# 18 y.o Brad Willis from the UK - insane genetics?



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

https://www.instagram.com/bradwillis10/

This 18 year old Brad Willis from the UK.

He's already:

*
IBFA Overall Junior Mr Britain 2016 - IBFA Junior World Champion 2016 - NABBA Junior Mr England 2017 - PCA JP Grand Prix Junior Winner 2017
*

His one year transformation is nothing short of amazing!

When I say insane genetics, the kid is obviously doing a vast amount of AAS etc.

Poor kid suffers terribly with acne but can see this lad going far.


----------



## Slagface (Dec 10, 2016)

f**k me somebody hook him up with some accutane.

Great work in a year


----------



## Simon90 (Oct 28, 2017)

Wow that's a fvcking incredible transformation in a year ...goes to show how much of a difference it can make when great genetics is coupled with great consistent hard work and gear and at such a young age as well is amazing


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Slagface said:


> f**k me somebody hook him up with some accutane.
> 
> Great work in a year


 That's what I thought, it's something I've never had to use (luckily)

But from reading the comments in the link I followed to his insta, I didn't realise just how bad accutane actually is (side effect wise).

One of the comments quotes 'There was a study being conducted on whether one of the side effects was destruction of the bowel, but the group got paid off by the Swiss pharma company.'

Comments here:

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/index.php?app=core&module=system&controller=embed&url=https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/7omhz8/brad_willis_from_the_uk_insane_1718_years_old/?st=jc4zujv5%26sh=c61122d2


----------



## sean m (Sep 20, 2015)

That's not acne that chemical burns from the inside.


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

McCarver 2.0?

Looks a bit like him on the top right pic

What sort of amount of AAS would you have to take to gain that much in 12 months?


----------



## jjtreml (Dec 13, 2016)

Anyone got any clearasil....


----------



## Sasnak (Oct 11, 2016)

Cypionate said:


> McCarver 2.0?


 What has Brad Wills got in common with Dallas McCarver?

Nothing

(yet)


----------



## Sasnak (Oct 11, 2016)

I do feel sorry for the modern pro. The stacks they have to use to compete are scary. Bring back the good old days. Mentzer, Arnie and co.


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

I would rather be a skinny piece of s**t than have skin that bad. Srs.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Cypionate said:


> McCarver 2.0?
> 
> Looks a bit like him on the top right pic
> 
> What sort of amount of AAS would you have to take to gain that much in 12 months?


 All of it, twice a day.

Including at least 15g of creatine.


----------



## DaPump (Aug 30, 2017)

What's he using because it's definitely working! He looks amazing apart from his backne!


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

Incredible physique for his age but as others have said he really needs a long course of accutane to sort himself out.

No point having a physique like that when you have skin as bad which detracts massively from the look.

I suffered with bad acne myself and had to run 3 prolonged periods of accutane prescribed by the dermatologist. Hopefully he gets it sorted out.


----------



## Jonk891 (Dec 17, 2016)

DaPump said:


> What's he using because it's definitely working! He looks amazing apart from his backne!


 He's probably natural backne is from front loading creatine that be gone when he's crusing


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

He trains at my gym, the lad is huge for sure, but honestly the thing that sets him apart is how hard he trains. Seen very few people train with the same sort of intensity.


----------



## need2bodybuild (May 11, 2011)

MR RIGSBY said:


> He trains at my gym, the lad is huge for sure, but honestly the thing that sets him apart is how hard he trains. Seen very few people train with the same sort of intensity.


 I'm not surprised by this. Makes me laugh when ppl see an impressive physique the first thing they say is " I wonder how much gear he's on must be loads"

Gaurantee the knowledge of how to train and intensity in which it's done will set these guys apart from others more than the amount of gear they're on.


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

need2bodybuild said:


> I'm not surprised by this. Makes me laugh when ppl see an impressive physique the first thing they say is " I wonder how much gear he's on must be loads"
> 
> Gaurantee the knowledge of how to train and intensity in which it's done will set these guys apart from others more than the amount of gear they're on.


