• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Is there a place for 'BroScience'?

testosterone libido sex drive muscle madness arnold hairy chest

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:31 AM


Hey, so we all know what 'Broscience' is, right?

Incase anyone here does not, let me quickly remind him/her.

Broscience is basically the science of "omg he's FUCKIN HUUUUUGE, he must know what he's talking about!".

Now, the question to the experts is this.

Is there a place for BroScience outside the Gym (or even in the gym)?

And, percentage wise, how much of it is useful vs how much of it is simply some muscle head going off the anecdotal deep end thinking he knows what the fuck he's talking about when he really doesn't?

Thanks.

#2 Absent

  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 58
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

I think the word BroScience gives it a bad rep.

What you're really asking is, is there a place for the opinions of experienced people in the world, and the answer to that is yes.... but they are simply that, opinions of experienced people.

All in all, I would listen to a ripped guys ideas about how to stay fit than some scrawny guy who went and studied it in college. When choosing between experience and book-knowledge, It really entirely depends on the topic at hand.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#3 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:36 AM

All in all, I would listen to a ripped guys ideas about how to stay fit than some scrawny guy who went and studied it in college.


There is a college course for bodybuilding? I did not know that.


Now, if you are talking about general nutrition and fitness, can you expound on the why?

I mean I understand if it is martial arts or something. Listening to experience vs commentators is the way to go.

But when it comes to fitness, I am afraid I need more information to understand why listening to a ripped guy over one with a doctorate is the preferred way.

After all, fitness is more than appearance, correct?

Now if you are talking an experienced weight lifter, speaking about proper form, I can see that. But general fitness? It is not as easy for me to comprehend why he is better than the skinny guy from Harvard who went to school 8 years for it.

Edited by TheFountain, 02 September 2013 - 01:38 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Absent

  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 58
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:42 AM

Because in the health and fitness world there are a million different contradicting pieces of information out there. Too much proteins bad for you. A ton of protein is good for you. Carbs are bad for you. Carbs are good for you. Bla bla. Just to list off a few general ones. As I said, it entirely depends on the subject. Lumping everything bodybuilding related as "broscience" is just stupid. It depends who it's coming from, if what they say is founded in science to some extent, etc. There's just too many factors.

I would say if somebody in really goodshape is giving me advice, I would consider it more strongly over someone who isn't in shape.... but at the same time this wouldn't be the only thing I go off of. I would do further research. The fact is there isn't really a scientific field dedicated to "bodybuilding", so the best thing we have to go off of is the people who have DONE it. General researched fitness is much different from heavy weight body building.

It entirely depends on the circumstance.

#5 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:44 AM

I don't see BroScience as practical knowledge vs theoretical knowledge. I see BroScience more as a case of people who really don't know what they are talking about, maybe know enough scientific terminology to be dangerous, but are mostly just repeating some shit they heard on the net. Practical knowledge can be very valuable in some cases, so I wouldn't denigrate it as BroScience. There are some very smart people who have a lot of "book learning", really do know what they're talking about, but aren't "ripped" (because they choose not to be). That's certainly not a reason to ignore them, unless maybe getting ripped is ALL you care about, to the exclusion of things like long term health.

Maybe the best approach would be to listen to the ripped guy, then ask the PhD if he thinks it will harm you. Medicine and biology is incredibly complex, and the ripped guy might know what works for him, but he may or may not understand the limitations of his N=1 experience.
  • like x 3

#6 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:01 AM

What the really ripped guys that claim a lot of "bro science" in regards to training and diet aren't telling is that in reality, every single one of them is not getting spectacular results due to special diet or training programs but due to the performance enhancing drugs virtually every single one of them is using (in addition to good genetics). The average Joe is not going to get the same results with the same diet and training that a genetically gifted bro using PED's is going to achieve. In fact, the genetically gifted on PED's will get ripped in spite of the diet or training, not because of it. And there is a ton of various PED's these days in addition to the old standby steroids and HGH. And the average Joe will achieve great results with the addition of PED's but even that will not surpass genetics....not everybody is capable of becoming Mr. Olympia no matter what. Bro science is the best source for information on the latest PED's (how to get them, use them, and cycle them)....training programs and diet...not so much...unless you have identical genetics and drugs.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#7 Absent

  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 58
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:32 AM

Niner is right. A lot of body builders have plenty of great knowledge on how to get ripped and huge... but whether or not this stuff is good for long-term health is an entirely different story. Not every exercise designed to get huge is bad for a persons health.... but people who want it fast, with the help of performance enhancing supplements(not steroids), are going to suffer some kind of jab to their health. This doesn't mean they can't recover from it.... The body has its stress tolerances. It's designed to recover from stress, but stress CAN certainly go too far at times.

