46 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

In the following video sylvester stallone explains how he does not have good genetics, that he was skinny as a child and that he reached his plateau through research and science.

[FNC]

This is a really well made and down to earth marketing plug for INSTONE. Thanks for the vid
Stallone doesn't hype it too much and is really sincere about everything.

[tunt01]

i don't wish cancer upon anyone, but one of these days a celebrity promoting these kinds of pro-hormone lines of treatment is going to come down with a cancer and hopefully put a scare into people who blindly take this stuff...

[niner]

Are we talking about famed biomedical researcher Sly Stallone, or is this the mercurial frontman of the 70's band Sly and the Family Stallone? People get these two mixed up all the time.

[ajnast4r]

of course genetics mean nothing when youre shooting sustanon in your ass.

[TheFountain]

of course genetics mean nothing when youre shooting sustanon in your ass.

He takes HGH. That has been documented. So do a high percentage of all body builders. Point is he was referring to muscle growth in that statement obviously. The hitlerian 'optimal genetics' argument dies in this light. I have never known anyone who when they lifted heavy weights for months did not see noticable muscle growth, with or without the aid of HGH.

[Shepard]

I have never known anyone who when they lifted heavy weights for months did not see noticable muscle growth, with or without the aid of HGH.

Yeah, who would ever argue that fact? The argument comes in when people claim that genetic predisposition plays no role at the elite level, or even that it's all drugs at the elite level.

[kismet]

Yeah, who would ever argue that fact? The argument comes in when people claim that genetic predisposition plays no role at the elite level, or even that it's all drugs at the elite level.

Well, I certainly believe it's "all drugs"  in the sense that more people do drugs than don't at the elite level. OTOH it would be crazy to argue that predisposition does not play a major role. Heck, they're called "elite", because they're the best, including the most genetically gifted and incl. a well-rounded supplement, dietary and drug regimen administered by some of the best sport doctors (though, it seems that diet, supplementation and anti-aging only recently have become a staple and possibly only in some sports).

[immortali457]

"Yo Adrian"........time to shoot me in the ass.

[shaggy]

"Yo Adrian"........time to shoot me in the ass.

LMAO.....

He got busted a while back by Australian customs with all sorts pf pharmaceuticals, anabolic steriods, test and deca as well as HGH and IGF1 I believe. He didn't get busted for the anaabolics as he had legitimate reasons for having them...yeah his balls have shrunk from all the sauce! He aso takes handfuls of legal nutritional supplements from what I've read.

Awesome physique all the same...Be interesting to see how long he lives.

Edited by shaggy, 28 July 2009 - 09:23 PM.

[VidX]

Talking about bodybuilding and genetics, aside from aesthetics and your body/muscles shape, a response to exogenous hormones is what counts. One person can shoot a gallon of testosterone and get just bad sides and no significant results, while another with a quarter of that will explode. I'm not even talking about things like GH.
And cancer.. well - it's almost non existent between bodybuilders, I've wrote this in some other thread, but from my personal observation over the years it seems there may be even some anti-cancer benefits of the steroids on the long run. Though I don't really recommend anybody to take these drugs for that matter.

[kismet]

 
And cancer.. well - it's almost non existent between bodybuilders, I've wrote this in some other thread, but from my personal observation over the years it seems there may be even some anti-cancer benefits of the steroids on the long run.

Maybe the low cancer incidence is connected to dropping dead in your 20s or 30s. Well, just a thought...

[Shepard]

Maybe the low cancer incidence is connected to dropping dead in your 20s or 30s. Well, just a thought...

Dying of something else first certainly seems like the most popular way to avoid cancer.

Talking about bodybuilding and genetics, aside from aesthetics and your body/muscles shape, a response to exogenous hormones is what counts.

You've certainly got different sensitivities to exogenous hormone manipulation, and those that rise to the top of the IFBB are almost certainly the ones with the best genetic predisposition from birth, and the best sensitivity to anabolics. But, I'd say that anyone that doesn't get some benefit from the good drugs is doing something wrong.

[TheFountain]

And cancer.. well - it's almost non existent between bodybuilders, I've wrote this in some other thread, but from my personal observation over the years it seems there may be even some anti-cancer benefits of the steroids on the long run.

Maybe the low cancer incidence is connected to dropping dead in your 20s or 30s. Well, just a thought...

What are you talking about? I am unaware of many body builders who die in their 20s and 30s.

[TheFountain]

I have never known anyone who when they lifted heavy weights for months did not see noticable muscle growth, with or without the aid of HGH.

Yeah, who would ever argue that fact? The argument comes in when people claim that genetic predisposition plays no role at the elite level, or even that it's all drugs at the elite level.

