Could you be a pro?

Discussion in 'General Training' started by ian, Feb 26, 2005.

  1. BIZ

    BIZ New Member

    Due to genetics of course, otherwise, the way I train and eat would produce the same results across the board.

    It's not what they looked like before weight training, it is how they respond to it that will attest to their genetic potential. Case in point, train your chest in the exact manner as Arnold did, even do the same diet and drugs, and see if your chest looks anything like his did. If not, then what explains the difference if genetics is as insignificant as is being asserted?
  2. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    Genetics obviously matters... how many steroid users do you see who have poorly shaped muscles? I've seen more than a few. If steroids were all that mattered, all users would have perfectly shaped muscles, or at least what is considered perfectly shaped...

    Though what some others said about most weight lifters being former skinny people does seem to hold somewhat true. That's what got me into it as well, but I don't think that automatically means that those of us who used to be skinny have poor genetics. I've found that once I started eating right and lifting properly, I was able to pack mass onto areas like my legs and shoulders with relative ease. If I had crappy genetics, it seems like it would be hard to pack muscle on no matter where on my body it was.

    So really, you can't tell what kind of muscle building genetics someone has until they start actually trying to build muscle.
  3. RSS

    RSS New Member

    Genetically gifted may be too strong a term - genetically above average would probably be better (depending on what exactly you are defining as 'really big' ). It is not surprising that you know lots of people with above average genetics, just as you probably also know many people who are above average in other respects, like height for example.

    Of course dedication and knowledge count for a great deal, but I know plenty of people who are both dedicated and knowledgeable who simply cannot get very big, no matter what they do. These are the ones with below average genetics, and there is no way someone like this will ever achieve the levels of muscularity seen in the pros.

    I also have some first hand experience with this. After over 15 years of training, including more than 20 HST cycles, I know that I will never be 'massive'. Of course I have made some very good progress over the years (about 40lb of muscle), but I have pretty much reached my genetic potential. Yet there are plenty of people who train far less optimally than me (and drug free) who are significantly bigger.

  4. RSS

    RSS New Member

    Yes, precisely. The fact that Larry Scott started out 98lb, and then progressed to the top of his sport, proves that with regards to building muscle, his genetics are exceptional.

    Of course it also took a lot of determination and dedication to fulfill that genetic potential.

  5. ian

    ian New Member

    Playn devils advocate here....

    So iv been training naturally since i was 16 (and 9stone 7lbs) i was nearly 15stone at 21 (I wasnt amazingly ripped, but I had good detail in all of my muscles) and im 5ft 8.

    At my hieght a pro bber competes at bout 18 stone, now i realise there ripped to ####, but its only 3 more stone and most dont get to be pros till their 30+.

    I could prob put on a couple of stone just doin any steroid course and if I ate propely and had all the proper drugs Id have no probs getn to that weight.

    Point is the odds are im not genetically gifted and yet in theory if i put my mind to it I could get to Pro size. Thats where I rekon gentics counts, iv got a good back, so id have a good back compared to other pros, but my triceps are nothing special and they wouldnt be between amongst pros.

    Basically all the lads that went to my school and trained and eat propely are all as big as me, its just at some stages some people stop for some reason (ie work or taking up another sport).

    My best mate and training partner has always trained with me and hes always been a big lad, but hes never got any bigger because he eats 3 meals a day (usually involving chips).

    This is just my experience, im just provoking debate so dont shout at me
  6. ian

    ian New Member

  7. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    Ian has a point there, with regards to the eating thing. I used to think I ate a ton all day long, but when I got serious and started counting calories, I realized I was only eating about 2000 calories a day, even though it seemed like I was eating a lot. Now that I'm eating around 3500 to sometimes 4000 a day, I realize what 'eating a lot' really means, and that seems to have made all the difference in my training results as well...
  8. RSS

    RSS New Member

    This is definitely true of some people. However I can say for sure that this is not the case with me, or a couple of people who I used to live with. I always consume over 300g of protein per day, and sometimes as high as 400g, and when I am bulking I keep my calories above 4000. I know that this is way above my maintenance, as I always put on significant amounts of fat at this calorie intake.

    As an example of someone who packs on muscle very easily, I have a friend who I used to train with who was much bigger than me, but actually would have prefered to have been more slender. He liked the strength that he had, but just wished that he could have it with out being so bulky. He didn't eat nearly as much as I did, and it would not have made sense for him to be taking steroids seeing as he didn't want more muscle mass. He actually had to limit how much he trained with weights for fear of getting too big, and he used to do a lot of aerobic work, like running.

    So what I am saying is that I have witnessed first hand on a number of occasions the huge variation between people with regards to their genetic potential for muscle hypertrophy. Obviously there are also a lot of people who could achieve great results if only they went about it the right way, but as I said before, you shouldn't underestimate the effect of genetics.

  9. BIZ

    BIZ New Member

    Remember this as well, then I'll get off the wagon, that genetics as related to hypertrophy is not just about how a muscle will respond to training, nutition, and drugs. It has to do with tendon length, fiber type variations, possible mutations in genes that control hypertrophy, origins and insertions of muscles, length of levers (bones), innervation of the muscles, etc... These things and more will determine to an extent, some more than others, how big one can or will get, as well as how they will look aesthetically once they do get bigger.
  10. ian

    ian New Member


Share This Page