 Of course he'll train like a mo'fo, but there's no way you can pack on that much muscle in 12 months without a fk load of gear


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

Cypionate said:


> Of course he'll train like a mo'fo, but there's no way you can pack on that much muscle in 12 months without a fk load of gear


 Nobody's saying he doesnt take a load of gear, majority of the people in my gym take gear. None look like him. So gear clearly isn't the defining factor is it.


----------



## need2bodybuild (May 11, 2011)

Cypionate said:


> Of course he'll train like a mo'fo, but there's no way you can pack on that much muscle in 12 months without a fk load of gear


 I agree and definitely not disputing he's on an array of goodies I'm just saying that sadly I truly think that ppl in general need to train harder . Just an observation of ppl in gyms and what i notice alot.


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

MR RIGSBY said:


> Nobody's saying he doesnt take a load of gear, majority of the people in my gym take gear. None look like him. So gear clearly isn't the defining factor is it.


 Depends how much he takes, most people don't do 10G a week


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

True, is he on 10g a week though? I don't know.

You think the difference between 4g and 10g would be that big?there comes a point of diminishing returns in terms of gear. The more you take doesn't necessarily mean you continue to get bigger. Don't believe what YouTube tells you, when it comes to packing on size steroids aren't the only consideration. Diet and training do matter believe it or not 

No doubt he takes a fair bit of gear, as I say I can't say how much as fact, what I can say is he trains harder than 99.9% of guys in the gym because i've seen him week in week out.


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

MR RIGSBY said:


> True, is he on 10g a week?
> 
> You think the difference between 4g and 10g would be that big?there comes a point of diminishing returns in terms of gear. The more you take doesn't necessarily mean you continue to get bigger. Don't believe what YouTube tells you, when it comes to packing on size steroids aren't the only consideration. Diet and training do matter believe it or not


 Ask him? Would be interesting to know if he'd tell you the truth

Training / Diet etc will obviously be spot on and 10x more intensive than the regular guy, but you don't get those sort of gains and to the sizes he's heading for without running a ridiculous amount of gear, and no doubt GH/Insulin too


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

Cypionate said:


> Ask him? Would be interesting to know if he'd tell you the truth
> 
> Training / Diet etc will obviously be spot on and 10x more intensive than the regular guy, but you don't get those sort of gains and to the sizes he's heading for without running a ridiculous amount of gear, and no doubt GH/Insulin too


 To be honest I don't know him well enough to ask, I do know a couple of lads that know him better, If his name comes up I may ask.

Like I say I have no doubt he's on large doses. He seems a canny enough young lad though, keeps himself to himself, comes in with his lass. Fair play to the kid I say, I'm not the kind of fella to start running the kid down and bitching on about him because he's bigger than me. (Not saying you are btw :beer: )


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

MR RIGSBY said:


> To be honest I don't know him well enough to ask, I do know a couple of lads that know him better, If his name comes up I may ask.
> 
> Like I say I have no doubt he's on large doses. He seems a canny enough young lad though, keeps himself to himself, comes in with his lass. Fair play to the kid I say, I'm not the kind of fella to start running the kid down and bitching on about him because he's bigger than me. (Not saying you are btw :beer: )


 No not at all, good for him, I'd like to know what he's taking just to compare and see what the difference is between becoming Pro and just getting bigger, specifically in such a short time

Tbh if you can change your body that dramatically in 12 months, how much damage would you actually cause if the doses were mega high? 12 months isn't that long really, I'm sure morbidly obese people do more damage to themselves over 12 months / heroin addicts / alcoholics etc

If I could pack on that much mass in 12 months going all out, then ease off and continue with normal cycles to maintain / slowly add, I'd be tempted


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> https://www.instagram.com/bradwillis10/
> 
> This 18 year old Brad Willis from the UK.
> 
> ...


 So no then, just a good work ethic and steroids.

Nothing to do with genetics really.

