Toney freeman genetic monster or idiot?

[TheSheepdog]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WTF

spot on with everything, glad i didnt have to type all that sht

[TheSheepdog]

Bodybuilders don't lift weights, they contract their muscles against resistance.

In the video he says, "it's all about the squeeze", and he's correct.

The biceps are a small muscle group. They can't move much weight on their own. If you are curling massive weights, you are using more than your biceps. That defeats the purpose of doing curls.

Taking steroids doesn't change the rules of physiology. If you want to look like a pro, you should emulate the training of pro's. In bodybuilding and every other sport. Yes, I just said it. I know it's taboo.

Steroids simply allow you to stimulate growth more often without getting burned out. The general rule, whether you take steroids or not, is the more often you train a bodypart, the faster it will grow. Frequency of training = frequency of growth.

Steroids don't "change the rules" of the game. They simply allow you to play the game harder than you could otherwise. Theoretically, if you could fully stimulate every muscle group on every day, you would turn into a monster. Soreness is a natural barrier which prevents that, but which can be overcome with the right drugs. So, steroids aren't growth stimulants, they are merely recovery aids. The frequency and intensity of lifting is the one and only growth stimulant. It is the body's own natural mechanisms of hypertrophic and neural adaptation that are responsible for ALL steroid-related gains.

In other words, the growth you get on roids is your own, natural growth.

Now meatheads can start calling steroids "natty" and all this BS about shrimps-as-bodybuilders can end.



They're no more elite than a typical, semi-athletic person from the "normal population". What makes them stand out is their training, dieting, and supplementation. Your uncle with 37% bodyfat could have the best deltoid genetics known to man and nobody would ever seen them unless he got his ass into a gym and trained consistently.

In other words, the growth you get on roids is your own, natural growth.

wow, wow, i heard some sht before but this takes the cake

Taking steroids doesn't change the rules of physiology. If you want to look like a pro, you should emulate the training of pro's. In bodybuilding and every other sport. Yes, I just said it. I know it's taboo.

how can this be when all pros train differently and if you're a natural you wont be able to recover like a aas user

[ThatArmyKid]

this thread kinda took off while i was sleeping

[Ajk_Lpool]

And I'm sure you're the genius that could tell him how to make them his best bodypart!

Wow man, that was really funny.

Tony freeman's arms are his worst bodypart. What made you take that to heart?

Negged.

[jocktheglide]

Why did you even need to post that questions.

If yo uwatched the video you would see he says " I tried to do heavier weight thinking my arms would maybe grow but they never did."

Then he talks aobut doing lighter weights and really focusing on the squeeze and thats how his arms grew.


Your questionwas answered in the video!

cause he hates freeman and jelous.

[GluteStrength]

not necessarily. More than one way to skin a cat and all...



probably because it's wrong.



*blinks* there are a good 10-15 other factors that have to be considered before you post that equation. Steroid use DRASTICALLY alters this factor (Frequency) as well as many other factors.



although I think i see where you're coming from, and I get the feeling you're doing a 'devil's advocate' type thing, steroids DO change the rules.

The rules for a natural bodybuilder include allowances for the FACT that you will lose a much greater %age of your muscle mass while dieting. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include far less recovery for each bodypart. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include a completely different method for bringing up weak bodyparts (since you can't spot inject creatine into your pisspoor lateral delts), etc. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include WAYYYYY less calories taken in since you won't have the powerful nutrient-partitioning affects of steroids, GH, IGF, insulin, t3 and clen (and DNP for some).



No.

