I was just wondering how muscular somone can become without weight training (in a traditional sense) IF THEY WERE TO EAT TO SUPPORT MUSCLE GROWTH AND STILL PLAY IN PHYSICALLY DEMANDING SPORTS?
(Sorry for the CAPS, I just wanted ppl to read past “without weight training” before responding)
The reason why I ask is because many ppl feel that diet is more important that exercise when it comes to body composition (not strength training).
Not to mention that HITers seem to make gains in body composition with very minimal weight training if their diet is in order.
Anywho, just interested what your take on it and hearing your own personal experience.[/quote]
People talk about genetics being a copout, but this is exactly what people are really talking about when they say “genetics”. The people that don’t lift weights, don’t necessarily diet and still weigh >200 ripped, what are they doing? If it ain’t diet or training what is it?
Sorry for the rant, as to your specific q, I think it depends on the sport you’re talking about. I think, given the appropriate predisposition, one could achieve the upper limits of “natural” physiology without “weight training”. That said, you could quite easily draw the genetic 2-7 offsuit hand (sorry too much hold 'em last night) and end up needing all of the best diet and training to achieve equivalent muscularity. I think a lot of input will be anecdotal because it’s hard to tell if the sport makes the muscle or if the muscle makes the sport, but for my $.02;
Rugby, LaCrosse, Gymnastics, and to a lesser extent Hockey, seem to contain/generate some of the largest non-lifters, IMO.