I am talking about people who are out there spouting the lie that genetics=muscle. I don't think sylvester stallone could be considered an 'elite level' body builder, he was never big enough for that. What he is saying in the video is that you don't need genetics to gain muscle as a lot of people popularly believe. I think the latter belief keeps many from even trying, thinking 'i'm just a little skeleton, what hope have I?' after hearing people tell them they are genetically predisposed to skinny physiques.

[Shepard]

We must run in different circles, because I know of no one that has every said such idiocy.

But, anyone that is willing to believe it might as well stay home, as they probably don't have the will and fire to work hard enough to do anything about their genetic limitations.

[VidX]

And cancer.. well - it's almost non existent between bodybuilders, I've wrote this in some other thread, but from my personal observation over the years it seems there may be even some anti-cancer benefits of the steroids on the long run.

Maybe the low cancer incidence is connected to dropping dead in your 20s or 30s. Well, just a thought...

Nope sir, most of the (all If I recall correctly) Mr.Olympias are still alive and kickin' (some of them still leg-press 1200pounds at age 70+). And every one of them were hardcore juicers (no matter what they say now). Get a look of Robby Robinson, as one of the good examples.

[VidX]

You've certainly got different sensitivities to exogenous hormone manipulation, and those that rise to the top of the IFBB are almost certainly the ones with the best genetic predisposition from birth, and the best sensitivity to anabolics. But, I'd say that anyone that doesn't get some benefit from the good drugs is doing something wrong.

Well the rate of the benefots vary. You can't overcome your transcription factors of the certain genes in reactions to stimulation through androgen receptors, doesn't matter what drugs. Of course even a person with worst genetics can get "good" results (for him), no doubt.

[TheFountain]

We must run in different circles, because I know of no one that has every said such idiocy.

But, anyone that is willing to believe it might as well stay home, as they probably don't have the will and fire to work hard enough to do anything about their genetic limitations.

They're obviously not genetic limitations if they can do something about them. I have never met anyone who didn't have to work to gain muscle. I Really don't understand where people are getting this stuff about genetics. Seems like a hearsay argument that started once upon a time.

[immortali457]

We must run in different circles, because I know of no one that has every said such idiocy.

But, anyone that is willing to believe it might as well stay home, as they probably don't have the will and fire to work hard enough to do anything about their genetic limitations.

They're obviously not genetic limitations if they can do something about them. I have never met anyone who didn't have to work to gain muscle. I Really don't understand where people are getting this stuff about genetics. Seems like a hearsay argument that started once upon a time.

Most people can of course build some degree of muscle via resistance training. If you want to be an NFL linebacker or any elite strength/physique athelete, you better not have any genetic limitations as far gaining muscle growth.
What got Sylvester Stallone started in his movie/acting career was way back in the day when he was a child and he saw the movie "Hercules" starring Steve Reeves. He said "I want to be like that guy one day and be a star. You think Stallone thinks genetics dont matter when it came to Steve Reeves?
I dont think so. Steve had god like genetics and was assumed to be drug free back in that era.

http://www.schwarzen...mro/reeves.html

Edited by immortali457, 09 August 2009 - 02:53 PM.

[Shepard]

They're obviously not genetic limitations if they can do something about them. I have never met anyone who didn't have to work to gain muscle.

From this perspective, when I refer to genetic limitations I'm talking about any person that isn't naturally gifted for whatever they're trying to do. Whether it be a sprinter with diabetes, a 7' tall Olympic lifter, a marathon runner with a dropped foot, or a 120lb. kid that wants to be Ronnie Coleman. If you weren't born Usain Bolt, you aren't gonna be a world killer. If you weren't born Hossein Rezazadeh, you aren't going to be able to put more weight overhead than any man alive, and if you aren't born Ronnie Coleman, you aren't going to win the Olympia eight times.

But, I get that you're talking about looking good naked and not athletic prowess. Exercise is the great equalizer. Humans follow a normal distribution, some people need the changes in gene expression that exercise provides just to get to the baseline level of the lucky ones.

Edited by Shepard, 09 August 2009 - 03:05 PM.

[TheFountain]

We must run in different circles, because I know of no one that has every said such idiocy.

But, anyone that is willing to believe it might as well stay home, as they probably don't have the will and fire to work hard enough to do anything about their genetic limitations.

They're obviously not genetic limitations if they can do something about them. I have never met anyone who didn't have to work to gain muscle. I Really don't understand where people are getting this stuff about genetics. Seems like a hearsay argument that started once upon a time.