Theoretically, if you could stimulate every single muscle group on every day, while recovering both locally (muscle) and systemically (i.e. nervous sytem), then yes, you would turn into a monster if your natural genetics allowed for it. However, if you have the genetics of Manute Bol, or the world's best marathoner, you simply aren't going to be able to build the necessary muscle mass.



actually, yes they are growth stimulants. In and of themselves, someone who doesn't lift weights but takes steroids will get more muscular and will burn bodyfat. Obviously the results are 214890x as great when you train and eat properly.



uh, no. You need to go read some more.



there is a natural genetic limitation we all have. The more testosterone you take, the more you raise that limit. The more GH you take, the more you raise that limit. Those aren't necessarily linear, nor are they identical for all people, but you WILL be able to maintain more muscle mass on 3g of test than you will on 2g. Users don't stop adding more gear because it stops working, they stop because the side affects outdo the extra potential for growth. It's the whole "limited returns" concept.



I have no clue what you're talking about here.



completely incorrect



what makes them stand out is their genetics. A large part of that genetic issue is your own personal ability to tolerate large amounts of drugs without having serious issues. Some people simply can't hang for a long period of time without destroying their bodies, and I don't mean injuries-wise. Their bodies simply can't hang with the amount of drugs they need to take. The side affects get too much, their bodies end up "short-circuiting", and you end up with guys like Nasser and Matt Mendenhall, both of whom had awesome genetics and achieved incredible development, yet whose stars faded rapidly.

Do you honestly think that guys like Flex wheeler, Paul Dillet and Kevin Levrone have the genetics of the "typical, semi-athletic person from the "normal population"."?

I don't think you do. I think you're playing devil's advocate.



that is a true statement.

The same argument can be made about baseball in the 1920s and Babe Ruth. Ruth may have been light years ahead of anyoen who was playing at the time, but my uncle who never stepped foot onto a baseball field may have had the potential to hit worlds better than Ruth, except that he, along with the vast majority of potential athletes at the time, were working in factories and mills.

Coulda
Woulda
Shoulda


DIDN'T

Sorry to say, but I disagree with most of what you had to say and agree alot with Al Shades. In theory, what you say makes sense but this is reality.

Taking steroids alone and sitting on your couch all day watching television won't get you built. Sure you'll build mass, fat mass, not to mention a plethora of uneccesary side effects and health problems. You HAVE to, *HAVE* to lift and push yourself even while taking AAS. I know a guy who wasn't even near his natural limit, took steroids, half-assed his way at the gym and still looked like every other fat American out there. On the other hand, I know a guy who took steroids, had the genetics of a twig and blew up 80 lbs of solid muscle in 4 years. Genetics is important, but they are not COMPLETE BARRIERS, you can overcome it.

As for the pros who you think have magical genetics that only they can achieve, I think you're wrong. He made a GREAT point about a 37% bf uncle who may have great delts but would never know otherwise since he doesn't work out. The only difference between pros and normal population is that they simply have elite will power and discipline. There could be someone who's got greater genetics than Coleman but we'd never know about it because that person probably doesn't work out.

[TheSheepdog]

you can overcome genetics as far as the growth of a muscle and the time it takes for it to grow, but not how that muscle is going to look once its matured, that is strictly genetics

[GluteStrength]

you can overcome genetics as far as the growth of a muscle and the time it takes for it to grow, but not how that muscle is going to look once its matured, that is strictly genetics

Okay true, agreed.

[Npeart]

Exactly. But the young kids typically are going by heavier weights = huge muscles bull**** they get from others at school. Once a kid starts to put on some decent weight and attains a decent mind muscle connection is all about refining and using the weight properly. Not just piling more of it on.

X2! My brutha from anutha mutha. . .

[Al Shades]

not necessarily. More than one way to skin a cat and all...

Hardly. You're either stimulating the targetted muscle or you aren't. If there was a way to add weight to the movement without shifting the stress to other muscle groups, I'm sure bodybuilders would have figured it out and would be doing that already. The weight they use in practice is the highest load they've been able to isolate the muscle with.

probably because it's wrong.

It isn't wrong. It's the plain and simple truth. What's wrong is the claim that you should listen to self-professed guru's because they know how to train better than the people whose profession it is.

