99 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

The evidence has been presented in many contexts and formats.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

[niner]

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.
[...] 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.

PatrickM500 posted a nice entree into the literature on this as of 2005 or 6. I'm sure it's progressed since then. If you really want to see what's there, you'll need to do some research. You seem to be arguing that genetics mean nothing, which is certainly not the case. I don't think anyone is claiming that genetics is the ONLY factor in athletic success. What I hear Hebbeh saying is that if your genes are against you, you aren't going to make it into the elite ranks. Most of us are never going to be elite, and would be happy just being the best we can be, whatever our genetic endowment. We can all get better than we start out, if we train properly. No one is disputing that. If you have the right genes, you can get "more better". That's all.

Please don't argue merely for the sake of argument.

[nowayout]

Especially with such scant evidence behind it.

The evidence has been presented in many contexts and formats.

Religious folk say the same about the existence of 'God'.

Proof is still not forthcoming.

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

There is also some good evidence for genetic determinants of aspects of people's response to different dietary regimens. Leaving aside for now the long known genetically determined question of lactose intolerance, genetic differences have also more recently been shown to influence people's response to high fat diets (some are prone to gaining weight and others to losing) and to influence how their waist size and health markers would respond to diets high in monounsaturated fat, to mention just two examples. So there are solid genetic reasons for why the same diet won't work for everybody.

Edited by nowayout, 02 September 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[RJ23_1989]

Its more or less the same priciple as someone born with a photographic memory. Its an innate ability that can't be matched, on even terms, from attempting to replicate it through hard work and determination. You have it because of your genetics.

The irony is, some of the most capable and (genetically) gifted athletes that I have known have also been the least motivated. They never had to work hard for what they had, so why should they? In those instances, those who do little or nothing with that ability can be matched or exceeded by someone who applies a lot of hard work, training, and determination and will likely achieve the same level of performance BUT given someone with that innate ability who applies those same levels of effort as the 'non gifted', will completely blow past their teammates.

I think this personal story fits in pretty nicely with that - I had the privilege of training with former UFC heavyweight champion, Ricco Rodriguez back when he took a break from fighting and was the lead instructor at a facility here in town. Ricco didn't look any different from anyone else but he had that 'something special' that all professional level athletes have that others do not. Every time he stepped into the ring to spar it was amazing to watch this guy's level of concentration, pure aggression, and sense of timing. Most of us, myself included were downright scared of him despite our own years of training. You simply could not beat him no matter how hard you tried, and the amazing thing was this guy was no 'student of the arts', he was just pure natural talent (inasmuch as how he was wired) so to speak.

I still wouldn't classify Ricco as elite level though, he was very undisciplined and in many ways he was his own worst enemy and roadblock to further success. There's some cool footage on the Internet of Bas Rutten (who was elite level at the time) sparring with him and Bas quite frankly 'beat the living hell' out of Ricco, eventually knocking him out (accidentally though, it was a sparring session). Those genetics are a gateway to greatness, its how you learn to apply it that will make you or break you.

The performance level that some of the elite athletes are capable of is absolutely staggering. Ryan Hall can run an entire marathon at a 4:45 minute/mile pace for 26 miles straight. Its ludicrous to think that any hard working, determined individual could accomplish that with enough effort. There's another good story of a pro basketball player ( I forget offhand who he played for) that was a second string starter who became the butt of jokes with the fans that he didn't belong there, was a no talent bench warmer etc. The guy finally got tired of the trash talk and issued a challenge to any local player that wanted to come and do a one on one match. The picked out the top 20 guys and he 'smoked' them. IIRC the closest one of them got was something like 50-3. And this guy was probably the least talented on the team.

[JohnD60]

or some reason I can not quote the original post

Hey, so we all know what 'Broscience' is, right?
Is there a place for BroScience outside the Gym (or even in the gym)?