Hebbeh that is a very inaccurate claim and very off base. Not every person who manages to get ripped and bulks up uses steroids. For fucks sake man. That is insulting to my own fitness results. Having a well fulfilled diet and intense enough exercise routine go along way. Not to mention Steroids are EXPENSIVE! There's a lot of very ripped college guys out there who can barely afford a pack of Ramen... and you're going to tell me they can afford to shoot up every day... please. Do some research and talk to some people in the bodybuilding community. - In short, steroids will not allow you to get bigger than a nonsteroid user, they only help you to get bigger faster. A non-steroid user can get as big as a roid-rager, it will just take them longer.

And please, cut the 'good genetics' argument. That's such crap. Genetics will not put huge muscles on a person. That is an insult to all body builders. It's simple cause and effect. Whether trying to cut weight or put on some muscle. Genetics will not lift the weight for you. I used to be a skinny kid my entire life, weaker than anybody I ever got into a confrontation with. Even the skinny mexican kids who used to bully me were somehow miles stronger than me. I had no natural strength. I started working out with nothing but protein, determination, and a rigorous routine, and I got as big as some of the biggest guys at my school. The genetic argument is bullshit. Gene expression changes to adapt to the stressors a person puts on it. It's called Epigenetics. Everyone on this planet who is capable of doing an exercise can get as big and as ripped as they want, if they want.

Edited by Siro, 02 September 2013 - 02:38 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#8 RJ23_1989

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 35
  • Location:CONUS, LA
  • NO

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:59 AM

Genetics plays a huge role. I've known plenty of guys over the last 28 years of lifting that barely did anything and yet were bigger than those of us that were in the gym every day training as hard as we could AND taking steroids. Look at the guys that play pro football, that's genetics. .

So anyone can get as big as those roid ragers w/o steroids? Have you seen the size of those guys in the muscle mags? Oookayy!

Oh and steroids are dirt cheap these days thanks to all the underground labs. In fact I saw a list just last week that had a some test esters for $18 a vial. Protien powder's more than that

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#9 Absent

  • Guest
  • 492 posts
  • 58
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:35 AM

You misread pretty much all of my post. I never said genetics didn't matter, I was refuting the point that genetics are the only thing that matters. Yeah some people can gain muscle more effectively but the idea that a person needs good genetics to become shredded is absolutely pure nonsense. Yes, people CAN get as big as some roid ragers without using steroids themselves, but it will simply take longer. Steroids are not magic. They simply help the body build muscle more efficiently. The fact is, if a person does intense exercise and breaks down their muscles, and their diet is adequate, they WILL gain muscle, whether it be a little or a lot. Simple and plain.

It's that sort of nonsense that drives people away from trying to be healthy. "Oh I have bad genetics I'll never be fit" "Oh I'll never be able to get big without steroids it's impossible".

Steroids have a really bad stigma. If anything you think they would be welcomed on a forum like this. You know if there were some super steroids for the mind available every person on this site would be taking them. My personal reason for staying away from steroids is because of the needle usage... collapsed veins? No thanks.

#10 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:45 AM

The amount of Bro science in this thread is what is amazing....and laughable.

#11 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:13 AM

Because in the health and fitness world there are a million different contradicting pieces of information out there.


The BroScience guys contradict themselves too.

For example, just the other day I was talking to to different bodybuilders, both with marvelous physiques. One said you can get muscular on a calorie deficit, the other said there is no way you can get "serious gains" unless you eat 3000 calories a day.


Too much proteins bad for you. A ton of protein is good for you. Carbs are bad for you. Carbs are good for you. Bla bla. Just to list off a few general ones. As I said, it entirely depends on the subject. Lumping everything bodybuilding related as "broscience" is just stupid. It depends who it's coming from, if what they say is founded in science to some extent, etc. There's just too many factors.



Plenty of the Broscience guys apparently read the same articles we do. Because they are just as confused as we are from what I hear.



I would say if somebody in really goodshape is giving me advice, I would consider it more strongly over someone who isn't in shape....



They could be taking steroids.