*blinks* there are a good 10-15 other factors that have to be considered before you post that equation. Steroid use DRASTICALLY alters this factor (Frequency) as well as many other factors.

No, there really aren't. Manipulate any number of factors you want but train once every other week. See how much good it does you. The relative importance of frequency is obvious. It is the #1, single-most important factor, period. Steroids drastically increase recovery ability, thus allowing for far greater frequency.

although I think i see where you're coming from, and I get the feeling you're doing a 'devil's advocate' type thing, steroids DO change the rules.

The rules for a natural bodybuilder include allowances for the FACT that you will lose a much greater %age of your muscle mass while dieting. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include far less recovery for each bodypart. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include a completely different method for bringing up weak bodyparts (since you can't spot inject creatine into your pisspoor lateral delts), etc. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include WAYYYYY less calories taken in since you won't have the powerful nutrient-partitioning affects of steroids, GH, IGF, insulin, t3 and clen (and DNP for some).

I think you're right about this. Hormones do, indeed, have these powerful effects. However, I think that what I said was fundamentally accurate - that steroids allow you to play harder, but they don't change the rules. Listen to this: There is more than one way to manipulate one's hormone levels. I'm doing it right now without taking any steroids or drugs. I eat animal fats to keep my test levels high (confirmed by blood tests), and I'm taking steps to reduce my elevated cortisol levels (also confirmed).

As far as the nuances of bodybuilding competition go, I never agreed with them in the first place. In fact, I've been a vocal critic of the extreme dieting undertaken in natural bodybuilding competitions. That's why I refer to them as "shrimp". Because they're tiny and it looks completely ridiculous. They should bulk before going on stage.

Theoretically, if you could stimulate every single muscle group on every day, while recovering both locally (muscle) and systemically (i.e. nervous sytem), then yes, you would turn into a monster if your natural genetics allowed for it. However, if you have the genetics of Manute Bol, or the world's best marathoner, you simply aren't going to be able to build the necessary muscle mass.

Most people are not genetic mutants. They fall within the norm of the bell curve. And I would, without hesitation, presuppose that this includes the majority of professional athletes. The term "genetic freak" is thrown around far too often. I've got some news for you: True "freaks" usually get put into the circus or the hospital - not on the playing field. Biology tells us that genetic mutations tend to be DISadvantageous to organisms more often than not.

actually, yes they are growth stimulants. In and of themselves, someone who doesn't lift weights but takes steroids will get more muscular and will burn bodyfat. Obviously the results are 214890x as great when you train and eat properly.

Two ways this can be addressed:
1) First, if it's true, then why is it that some people who take steroids (and others who claim to know of such examples) claim to see no benefits? I see a double standard here. When we talk to our own, we tell them, "steroids are no substitute for proper nutrition and hard work - they aren't miracle pills". Then we turn around and tell outsiders the very opposite. Well, which is it?

2) The second way to address this is to point out the fact that a person doesn't have to be lifting weights in a gym to trigger muscular hypertrophy. You can gain mass lifting shopping bags and walking up stairs. Put a bed-ridden person on steroids and I doubt they'd gain anything.

uh, no. You need to go read some more.

Enlighten me. What else stimulates growth besides frequency and intensity (work/time)?

there is a natural genetic limitation we all have. The more testosterone you take, the more you raise that limit. The more GH you take, the more you raise that limit. Those aren't necessarily linear, nor are they identical for all people, but you WILL be able to maintain more muscle mass on 3g of test than you will on 2g. Users don't stop adding more gear because it stops working, they stop because the side affects outdo the extra potential for growth. It's the whole "limited returns" concept.