As in everything else, it depends on the Bro. But I would say with certainty that there is a place for Broscience outside the gym. For years during the 70s, the official position of the AMA was that Steroids did not work. Broscience 1, AMA 0. I think Broscience is somewhat unique to Bodybuilding because there is little motivation for any reputable organization to study musclular development using PEDs for healthy people. PEDs are stigmatized and marginalized to underground labs. Even HRT medicine is scrutinized closely be the FEDs. Broscience exists because there is little above ground science on the subject. It just is what it is. You have to pick and choose what you think makes sense. I find most Broscience to be self serving, examples: "even though you are taking the drugs, you still have to do the work in the gym", "it is 90% diet, discipline and hard work" The rationale being "although I am taking all these PEDs, I am not really cheating because I have to work for it"

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

Exactly

On the subject of natural ability vs. hardwork and training. I would say that getting to the elite level in any major athletic endeavor (I do not include Judo, or skate boarding, or archery, or long distance water skiing in that category because they are not practiced by a signficant number of people), is 80% natural talent, and 20% everything else. The average height of an NBA player is 6'8", I can not think of a better example of how important natural talent is.

Edited by JohnD60, 03 September 2013 - 03:54 AM.

[TheFountain]

PatrickM500 posted a nice entree into the literature on this as of 2005 or 6. I'm sure it's progressed since then. If you really want to see what's there, you'll need to do some research. You seem to be arguing that genetics mean nothing, which is certainly not the case.

It all seems so abstruse. It does not have any specific correlations that can be pointed out.

What I hear Hebbeh saying is that if your genes are against you,

Which I find as paranoid as "the devil is all around us, be scared!".

you aren't going to make it into the elite ranks. Most of us are never going to be elite, and would be happy just being the best we can be, whatever our genetic endowment. We can all get better than we start out, if we train properly. No one is disputing that. If you have the right genes, you can get "more better". That's all.

Let's see a ready made accurate test that verifies these "right genes" in specific individuals. Thanks.

Please don't argue merely for the sake of argument.

You mean kinda like people who point to imaginary agencies like "genetics" to back up unproven claims?

lol

[TheFountain]

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

I disagree, and find the 'evidence' circumstantial at best and beyond that obvious and superfluous. It's like saying "gee, you're different, he's different, we're all different and how do ya like that?". I mean let's begin with telling me something I don't know, that is actually proven objectively without a doubt.

There is also some good evidence for genetic determinants of aspects of people's response to different dietary regimens.

The problem I have is we are talking basic kinetic biology. Muscle movement. Muscle growth. Not more profound biological determinants involving genes that have to do with macronutrient regulation and all that jizz.

Beyond this:

On the very basic level, it would seem that height, eye color, hair color, skin tone and the aspects of Gene expression that have been proven has given way to an imaginary summation of other genetic traits that have not been proven, at all really but merely surmised. And the elite mind set wishes it were proven by now, even if it isn't. I once called it fill-in-the-gaps science. But perhaps Broscience would be just as applicable to this.

Edited by TheFountain, 03 September 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[JohnD60]

A non-steroid user can get as big as a roid-rager, it will just take them longer.
Everyone on this planet who is capable of doing an exercise can get as big and as ripped as they want, if they want.

I do not agree with these statements

[nowayout]

A non-steroid user can get as big as a roid-rager, it will just take them longer.
Everyone on this planet who is capable of doing an exercise can get as big and as ripped as they want, if they want.

I do not agree with these statements

I don't agree either. Certainly they are obviously wrong in the case of women versus men, and it is also obviously wrong to claim that all men have exactly the same natural potential.

[Hebbeh]

Yeah, quite honestly, those are the types of comments made by PED's users that don't own up to their PED use and want everybody to believe they just worked harder than everybody else to get ripped. This is classic bro science. It was the ZMA. This is prevalent even in the pro's....when caught....deny deny deny....then excuses.