But as far as lifting technique? I think we can learn something from them.

#12 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:28 AM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.

#13 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:33 AM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.


Are you inferring anybody could win an Olympic gold or be an elite professional athlete...or even a college scholarship athlete no matter the genetics they were born with?

#14 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:44 AM

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/gifted

1. Endowed with great natural ability, intelligence, or talent.

Very common use of the term gifted as in gifted athlete. If you are asking where the gift came from....it would be the parents obviously.
  • like x 1

#15 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 07:13 AM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.


Are you inferring anybody could win an Olympic gold or be an elite professional athlete...or even a college scholarship athlete no matter the genetics they were born with?


No, what I am inferring is that it could be ANYTHING that endows them with that ability.

Why not presume it is commitment? Why not Magic? Why not Luck?

I think these words make as much sense currently as 'genetics' when making these correlations.

As in no proof for any of it.

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.

#16 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:46 AM

As someone pointed out, even if we play innocent and assume they don't take steroids, the big guys all contradict each other anyway, and so do the experts (kinesiologists, dieticiens, expert trainers, etc.). This is for various reasons: different bodies will respond to different stimuli and diets, and even the same body will often respond as well to very different programs, especially when using PEDs.pp

And then there is the backache effect. Most backaches go away in 6 weeks whatever you do or don't take for it, which is why you will get 100 different people swearing that 100 different placebos cured them. The same is true for training.

#17 RJ23_1989

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 35
  • Location:CONUS, LA
  • NO

Posted 02 September 2013 - 11:44 AM

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.



Certainly... here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17095919/

Now you see what you've made me do, break out pubmed when I'd rather be in bro mode :)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#18 RJ23_1989

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 35
  • Location:CONUS, LA
  • NO

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:05 PM

My personal reason for staying away from steroids is because of the needle usage... collapsed veins? No thanks.


Then stay away no longer my friend ;) You've always got oral and transdermal routes of administration. Heck there's even a guy in the medicine & disease section that is snorting a toxic oral steroid and going on hypomaniac rants of how he has become superhuman (I am not kidding).

Collapsed veins are a complication of intravenous drug administration. Steroids are not administered IV, rather intramuscular. Big difference.

I promise I'm not trying to pick on you Siro..you just strike me as a young man just starting out, with some rookie misconceptions that are easy to poke at.

Yes that is the 'bro' in me speaking, however I prefer to be thought of pseudo-bro as I can do all of this from a smartphone :D



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2



#19 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:14 PM

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.



Certainly... here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17095919/


Thank you!

If I have to listen to another "bro" spouting off that there is no such thing as a hardgainer, just guys who don't eat enough, I think I'll hit him over the head with this.
  • like x 1

#20 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:37 PM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.


Are you inferring anybody could win an Olympic gold or be an elite professional athlete...or even a college scholarship athlete no matter the genetics they were born with?


No, what I am inferring is that it could be ANYTHING that endows them with that ability.

Why not presume it is commitment? Why not Magic? Why not Luck?

I think these words make as much sense currently as 'genetics' when making these correlations.

As in no proof for any of it.

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.


Sure to win gold requires extreme commitment but the luck part comes in the form of what you were born with...which is the genetics passed on by your parents. That is changing though because the next generation of performance enhancers is gene doping and it's already began. If you don't like the genes you were born with, we'll just change the expressions. The next step will be designer babies and it's not far off.

Of course, my luck was in witnessing genetics at a very young age having been raised on a ranch. Generations of my family were involved in breeding prized purebreed registered Angus...and bloodlines (genetics) are everything in that game for a reason...because it's practically the only thing that matters. And that was how artificial insemination began....you could make more money selling seamen than selling bulls....it's like selling the same bull over and over. But it's all about genetics and the paper proving those bloodlines...because it's been proven over and over again through performance tracking. This has been documented for centuries. But without the genetic bloodlines, that seamen is worthless.

Another classic example is race horses. Try and buy a winning race horse and the price will be based on the bloodlines of the colt which is based off the performance of the sire (especially) and the dam...and any famous genetics further up the bloodline. You can't make a racehorse out of any old plug no matter how hard you try (Disney movies excluded).

The same is true in all the animal kingdom and humans are no different. You may want to read up on the latest genetic research. It's fascinating. Any just like with the racehorses, big money talks. And big money is being spent at high level sports to leverage genetic research into individually designed training and diets. It's not surprising that genetic research has revealed the basis for one size doesn't fit all.

