I've seen a ton a guys that are juiced to the gills and still look like shit.  Every one of you have seen these guys at the gym.- Then I've seen guys who are just naturally genetically gifted.  To make it to the pros you need both these traits.  Combination of both IMO.
"

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2006, 01:05:04 PM »
If you knew so much about gaining muscle, you wouldn't be a 190 lb weakling.

Actually that has more to do with my genetics than anything.   ::)  Considering my mother had two kids before even surpassing 100 pounds.  Now she's pushing 50 and still under 130.  My sisters are barely over 100 pounds and haven't stepped on a treadmill in their lives.

For me to be 190, with the genetics that I was born with, is like an average person getting to 240.

My whole family is a bunch of boneracks.  You should get to know where I started off before commenting that 190 is small.  It may be for most people, but sure as hell isn't for someone whose body is begging him to be 130.

davidpaul

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2006, 01:12:25 PM »
Actually that has more to do with my genetics than anything.   ::)  Considering my mother had two kids before even surpassing 100 pounds.  Now she's pushing 50 and still under 130.  My sisters are barely over 100 pounds and haven't stepped on a treadmill in their lives.

For me to be 190, with the genetics that I was born with, is like an average person getting to 240.

My whole family is a bunch of boneracks.  You should get to know where I started off before commenting that 190 is small.  It may be for most people, but sure as hell isn't for someone whose body is begging him to be 130.

wtf has that pic got to do woth anything, oh, you are the moron whos says naturals have the test levels of a 12 year old girl.

btw, id hit them all.

Harry R. M. Pitts

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
  • large lover
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2006, 01:12:32 PM »

damn, hook me up w/ the one the right, we have nipples!!!
"

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2006, 01:16:42 PM »
wtf has that pic got to do woth anything, oh, you are the moron whos says naturals have the test levels of a 12 year old girl.

btw, id hit them all.

Yeah, but I'm just joking around when I say 95% of getbiggers (myself included) have the test levels of 12 year old girls.   ;D  It's just a joke about the running stereotype GB has on other boards.

And the pic is just proof that genetics are a huge force when it comes to gaining mass (or not gaining mass in my case).  On the other hand, I am never above 10% body fat no matter what I eat, and it's a lot healthier to be lean and thin, so there are pros and cons.  To me the pic proves that it just isn't in my genes to hold on to any weight, my sisters and mom are good examples in the family also.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 78906
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2006, 01:18:20 PM »
Matt days of the "Naturals" in Pro competion have been gone since the 70's! Where you been?

No true Prem Chand competed at the 1989 Mr Olympia and he was 100% drug free , he placed dead last but he turned Pro naturally and competed , and there was the much hyped Mike Ashley & Jean Paul Guillaume I don't know if they were natural but there have been some and Mike Morris competed naturaly at the last Olympia .

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2006, 01:19:06 PM »
190 and muscular at 10 percent bodyfat is not small by any standard Matt, BTW what nationality are you and your sisters?
Jaejonna rows 125!!

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2006, 01:19:12 PM »
I love how people say someone has good genetics when in reality they are just good drug users.


Wow, I guess people in the hospital that respond to medication than others are genetic beasts.hahah

In actuality there is little variance in genetics in how one gains muscle.

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2006, 01:21:40 PM »
No true Prem Chand competed at the 1989 Mr Olympia and he was 100% drug free , he placed dead last but he turned Pro naturally and competed , and there was the much hyped Mike Ashley & Jean Paul Guillaume I don't know if they were natural but there have been some and Mike Morris competed naturaly at the last Olympia .
hahahahahahahaha, if you believe that guy was drug free i've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska i'd like to talk to you about.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

davidpaul

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2006, 01:24:24 PM »
that guy is not natural.

Double XL

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 2880
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2006, 01:26:37 PM »
I've said many times on here that the main factors in pro bodybuilding are genetics, juice, and nutrition.  But if genetics were really so important wouldn't we see some reasonably big TRUE naturals out there?  Instead we see few or none.

So do these pros have good genetics, or is it just a good response to heavy juice?

More and more I'm starting to think these guys just have a great response to the gear they are on.
good genetics, the people who respond well to gear are the ones who resonded well to training and gaining muscle in general.  no one who doest have good genetics for building muscle will become a mass monster, it's all genetics.
[img]http://nono.com/0ICJ

davidpaul

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2006, 01:28:35 PM »
190 and muscular at 10 percent bodyfat is not small by any standard Matt, BTW what nationality are you and your sisters?

hes canadian.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 78906
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2006, 01:30:11 PM »
Maybe he is maybe he isn't  ???  but he was like just under 200lbs , he is from India and I recall reading an article that its hard to get good food in India nevermind steroids but hes not big at all , so its believable .