I don't quite buy the "natural genetic limit" concept. It's not exactly written in stone in anybody's physiology, is it? There's no real way to test for it, because it's a made-up concept. As I said, the only limit is one's recovery capacity, which is directly enhanced by steroids. But again, that's not fully quantifiable.

what makes them stand out is their genetics. A large part of that genetic issue is your own personal ability to tolerate large amounts of drugs without having serious issues. Some people simply can't hang for a long period of time without destroying their bodies, and I don't mean injuries-wise. Their bodies simply can't hang with the amount of drugs they need to take. The side affects get too much, their bodies end up "short-circuiting", and you end up with guys like Nasser and Matt Mendenhall, both of whom had awesome genetics and achieved incredible development, yet whose stars faded rapidly.

Are you a geneticist? Have you examined DNA samples from professional athletes in dozens of sports? Don't talk to me about "genetics" until you have. Genetics don't exist, in practical reality. The concept is a spook unless you happen to be a lab scientist.

Do you honestly think that guys like Flex wheeler, Paul Dillet and Kevin Levrone have the genetics of the "typical, semi-athletic person from the "normal population"."?

I don't think you do. I think you're playing devil's advocate.

Heh, heh...you must not have seen any those guys lately. Check the pics below.

And if you try to tell me something along the lines of, "they went off roids/stopped training/etc" I'll simply reply that the typical, semi-athletic person doesn't train seriously (if at all), doesn't take roids, and eats poorly. So there.

[LSU1]

It's what works for you that matters.

Some folks would find that a rep range between 12-15 stimulates maximal growth. For others it's a rep range of 3-5.

We're all built differently.

But as a general rule, bigger weight does generally equaly bigger muscles.

reps on recharge for lsu

[mplsmack]

Wow man, that was really funny.

Tony freeman's arms are his worst bodypart. What made you take that to heart?

Negged.

Damn, my whole day is ruined you negged me! And that comment pissed me off because he has drastically improved his arms from when he started so the light weight seems to be working.

[Riz]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...3&d=1187909167

oh my god. did he really let himself go that badly? or photoshop?

[LiFtHaTiRoN]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jF3Owl4toVo

look at his workout tips on how to get big arms lmao do you see the weight he using like 50 lbs and he says thats what gets his arms bigger

THis is goes against everything ive learned on how to make myself grow

btw i'm not looking for advice from the pros just want to know if he is missleading those who are

Dont go judging him so fast. If you read on his technique that he uses it is very possible to make the muscle grow. He says that if you can not flex the bicep as in a front double bicep with the same kind of contractile strength when doing bicep curls then you are using too much weight. Apparently he has found a way to make that workout strategy very intense and effective for himself.

[Al Shades]

Two more examples:

Jamie Eason and Valeria Waugaman

They went from completely-average looking women (physique-wise) to two of the most "gifted" female fitness models today.

How many hidden "genetic freaks" do YOU know?

Probably lots.

My serious advice to anyone who wants to pursue bodybuilding is to quit worrying about "genetics", train as often as you can, and when the time comes, get on some powerful supplements (steroids). If you have the dedication, you CAN look like the people in the magazines. They are just normal people with above-normal dedication.

"The harder I train, the better my "genetics" seem to get" - somebody else on this forum. Certainly true in my case.

[Al Shades]

oh my god. did he really let himself go that badly? or photoshop?

The consensus on the thread I took it from was that it was real.

[Duckenheimer]

Heh, heh...you must not have seen any those guys lately. Check the pics below.

And if you try to tell me something along the lines of, "they went off roids/stopped training/etc" I'll simply reply that the typical, semi-athletic person doesn't train seriously (if at all), doesn't take roids, and eats poorly. So there.

If your intent is to show us these guys don't have exceptional genetics, it's failed. 1: Their muscle belly length (and shape) are unusually long. Thus greater potential for growth. 2: They're all still pretty muscular... letting oneself go fat or not being interested in being a mass monster all your life has no bearing on ones genetic potential. 3: Levrones pre-contest mass gains, Dillett and Wheelers lazy training.

Some skinny guys who you'd call an ectomorph have to potential to be 270lbs of muscular bodyweight, Many mesomorphs may not hit past 240. Modern lifestyle corrupts how you view somebody's 'natural' body.

