how much do genetics play a part in body building?
ive seen people mention a lot on here and other forums about genetics playing a huge part in body building, what do you think? do they? or do they not?
my OH says i have genetically gifted calves and biceps, calves of 19-20 inches and biceps of 17 inches, i have a large frame/bone structure, my wrists are just over 7 inches
what do you think? have your genetics helped you in your quest for a body building physique or have you had to work damn hard to get where you are?
im thinking it is right about the genetics but that you also have to work damn hard to where you want to want to be
i owe my calves to having 2 dislocating knees since 9 years old and doing about 15 years of physio which included calf raises not of reps but of minutes, i used to stop at 20 reps and the physio said to me 'why are you stopping' and said because ive done my reps, she said who said you are doing reps, you have to do minutes on calves not reps
i used to do 5 mins 3 times a day, 5 days a week, just body weight raises
|
Thread: genetics and body building
-
12-13-2011, 05:41 PM #1
- Join Date: Nov 2011
- Location: Beverly Hills, California, United States
- Age: 45
- Posts: 455
- Rep Power: 0
genetics and body building
im a girl who lifts
the girl with the 19 inch calves
-
12-13-2011, 05:46 PM #2
-
12-13-2011, 07:30 PM #3
At your stats, the majority of your measurements are fat, sorry to say. You would have to cut a lot to see what your muscular structure is like. For example, when I was chubbier with less muscle (actually, about this same weight...LOL), I had a decent waist. Once I started lifting a lot and got leaner, I discovered I have a very boxy waist with quite developed obliques even though I never do direct oblique work (though squats and DLs work them good). I also have always had tree trunk legs with big calves - muscle there is decent but part of that is that I still carry a relatively large amount of fat on them.
Gym PRs:
SQ: 360 x 1, BP: 165 x 1, DL: 330 x 2, OHP: 110 x 2
Best meet lifts (raw w/wraps):
SQ: 365, BP: 155, DL: 350, Elite total of 870 @165
Closest thing to a log, but better cause it's vids! = www.youtube.com/user/birdiefu
-
12-13-2011, 07:52 PM #4
yes and no.
if you want to make a professional career in bodybuilding and strive for that specific look, yes. please also note that a LOT of professional female BBs (the women you tend to see in magazines) use assistance on top of their already good genetics (ability to put on muscle, frame size/bone structure/limb length etc.).
if you want to recreationally build a good muscle base/lose fat, you can and should certainly do so. like everyone else, you're limited to your genetics in terms of what the muscle will look like on you with less fat on it.
beyond that, if your genetics are that of an average woman, the chances of ever looking like, say, iris kyle, are less than nil.Last edited by Miranda; 12-13-2011 at 08:21 PM.
"The human race is still largely a group of monkeys with slightly better grooming habits. Give them a microscope and and they'll examine their own ****, give them a telescope and they'll go looking for tits."
-
-
12-13-2011, 08:44 PM #5
-
12-13-2011, 08:55 PM #6
-
12-14-2011, 03:48 AM #7
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: , United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 5,036
- Rep Power: 18469
Have to completely agree with this^^. Drop 50 more pounds and then we will see how "gifted" you are! Sorry, but i have a friend who is a competitor, who has been lifting for 18 years and is at show weight, about 115 and is 5'2. This is someone who competes on the national/international level and is natural. She sits at 135 off season.
No friggin way at 199, are you "gifted" in anyway muscle wise, since you cant even see the muscle at this point. Dont care what measuremnts you have. If you are looking to lose weight and build muscle then it is going to take years to see the physique you are wanting.
Lets see some pics of these so called gifted parts. Otherwise, stfu and gtfo.www.bikinisandbiceps.com
IG@bikinisandbiceps
MPH, CPT and Nutrition and Wellness Coach
No one is going to care more about your progress than you. Everyone else is too busy chasing their own. You either do what you need to do to progress, or you remain where you are. The choice is yours.
