Is it true that some people are genetically superior when it comes to building muscle and shredding fat?
Like, you put two guys on the same program, same ''diet'', sleep the same, etc, etc. Is it possible that one looks much more swole/lean than the other? Or is it insignificant in the grand scheme of things?
I literally see people hit the gym for like 5-6 months, eat whatever, and they look much better than your average gymcel. I don't think they're on roids, either.
Thoughts?
yes. there's a pretty big article on exactly this topic on strongerbyscience
I've noticed the same thing. Kinda depressing tbqh.
Genetics is The most important thing in regards to bodybuilding
Steroids are the great equalizer.
Though then theres the issue of how well your hair, skin and mood react to steroids, which is a lot to do with genetics. So you might be double fucked.
Notice how the majority of awesome steroid physiques can grow a good full head of hair if they want to, that indicates a general good response to steroids.
Post one.
Yea it fucking matters. Either you have viking or bbc genetics (or equivalent), or you're screwed.
>Genetics is The most important thing in regards to everything
ftfy
There are two kinds of muscle fibers. One is good for short bursts of energy (like lifting weights) and another is good for long-term and long-distance duration (like running).
How much of each fibers you have in your muscles absolutely determines your potential. You know how the gold medals for running always go to some Kenyan or some other African? It's because they have more slow twitch (long-term and long-distance duration) fibers in their legs.
...
Yes, some people have like 5x as much testosterone naturally than some beta faggot. They will obviously gain muscle much faster.
Ecto is straight esthetics
Meso is medium esthetics and medium gains
Endo is straight gains
Learn your body type as its best to work around it.
Arnold
I think I'm genetically smaller than normal. I've been lifting on/off for 6 years and I look good (solid, tight) but not big (thick).
My POV is that even though I'll never be Arnold it's better than not lifting at all. Besides, feeling sorry for yourself because of your "genetics" (and consequently letting yourself go) is some serious fatlogic, so I keep lifting for incremental gains and to keep what I've built.
those types don't exist. there are just frame sizes
There, there, Sven.
Slow twitch dudes need more volume to grow, and that's most people, thus most people never do the work and never see gains.
Find me a 40 year old dyel scaffolder, they are all complete fucking monsters.
Idk but I think I'm genetically lucky, my body fat is stuck at like 4% but I still went from bench 135 to 215 in 5 months while my friend I lifted with isn't underweight and went from 135 to 150
It's negligible. Like fat people blaming "muh metabolism!" skinny fags blaming "genetics" is just a lazy fucking excuse.
Yes, there is a difference, but it really isn't noticable with the right training and diet.
You can GUARANTEE that someone who "isn't responding" to training, simply isn't eating enough. Sleep and training method might also come into it (and again, can be fixed) but 99% of the time it will be diet.
This study is interesting, and I will read it properly, but flicking through it seems to say "yeah, some people don't respond as well, but it's not a major issue". Also note in the cited study, all participant were OVER 65.
Also, like said, steroids really help. If anything they help skinny fags become able to eat more if they physically couldn't before due to years of undereating. Certainly did this for me.
Also, the "hair vs. responsiveness to steroids" thing does have a tiny bit of truth, as hair loss is as a result of conversion of test into DHT, but again, it's a negligible amount.
If you find me a guy who is eating clean and way above maintenance, training heavily with progressive overload, and getting decent sleep, but he doesn't grow, find me a scientist and I'll pay for him to be studied as he might be the key to some important genetic discovery.
If you find me a guy who does all that AND is on gear, but STILL doesn't grow, I'll cut my balls off with a chainsaw.
>takes roids
>has to work out
Get revvin bud
>Yes, there is a difference, but it really isn't noticeable with the right training and diet.
You are wrong.
>Whines genetics
>posts screenshot from BLACKED
Does OP have a genetic predisposition to be a faggot?
"A lot of guys have better genes but if you work hard and consistently, you can outperform them." Frank Zane
Yea people might have it easier than others or harder than others genetics wise and that might make a difference at first. But in the long run dedication and hard work make the biggest difference.
I always wonder how people like you can live so many years without being reflective of their surroundings whatsoever.
Read the links user posted above. There have been COUNTLESS studies on this topic because sports is a multi-billion dollar business and being able to scout promising, physically superior talent early can possibly yield millions for sports teams.
You'll probably agree that with all training and perfect diet from an early age on, you will never be a second Phelps or Karelin or Tyson or Jordan, do you?
So extrapolating from these truly unique athletes, Im sure you'll agree that these differences exist in other people as well. Its not like there's 0,1% truly gifted specimen and the rest of the population is absolutely equal.
Some people are extreme responders, some respond very well to stimuli, others like average Joe, and yes, a few individuals are truly cursed in regards to athleticism, the ability to build and maintain muscle, hand-eye-coordination, recovery etc. Get the head out of your ass, you have no idea what you are talking about
Yeah genetics are a big part of it just like with everything in life
Whoah, look at that /pol/bait and how nobody cared for it! Good brehs!