And I'd wager the best in any sport are almost invariably genetically gifted.

[Ajk_Lpool]

Damn, my whole day is ruined you negged me! And that comment pissed me off because he has drastically improved his arms from when he started so the light weight seems to be working.

Really? Because to me his arms still look like his worst bodypart. & on the Olympia stage, his arms get crushed by Dexter, Victor, Ronnie, Jay, and everyone else in the top 10.

lol @ your user CP comment. Yea man I'm sure you'd kick my ass if I was down in your area. You douche.

[TheGreekHulk84]

Everyone has the genetic potential to build muscle mass, unless theres a condition or disease that wont allow it, but not many people have the genetics to measure up to the top 10 bodybuilders in the world, unless they train extremely hard for a number of years. It depends also on the muscle skeletal and nervous system make up of the person to take all the years of punishment(training) and on top of that the various other enhancers ,GH , diuretics, etc, that would wear out the person over the years. If you see someone performing lighter reps at a gym, people tend to look down on them and mock them but if something works really well then why change it? If i was power lifting and then doing lighter weights then it would be stupid. Also people look real dumb when they try and lift big weights with ****ty form and you wonder who they are trying to impress because theres a gym full of guys laughing at them, so the pros aren't trying to impress anyone but the judges and win by training smart so they don't get injured and bail out of bodybuilding all together.

[stealth_swimmer]

Two more examples:

Jamie Eason and Valeria Waugaman

They went from completely-average looking women (physique-wise) to two of the most "gifted" female fitness models today.

How many hidden "genetic freaks" do YOU know?

Probably lots.

I think the look obtained by figure girls is pretty much obtainable by most women if they put everything together correctly. (diet, training,)

Funny how his arms are his worst bodypart. lol

Yes, but they used to be much, much, MUCH, worse than they are now. So, obviously his training has worked for them. They are still behind, but not nearly as much as they used to be.

[ElMariachi]

It's great to see so many people here defend Toney, he is really a smart guy. I was at that photo shoot, who do you think asked him questions to get him talking while training and held the microphone so you could hear him clearly - me silly Anyways, he really does train with lighter weights, and yes he really did use NO-Shotgun before his workout, I watched him mix it up, even asked the gym for a cup and spoon. But yeah, thanks for supporting Toney, he is prepping for the O right now and looks pretty darn good so far! (which is only expected of the X-man, right?)

On this I will agree. Toney is A VERY nice guy. Very professional and friendly. I got a chance to meet him here in Arizona and became an even bigger fan of his since that point.

[kethnaab]

Hardly. You're either stimulating the targetted muscle or you aren't. If there was a way to add weight to the movement without shifting the stress to other muscle groups, I'm sure bodybuilders would have figured it out and would be doing that already. The weight they use in practice is the highest load they've been able to isolate the muscle with.

so why do barbell presses, DB presses, chinups, lat pulldowns, rows, squats, and deadlifts exist? They don't isolate any muscle in the least. Far from it.

It isn't wrong. It's the plain and simple truth. What's wrong is the claim that you should listen to self-professed guru's because they know how to train better than the people whose profession it is.

It IS wrong because what works for person A won't necessarily work for person B. If it was, then after 50 years of weight training, we would've figurd out how to train, yet take a look at Dorian yates, Ronnie, Arnold and Lee Haney. Between the 4 of them, they have almost 30 Olympias, yet their training and nutrition was/is VASTLY different.

No, there really aren't. Manipulate any number of factors you want but train once every other week. See how much good it does you. The relative importance of frequency is obvious. It is the #1, single-most important factor, period. Steroids drastically increase recovery ability, thus allowing for far greater frequency.

Yet Arnold trained 6 days per week and hit each bodypart 3 times per week, whereas many of today's bodybuilders hit each bodypart 1 time per week, only train 4-5 days per week, and they are eating far more and taking far more drugs. So..wow...what you say isn't adding up.