Most people can of course build some degree of muscle via resistance training. If you want to be an NFL linebacker or any elite strength/physique athelete, you better not have any genetic limitations as far gaining muscle growth.
What got Sylvester Stallone started in his movie/acting career was way back in the day when he was a child and he saw the movie "Hercules" starring Steve Reeves. He said "I want to be like that guy one day and be a star. You think Stallone thinks genetics dont matter when it came to Steve Reeves?
I dont think so. Steve had god like genetics and was assumed to be drug free back in that era.

http://www.schwarzen...mro/reeves.html

I think what we call 'good genetics' is a subject of opinion only. Muhamad ali was not the biggest, had very little muscle, but his range of motion was so much greater than other boxers that you could just watch in awe as he defeated men twice is size and strength. Of course I wasn't even born yet during the ali era but watching it on youtube fascinates me.

I think there are differing genetics, and as such differing degrees of what genetic superiority is suppose to mean. I could manipulate any definition of 'good genes' I want to. I could say Hitler and charles manson had 'good genes' and justify it with any anecdote I want. Doesn't change the fact that people are different and have differing talents and abilities that are nonetheless equally valid.

Edited by TheFountain, 09 August 2009 - 03:26 PM.

[TheFountain]

From this perspective, when I refer to genetic limitations I'm talking about any person that isn't naturally gifted for whatever they're trying to do.

The problem is there is no way to define or gauge 'naturally gifted nor to determine whether or not environment plays a role, thus psychology. How much does ones mental disposition dictate what they can and cannot do? I am sure it factors in somewhere.

Whether it be a sprinter with diabetes, a 7' tall Olympic lifter, a marathon runner with a dropped foot, or a 120lb. kid that wants to be Ronnie Coleman. If you weren't born Usain Bolt, you aren't gonna be a world killer. If you weren't born Hossein Rezazadeh, you aren't going to be able to put more weight overhead than any man alive, and if you aren't born Ronnie Coleman, you aren't going to win the Olympia eight times.

Aren't records generationally broken all the time?

But, I get that you're talking about looking good naked and not athletic prowess. Exercise is the great equalizer. Humans follow a normal distribution, some people need the changes in gene expression that exercise provides just to get to the baseline level of the lucky ones.

But again, I've never known of anyone who hasn't had to work for their muscles and abs to some degree.

[Shepard]

The problem is there is no way to define or gauge 'naturally gifted nor to determine whether or not environment plays a role, thus psychology. How much does ones mental disposition dictate what they can and cannot do? I am sure it factors in somewhere.

There is a way to define it, if we would gather a large set of genome data and personal background information, but that's not practical right now. Environment and mental strength certainly plays a role in athletics, the elite don't become elite simply because you're stronger/faster/whatever than the kid down the block. Out of a population pool approaching 7 billion, that's still a large chunk of people with similar physical attributes. But I don't care what kind of belief in yourself and mental toughness and connection to the universe or whatever going on, a 5'6" lion-hearted kid from Kansas isn't going to outrun the best in the world.

Aren't records generationally broken all the time?

Depends on the sport, and it's hard to judge from one point to another as the sport evolves. Equipment changes, rules/judging change, etc. In sprinting, even with modern nutrition/training/shoes/drugs/recuperation/etc., the changes in times are quite minor over the past few decades. Unless you consider the freak Jamaican. But, I think he's got some cheetah in him. In weightlifting, the largest weights lifted were actually in the late '80s. The sport got a bad rap for drug abuse, the rules were changed and the old records were thrown out. Even today they still haven't been bested.

[VidX]

In bb'ing "naturally gifted" often means - super reaction to hormones. Dude can be a toothpick naturally (think Tom Prince, Flex Wheeler, etc..) and blow up on hormones like nobody else. That underlying potential is what counts. Of course, such guys like Ronnie were (supposedly) strong and big from the start, but the reaction was tremendous nonetheless..
And if your genetic testosterone limit is somewhat predetermined, your ability to put muscle naturally (and how much of it) will have some (hardly detectable) limit you won't be able to surpass. Though u can never be sure as there are so many ways to try to manipulate the growth.

Edited by VidX, 10 August 2009 - 06:47 AM.

[kismet]

Aren't records generationally broken all the time?

Not really... it took 23 years to improve Bob Beamon's world record by 5cm for instance (8.9 -> 8.95m) . Our athletes are and have been performing on the border of the humanely possible for quite some time. In fact it is quite surprising that some records are continously (but ever so slightly) improved all the time. Many records have been advanced by a mere ~5% within the last decades and even that increase is associated with doping. Seeing records obliterated by the likes of Beamon or Bolt is pretty rare if everything else remains the same.
Furthermore, I just wanted to point out what Shepard said. Rezazadeh is only officially the strongest weight-lifter, the results from the 80s are still unmatched in that sport.

And cancer.. well - it's almost non existent between bodybuilders, I've wrote this in some other thread, but from my personal observation over the years it seems there may be even some anti-cancer benefits of the steroids on the long run.