And as far as performance enhancers, people are naive if they don't think it's pervasive at all levels right down to high school. Because once again, money talks...and big money is involved...starting with college scholarships and ending with Olympic gold or a professional contract...and we're talking millions of dollars....huge incentive to succeed...at any cost. And they work. But often it still is not enough to exceed the next talented guy with better genetics...who just might be using performance enhancers also.

And we've haven't even began to talk about the recreational athletes that simply want to look good in the gym or impress the girls or win a local contest. Performance enhancers are readily available and very commonly used/abused. Apparently many are still naive to the truth.

#21 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:57 PM

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.



Certainly... here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17095919/

Now you see what you've made me do, break out pubmed when I'd rather be in bro mode :)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


That's a 'review'. Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted as gospel evidence of anything. And it does not indicate that there is a specific difference in 'genetics' between individuals that makes one more prone to muscularity and extreme sports endurance while other's more likely to be lazy bastards.

I quote:
"Unfortunately, progress is slow in the field of genetics of fitness and performance, primarily because the number of laboratories and scientists focused on the role of genes and sequence variations in exercise-related traits continues to be quite limited."

End quote.
  • dislike x 2

#22 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:05 PM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.


Are you inferring anybody could win an Olympic gold or be an elite professional athlete...or even a college scholarship athlete no matter the genetics they were born with?


No, what I am inferring is that it could be ANYTHING that endows them with that ability.

Why not presume it is commitment? Why not Magic? Why not Luck?

I think these words make as much sense currently as 'genetics' when making these correlations.

As in no proof for any of it.

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.


Sure to win gold requires extreme commitment but the luck part comes in the form of what you were born with...which is the genetics passed on by your parents. That is changing though because the next generation of performance enhancers is gene doping and it's already began. If you don't like the genes you were born with, we'll just change the expressions. The next step will be designer babies and it's not far off.

Of course, my luck was in witnessing genetics at a very young age having been raised on a ranch. Generations of my family were involved in breeding prized purebreed registered Angus...and bloodlines (genetics) are everything in that game for a reason...because it's practically the only thing that matters. And that was how artificial insemination began....you could make more money selling seamen than selling bulls....it's like selling the same bull over and over. But it's all about genetics and the paper proving those bloodlines...because it's been proven over and over again through performance tracking. This has been documented for centuries. But without the genetic bloodlines, that seamen is worthless.

Another classic example is race horses. Try and buy a winning race horse and the price will be based on the bloodlines of the colt which is based off the performance of the sire (especially) and the dam...and any famous genetics further up the bloodline. You can't make a racehorse out of any old plug no matter how hard you try (Disney movies excluded).

The same is true in all the animal kingdom and humans are no different. You may want to read up on the latest genetic research. It's fascinating. Any just like with the racehorses, big money talks. And big money is being spent at high level sports to leverage genetic research into individually designed training and diets. It's not surprising that genetic research has revealed the basis for one size doesn't fit all.

And as far as performance enhancers, people are naive if they don't think it's pervasive at all levels right down to high school. Because once again, money talks...and big money is involved...starting with college scholarships and ending with Olympic gold or a professional contract...and we're talking millions of dollars....huge incentive to succeed...at any cost. And they work. But often it still is not enough to exceed the next talented guy with better genetics...who just might be using performance enhancers also.

And we've haven't even began to talk about the recreational athletes that simply want to look good in the gym or impress the girls or win a local contest. Performance enhancers are readily available and very commonly used/abused. Apparently many are still naive to the truth.


Some of the guys I train Judo with are winning world championships, some of them are on their way to the olympics.

Do they possess extreme muscularity? No, and as a matter of fact some of them have high body fat.

Judo is a very competitive sport when taken up to the extreme level.

So whatever 'genetics' is required for "physical fitness" apparently eludes these quite amazing Judo players.

For all intents and purposes muscle memory is a huge aspect of martial arts, and ANYBODY is capable of that.

Similarly, muscle memory is a part of body building. And ANYBODY is capable of that.

Saying there is a reason why some guys are 6'2 while other's are 5'8 is like saying, "gee, you know I exist, you exist and the world exists, and how do you like that?"

It's superfluous. Diversity exists. Call it genetics, luck, what have you but it does not make one person superior than another from the outset. This stupid, elitist mind set is the reason why so many people are discouraged from participation in sports and such. I use to let that get to me till I realized the difference between me and the next guy is incidental. Nothing more.