Frequency is nowhere near the most important factor. How about intensity? Volume? Age? Conditioning?

Oh here's one, how about exercise selection? So it's' okay for me to do cable crossovers and leg extensions instead of bench presses and squats, eh? As long as I train often, it'll work? Wow! *slaps self in forehead* Why didn't I think of that?!?! All these bodybuilders all these years should be doing the pec dec 3x daily! Duh! It's so obvious now! :eyeroll:

There is more than one way to manipulate one's hormone levels. I'm doing it right now without taking any steroids or drugs. I eat animal fats to keep my test levels high (confirmed by blood tests), and I'm taking steps to reduce my elevated cortisol levels (also confirmed).

How old are you?

I've been a vocal critic of the extreme dieting undertaken in natural bodybuilding competitions. That's why I refer to them as "shrimp". Because they're tiny and it looks completely ridiculous. They should bulk before going on stage.

I agree that natural bodybuilding contestants look terrible onstage, for the most part (no Rob Hope). However, they don't do "extreme dieting" anymoreso than pro's. They just don't have the drugs to cause the bodyfat losses like pro's do.

Most people are not genetic mutants. They fall within the norm of the bell curve.

and they aren't the ones that are getting Heismans, Stanley Cups, and Sandows.

True "freaks" usually get put into the circus or the hospital - not on the playing field. Biology tells us that genetic mutations tend to be DISadvantageous to organisms more often than not.

strawman, you know damn well what people are talking about. Lawrence Taylor was a genetic freak. Javon Kearse is a genetic freak. Incredible talent/ability/potential is nowhere near the bell shaped curve.

Two ways this can be addressed:
1) First, if it's true, then why is it that some people who take steroids (and others who claim to know of such examples) claim to see no benefits? I see a double standard here. When we talk to our own, we tell them, "steroids are no substitute for proper nutrition and hard work - they aren't miracle pills". Then we turn around and tell outsiders the very opposite. Well, which is it?

Both. An untrained person who takes steroids will increase their muscle mass and decrease their fat mass without any other changes to their lifestyle. This isn't conjecture, this has been confirmed countless times over.

However, the "no miracle pills" argument is testament to the fact that if you want SERIOUS results, then you have to work your ass off for them. If you shoot a gram of test weekly, then why the **** would you waste it by sitting on your rump watching Family Guy reruns (well, good ab workout from laughing, but I digress)

2) The second way to address this is to point out the fact that a person doesn't have to be lifting weights in a gym to trigger muscular hypertrophy. You can gain mass lifting shopping bags and walking up stairs. Put a bed-ridden person on steroids and I doubt they'd gain anything.

ironic that one of the primary legitimate uses is exactly to do just that. To help stop and reverse muscle wasting in extreme burn victims (god bless A50!) and for bedridden and HIV-infected folks who suffer from wasting syndromes and severe muscular atrophy.

Enlighten me. What else stimulates growth besides frequency and intensity (work/time)?

I could go all day with this one, but I'll hit the most obvious one.

*grunts and groans* RARRWRWWRRR!!! Yes! New PR! Balls to the wall bay-bee!! Yeah!

*high-fives his workout partner*

New PR with cable triceps kickbacks! Yep! 3 times per week, super hard workouts with these suckers and I'll have horseshoes in no time flat!

I don't quite buy the "natural genetic limit" concept. It's not exactly written in stone in anybody's physiology, is it? There's no real way to test for it, because it's a made-up concept. As I said, the only limit is one's recovery capacity, which is directly enhanced by steroids. But again, that's not fully quantifiable.

I don't buy the "only limit is one's recovery capacity". It's not exactly written in stone in anybody's physiology, is it? There's no real way to test for it, because it's a made-up concept.