Maybe the low cancer incidence is connected to dropping dead in your 20s or 30s. Well, just a thought...

What are you talking about? I am unaware of many body builders who die in their 20s and 30s.

It's called hyperbole. But I still think you don't really follow that sport, do you? Bodybuilders are actively killing themselves with their drug abuse. This is friggin' undeniable. It's incredible how many cases there are of drug-related death and severe morbidity (just search the pop press and literature).

I think what we call 'good genetics' is a subject of opinion only. Muhamad ali was not the biggest, had very little muscle, but his range of motion was so much greater than other boxers that you could just watch in awe as he defeated men twice is size and strength. Of course I wasn't even born yet during the ali era but watching it on youtube fascinates me.

No, just because you believe so doesn't make it true. For one thing biomechanics are decided by genetics, that alone would be enough to say "genetics matters". But there are other countless examples e.g. in relation to strength myostatin related mutations and vitamin D receptor polymorphisms. I'm also pretty sure that the Kenyan marathon dominance is a matter of genetics, as is the dominance of certain blacks (Jamaicans?) in sprinting.

Edited by kismet, 10 August 2009 - 03:39 PM.

[immortali457]

Anyone know if Paul Anderson was doing growth drugs back in the day?
If not, imagine him on what these freaks use today. How strong could he have been? 2000lb+ squat...lol

[VidX]

It's called hyperbole. But I still think you don't really follow that sport, do you? Bodybuilders are actively killing themselves with their drug abuse. This is friggin' undeniable. It's incredible how many cases there are of drug-related death and severe morbidity (just search the pop press and literature).

POP press is BS on this question, the last source to read about it. Rarely is mentioned the fact that MOST of the deaths in bb'ing world are painkillers OR duretics related. And it's kinda usual that when a bodybuilder dies (young or old) everybody assume it's "The roids". Thousands of healthy (seemingly) young men/women dies every year, non user f any of these susbstaces. I'm sure that there are many deaths because of prolonged abuse of steroids (the main risks usualy are - cholesterol increase from Test./lack of regular blood tests, and predisposition to heart disseases, which androgens can promote further. Or one more reason for a sudden death, not for prolonged abuse, may be Insulin. Just most hardcore/out of the mind guys use that crap, and some of them doesn't evaluate possible risks associated with it.) but in 9 out of 10 cases guys just wend crazy with these substances and done things any sane bodybuilder wouldn't do even for money. And even in that case - usualy they did it for years (these retarded things).
I don't promote steroid usage, just media doesn't do justice to these substances. I recommend to watch "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" for these who haven't seen it. Pretty objective documentary, and entertaining to watch.

Edited by VidX, 10 August 2009 - 10:30 PM.

[kismet]

POP press is BS on this question, the last source to read about it. Rarely is mentioned the fact that MOST of the deaths in bb'ing world are painkillers OR duretics related.
Yeah, or DNP, other drugs & stimulants, or maybe fulminant liver failure/liver cancer from alpha-alkylated steroids, heart disease (e.g. left ventricular dysfunction) or maybe another aggressive cancer from the GH/Insulin/steroid combo.
Unfortunately you can hardly compete without strong diuretics.
And it's kinda usual that when a bodybuilder dies (young or old) everybody assume it's "The roids". Thousands of healthy (seemingly) young men/women dies every year, non user f any of these susbstaces.
Do you also argue that it is unfair to say that heavy smokers dying from lung cancer died from "the cigerattes"? I don't think so, because they are a major contributior, just not the sole contributor. Sure some people will fail to distinguish strong correlation from causation, but does it matter? Smoking is deadly and so is heavy substance abuse.

I don't promote steroid usage, just media doesn't do justice to these substances. I recommend to watch "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" for these who haven't seen it. Pretty objective documentary, and entertaining to watch. The media never does much justice to anything. That's what the literature is for (I am reminded of the recent case report in the lancet, a bodybuilder developing acne fulminans which suddenly ended his career and almost his life) 

[Shepard]

Anyone know if Paul Anderson was doing growth drugs back in the day?
If not, imagine him on what these freaks use today. How strong could he have been? 2000lb+ squat...lol

Dianabol didn't really come into the scene until the late 50s and early 60s, so Anderson probably didn't have much help. I do doubt most of his lifts, though.

Strossen and others that saw him train have mentioned that he was undoubtably the strongest man that ever lived. But, that doesn't mean much. If it didn't happen in competition, it really doesn't matter. His best clean was around 435lbs. Note: the rules were different in that the bar couldn't contact the body, and his technique was attrocious. But, he was still over 350lbs and today you've got ~150lb guys doing that. Yeah, good drugs now and all, but they can't squat anything close to what Anderson is credited with.