IMO Size is more of a matter of time than a matter of will or won’t.
When I think genetic freak I rarely think size, but strength. I am only really impresed with strength with respect to body weight. The more obese or fat you are the less impressive you appear…no matter how much you lift.
I think height greatly affects realistic size too. If you disagree you are probably wrong.
[quote]Jhuczko wrote:
When I think genetic freak I rarely think size, but strength.[/quote]
Well, since that isn’t what we are discussing, that pretty much puts you in a strange situation, doesn’t it?
It would be more like both.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Jhuczko wrote:
When I think genetic freak I rarely think size, but strength.
Well, since that isn’t what we are discussing, that pretty much puts you in a strange situation, doesn’t it?
IMO Size is more of a matter of time than a matter of will or won’t.
It would be more like both. [/quote]
Try to make more sense next time you post.
Poor response…strange situation??? You could have came up with something better than that(use some wits)…please try again okay??? thanks…
Well, CT’s article has certainly answered my question. I am “Fast Twitch Very Dominant”, also thanks everyone else for the insight.
I consider people over 7 foot tall genetic freaks but they aren’t very muscular or strong, yet they make millions in the nba.
[quote]shizen wrote:
I consider people over 7 foot tall genetic freaks but they aren’t very muscular or strong, yet they make millions in the nba. [/quote]
Shaq is strong and muscular and he’s over 7 feet tall.
[quote]Jhuczko wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Jhuczko wrote:
When I think genetic freak I rarely think size, but strength.
Well, since that isn’t what we are discussing, that pretty much puts you in a strange situation, doesn’t it?
IMO Size is more of a matter of time than a matter of will or won’t.
It would be more like both.
Try to make more sense next time you post.
Poor response…strange situation??? You could have came up with something better than that(use some wits)…please try again okay??? thanks…[/quote]
I apologize. I’ll water it down for you next time.
Size would be both a matter of time spent training with genetics ultimately determining whether you “will or won’t”. That means it would be more like both.
You also posted:
[quote]When I think genetic freak I rarely think size, but strength.
[/quote]
Considering the forum you posted this in…
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Along these lines I really believe a lot of guys sell themselves short, thinking they’re capable of much less than they actually are and attributing the fact that somebody actually made serious gains automatically to super human genetics.
True freaks, those who can get amazing results with literally no effort represent around 0.13% of the population.
Here’s an article I wrote on the subject.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=790487
Also, see the attached picture of Dorian Yates… who would have said to the kid that he was a genetic freak for bodybuilding?[/quote]
That 80% of max chart is confusing, according to it I’m “very fast twitch dominant” but I’ve never considered myself strong.
From another perspective, coming from the agricultural industry, there has been decent progress in increasing growth rates and increased lean tissue yield on lower feed intakes based on genetics of the animal in the last few decades. Under controlled conditions when testing for performance of the male of the species the top 25% usually go on to reproduce those characteristics. The faster gaining animal that ate the lesser amount of feed and had the most lean tissue growth is the more economically valuable animal. The only way these increases can be passed on to offspring is through genetics as nutriton is balanced. This makes me think that genetics does play a significant role.
However, having said that can this be the case for the human species. We are not testing or controlling reproduction for superior abilities, we don’t all live under the same conditions, environment or food supply. So I am “on the fence” so to speak.
There is also a big difference between the genetic potential of an animal under ideal conditons (testing facility or lab like conditions) to what the real world is, in that the real world is about 60% of the ideal. Varying styles of environment or management being the biggest difference. The last few decades has shown the potential to increase lean tissue gain by several days on less food can change genetically year after year.
If you limit nutrients, or, the total environment is not quite right then nothing, man or animal, is going to make much progress. Either will end up being less than their potential. If every weight trainer was under the same “conditions” what would be the difference in growth over a 6 month time period. Would it be 2, 5, 10 lbs difference? What would it matter? Work hard and eat right to even get close to your potential. I never blame my genetics on lack of growth because there has always been something I could have done better, or, that life events got in the way of being even close to ideal. Like lots of people my gains are never what I would like. Damn genet…, never mind.
Just another perspective.
BB
Everyone seems to view genetics in terms of mass potential. It’s really a bit more broad than that. Flex Wheeler could never in his life look as good as Ronnie Coleman.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Everyone seems to view genetics in terms of mass potential. It’s really a bit more broad than that. Flex Wheeler could never in his life look as good as Ronnie Coleman.[/quote]
that’s much more opinion based. do I believe flex could attain the same size ronnie did, probably not, do I feel flex looked better in the 1999 mr. Olympia, hells ya.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Everyone seems to view genetics in terms of mass potential. It’s really a bit more broad than that. Flex Wheeler could never in his life look as good as Ronnie Coleman.[/quote]
Just because your a genetic freak doesn’t mean someone else can’t be more genetic freak than you. Flex may be more genetic freak than you, and ronnie may be more than him.
From another point you can have a genetic freak for staying in terms of bodyfat, where flex can eat pizza and pancakes all day and stay ripped while ronnie eats 3 servings of brussel sprouts and gains fat. Your taking everybody’s description a little too literal, there just relating it to size because thats what the OP asked. The same arguments and concepts can be related to all your broad terms or as in someone else said earlier strength.
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Along these lines I really believe a lot of guys sell themselves short, thinking they’re capable of much less than they actually are and attributing the fact that somebody actually made serious gains automatically to super human genetics.
True freaks, those who can get amazing results with literally no effort represent around 0.13% of the population.
Here’s an article I wrote on the subject.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=790487
Also, see the attached picture of Dorian Yates… who would have said to the kid that he was a genetic freak for bodybuilding?
That 80% of max chart is confusing, according to it I’m “very fast twitch dominant” but I’ve never considered myself strong.
[/quote]
Size and strength don’t always correlate as well as we would want them to. There are people stronger than Ronnie Coleman, but not as big. The point is that fast-twitch fibers make up the bulk of the muscle when you are lifting for low reps and high load. The ability to fully utilize your muscle fibers is a different topic.
Can’t have a Genetic Freak thread without a pic of the one and only “True” Genetic Freak… 