[nowayout]

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

I disagree, and find the 'evidence' circumstantial at best and beyond that obvious and superfluous. It's like saying "gee, you're different, he's different, we're all different and how do ya like that?". I mean let's begin with telling me something I don't know, ...

If it's obvious and you know it, I don't understand why you are arguing that it is not so. Or are you? I'm not sure anymore.

[TheFountain]

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

I disagree, and find the 'evidence' circumstantial at best and beyond that obvious and superfluous. It's like saying "gee, you're different, he's different, we're all different and how do ya like that?". I mean let's begin with telling me something I don't know, ...

If it's obvious and you know it, I don't understand why you are arguing that it is not so. Or are you? I'm not sure anymore.

People are different, this is a fact of life. But performance and genetics is a very abstruse linkage with no evidence supporting it.

No argument. Fact.

[RJ23_1989]

I think I can illustrate the role of genetics a lot easier using this example:

What you are looking at is a comparison table of 3 distinct genetic phenotypes that Whippet breeders have been able to produce through selective breeding. The difference lies in the expression (mutation) of the (MSTN) myostatin gene. Type A is the standard bred racing whippet. Type B is the single copy MSTN mutation. Type C is the the double MSTN mutation. It should be noted that these dogs were bred this way:




It is the type B that is most interesting.. The study makes a pretty direct statement which I have highlighted below, and I agree with 100%:

STUDY: A Mutation in the Myostatin Gene Increases Muscle Mass and Enhances Racing Performance in Heterozygote Dogs

Dana S Mosher, Pascale Quignon, Carlos D Bustamante, Nathan B Sutter, Cathryn S Mellersh, Heidi G Parker, Elaine A Ostrander

"An individual's genetic profile can play a role in defining their natural skills and talents. The canine species presents an excellent system in which to find such associative genes. The purebred dog has a long history of selective breeding, which has produced specific breeds of extraordinary strength, intelligence, and speed. We have discovered a mutation in the canine myostatin gene, a negative regulator of muscle mass, which affects muscle composition, and hence racing speed, in whippets. Dogs that possess a single copy of this mutation are more muscled than normal and are among the fastest dogs in competitive racing events. However, dogs with two copies of the same mutation are grossly overmuscled, superficially resembling double-muscled cattle known to possess similar mutations. This result is the first to quantitatively link a mutation in the myostatin gene to athletic performance. Further, it emphasizes what is sure to be a growing area of research for performance-enhancing polymorphisms in competitive athletics. Future implications include screening for myostatin mutations among elite athletes. However, as little is known about the health issues and potential risks associated with being a myostatin-mutation carrier, research in this arena should proceed with extreme caution."


The direct linkage is there in lower species (this is a peer reviewed study and rather a well known one), and if you look at the opinion of most experts on PED's they will agree that the future is gene doping, just as the authors of this study postulate. IMHO, the future studies in humans will play out exactly like this one.

I would be VERY interested to see research delve into this area:

Future implications include screening for myostatin mutations among elite athletes.


I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a high degree of correlation between the MSTN gene and elite human sprinters. (I think its very interesting that even at the canine level, the dog pictured in the top pane of phenotype B has a physio-type that looks very much like an human elite sprinter athlete).

The problem is... the human genome is large, and it is complex, it will take time to properly identify the correct markers. The early evidence is building in that direction. Is it jumping the gun to assume that definitive proof already exists? I say yes (proof exists) but I guess it depends on which side of the argument your on

We'll be seeing a study like this one in humans... Its just matter of time.

Edited by PatrickM500, 03 September 2013 - 08:19 PM.

[nowayout]

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

I disagree, and find the 'evidence' circumstantial at best and beyond that obvious and superfluous. It's like saying "gee, you're different, he's different, we're all different and how do ya like that?". I mean let's begin with telling me something I don't know, ...

If it's obvious and you know it, I don't understand why you are arguing that it is not so. Or are you? I'm not sure anymore.