People need to stop throwing that word around. No offence intended.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

@ElChapo dat der gene expression.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> So no then, just a good work ethic and steroids.
> 
> Nothing to do with genetics really.
> 
> People need to stop throwing that word around. No offence intended.


 Non taken bud, this is what the forum is all about.

Here's an article on genetics, incorporating real study data.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/truth-about-bodybuilding-genetics


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Will maybe read it later, but given that the very point of PEDs is that they influence genes and gene expression it's largely redundant to have that conversation.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

It's a culmination of several factors.

Insane genetics? Yes, goes without saying, but genetics mean nothing if you do nothing with them.

Lots of drugs? Undoubtedly. Numerous compounds stacked at sizeable doses including steroids, GH and insulin I'd imagine.

Diet? Of course, regardless of the circumstances you don't pack on that much muscle without giving the body what it needs to do so.

Training? Doubt he's found some kind of special routine, but you'd be having to train hard, consistently, intelligently and push for progressive overload in all areas, every time you train, as well as getting enough rest and sleep to aid recovery.

There are going to be a lot of people who see this transformation, who take steroids and still look s**t, who say "well, I train hard, I eat enough, so it must all be genetics and mega-dosed steroids". I'm never the first person to say strength gains are everything, but these are the sorts of people who are using the same weights now that they were using last year. Gonna go off on a bit of a tangent here, but it's not about being a powerlifter, it's about pushing for progression on everything, every time you train. You can't expect your body to start the "adapt and grow" response after your workouts if it adapted to that same stress you're putting on it, ages ago. If you're not making progress in the gym, it could be that your program is s**t, you're not sleeping enough or eating enough, or you're just not pushing for progress in a methodical manner. Though, some people also stick with heavy weights on everything even when it's clearly not working - some people need to train with lighter weights as well. The perfect routine should have heavy compounds, moderate-weight secondary compounds and light weight work for every muscle group, or periodised work.

So with that said, of course there would have been a lot of drugs involved (some accutane wouldn't have gone amiss, evidently), but it's also a combination of great genetics, eating properly, work ethic and smart training and recovery that have been compounded into the transformation this guy has made. For 99% of people, there's always something they could be putting more effort into or doing more efficiently, whereas this guy is doing everything right.


----------



## jake87 (May 7, 2010)

Is John meadows or jp coaching him?


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

Eat in a large surplus and train well obviously like a lot of people do but genetics and how well he responds to the gear is the main factor here :thumbup1:


----------



## DaPump (Aug 30, 2017)

Jonk891 said:


> He's probably natural backne is from front loading creatine that be gone when he's crusing


 Front loading? Is that when a JCB empty's a bucket of Dbol in your mouth!


----------



## SwoleTip (Jul 31, 2017)

18 going on 40


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

Minus the acne I'd never wear a top if I had this kind of physique. Frost bitten nipples. Who cares.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ross1991 said:


> Eat in a large surplus and train well obviously like a lot of people do but genetics and how well he responds to the gear is the main factor here :thumbup1:


 Genetics is how well he responds to gear and also what side effects he gets.

It could turn out that his genetics don't require him to consume so much food or that he is a naturally slim person and can shovel in lots of food and doesn't hold much fat at all. A bit like anyone could follow Mr O's diet, training, gear and rest protocol but only something like 1:100 million would get similar results.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Genetics is how well he responds to gear and also what side effects he gets.
> 
> It could turn out that his genetics don't require him to consume so much food or that he is a naturally slim person and can shovel in lots of food and doesn't hold much fat at all. A bit like anyone could follow Mr O's diet, training, gear and rest protocol but only something like 1:100 million would get similar results.


 According to another thread I read about him yesterday, he's on 5000 calories a day spread over 6 meals.

Will link the article when I get home.

He's also been on gear from the age of 14.

There are some early shots in his insta when he has gyno.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Sparkey said:


> According to another thread I read about him yesterday, he's on 5000 calories a day spread over 6 meals.
> 
> Will link the article when I get home.
> 
> ...


 Nothing surprises me.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> So no then, just a good work ethic and steroids.
> 
> Nothing to do with genetics really.
> 
> People need to stop throwing that word around. No offence intended.