It Doesnt chance the fact that they put on muscle mass at roughly the same speed.
You cited talent in sports, Its not the same at all. The other user is right.
Some people will put on more mass in less time then others.
That's just they way things are.
Goddamn, you seem to think athleticism is this magical quality that has no relation to the base harsh realities.
No. I dont Think so at all. And of course, like everything human related, Its a normally distributed population, so some Are gonna be better than others... to What degree is Whats being discussed.
To a significant degree, see the graph above and the links posted. Here is a bit more if you are actually interested
Effect of body build on weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and muscular strength
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>The aim of the present study was to investigate whether weight-training-induced adaptations in body composition and isokinetic strength differ as a function of body build. Body build of a subject was characterized as the extent to which a person's fat-free mass index (FFMI = fat-free mass.height-2;kg.m-2) differs from the regression of FFMI over fat mass index (FMI = fat mass.height-2;kg.m-2) as derived from a sedentary male population (N = 77). From this population two groups with either a slender (N = 10) or a solid (N = 11) body build were selected. For 12 wk the subjects performed a weight-training program twice a week. Training induced a significant (P < 0.05) increase in fat-free mass (FFM) in the solid group (1.6 kg, 2.3%) in contrast with the slender group, which showed no significant change in FFM. Both groups showed comparable decreases in fat mass (FM; slender: -1.7 kg, -10.8% versus solid: -2.4 kg, -11.3%) and increases in strength (on average 13.8%). In conclusion, the increase in FFM due to a weight-training program is modified by body build. This modification, however, is restricted to a larger increase in the solidly built group.
Relations between frame size and body composition and bone mineral status
ajcn.nutrition.org
>Frame-size measures were significantly and positively associated with all body-composition and bone mineral measures in bivariate analyses. In both men and women, the significant models explained more of the variance in measures of TBF (R2 = 0.51 and 0.66, respectively) and FFM (R2 = 0.35 and 0.39, respectively) than in measures of BMC (R2 = 0.18 and 0.23, respectively) and BMD (R2 = 0.08 and 0.18, respectively). Bicristal, knee, and wrist breadths were associated with TBF, and biacromial, knee, and wrist breadths were positively associated with FFM. Biacromial breadth was positively associated with BMC and BMD.
The sample consisted of cross-sectional data from 224 white men and 277 white women aged 23–65 y. Multiple regressions were conducted with stature-adjusted measures of body composition and bone mineral status as dependent variables and age and frame size as independent variables.
(Thats a big study btw)
> Sleep and training method might also come into it (and again, can be fixed) but 99% of the time it will be diet.
Comment too long. You throw arbitrary numbers around as if they mean anything. Empty phrases, nothing to back your simplistic conclusions up, and repeating silly soundbites as if you had a clue what it means. No, diet and sleep is not 99% of the equation. Your proportions, your skeletal structure, your tendons, your ability to recovery, your degree of symmetry (hint: humans are never symmetrical), your fucking hip socket depth and angle, whether your femur head is narrow or thick etc are ALL just parts, yet totally unrelated to your diet.
There are thousands of variables that all play into athletic ability and yes, subordinated to that, muscular potential. Shut your mouth if you dont know shit and do your research
>If you find me a guy who does all that AND is on gear, but STILL doesn't grow, I'll cut my balls off with a chainsaw.
if a guy is on gear and lift and isn't making gains his gear isn't really gear lol, i'm on test, 500mg/week and i'm gaining at least 3lbs per week, of solid muscle, gained 1 inch on my arms, my bench went from 190lbs to 225lbs for 4 reps, couldn't do more than 5 pullups, now i do 5 reps with 22.5lbs
I didnt say that, the other user did. But youre right. What he Said though was that if someone random you come by is not growing, 99% of the time Its because hes not following the 3-step rule: eat, lift, sleep. Not that growing muscle Is 99% diet.
Both of these are very interesting and counters my point to a degree. I concede that a 1.6kg difference in a month is more than I thought.
Jesus Christ why do people still talk about the x-morphs they are literally horoscope-tier and have been disproven time and time again
Wait Sorry. Read wrong, 12 weeks, not a month. Less incredible.
1,6kg difference in 12 weeks is astounding.
I agree. 6.4kg in a year is definitely more than I expected.
>I didnt say that, the other user did.
Yeah sorry, mixed that up somehow. The point is, it is condescending and patronizing as fuck to spout bullshit like "not eating enough" or 2/3/4/5 pl8s m8 without knowing anything about the individual.
Just look at the difference the size of your ribcage makes in regards to benching. A big ribcage changes the leverages and moment arms completely. Some untrained people can bench a plate like its nothing while others have to train hard to even approach this number.
Screencap from 2:30 on, but watch the whole vid. The channel is gold
youtube.com
Especially since we're talking about the difference individuals, not the overall muscle mass.
You already knew the answer faggot what's the point of this thread