-
12-14-2011, 03:54 AM #8
-
-
12-14-2011, 04:40 AM #9
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Houston, Texas, United States
- Posts: 5,495
- Rep Power: 18222
The only way I can see a woman being "genetically" gifted to have an amazing muscular stature is if for some reason she produces more testosterone than a typical woman does (hence the use of enhancements).
I don't think having a larger frame would make you more apt to carry more muscle, in fact I would imagine that you would need a relatively larger amount of LBM to look similar to a "typical" figure competitor with a smaller frame. Aesthetics are all about proportion and symmetry.Coming out of "retirement"...Meg is training for a Figure competition...again!!!
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=171008551&pagenumber=
My first ever training journal: Oh snap....Meg-O's training for a Figure comp...
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139228463
-
12-14-2011, 04:58 AM #10
- Join Date: Nov 2011
- Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Age: 33
- Posts: 36
- Rep Power: 0
I don't get girls that say they have a large frame? What the? Yes some girls are broader in the hips and the shoulders, but FAT does not mean you have a large frame, fat means you have fat.
I have larger then average calves for my size, so does my mum who weighs 115lbs. I don't particularly like my calves, even at my lowest weight I always wanted nice slender calves that I can fit into skinny leg jeans or boots, but then there are lots of girls who want my calves, always the way
That is genetics, being fat is not.
-
12-14-2011, 06:46 AM #11
-
12-14-2011, 07:00 AM #12
Let me tell you an example of a large frame
last Thanksgiving my brother, my (19 yr old) son and I measured each other
to compare numbers...shoulder width...we are within half an inch of each other...big and broad across the back and shoudlers. we are all within an inch or two of each other in height. I am 5ft 10, son is 5ft 11, my brother is 6ft.
my brother and I have the same size feet. We have the same size hands. Our wrists, ankles and calves are the same measurements. I am heavier then he is and still carry more fat. It has always been like this even as kids I weighed 10-15 pds more then he did. we are all very strong, very big people. Do I still need to drop fat? you bet but my skeletal structure? ya pretty big.
-
-
12-14-2011, 07:10 AM #13
That's just so insulting to such a large number of female athletes out there. There are women out there genetically gifted and built for sports and muscle building. To say that the only way they reach these standards is through drugs or defect just keeps this mentality toward attacking them going.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gold-800m.html
For the record Caster Semenya was proven by weeks of testing and large number of doctors to be completely female. Ofcoarse she had to suffer through gynecological exams, genetic testing, psychological testing.. and few other tests because someone believed a girl couldn't be that good at a sport.
-
12-14-2011, 07:13 AM #14
-
12-14-2011, 07:32 AM #15
On so many levels.. and women have to be first in the front lines to stopping this way of thinking. In truth we don't really now what women's full potential in sports is. Men have been pushed, trained, studied and encouraged in every way to excel at sports. As women we are behind on this learning curve. We don't have the large number of generation of learning and training that men... so we still have alot to learn about what the female body is capable of.
Then we have this idea that women are somehow limited simply by being women doesn't help. There's also the fact that a large number of women (including athletes) are afraid to push to their limits because women who excel at building musclemass and excel in their sports to much are often attacked in one way or another, be it accusations of drugs or just simply being made to feel that they want be seen as attractive as a smaller women would be, ect... we have alot to learn still and the men have a head start on us. lol A few generations from now when we see more money and encouragement being placed on female athletes at a younger age.. (plus more exceptence of the female body not being petite) ... then I think we start to see what women are physically cable of.
...and I think if you've ever seen pics of strongwomen in say the 1800's then we know that there are some women capable of building big muscles and strength.. cause they didn't have steroids! lol
-
12-14-2011, 07:43 AM #16
I don't really categorize differences as "defects" either. There are always variables and almost always a mixed bag of effort, genetics, methods, and knowledge.
☣ Off Season Preparations ☢
"Baywatch boobs would probably throw off my game. But sometimes they look like fun." -Gabrielle Reece
☆ Tattoos, spice, and bruises on ice; that is what derby girls are made of. ✯
"loosing weight" = the weight is loose and will run free, not sure if that's good for the environment though... stray fat everywhere.
