growth

rick1965 · 10-02-2007, 08:11 PM

can you stop growing even though you go heavy and take sups?

jgreystoke · 10-02-2007, 08:40 PM

I'm sure there are genetic limitations on size.

Who the hell ever reaches them, I wonder? Even the mightiest guys could probably have gotten a little bigger and stronger.

I don't worry about it anymore. I used to think my bulked up weight was maxed out at 160lbs, lol.

Now I'm shooting for 260!

And apart from creatine, minerals and vits, my biggest bang for the buck supplement is semi skimmed milk!

Reality_Check · 10-03-2007, 01:17 AM

I think there are genetic limitations on size, in the sense that you get diminishing returns as you progress.

A steroid free newbie might gain 5 or more kg of lean tissue in a year (I've never gained more than 3 or 4 myself), but he's not going to gain that every year for 20 years hence ending up with an additional 100kg of muscle mass (or an additional 200kg muscle mass for those who think newbies can gain 10kg per year, or an additional 300kg even if you are on steroids).

Likewise if you start out adding 50 lb to your bench every year, you are still not likely to be going to be benching an extra 1000 lb after 20 years (without a bench suit).

The question is what is that limit? Its obviously going to be lower for a natural BB than one on roids.

I can remember a while back surfing the net and getting as many height and weight figures for winners of various state, national and international (supposedly) natural body building competitions. And there was an amazing uniformity of every one of them having a BMI of between 29 and 30 (except one guy who got 30.5 and another got 32). That jelled with something I read decades ago in a so called encyclopedia of exercise (or something) which said as a body builder you should aim for a BMI of over 29.

(Of course if you are talking about chemically enhanced body builders the BMI is more like 40 and over).

Bottom line is if you have enough lean mass that you could set foot on a body building stage at a BMI of 29 at say 5% BF, then you are among the best of the best natural body builders in the world, and assuming you don't take steroids you would then have an excuse for saying "I am not progressing much because I am close to my genetic limit". If you are a long way from this figure then it is probably just a cop out.

For example in my own case I weigh 258, a quick and dirty BF% test (weight to waist) tells me I have a BF of 26%, hence if true my lean mass is 192, and so with 5% BF (i.e. 1.05*192) I could set foot on a body building stage at 202 lb (assuming no muscle loss with dieting - which admittedly is unlikely) so my competition BMI would be 29.8, hence I would have an excuse for saying I'm at my genetic limit (assuming my genetics aren't better than the best of the best natural body builders out there).

That being said while I may be at my genetic limit that is not stopping me setting the goal of adding another inch to my arm or adding a hundred pounds to my bench. I still train to gain, I don't say, "damn I'm at my genetic limit no point in training to gain anymore", I still train to and believe that I can gain more muscle mass (but I won't consider myself to be a loser or something to be wrong if I don't, based on my previous calculation).

In my opinion if you have 18" or more arms, have a max bench of 350 lb or higher, could set foot on a body building stage at a BMI of more than 29 at 5%BF (assuming no muscle loss with dieting) and you don't take steroids then the genetic excuse has some plausibility (albeit you might have crappy genetics - there are natural lifters that can exceed 450 bench of course). If a person is a long way from those figures then I think the excuse is just a cop out.

(PS: those figures aren't hard and fast, just a rough indication - designed so that I at least can use the genetic limit cop out).

tricky124 · 10-03-2007, 02:21 AM

Personally I feel everyone hits a plateau, even when every avenue is explored, (except steroids).
I agree, most gain is within the first year.

Reality_Check · 10-03-2007, 03:19 AM

I've hit a number of plateaus over the last 20 years. The question is, is the plateau you're on the final genetic limit or just a phase (to be broken through with different nutrition and training options).

I had fairly solid decent linear gains for first five years. Didn't really plateau till after about 13 years or training, then went backwards due to various issues (namely being time poor, thanks to a mid life crisis sending me off to do a PhD), now going forward again (but will be happy just to get back to previous peaks and then maintain).

At the top of my head I'd say you reach half your genetic potential in the first five years then another five to get to three quarters of it, then another five to get to within an eith of it (the numbers aren't exact just communicating an idea based on how my experiece has gone).

I think you should get decent gains for more than a year though (at least if your young and don't have hormonal issues etc).

Reality_Check · 10-03-2007, 03:48 AM

Here is a completely made up graph, to comunicate an idea, (its not any sort of a scientific document).

I think the relation between time spent body building and mass acquired goes something like this

Thats a sort of idealised charicature. In the real world there are more ups and downs and plateaus before the gentic limit plateau (and thats assuming no aging effect with increased time to).

Baldsnake · 10-03-2007, 05:24 AM

Genetic.

I can't afford the clothes now. Imagine if one kept growing....good grief. Been training on and off since age 12, mostly on and I always lift heavy as possible, always supplimented, used gear for one 8 year straight period, natural for past 17, and hit my all time bulk (260) then stage ready (237) shape at age 47. Weigh 220 month in and month out since my 50th birthday except for my last natural show at age 58 at 195. This morning I am 220.

Do I fool myself into thinking that I am going to actualy grow at age 67.....yes. That's why I am downing coffee and protein at 4am, typing this and getting ready for freakin leg day for the thousanth time at 5am.

emf · 10-03-2007, 05:54 AM

i believe that jgreystoke has nailed your answer.
ive been crying about not getting stronger, but as far as growth goes im real satisfied with my results.
so im growing ,not getting stronger and complaining about that.

tricky124 · 10-03-2007, 06:49 AM

Yes emf, genetics and plateau are surly the same thing, as much as one tries your gains are minimal.
It has to be said that the only real way forward would be to take HRT.

datamon · 10-03-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baldsnake

Do I fool myself into thinking that I am going to actualy grow at age 67.....yes. That's why I am downing coffee and protein at 4am, typing this and getting ready for freakin leg day for the thousanth time at 5am.

nice!

Whiskeyjack · 10-03-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreystoke

I'm sure there are genetic limitations on size.

Who the hell ever reaches them, I wonder?

Perhaps. Marcus Ruhl maybe.

Whiskeyjack · 10-03-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality_Check

Here is a completely made up graph, to comunicate an idea, (its not any sort of a scientific document).

I think the relation between time spent body building and mass acquired goes something like this

Thats a sort of idealised charicature. In the real world there are more ups and downs and plateaus before the gentic limit plateau (and thats assuming no aging effect with increased time to).

According to this chart, which actually looks accurate assuming that the training is constant, with no big breaks (as I've had and many here), no one is likely to reach their genetic limit plateau. Correct?