Are you a geneticist? Have you examined DNA samples from professional athletes in dozens of sports? Don't talk to me about "genetics" until you have. Genetics don't exist, in practical reality. The concept is a spook unless you happen to be a lab scientist.

okay man. The world's flat, too. Sorry. :eyeroll:

Heh, heh...you must not have seen any those guys lately. Check the pics below.

And if you try to tell me something along the lines of, "they went off roids/stopped training/etc" I'll simply reply that the typical, semi-athletic person doesn't train seriously (if at all), doesn't take roids, and eats poorly. So there.

So...what? They let themselves get out of shape so they look like ****. Duh?

What you are proposing is that if Joe Average goes on Paul Dillet's workout regimen and drug regimen and training regimen, that he'll look like Paul Dillet after <x> number of years? Or Flex Wheeler? Or Kevin Levrone?

Levrone trained 6 months out of the year. Dillet was notorious for being lazy as hell in the gym and barely breaking a sweat. Flex stated outright that he was so frequently lax with his diet.

Again, I know you're talking out your ass, as usual. I don't think you lift weights. I think you study the sport, but come here to troll.

Back to the subject...Toney Freeman kicks ass and I hope he comes in huge, shredded, and hard as nails and walks out with a Sandow. Go Toney!

[kethnaab]

Taking steroids alone and sitting on your couch all day watching television won't get you built. Sure you'll build mass, fat mass, not to mention a plethora of uneccesary side effects and health problems. You HAVE to, *HAVE* to lift and push yourself even while taking AAS.

oh for chrissakes, read what I wrote.

Tests have been done that demonstrate in untrained people who do no exercise, steroids add muscle and reduce fat. Obviously you aren't going to become the next Mr. O, but the point stands. STeroids stimulate muscle growth in and of themselves. In order to get anywhere, you have to bust your ass, of course. I never stated otherwise.

Genetics is important, but they are not COMPLETE BARRIERS, you can overcome it.

you can get yourself as far as your genetics allow. I agree with that. I agree that it takes extremely hard work to get to the limit of your genetics. Explain to me where I said otherwise.

As for the pros who you think have magical genetics that only they can achieve, I think you're wrong.

and you are naive.

He made a GREAT point about a 37% bf uncle who may have great delts but would never know otherwise since he doesn't work out. The only difference between pros and normal population is that they simply have elite will power and discipline. There could be someone who's got greater genetics than Coleman but we'd never know about it because that person probably doesn't work out.

Your first sentence is 100% true. Your middle sentence is laughably naive. Your last sentence is 100% true.

[DiamondDelts]

not necessarily. More than one way to skin a cat and all...



probably because it's wrong.



*blinks* there are a good 10-15 other factors that have to be considered before you post that equation. Steroid use DRASTICALLY alters this factor (Frequency) as well as many other factors.



although I think i see where you're coming from, and I get the feeling you're doing a 'devil's advocate' type thing, steroids DO change the rules.

The rules for a natural bodybuilder include allowances for the FACT that you will lose a much greater %age of your muscle mass while dieting. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include far less recovery for each bodypart. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include a completely different method for bringing up weak bodyparts (since you can't spot inject creatine into your pisspoor lateral delts), etc. The rules for a natural bodybuilder include WAYYYYY less calories taken in since you won't have the powerful nutrient-partitioning affects of steroids, GH, IGF, insulin, t3 and clen (and DNP for some).



No.

Theoretically, if you could stimulate every single muscle group on every day, while recovering both locally (muscle) and systemically (i.e. nervous sytem), then yes, you would turn into a monster if your natural genetics allowed for it. However, if you have the genetics of Manute Bol, or the world's best marathoner, you simply aren't going to be able to build the necessary muscle mass.



actually, yes they are growth stimulants. In and of themselves, someone who doesn't lift weights but takes steroids will get more muscular and will burn bodyfat. Obviously the results are 214890x as great when you train and eat properly.



uh, no. You need to go read some more.



there is a natural genetic limitation we all have. The more testosterone you take, the more you raise that limit. The more GH you take, the more you raise that limit. Those aren't necessarily linear, nor are they identical for all people, but you WILL be able to maintain more muscle mass on 3g of test than you will on 2g. Users don't stop adding more gear because it stops working, they stop because the side affects outdo the extra potential for growth. It's the whole "limited returns" concept.



