Professional Bodybuilders Have Average / Below-Average Genetics

[knny187]

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.

 

[Zeratul-Dark Templar]

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.

[LuciusFox]

 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.

[Zeratul-Dark Templar]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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

[Oliver Klaushof]

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.




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.

[jem123]

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.

[Gordon_Gekko]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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.

[Palpatine Q]

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.

[JOHN MATRIX]

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.

[dontknowit]

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.

[LuciusFox]

 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.

[Gordon_Gekko]

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.

[knny187]

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.

[nicorulez]

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.

[Gordon_Gekko]

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.

[dontknowit]

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.

[bmacsys]

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.

[bmacsys]

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.

[bmacsys]

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.

[Rome]

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.

[dontknowit]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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.

[Gordon_Gekko]

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"?...