 So you're saying anyone that took the same amount of gear as him and trained the same would get the exact same results? Total nonsense.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

JUICE1 said:


> So you're saying anyone that took the same amount of gear as him and trained the same would get the exact same results? Total nonsense.


 This.

You can only train and stress muscles so much to grow along with adequate rest.

Same for food consuming enough calories to grow.

The main bulk of it is genetics and gear once you have the training and diet sorted.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

fu**ing LOL at "insane genetics ". Title should read : "18YO Brad willis from UK- insane gear usage"...

He didn't get like that just eating chicken and rice and chucking some steel about.  FFS


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Natty Steve'o said:


> fu**ing LOL at "insane genetics ". Title should read : "18YO Brad willis from UK- insane gear usage"...
> 
> He didn't get like that just eating chicken and rice and chucking some steel about.  FFS


 Now that's not nice Steve! play nice, the lad has worked extremely and incredibly hard to achieve his transFREAKation. from 18 - 37 all in 1 year, I heard through the grapevine, he's being coached by @BIG DADDY STE and has had him on his infamous insulin, coconut and ice cream protocol.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

The funny thing with something like this is that there's 2 things going on here:

1. He obviously has good genetics and is taking a lot of AAS.

2. He obviously has good genetics and is take normal amounts of AAS but responds brilliantly to them.

We will never know! Everyone would love to assume its boat loads of AAS but in my opinion i reckon he isnt using much.


----------



## sjacks (Dec 10, 2017)

Going from amateur to pro in 1 year is crazy, it looks like he put on 2 stones of muscle, incredible.

Also worse case of bacne I've ever seen. He's def. trenning hard!


----------



## Eddias (Dec 21, 2015)

Chelsea said:


> The funny thing with something like this is that there's 2 things going on here:
> 
> 1. He obviously has good genetics and is taking a lot of AAS.
> 
> ...


 Good point, got to add in age here as well, versus knowledge.

At 18 i was natty and was eating crap and lifting with no knowledge and still had a pretty decent shape (nothing compared to him).


----------



## sjacks (Dec 10, 2017)

Chelsea said:


> Everyone would love to assume its boat loads of AAS but in my opinion i reckon he isnt using much.


 Could be right. he's 18 and his natural test will be through the roof, kind of makes me a hypocrite with my previous post...


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

sjacks said:


> Could be right. he's 18 and his natural test will be through the roof, kind of makes me a hypocrite with my previous post...


 If he's injecting testosterone, his natty test will more than likely be zero.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

Eddias said:


> Good point, got to add in age here as well, versus knowledge.
> 
> At 18 i was natty and was eating crap and lifting with no knowledge and still had a pretty decent shape (nothing compared to him).


 Exactly, you grow however and whatever you train, plus we dont know whether he has been coached the whole time etc



sjacks said:


> Could be right. he's 18 and his natural test will be through the roof, kind of makes me a hypocrite with my previous post...


 Cleary he is using AAS, im not disputing that, you can see from the first pic he has a little gyno. Dont worry about being a hypocrite, its a positive to admit when you are wrong or to accept another way of thinking


----------



## Cypionate (Jan 17, 2016)

Suppose it could have been anywhere from 1 month to 23 months though, we don't know what part of 2016 and 2017 they were taken

Jan 2016 to Dec 2017

Dec 2016 to Jan 2017


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> So you're saying anyone that took the same amount of gear as him and trained the same would get the exact same results? Total nonsense.


 Don't be a dick.

Show me where I said anything even remotely like that, learn to read and stop being "that guy" on the internet.

I specifically discussed, briefly, genetics and gene expression.

Go be a douche elsewhere.

I recommend the library, where they can help with reading comprehension.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Ross1991 said:


> This.
> 
> You can only train and stress muscles so much to grow along with adequate rest.
> 
> ...


 Provide one study or reference in relation to genetics and training performance.

Just throwing the word "genetics" in doesn't mean it's valid.