-
-
12-14-2011, 07:50 AM #17
I don't either .. I just couldn't think of the right word without having to go into an explanation. LOL, I didn't want my post to go off into many directions.
I honestly think if you are born female then no matter what extra chromosome (or other difference) you have.. you should still be considered female. The Olympic committee does not see that way though. The Olympics are working on how to categorize what they consider to be mixed gender individuals. I think only in recent years has it become clear how just how many people fall into this category.
...and plus in my use of the word defect in the first post I was sorta using a word that would reflect others ideas of those differences not my own opinion. Ya know what I mean?? Like generally when someone says that the only way females can accomplish this or that is because they produce extra test.. it's generally a belief that there is something abnormal about that female. (not my opinion but in their opinion)Last edited by grace_ou; 12-14-2011 at 07:57 AM.
-
12-14-2011, 08:07 AM #18
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Houston, Texas, United States
- Posts: 5,495
- Rep Power: 18222
Maybe my post wasn't interpreted correctly. Some women do naturally produce more testosterone than the average female (I would call this a gift not a difference/defect), and add on top of that the fact that test. levels can increase with more intense and longer workouts (such as those performed by a world class athlete). So you would think any woman would be able to boost their test. levels by working their arses off, which I believe we can. Just look at all the natural ladies competing in BB.
But being genetically gifted doesn't mean that you will automatically gain more muscle, strength, speed, etc. It just means that you have the potential to be better than most but you still have to work your butt off to reach that full potential.Coming out of "retirement"...Meg is training for a Figure competition...again!!!
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=171008551&pagenumber=
My first ever training journal: Oh snap....Meg-O's training for a Figure comp...
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139228463
-
12-14-2011, 09:26 AM #19
-
12-14-2011, 10:31 AM #20
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Age: 45
- Posts: 642
- Rep Power: 5098
i think its annoying when people use genetic to justify their lack of efforts. you may have difficulty losing weight in some area, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to do.
most of the time, when someone says "we are fat in my family, its not my fault", the problem is more about food habits that run in that family.Yeah... I guess I should join the Over 35 Forum now, right ?
-
-
12-14-2011, 10:36 AM #21
Just gona answer the opening question. Yup for sure genetics have a lot to do with it. I'm mixed race and the black side of my family is full of athletic looking guys who do very little to take care of themselves (gawd only knows how they'd look if they did) and yet still have some srs muscle definition. Even my dad whose skinny, as a pretty impressive bod for an oldie. lol. That said, I can't say I've taken many of those genetics lol. I have to work damn hard to stay slim n trim. So for those who aren't genetically blessed, the same old advice applys. Work hard and get the best body YOU can get. We all deserve that, no matter what we're born with.
Best of luck.☆ pUniCepts Appreciation Crew ☆ Owner ☆ Σ ☆
-
12-14-2011, 11:56 AM #22Originally Posted by megdaig
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...potential.html
At least one study showed that light framed individuals gained less muscle mass compared to heavier framed individuals on the same training program and, at a more basic level, hormones such as testosterone/etc. impact on things like bone growth and frame size. So there is a biologically potential link between frame size and hormone levels that would contribute to trainability and ultimate gains in muscle mass.
It’s also no accident that top strength athletes typically have large frames and robust joints (or that those with relatively smaller frames tend to be drawn/succeed in endurance sports). Some of this is simply so they can handle the level of training needed to succeed at their sport; but some of it is probably indicative of overall hormonal status as well.
Originally Posted by megdaig
there is self-selection in sports. if you naturally excel at an activity, then it is likely you will successfully pursue it further. that doesn't mean everyone does. that doesn't stop people from trying, though, for what ever their effort may be worth.Last edited by Miranda; 12-14-2011 at 02:48 PM.
"The human race is still largely a group of monkeys with slightly better grooming habits. Give them a microscope and and they'll examine their own ****, give them a telescope and they'll go looking for tits."