People are different, this is a fact of life. But performance and genetics is a very abstruse linkage with no evidence supporting it.

So are you saying there is not a genetic basis for people being different? I find it hard to believe that you would believe that. As someone said, you are now just arguing for the sake of it.

[JohnD60]

It is interesting that there is more genetic performance information on horses and dogs than on people. In this interview http://www.theverge....etic-excellence David Epstien, author of the book The Sports Gene, touches on why concerns about being attacked as Racist or Sexist discourages scholarly study in regards to human genetics.

[RJ23_1989]

Its because there is an unspoken rule in modern society that says, "we must promote the idea that life is fair, and all individuals are equal." Great book, by the way..

Edited by PatrickM500, 03 September 2013 - 09:17 PM.

[Hebbeh]

There is big money involved in horse racing and dog racing and unlike designer human breeding (yet), designer breeding in animals is common.....so the animal research is both currently viable and profitable. Follow the money.

[nowayout]

Its because there is an unspoken rule in modern society that says, "we must promote the idea that life is fair, and all individuals are equal."

Very good point.

This rule (or rather, myth) is ironically very useful to justify inequality in our society. If life is fair, then rich people are richer than the rest of us because they deserve it, not because they had better opportunities. The poor are poor because deserve to be poor, so there is no reason to make sure they have health care and other basic rights.

Also, the myth is the basis for society's negative judgment on performance enhancing drugs. Life is fair, after all, so everybody could be a pro athlete with just enough work. Without drugs the playing field would be equal, since there are no meaningful differences in genetic potential - after all, life is fair. Yeah right.

[niner]

PatrickM500 posted a nice entree into the literature on this as of 2005 or 6. I'm sure it's progressed since then. If you really want to see what's there, you'll need to do some research. You seem to be arguing that genetics mean nothing, which is certainly not the case.

It all seems so abstruse. It does not have any specific correlations that can be pointed out.

Of course it's abstruse if you aren't willing to learn enough about biology to understand it. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means you don't understand it because you haven't made the effort to learn about it.

you aren't going to make it into the elite ranks. Most of us are never going to be elite, and would be happy just being the best we can be, whatever our genetic endowment. We can all get better than we start out, if we train properly. No one is disputing that. If you have the right genes, you can get "more better". That's all.

Let's see a ready made accurate test that verifies these "right genes" in specific individuals. Thanks.

23andMe/Promethease might be a good place to start.

Please don't argue merely for the sake of argument.

You mean kinda like people who point to imaginary agencies like "genetics" to back up unproven claims?

lol

Genetics is imaginary? Is that what the bros think? Most people here have a pretty decent level of scientific literacy, and don't enjoy getting trolled by science denialists.

[TheFountain]

There is some solid evidence for genetic determination of the preponderance of fast twitch versus slow twitch muscle fibers, which influences whether someone will be a better sprinter or distance runner, but also would influence the person's performance in strength endeavours including bodybuilding.

I disagree, and find the 'evidence' circumstantial at best and beyond that obvious and superfluous. It's like saying "gee, you're different, he's different, we're all different and how do ya like that?". I mean let's begin with telling me something I don't know, ...

If it's obvious and you know it, I don't understand why you are arguing that it is not so. Or are you? I'm not sure anymore.

People are different, this is a fact of life. But performance and genetics is a very abstruse linkage with no evidence supporting it.

So are you saying there is not a genetic basis for people being different? I find it hard to believe that you would believe that. As someone said, you are now just arguing for the sake of it.

I make no assertions either way. Simply pointing out that the abstruse linkage between a specific gene expression and performance is only surmised, not proven.

Its because there is an unspoken rule in modern society that says, "we must promote the idea that life is fair, and all individuals are equal." Great book, by the way..

MMA shows that size means shit. You often see less muscular guys beating the shit out of the bigger, more alpha (looking) types.