Drugs influence genes. Drugs change gene expression.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Chelsea said:


> The funny thing with something like this is that there's 2 things going on here:
> 
> 1. He obviously has good genetics and is taking a lot of AAS.
> 
> ...


 I totally disagree. You don't make changes that extreme in that short of a time without pushing the boundaries.

Everyone always wants to look for the unicorn. That elusive special snowflake that explains everything in a more complicated way.

When simply, it's clear, horse. Worked his ass off and is dedicated to the Nth degree, but it's drug usage. Not just AAS, but many.

We all know this, we're all "in the game" too.

The simple answer is right there. But everyone wants it to be that one magical thing, or that one magic exercise. Or one special drug no one else has etc.

Drugs. Simple.

What and how did you get your best results?

Not just you but everyone.

Diet and training being equal, it was?

Exactly


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

sjacks said:


> Could be right. he's 18 and his natural test will be through the roof, kind of makes me a hypocrite with my previous post...


 No.

If he's in gear his natural test will be zip.

The only test will be what he injects.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

simonboyle said:


> Provide one study or reference in relation to genetics and training performance.
> 
> Just throwing the word "genetics" in doesn't mean it's valid.
> 
> Drugs influence genes. Drugs change gene expression.


 How well he responds to resistance training and how well his body responds to AAS and the likes is down to his genetics.

We all know bbin is mostly down to genetics, yes supplementing with AAS ect can push you much further and achieve a body you never could naturally but it will only get you so far, or everyone could be in for the Olympia.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

simonboyle said:


> I totally disagree. You don't make changes that extreme in that short of a time without pushing the boundaries.
> 
> Everyone always wants to look for the unicorn. That elusive special snowflake that explains everything in a more complicated way.
> 
> ...


 I get what you are saying but i still disagree, there's plenty of people out there who are hyper responders, as i said, there is a possibility that he's on a lot of AAS but i think the opposite, even if he was smashing i gear i doubt he could make such drastic changes without being genetically gifted.


----------



## Lowkii (Nov 25, 2017)

Dude looks incredible but that acne tho... I don't feel so bad now with the three or four spots on my back.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Ross1991 said:


> How well he responds to resistance training and how well his body responds to AAS and the likes is down to his genetics.
> 
> We all know bbin is mostly down to genetics, yes supplementing with AAS ect can push you much further and achieve a body you never could naturally but it will only get you so far, or everyone could be in for the Olympia.


 I disagree.

But that's fair.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

Chelsea said:


> I get what you are saying but i still disagree, there's plenty of people out there who are hyper responders, as i said, there is a possibility that he's on a lot of AAS but i think the opposite, even if he was smashing i gear i doubt he could make such drastic changes without being genetically gifted.


 Like you big man haha. :thumbup1:


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Chelsea said:


> I get what you are saying but i still disagree, there's plenty of people out there who are hyper responders, as i said, there is a possibility that he's on a lot of AAS but i think the opposite, even if he was smashing i gear i doubt he could make such drastic changes without being genetically gifted.


 Well for me it's the work ethic and drive.

Nailing everything.

That's what I've always found to be the difference.

The guy that's there early for every session. Has every meal planned and prepared.

Hits every cardio session.

Then everyone says "genetics".

I just require proof that it is.

As it's just too easy to put it down to that.

Every person, every famous or successful BBer, are.also the ones living itn24-7, 365 days a year.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

Ross1991 said:


> Like you big man haha. :thumbup1:


 Haha i wish!



simonboyle said:


> Well for me it's the work ethic and drive.
> 
> Nailing everything.
> 
> ...


 I agree, all those things play a huge role in the outcome but i think for someone to do that in a year requires very good bodybuilding genetics.

You could argue that plenty of famous successful bodybuilders don't live it 24/7 365 days a year - look at Lee Priest - used to eat junk food all the time but was still a top 6 Olympian, Paul Dillett was renowned for being lazy and not putting much effort into training yet he was one of the best in the world.