In Judo there are weight classes because people are different, that goes without saying. But training Randori and Ne waza? Sometimes the small guy owns the larger guy, regardless of rank or muscularity or any of that.
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#23 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:20 PM

I find the statement "genetically gifted" kind of a scientific misnomer, as it screams of religious sentimentality.

Really? Gifted? From whom? How? It almost seems like one is alluding to miracles.


Are you inferring anybody could win an Olympic gold or be an elite professional athlete...or even a college scholarship athlete no matter the genetics they were born with?


No, what I am inferring is that it could be ANYTHING that endows them with that ability.

Why not presume it is commitment? Why not Magic? Why not Luck?

I think these words make as much sense currently as 'genetics' when making these correlations.

As in no proof for any of it.

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.


Sure to win gold requires extreme commitment but the luck part comes in the form of what you were born with...which is the genetics passed on by your parents. That is changing though because the next generation of performance enhancers is gene doping and it's already began. If you don't like the genes you were born with, we'll just change the expressions. The next step will be designer babies and it's not far off.

Of course, my luck was in witnessing genetics at a very young age having been raised on a ranch. Generations of my family were involved in breeding prized purebreed registered Angus...and bloodlines (genetics) are everything in that game for a reason...because it's practically the only thing that matters. And that was how artificial insemination began....you could make more money selling seamen than selling bulls....it's like selling the same bull over and over. But it's all about genetics and the paper proving those bloodlines...because it's been proven over and over again through performance tracking. This has been documented for centuries. But without the genetic bloodlines, that seamen is worthless.

Another classic example is race horses. Try and buy a winning race horse and the price will be based on the bloodlines of the colt which is based off the performance of the sire (especially) and the dam...and any famous genetics further up the bloodline. You can't make a racehorse out of any old plug no matter how hard you try (Disney movies excluded).

The same is true in all the animal kingdom and humans are no different. You may want to read up on the latest genetic research. It's fascinating. Any just like with the racehorses, big money talks. And big money is being spent at high level sports to leverage genetic research into individually designed training and diets. It's not surprising that genetic research has revealed the basis for one size doesn't fit all.

And as far as performance enhancers, people are naive if they don't think it's pervasive at all levels right down to high school. Because once again, money talks...and big money is involved...starting with college scholarships and ending with Olympic gold or a professional contract...and we're talking millions of dollars....huge incentive to succeed...at any cost. And they work. But often it still is not enough to exceed the next talented guy with better genetics...who just might be using performance enhancers also.

And we've haven't even began to talk about the recreational athletes that simply want to look good in the gym or impress the girls or win a local contest. Performance enhancers are readily available and very commonly used/abused. Apparently many are still naive to the truth.


Some of the guys I train Judo with are winning world championships, some of them are on their way to the olympics.

Do they possess extreme muscularity? No, and as a matter of fact some of them have high body fat.

Judo is a very competitive sport when taken up to the extreme level.

So whatever 'genetics' is required for "physical fitness" apparently eludes these quite amazing Judo players.

For all intents and purposes muscle memory is a huge aspect of martial arts, and ANYBODY is capable of that.

Similarly, muscle memory is a part of body building. And ANYBODY is capable of that.

Saying there is a reason why some guys are 6'2 while other's are 5'8 is like saying, "gee, you know I exist, you exist and the world exists, and how do you like that?"

It's superfluous. Diversity exists. Call it genetics, luck, what have you but it does not make one person superior than another from the outset. This stupid, elitist mind set is the reason why so many people are discouraged from participation in sports and such. I use to let that get to me till I realized the difference between me and the next guy is incidental. Nothing more.

In Judo there are weight classes because people are different, that goes without saying. But training Randori and Ne waza? Sometimes the small guy owns the larger guy, regardless of rank or muscularity or any of that.


I don't recall saying muscle size was the be all end all in all athletic competitions (that pertains to the sport of bodybuilding only). You're missing the bigger picture. Look at the Russians and the Chinese. They send kids to special schools at age 5 to spend their entire lives training for the Olympics. They all get the same intense individualized training side by side with each other. And the pressure to succeed is intense. Some will succeed and go on to the win or lose in the Olympics...others will fall by the wayside in incredible failure and disappointment. Succeeding or not will determine their entire life. But only the best survive. Why? Because they're destined through genetics.