Genetics is imaginary? that what the bros think?

No, Bros create imaginary linkages between gene expression and performance that have not been proven at all, and then pretend they have been thoroughly proven. They do this to project themselves as part of an elite. But the majority of them are not well known. Which is fine. You don't have to be well known to be a well meaning human being. But if they were on to something I think they would have pooled their resources and proven the link. By the way I didn't mean genetics is imaginary, I meant their linkage to performance and other abstruse wannabe elitist horse shit is.

Most people here have a pretty decent level of scientific literacy, and don't enjoy getting trolled by science denialists.

I am not a science denialist. I just think that the surmised linkage between genes and performance is just that, surmised. Not proven at all. Otherwise show me where?

Oh yea, you can't.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 September 2013 - 03:52 AM.

[TheFountain]

Let me make it clear that I am not saying a degree of genetic determinism is outside the scope of reality. But it is so obvious it is almost not worth mentioning.

But I will mention it since Niner seems to think its obviousness eludes me and that as such I am a "science denialist" lol!

As I pointed out. Hair color. Eye color, height (to a lesser degree), skin color. These all fall under the purview of proven genetic determinism.

I am simply of the view that genetic determinism and performance is a little more abstruse and a lot less proven than all the previous items of determinacy.

And I don't see why anybody has a problem with this.

Oh wait, it's because if the linkage is false then elitism is a fantasy. That's right.


Here's a question for you guys. Would you have somebody not make any effort at all because, hey, their genes are "no good" according to some dipshit somewhere who thinks he knows everything? Isn't THAT Broscience?

Every single individual I have known who has committed themselves to working out, to eating right, to improving their cardio and other aspects of their health, has had nothing less than amazing results, regardless of how tall, short, fat, skinny they were before they began. Some of them have gone on to achieve athletic greatness and some of them choose only to dabble in it as a recreation.

So instead of genetics, why can't simple interest be the impetus here?

Edited by TheFountain, 04 September 2013 - 04:09 AM.

[Hebbeh]

MMA shows that size means shit. You often see less muscular guys beating the shit out of the bigger, more alpha (looking) types.

You seem hung up on everything being based on muscle size and it's been stated numerously that muscle size is not the be all end all unless you're talking about bodybuilding. Every sport has it's own skill set and that is why an athlete can be elite in one sport and not any others. Of course some can be all around athletes too. But that is where genetics comes into play...and not just in muscle size or even strength. There are countless different physical attributes that are required to excel at any number of different sports each involving totally different talents and skill sets. And different athletes can have any mix of natural inborn talents...and why one athlete may excel at sprints and another at marathons and neither will be a serious competitor to the other no matter how hard they try. The genetic mix involves 1000's of traits determined by 1000's of genes...and any individual can have an unlimited mix of the countless varieties...no 2 will ever be alike except for identical twins. It's much more complex than just sheer muscular strength...unless maybe you're a power lifter.

A much more powerful natural talent for your MMA guys rather than sheer brute strength is a unique mix of quick (cat like) reaction time including timing of body moves in addition to balance and coordination...of course the guy with superior quickness, timing, and balance is going to whoop the guy who has nothing but strength (unless he gets a "lucky" punch). But put that elite MMA guy against an elite boxer...and who knows what may happen. But the bottom line is that each has there own natural strengths to build off of which is determined by their genetics. One guy may be naturally quicker while the next may be naturally strong. Then they can build and hone those natural abilities.

And I have known guys that were naturally strong...without ever being in a gym...stronger than many that trained for strength...because they apparently were lucky to be born with that gift (whether you like the term or not). Like I said before, I grew up in the country and I knew country boys that weren't athletes so to speak and never set foot in a gym but they could kick damn near anybody's ass and that is no joke...believe it...they were born that way.