You do have a point about work ethic though, Dorian beat Flex Wheeler consistently and Dorian admitted it himself that Flex had better genetics, however, Dorian worked harder than anyone, hence why he won, but still, he had incredible genetics for the sport.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> Well for me it's the work ethic and drive.
> 
> Nailing everything.
> 
> ...


 Nailing everything optimises your results but your best potential results are ultimately down to genetics.

Just because you have quality genetics doesn't mean that it's some kind of excuse or somehow makes your results less important.. Genetics play into EVERY area of life, relationships, business, athleticism, intelligence, there's no escaping it. Just like if everyone put the same effort into training and nutrition for the 100m run you would still see vastly different running times because our bodies are simply built differently.

I mean do you really think the only thing stopping you from being an elite powerlifter or bodybuilder is the fact that you aren't dedicated enough to that goal? I can tell you with 100% certainty that no matter how much dedication I applied to either of those endeavours I would never achieve them because I know that I'm not genetically blessed in those ways. I can tell you just as easily that no matter how much dedication I put towards being a pro footballer I would never be a pro footballer, there's nothing wrong with that it's just life..

Genetics matter a lot but that doesn't mean achievements are any less impressive.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> Provide one study or reference in relation to genetics and training performance.
> 
> Just throwing the word "genetics" in doesn't mean it's valid.
> 
> Drugs influence genes. Drugs change gene expression.


 I could probably find hundreds of studies that show when equal training stimulus is applied people get wildly different results in strength and LBM gain. Variance in results amongst a group of humans when a particular simuli is applied is generally what we're studying in fitness/nutrition.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Chelsea said:


> Haha i wish!
> 
> I agree, all those things play a huge role in the outcome but i think for someone to do that in a year requires very good bodybuilding genetics.
> 
> ...


 Yup. But I think Paul dillet is an example of my point. Insane physical gifts

Lazy and disappeared.

And this guy's "genetics" aren't great if he had gyno, maybe.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> Nailing everything optimises your results but your best potential results are ultimately down to genetics.
> 
> Just because you have quality genetics doesn't mean that it's some kind of excuse or somehow makes your results less important.. Genetics play into EVERY area of life, relationships, business, athleticism, intelligence, there's no escaping it. Just like if everyone put the same effort into training and nutrition for the 100m run you would still see vastly different running times because our bodies are simply built differently.
> 
> ...


 Well, simply put, you innno way know that. You're guessing and making an excuse not to try.

Show me the genetic tested youve done? None? Well how do you know then? See.my point more? An excuse.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> I could probably find hundreds of studies that show when equal training stimulus is applied people get wildly different results in strength and LBM gain. Variance in results amongst a group of humans when a particular simuli is applied is generally what we're studying in fitness/nutrition.


 Nope.

Then provide one.

Vsriences in results is there in every study. In every field. Nothing to do with genetics.

Again, easy out.

No study will say the vsriences is down to genetics as it would show bias and that the scientists were fools.

Poor poor example.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> Nope.
> 
> Then provide one.
> 
> ...


 Genetic variance is a basic fact of human biology, it's not something that's up for debate in the scientific community. I don't really want to argue with you and you seem pretty fixed on your position so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

*

*

*
Study below:
*

*
Metroflex Gym owner Brian Dobson tells the story of his first encounter with then-powerlifter and future Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman. He describes Ronnie's enormous thighs with veins bulging through the spandex, despite the fact that Ronnie had never used an anabolic steroid at that time.
*

Arnold Schwarzenegger looked more muscular after one year of lifting than most people do after ten.

It's just plain obvious that some individuals respond much better to training than others. But what makes the elite respond so much better than us regular folks?

*
Genetics: The Cold Hard Truth
*

This probably isn't what you want to hear, but your progress is largely dependent on your genetics.

Recent research shows that some individuals respond very well to strength training, some barely respond, and some don't respond at all. You read that correctly. Some people don't show any noticeable results. Researchers created the term "non-responders" for these individuals.

A landmark study by Hubal used 585 male and female human subjects and showed that twelve weeks of progressive dynamic exercise resulted in a shockingly wide range of responses.