Even in your example of the guys you know...even though they all want to win and go the the Olympics...and I'm sure they are all trying their hardest.....some will make it and some won't.....are you claiming that is due to sheer luck? Or some didn't try hard enough?

edit: All your example is proving is that an athlete is "gifted" in the single sport he has excelled at....those same athletes are not going to excel at another sport...why? Because their genetics have have provided them the tools to excel in what they can be good at. Look at team sports....the center is not going to be the quarterback now matter how hard he tries....because the genetics he was born with determined his destiny on the field.

Edited by Hebbeh, 02 September 2013 - 03:26 PM.

  • like x 1

#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:00 PM

I don't recall saying muscle size was the be all end all in all athletic competitions (that pertains to the sport of bodybuilding only). You're missing the bigger picture. Look at the Russians and the Chinese. They send kids to special schools at age 5 to spend their entire lives training for the Olympics. They all get the same intense individualized training side by side with each other. And the pressure to succeed is intense. Some will succeed and go on to the win or lose in the Olympics...others will fall by the wayside in incredible failure and disappointment.




You really do paint a dramatic picture.

First of all, again, why need it be the mysterious element of 'genetics' that is responsible rather than a difference in mindset, coaching, desire, etc? Why MUST it be deduced to genetics? There is no detailed atlas on this that I am aware of.


Succeeding or not will determine their entire life. But only the best survive. Why? Because they're destined through genetics.



Again, plenty of amazing athletes I work with are not "generically gifted" as you would put it. They just want to play Judo and they do it. Desire is the culprit. And till it can be proven that desire has an intrinsic link to 'genetics' I shall continue to call it desire.

Even in your example of the guys you know...even though they all want to win and go the the Olympics...and I'm sure they are all trying their hardest.....some will make it and some won't.....are you claiming that is due to sheer luck? Or some didn't try hard enough?


I am saying that there are politics involved sometimes, and in some cases the most 'gifted' is not the one on the olympic team. It might be because they lack desire. It might be a combination of that and politics. Genetics? I see no evidence of this at all. If that were the case then this predetermined field would only pick the most genetically desirable subjects. But it doesn't. Plenty of people are amazing Judoka. Not all make the olympic team for whatever reason. I cannot deduce it to genetics though. That's just an Abstruse assertion.


edit: All your example is proving is that an athlete is "gifted" in the single sport he has excelled at....those same athletes are not going to excel at another sport...why? Because their genetics have have provided them the tools to excel in what they can be good at. Look at team sports....the center is not going to be the quarterback now matter how hard he tries....because the genetics he was born with determined his destiny on the field.


Did Muhammad Ali ever excel at anything other than boxing? Yes, he was a great social commentator. Do both require genetics or perhaps a sequence of events that led him down a specific path in his life? The fact is you have zero evidence after your assertion that 'genetics' is the determinant. Where is the secret, esoteric atlas on this to be found? Please point the way. Thanks.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#25 RJ23_1989

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 35
  • Location:CONUS, LA
  • NO

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:14 PM

There is no Atlas on genetics that proves any mysterious genetic attributes are the primary contributor to any of it. If so I would like someone to show me.



Certainly... here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17095919/

Now you see what you've made me do, break out pubmed when I'd rather be in bro mode :)

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


That's a 'review'. Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted as gospel evidence of anything. And it does not indicate that there is a specific difference in 'genetics' between individuals that makes one more prone to muscularity and extreme sports endurance while other's more likely to be lazy bastards.

I quote:
"Unfortunately, progress is slow in the field of genetics of fitness and performance, primarily because the number of laboratories and scientists focused on the role of genes and sequence variations in exercise-related traits continues to be quite limited."

End quote.



Well lets ask the author of that study what he thinks, rather than what you've decided to interpret his words as..


Source HERE


To what extent do genes determine athletic ability?

Nobody knows the answer for sure and it depends on how specifically you define athletic ability. Most research suggests that genetics contribute significantly to sports performance, but it's very hard to put a number on. It's very hard to quantify football performance, for example. Most studies look at very specific endpoints: how much a gene contributes to muscle strength or maximal aerobic capacity, because those endpoints are very easy to measure from a research standpoint. If you try to parse it out, as much as 50 percent of muscle strength is determined by genetic factors.

  • like x 1

#26 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:23 PM

Again, plenty of amazing athletes I work with are not "generically gifted" as you would put it.