-
12-15-2011, 06:01 AM #23
Not trying to burst your bubble but calves are the first place to hypertrophy when one is overweight (especially if severely overweight/obese) without the need to use resistance exercise. Likewise, going on an "all you can eat" diet (read, surplus calories and being overweight) is anabolic as it is and renders lean body mass gains on its own, again, without resistance exercise. Thus, it is imprecise to draw any conclusions about being genetically gifted when one is fat. It is only when the subject is within a lean bodyfat % range that one can truly see which body areas are gifted for muscle development.
All the best.
-
12-15-2011, 06:59 AM #24
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: , United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 5,036
- Rep Power: 18469
Ok, again, lets see some pics.
And for the record, just over 7 inches is AVERAGE wrist size for women, not really genetically "gifted" in anyway. This is why most bracelets are sold as 7.25 inches because that is what fits the AVERAGE women. You more than likely have an AVERAGE body frame for your height.
and at 9 stone you would be roughly 126 lbs, and i highly doubt your calves were genetically gifted, as your perception of "small" and "big" seem to be way way off mark.
But i believe nothing without pics. You have none and therefore everything you say is suspect.www.bikinisandbiceps.com
IG@bikinisandbiceps
MPH, CPT and Nutrition and Wellness Coach
No one is going to care more about your progress than you. Everyone else is too busy chasing their own. You either do what you need to do to progress, or you remain where you are. The choice is yours.
-
-
12-15-2011, 07:14 AM #25
-
12-15-2011, 07:31 AM #26
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: , United States
- Age: 42
- Posts: 5,036
- Rep Power: 18469
She keeps claiming "when i was 9 stone they were big" so those are the pics i was refering too. What she has in her pic is no proof of anything but fat calves.
Not hating, but lets keep it real. Very very few women are going to be gifted muscle wise as we have talked about in the other posts. And certainly at 199 pounds, you are not going to be able to even tell which body parts are your strong points.
I always thought my legs were my "strongest" point of my body and that was with 30% + bf, when in reality, my back has responded the best with the training. So it wont be until she drops about 50 pounds, sees what shes got and then is training for a while before she will even be able to tell if she is "gifted in any area.
All this talk about being "large frame" and gifted is just crap.www.bikinisandbiceps.com
IG@bikinisandbiceps
MPH, CPT and Nutrition and Wellness Coach
No one is going to care more about your progress than you. Everyone else is too busy chasing their own. You either do what you need to do to progress, or you remain where you are. The choice is yours.
-
12-15-2011, 09:11 AM #27
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Age: 55
- Posts: 1,405
- Rep Power: 1832
For the sake of my sanity I'm not even going to address OP's 'gifted' issue...but I really don't get how people don't understand that there are different body frame sizes out there...it's not crap...some people do have a large/small frame...
Goal: Peace, love & happiness...and arms that go bump in the night.
“It's never been true, not anywhere at any time, that the value of a soul, of a human spirit, is dependent on a number on a scale" G. Roth
-
12-15-2011, 09:13 AM #28
-
-
12-15-2011, 09:25 AM #29
-
12-15-2011, 09:42 AM #30
Similar Threads
-
MISC : Do i even have potential (body building/model wise) (srs)(INDIAN)
By 5foot7inchguy in forum Misc.Replies: 111Last Post: 01-20-2012, 03:13 AM -
Gastric Bi- Pass and Body Building
By pheonixdraconis in forum Losing FatReplies: 14Last Post: 11-02-2008, 07:55 PM -
Genetics? Naa...I don't think there is such a thing in bbing. Honestly...
By B.b. in stress! in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 62Last Post: 07-27-2006, 01:22 PM -
15 Body-Building Myths
By ice_man89 in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 6Last Post: 07-24-2006, 11:49 AM -
Propecia and Body Building
By adamhum in forum SupplementsReplies: 34Last Post: 09-10-2005, 08:11 PM
Bookmarks