Gamechanger: Gain 30, Pull 500.

Ain't nothing small about you, Sci. 217 and growing! Never compare yourself to the 'roided-out super freaks on the stage, sure we are all human, but they are almost a different species due to seriously superior genetics and steroids. Doing everything perfectly, you and I will never-ever have quads like Kai Greene; that said, my wife thinks guys who are "too big" are gross... so if one reason I'm training is to be more attractive for her, then "Kai Greene" is not my goal. Comparing most pros to normal folk is almost like comparing a lion to a housecat. The best we can do is to be the best that WE can be. (ninja'ing LOL's tag-line.) ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's one thing I really like about the forum. Pretty much all the regulars here are "natural", so we rely on science, training and nutrition, without resorting to steroids. So of course, it's a small group, and nobody is "hulking". But I respect all the dedication and intelligence at this forum, vs. the majority of bodybuilding forums which are generally crowded with meatheads and nonsense and steroid use.

Nothing against peopl who decide to use, but lets face it, a lot of people have done a lot of stupid things with training, and got results anyway because of AAS, is my point. Natties are forced to rely purely on intelligent training and nutrition to get results. And of course have to have a lot of patience!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I am just amazed when I go to other forums and most of the guys are doing bro-splits and talking about the cycles they are on. Funny thing is a lot of the guys aren't much bigger than me, many are smaller. All that AAS isn't going to magically make you a giant when you've got average genetics and you're doing a retarded routine. Of course I think that "eating clean bro" is part of their problem as well. So obsessed with their chicken and brocolli, sweet potatoes and white rice that they can't get enough calories in to grow.

Meanwhile, we are achieving similar or greater results over here on the HST forums and our gains are consistent. We don't end up losing half our gains during PCT. We don't **** up our joints by gaining too fast, then having to take time off due to the injury and ending up smaller than before the cycle even started. I know only a small handful of guys who got huge doing those types of splits (and massive amounts of AAS and slin) but those guys are the exception to the rule.
 
nativetroutbum said:
Ain't nothing small about you, Sci. 217 and growing! Never compare yourself to the 'roided-out super freaks on the stage, sure we are all human, but they are almost a different species due to seriously superior genetics and steroids. Doing everything perfectly, you and I will never-ever have quads like Kai Greene; that said, my wife thinks guys who are "too big" are gross... so if one reason I'm training is to be more attractive for her, then "Kai Greene" is not my goal. Comparing most pros to normal folk is almost like comparing a lion to a housecat. The best we can do is to be the best that WE can be. (ninja'ing LOL's tag-line.) ;)
Click to expand...

The genetics angle is waaaaaaay overplayed in BB'ing community. There's miniscule differences, really, beyond outliers.

Take a look @ Totentanz 2004 picture. His genetics didn't change between then and now. He just followed lift, eat, repeat and voile ...
 
AlexAustralia said:
The genetics angle is waaaaaaay overplayed in BB'ing community. There's miniscule differences, really, beyond outliers.

Take a look @ Totentanz 2004 picture. His genetics didn't change between then and now. He just followed lift, eat, repeat and voile ...
Click to expand...

I think you are off here. I wouldn't call the differences minuscule. There's a lot more to the genetics factor than 'minuscule'. Muscle belly length, bone structure, insulin sensitivity, heck, even the anabolic response to drugs is highly genetic. Some guys will just respond excellently to anabolic drugs in regards to hypertrophy, while others will not as much.
All the "pros" have awesome genetics for it, you just can't take your average Joe, and turn him into IFBB champion material, ain't gonna happen, no matter how great the nutrition, training, or the drugs.
Kevin Levrone is a great example. He doesn't look all that special now, but back in the day he came close to taking the Olympia title several times. The guy had amazing genetics for bodybuilding, he's got the muscle belly lengths, the bone structure, and he's obviously an amazing responder to AAS. He looks like a regular old fit guy when he's natural, but back when he was in his prime he looked like a god, his arms were bigger than his head! His thighs were just humongous and his waist was tiny. It was his unique genetics combined with hard work, dedicated eating, and the right combo of drugs, that took him to that level. But most guys could never look like that, just freaky genetics.
It's the same with most sports, the top swimmers or Olympic lifters are in the genetic elite for what they do.

But on the other hand, I do agree that genetics are 'overplayed'. A lot of guys just use the genetics card, as a poor excuse for their crappy results due to inferior training, diet, and lack of dedication. So you do make a good point.
 
Last edited:
They're obviously not irrelevant. We're talking about the top 1% of the top 1% of the species etcetera whenever we talk about any pro-level discussion for any competitive endeavour.

But they're drastically overplayed within the 85% population in the middle of the bell curve. You, me, Totez, Mike, whoever ... even magical Rihad, we're pretty much all in the same boat re: ability to build muscle. Height and bone structure (skeleton size) are the biggest variations for sure, but in terms the physiological mechanisms for building muscle, we're basically going to be dealing with the same ratios, intracellular activity, signalling pathways and all that.
 