And how are you so sure of this?

I am saying that there are politics involved sometimes, and in some cases the most 'gifted' is not the one on the olympic team.


Are you claiming that the Olympic team is filled only by the coaches cherry picked favorites? That anybody not in the coaches good graces is not allowed to compete for a place on the team? Especially in an individualized sport?

Did Muhammad Ali ever excel at anything other than boxing? Yes, he was a great social commentator. Do both require genetics or perhaps a sequence of events that led him down a specific path in his life? The fact is you have zero evidence after your assertion that 'genetics' is the determinant. Where is the secret, esoteric atlas on this to be found? Please point the way. Thanks.


Did I ever say that a single individual may not be genetically inclined with multiple talents, both intellectual and physical?

We all have our strengths and weaknesses as determined by the genetics we were born with. The truly successful have learned to leverage their strengths....to excel at what they're capable of and not waste their life chasing dreams that they are not capable of. I doubt we would know who Muhammad Ali is if he had been bound and determined to be a basketball or baseball player instead of a boxer....because boxing is what he was genetically inclined to excel at. And I say the same about your Judo friends...they excel at Judo but science tells me they would not have been so successful in any number of other sports no matter how hard they tried....because they were genetically unsuited to play basketball for instance or be a world class sprinter...or a cyclist...or a gymnast.

#27 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:40 PM

Well lets ask the author of that study what he thinks, rather than what you've decided to interpret his words as..


Okay

To what extent do genes determine athletic ability?

Nobody knows the answer for sure



Exactly.

#28 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:48 PM

And how are you so sure of this?



You must first prove your positive before I am to attempt to prove it wrong.

Are you claiming that the Olympic team is filled only by the coaches cherry picked favorites? That anybody not in the coaches good graces is not allowed to compete for a place on the team? Especially in an individualized sport?


Nope. I can only say that sometimes it depends on your country of origin, your sponsors, etc.


Did I ever say that a single individual may not be genetically inclined with multiple talents, both intellectual and physical??


That's not what I asked. What I asked was could it have been a sequence of events that led him there instead of this abstruse thing you call 'genetics'?

We all have our strengths and weaknesses as determined by the genetics we were born with. The truly successful have learned to leverage their strengths....to excel at what they're capable of and not waste their life chasing dreams that they are not capable of. I doubt we would know who Muhammad Ali is if he had been bound and determined to be a basketball or baseball player instead of a boxer....because boxing is what he was genetically inclined to excel at. And I say the same about your Judo friends...they excel at Judo but science tells me they would not have been so successful in any number of other sports no matter how hard they tried....because they were genetically unsuited to play basketball for instance or be a world class sprinter...or a cyclist...or a gymnast.


You speak about it like it's predetermined fate and that sounds very religious minded to me. I cannot support that way of thinking. Especially with such scant evidence behind it.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#29 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:54 PM

And as far as performance enhancers, people are naive if they don't think it's pervasive at all levels right down to high school.


Of course yes. Even if athletes test clean later in their careers, the basic muscle mass is often laid down in high school under the influence of steroids.

A study on South African rugby players found that today's 18 year old players are on average10 kg (22 lbs) heavier than they were in 1992, due in large part to widespread teenage steroid use.

#30 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 570

Posted 02 September 2013 - 05:13 PM

Especially with such scant evidence behind it.


The evidence has been presented in many contexts and formats. As was previously stated, some things are difficult to place a distinct quantitative measurement on but that does not mean that it has no bearing whatsoever. As also previously stated, many other factors do come into play. I've never denied the aspect of the whole package....opportunities, coaching, commitment, dedication, training, nutrition, PED's, luck and I'm sure a few others certainly may tip the scales....but without the genetic potential to build on....you got nothing. How much does genetics play....like everything else in life it will vary from individual to individual and situation to situation...but just like you can't take an individual with an IQ of 80 and turn them into a genius...or even a brain surgeon or rocket scientist (at least I'm not letting them operate on my brain or fly in their rocket)....you can't turn a nag into a racehorse....or a lineman into a quarterback. Whether you are willing to be open to the evidence or not...and no matter what you may have been taught as a kid....not everybody is either suited or capable of becoming a Olympic or professional athlete. If it was that easy, it wouldn't be elite or pay millions. One thing I always taught my kids is.....don't expect life to be fair.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: testosterone, libido, sex drive, muscle madness, arnold, hairy chest

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users