I have no clue what you're talking about here.



completely incorrect



what makes them stand out is their genetics. A large part of that genetic issue is your own personal ability to tolerate large amounts of drugs without having serious issues. Some people simply can't hang for a long period of time without destroying their bodies, and I don't mean injuries-wise. Their bodies simply can't hang with the amount of drugs they need to take. The side affects get too much, their bodies end up "short-circuiting", and you end up with guys like Nasser and Matt Mendenhall, both of whom had awesome genetics and achieved incredible development, yet whose stars faded rapidly.

Do you honestly think that guys like Flex wheeler, Paul Dillet and Kevin Levrone have the genetics of the "typical, semi-athletic person from the "normal population"."?

I don't think you do. I think you're playing devil's advocate.



that is a true statement.

The same argument can be made about baseball in the 1920s and Babe Ruth. Ruth may have been light years ahead of anyoen who was playing at the time, but my uncle who never stepped foot onto a baseball field may have had the potential to hit worlds better than Ruth, except that he, along with the vast majority of potential athletes at the time, were working in factories and mills.

Coulda
Woulda
Shoulda


DIDN'T

Excellent post.

[user23960508710783]

Two more examples:

Jamie Eason and Valeria Waugaman

They went from completely-average looking women (physique-wise) to two of the most "gifted" female fitness models today.

How many hidden "genetic freaks" do YOU know?

Probably lots.

My serious advice to anyone who wants to pursue bodybuilding is to quit worrying about "genetics", train as often as you can, and when the time comes, get on some powerful supplements (steroids). If you have the dedication, you CAN look like the people in the magazines. They are just normal people with above-normal dedication.

"The harder I train, the better my "genetics" seem to get" - somebody else on this forum. Certainly true in my case.

Your view is very inspiring -- I would love to think it primarily just took hard work and dedication, that it basically came down to how bad I wanted it; but it's hard to be that optimistic.

Plus, there just seem to be differences between people.

Some people are just inherently better at certain things than other people are: bodybuilding being no different than music, math, foreign languages and so on.

[warbird00]

WTF, sounds like something i been saying for a while now

also he is a professional bodybuilder, dont get fooled by what he says, he has lifted heavy before, probably for most of his life, but is now going lighter weight. Like Jay said he use to do 500, 600 lb squats but now he doesnt go over 400. At some point in these guys careers they worry more about sketching their bodies then trying to build mass and destroying their joints

Yeah, if you guys have watched the Mr. O series theres a trend Bob pointed out. Almost all of the competitors trained heavy for years. Now that their all 30+ they cant do that any more because their risk injury, so they train light.

[kethnaab]

Yeah, if you guys have watched the Mr. O series theres a trend Bob pointed out. Almost all of the competitors trained heavy for years. Now that their all 30+ they cant do that any more because their risk injury, so they train light.

I too have had to do this.

When I was a strappin' yooot, I hit it hard and heavy all the damn time

I have found that my body simply doesn't tolerate that kind of training too well anymore.

[Anabolistic]

I dont know what Freeman talkin' about on that video.

I have never built any part of my body without HEAVY weight.

[kethnaab]

I too have had to do this.

When I was a strappin' yooot, I hit it hard and heavy all the damn time

I have found that my body simply doesn't tolerate that kind of training too well anymore.

I dont know what Freeman talkin' about on that video.

I have never built any part of my body without HEAVY weight.

*points upward*

[TheSheepdog]

I too have had to do this.

When I was a strappin' yooot, I hit it hard and heavy all the damn time

I have found that my body simply doesn't tolerate that kind of training too well anymore.

likewise