Ok, I agree with with that. Yeah, most of us have a somewhat level playing field in the middle of the bell curve.
 
I had to find a pic of Kevin. IMO, he had the best arms and deltoids in bodybuilding history. Especially his delts and triceps are simply in a league of their own. No body else comes close.
 

Attachments

  • image-2311711660.jpg
    image-2311711660.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 11
For me, the discussion about best builds ends after 1980. Anything from the early 80's onwards, and DEFINITELY anything from the 1990's is just irrelevant. They're not people any more, the aesthetic value is a (substantial) minus value and be honest, if you could swap your body for that abomination, would you? I know I wouldn't.
 
No, I wouldn't want to be that extreme. But it is admirable that its even possible. I will be natural for life, most likely, so even if I strive for that freakishness, it will never come close.
 
Sci said:
But on the other hand, I do agree that genetics are 'overplayed'. A lot of guys just use the genetics card, as a poor excuse for their crappy results due to inferior training, diet, and lack of dedication. So you do make a good point.
Click to expand...

Though I've had good success with HST, I believe my crappy genetics are the main thing holding me back... that and possibly "low-T"... I've been consistently training my @ss off, eating solid and eating enough, yet I'm seriously lagging in many areas.
 
@NTB - get the T-levels checked out by an endocrinologist you feel comfortable with. I feel the same way as O&G; the instant mine start to drop I'm getting supplemented. No point in ice-skating uphill and facing the prospect of things like low-T correlated depression etc.
 
I don't want to get much heavier, if at all, than I am now but I do want to get a whole lot stronger. A little extra muscle and a little less fat should do the trick. So, if my t-levels drop off the chart I will most definitely want to do something about it.
 
BB Row: 225 3x5 (great back pump.)

Pulldown: 200 3x5 (noticeably weaker after rows)

Leg Press: 540x5 RPE 9, 470 2x5 (540x5 is close to PR territory.)

Decline Machine: 170 3x5 (a lot like dips, but a bit more pectorals, a bit less triceps, I am just getting bored with dips, probably do this machine for awhile, then go back to dips for awhile. Interestingly, this is the first Hammer-strength machine that actually has a leverage DISadvantage, since I could probably decline BB bench around 280 pounds)

Machine Press: 220 3x5 (couldn't find a spotter for DB PRESS, and this was almost exactly like it, using the 80 pound DBs, a typical hammer machine, with an obvious leverage advantage)

Front Lateral: 15s 3x10 Deltoids are noticeably growing lately. :)


It's been a full year since I joined the gym. I can now tell which muscles I am genetically gifted for, which are average, and which are below average.

Genetic strengths (above average): triceps, trapezius, deltoids, forearms.

Genetically average: hips, thighs, biceps.

Genetic weaknesses: calves, lats, pecs.

While I am still struggling to bring up my lats and pecs, my triceps and deltoids are growing like crazy lately. I never trained delts very hard, so they were smallish, but now that I am doing some more serious deltoid work, I think they will end up being quite impressive.
 
Last edited:
nativetroutbum said:
Though I've had good success with HST, I believe my crappy genetics are the main thing holding me back... that and possibly "low-T"... I've been consistently training my @ss off, eating solid and eating enough, yet I'm seriously lagging in many areas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is possible. Just like there are genetic elite bodybuilders, there are also genetically inferior builds out there. Even if you are in the genetic low-spot, you've already overcome it with dedicated training and diet. Your strength numbers are above average, and you've built a decent physique, so you should be proud of your accomplishments so far.
 
Last edited:
Psyched for my workout tomorrow morning.

Rack pulls tomorrow. Max-stim style !
I might get some videos of my leg presses, some REAL leg presses, where the quads actually get stretched and the load actually gets applied across the muscle fibers at a good lever angle. :P
 
That is a good idea, actually. I think it could be instructive for some members to see proper leg press technique.
 
Leg Press: 540 x5,5,5
Video of proper leg press form:

http://youtu.be/Gm0rnFJ2ONQ

Rack Pulls: 405 x5 max-stim
Tried to do these beltless in Olympic shoes, it was way harder. Back gave out... Switched to barbell rows.

BB Rows: 225 x5,5,5

Decline Machine: 170 x5,5,5

Pulldowns: 200 x6,6,6

Machine Press: 240 x5,5,5

Front Laterals (thumbs down) : 17.5s 3x10
 
Last edited:
Sci said:
...
Rack Pulls: 405 x5 max-stim
Tried to do these beltless in Olympic shoes, it was way harder. Back gave out... Switched to barbell rows.
...
Click to expand...
Mainly due to O-shoes adding an extra inch or so to height bar lifted? How much do you think being belted helps you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top