Bottom line...everybody is good at some things and isn't so good at others...often no matter how hard you may try...because you were born that way. We all have our strengths and weaknesses....just like we all have different IQ's and all have different risk factors for different disease states....it's all in our genetic code. You can maximize your potential but the only way to exceed your potential is with PED's....but each of our potential is different...and no where is that more evident than at the elite level...and why some make it in the Pro's any others don't.

[Hebbeh]

Here's a question for you guys. Would you have somebody not make any effort at all because, hey, their genes are "no good" according to some dipshit somewhere who thinks he knows everything? Isn't THAT Broscience?

There is no way at this time to decisively determine what your capabilities are without trying and proving it to yourself because as stated earlier there is no single gene to determine yea or nay. There are any countless combinations of 1000's of genes and it is going to be up to you to determine what you can do with that combination. But a given is that you won't excel at both sprints and marathons...if if you think you can...I'll take that bet.

But the day is near...in fact I know it's being discussed...that parents can have their babies genetically tested to determine where their strengths lie and then start them on the fast track at a very young age to groom them into the activities that they have they greatest chance of success at...it's coming and not far off.

So instead of genetics, why can't simple interest be the impetus here?

That's what most of us do....recreational athletes. Very few of us are elite or professional athletes. We all want to have fun and enjoy life...but few will get rich at it.

[RJ23_1989]

I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and I don't mind participating in constructive debate. I've tried to do that with you Fountain.

However, its the same old routine all over again isn't it?


I think its pretty obvious what "per se" means. Clearly I'm not insinuating that in my statement, and your short inflammatory response is meant to bait me into defending my answer in a context that was in no way implied. I'll say it again.. Nice try.

Edited by PatrickM500, 04 September 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[niner]

Here's a question for you guys. Would you have somebody not make any effort at all because, hey, their genes are "no good" according to some dipshit somewhere who thinks he knows everything? Isn't THAT Broscience?

Has anyone ever suggested that you are prone to black and white thinking? The reason I ask is because you keep inferring extreme views like this when NO ONE has suggested such. In fact, I said just the opposite thing a few posts back. This is what people consider to be trollery.

So instead of genetics, why can't simple interest be the impetus here?

Hmm. I guess that's the real difference between me and Michael Jordan. He was just more interested in basketball than I was. And I guess he flamed out in his second career as a baseball player because he wasn't sufficiently interested in it. Did you know that successful major league hitters have very average reaction times? However, they have visual acuity that is a couple standard deviations better than average. Did their rod & cone density get higher due to interest? Or were they born that way?

Why did you start this thread, anyway?

[RJ23_1989]

Its because there is an unspoken rule in modern society that says, "we must promote the idea that life is fair, and all individuals are equal." Great book, by the way..

MMA shows that size means shit. You often see less muscular guys beating the shit out of the bigger, more alpha (looking) types.

Well that is news to me

Wouldn't you think after reading what I said about training with Ricco that I don't know that lol..

Seriously though, what the heck does that have to do with what you quoted me on above??

[Hebbeh]

http://www.scienceda...30905101950.htm

The study's findings suggest that, with respect to diversity in
protein function, the individual differences between two people
are greater than previously assumed.

[TheFountain]

"The idea that we can reprogram our genes through lifestyle behavior constitutes the central premise of this book. It also represents a clear departure from today's fatalistic conventional wisdom, which suggests that our genes, for better or worse, determine our destiny and that we have little say in the matter"-Mark Sisson!

[TheFountain]

^^^^ That is the granddaddy of Paleo himself saying Genes do NOT control our destiny if we make the effort to control theirs!

[nowayout]

Nobody said behavior does not influence health. But the power we have over our genes is limited, as you will learn as you grow older, start losing parents and relatives to diseases they didn't "deserve" based on lifestyle, and start seeing the effect of uncontrollable genes on yourself.

And who is Mark Sisson that we should pay him any attention? Did he by any chance win a Nobel or something?

Edited by nowayout, 14 September 2013 - 06:55 PM.