Author Topic: Good genetics...or good receptors?  (Read 11988 times)

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #50 on: March 17, 2006, 11:12:36 AM »
My sisters are skinny.  Everyone in my family is.  That's genetics for you.   :-\   It reminds me of when Shawn posted a picture of him with his uncles and they were all short and bald.   ;D

But aside from BB message boards, being skinny is usually a good thing, since people these days are pretty overweight.  It never ceases to amaze me how many times I get asked for training advice in the gym - it just speaks for how out of shape people are when I am who they come to.

I read online that the average height of an Italian male is 5'9 and 1/2, but I find that hard to believe.  At family gatherings, the tallest other than me is usually around 5'7.  My grandpa is 5'0.  Mike Matarazzo was 5'10 which is tall for a bodybuilder and for an Italian.  My dad is 5'10 and I'm lucky to have inherited his height.  Although a couple of people saw that pic and thought I was shorter in it.  Must be long legs and short torso/limbs.

And ND, I'm not flexing my abs in that pic, they are there although not too deep usually, a bit better these days than two years ago.  Honestly, abs don't mean much to me.  If I could just bring up my chest I would be pleased.  Chest is another genetic sticking point for me.  I'm even thinking of looking into HIT training for it.  After watching Mentzer's DVD, I'm considering it.  That man defended HIT so well I thought it blew my mind.

http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/mikeandraymentzerinthegymdvd.html

brianX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Kiwiol has 13" arms!
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #51 on: March 17, 2006, 11:28:22 AM »
Yeah Matt, tell us how naturals have the same testosterone levels as a 12 year old girl. Tell us how it's impossible to get big without drugs. Tell us how only drug users bench 315. TELL US. You obviously know so much about training.

What a clown.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

brianX

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2810
  • Kiwiol has 13" arms!
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2006, 11:37:03 AM »
Ever notice how insecure naturals like Matt always use circular reasoning? They say it's impossible to get big without drugs, but will label anyone with decent size as a juicer. Pathetic.

Hey Matt, most college football players would make you look like a little girl, and they aren't taking steroids. What do you have to say about that?
hahahahahahahahahahahaha

MindSpin

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9985
  • MMA > Boxing
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2006, 11:39:43 AM »
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.

as I have said many time before, response to gear is one of many genetic factors, along with recuperation capabilities, muscle shape, strucuture, propensity for injury, body fat levels, etc.  

By that definition, Ronnie is probably the most genetically gifted bodybuilder.  He has a huge frame, awesome shape, good lines, in spite of years of heavy training has not suffered any major injuries, responds well to gear, recovers very easily, etc.  
w

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2006, 11:46:01 AM »
Yeah Matt, tell us how naturals have the same testosterone levels as a 12 year old girl. Tell us how it's impossible to get big without drugs. Tell us how only drug users bench 315. TELL US. You obviously know so much about training.

What a clown.

Obviously I was joking about the test remarks, that is why I included myself in the list.  It's called self deprecating humour.   ::)

It's impossible to get pro size without drugs.  What part of this don't you understand?   ???

Also, a flat bench press of 400 as a natural is world class.  Very few naturals bench over 315.  Again, is this unclear?  In a city of over 100,000, at a recent bench comp, the top lifter put up 465 at a body weight of 290 (and obviously juiced). Where are these huge benchers which allegedly exist at every gym?  Believe it or not, I am one of the few in my gym who is does working sets with 225+ on the flat bench for reps and consistently using dumbbells over 100 pounds.  Maybe the getbig talkers are an accurate reflection of reality and I just live in a very weak city.  The discrepancy between what I see on this board and what I see in the gyms I go to is huge.

And training doesn't mean squat compared to nutrition, gear, and genetics.  I can't say for sure which of those three factors is most important, but training is definitely less than all three.  If you have the right genetics, eat and juice huge, you will grow huge even if you train like a kitten - as numerous pros have proven.  Some work their ass off, and others look like they are on vacation in the gym.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16691
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2006, 11:50:11 AM »
Ever notice how insecure naturals like Matt always use circular reasoning? They say it's impossible to get big without drugs, but will label anyone with decent size as a juicer. Pathetic.

Hey Matt, most college football players would make you look like a little girl, and they aren't taking steroids. What do you have to say about that?

I label guys like Layne Norton and Adam as juicers because in all of TBAY, the few people who have put on more muscular size than these guys are juiced and have admitted that to me.

It's not like I'm dissing these guys.  I've told them both to take it as a compliment if they are indeed natural.  I just find that hard to believe in that every guy I know who is the size of Adam is cycling pretty regularly.

as I have said many time before, response to gear is one of many genetic factors, along with recuperation capabilities, muscle shape, strucuture, propensity for injury, body fat levels, etc. 

By that definition, Ronnie is probably the most genetically gifted bodybuilder.  He has a huge frame, awesome shape, good lines, in spite of years of heavy training has not suffered any major injuries, responds well to gear, recovers very easily, etc.   

Yes, true.  It's hard to say exactly which factors are the most important and in which order because BB is so individualized, but honestly, I would say for MOST training is less important than nutrition, juice, and genetics (which encompass multiple factors as you mentioned).

When Ron Harris started using, he didn't make significant gains at first.  Some will respond better than others.  These days it looks like Ron has been responding better to gear than when he first started using (1996 I believe).

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #56 on: March 18, 2006, 02:12:21 AM »

I read online that the average height of an Italian male is 5'9 and 1/2, but I find that hard to believe.  At family gatherings, the tallest other than me is usually around 5'7.  My grandpa is 5'0.  Mike Matarazzo was 5'10 which is tall for a bodybuilder and for an Italian.  My dad is 5'10 and I'm lucky to have inherited his height.  Although a couple of people saw that pic and thought I was shorter in it.  Must be long legs and short torso/limbs.



Genetics goes by family generally not by country when were talking about Europe. Italians and Germans and Austrians and French...There are really no real genetic differences between the two. There are some tall Italians and some short one's. My father is Italian and is 6'6" and I'm 6'3". My mother is German/Dutch and she's 5'2"...The average height in the Netherlands is about 5'11".

When you're talking about Asia..Then it would go by country. Asians are generally shorter genetically than europeans and the asian countries that are the poorest have the shortest populations..I.E. Vietnam or North Korea.

Knows_Everything

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 217
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #57 on: March 18, 2006, 03:41:58 AM »
Ronnie just has good genetics, does not mean he responds well to drugs, if u look at him back in his football days, u will see he was very built back then.. Drugs only enhanced his genetic potential.. case closed..
"Money Talks"

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #58 on: March 18, 2006, 05:11:53 AM »
Ronnie just has good genetics, does not mean he responds well to drugs, if u look at him back in his football days, u will see he was very built back then.. Drugs only enhanced his genetic potential.. case closed..



That's wrong.

DIVISION

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • Bless me please, father.....
Re: Good genetics...or good receptors?
« Reply #59 on: March 18, 2006, 06:43:18 AM »
Ronnie just has good genetics, does not mean he responds well to drugs, if u look at him back in his football days, u will see he was very built back then.. Drugs only enhanced his genetic potential.. case closed..


You know shit about AAS and genetics.

Drugs don't affect genetic potential, the potenital was always there or it wasn't.  That is what genes are.....the blueprint for all possible growth, give optimal anabolic conditions and stimulus.

The drugs only allow the individual to reach his full genetic potential.  Similiar to humans only utilizing a small portion of their brain.  Some supplements enhance memory and cognition, but they don't improve intelligence, only sharpen what was already there.






DIV
I'm a ghost in these killing fields...