The worst responders lost 2% of their muscle cross-sectional area and didn't gain any strength whatsoever. The best responders increased muscle cross-sectional area by 59% and increased their 1RM strength by 250%. Keep in mind these individuals were subjected to the exact same training protocol.

The Hubal study isn't the only study showing these types of results. Petrella showed that 16 weeks of progressive dynamic exercise involving 66 human subjects failed to yield any measurable hypertrophy in 26% of subjects. Wow, sucks to be them!

Now, the question is, what mechanisms explain this? Let's dig into the current research.

*
How Genetics Affect Muscle Growth
*

Strong evidence suggests that the results you see in the gym are highly dependent on the efficacy of satellite cell-mediated myonuclear addition. In layman's terms, your muscles won't grow unless the satellite cells surrounding your muscle fibers donate their nuclei to your muscles so they can produce more genetic material to signal the cells to grow.

Petralla showed that the difference between excellent responders in comparison to average and non-responders in strength training was mostly due to satellite cell activation. Excellent responders have more satellite cells that surround their muscle fibers, as well as a remarkable ability to expand their satellite cell pool via training.

In this study, excellent responders averaged 21 satellite cells per 100 fibers at baseline, which rose to 30 satellite cells per 100 fibers by week sixteen. This was accompanied by a 54% increase in mean fiber area. The non-responders averaged 10 satellite cells per 100 myofibers at baseline, which did not change post-training, nor did their hypertrophy.

A different article by Bamman using the same researchers involving the exact same experiment showed that out of 66 subjects, the top 17 responders experienced a 58% gain in cross-sectional area, the middle 32 responders gained 28% cross-sectional area, and the bottom 17 responders didn't gain in cross-sectional area. In addition:



Mechanogrowth factor (MGF) upregulated 126% in the top 17 responders and 0% in the bottom 17 responders.


Myogenin upregulated 65% in the top 17 responders and 0% in the bottom 17 responders.


IGF-IEa upregulated 105% in the top 17 responders and only 44% in the bottom 17 responders.


Research by Timmons indicates that there are several highly expressed miRNAs that are selectivity regulated in subjects representing the lowest 20% of responders in a longitudinal resistance training intervention study.

Research by Dennis showed that individuals who have high expression of key hypertrophy genes have a distinct adaptive advantage over normal individuals. Individuals with lower baseline expression of key hypertrophy genes showed less adaptations to strength training, despite the fact that training did increase their gene expression in response to exercise.

*
The Bottom Line
*

Some folks hit the genetic jackpot, while others have gotten the genetic shaft. Genetically-speaking, anything that negatively impacts the ability of the myofibers to increase their number of myonuclei in response to mechanical loading will reduce hypertrophy and strength potential.

This ranges from the number of signaling molecules, to the cell's sensitivity to the signals, to satellite cell availability, to satellite cell pool expansion, to miRNA regulation. Nutrition and optimal programming play a role in hypertrophy of course, and certain genotypes may be associated with hypertrophy too.

*
Genetics and Body Fat
*

Genes can affect fat storage and fat loss by influencing energy intake, energy expenditure, or nutrient partitioning. Researchers have coined the term "obesogenic environment" to describe the manner in which our changes in lifestyle over the past century has exposed our underlying genetic risk factors for excessive adiposity.

Natural selection may have favored those who possessed genes associated with thrifty metabolisms, which would have allowed for survival during times of nutrient scarcity. Now that much of the world has adopted a modern lifestyle characterized by sedentarism and excessive caloric intake, these same genes now contribute to poor health and obesity.

*
The Research
*

Bouchard took twelve pairs of twins and subjected them to 84 days over a 100-day period of overfeeding by 1,000 calories per day, for a total of 84,000 excess calories. Subjects maintained a sedentary lifestyle during this time. The average weight gain was 17.86 pounds, but the range went from 9.48 pounds to 29.32 pounds!

Even though each subject adhered to the same feeding schedule, the most metabolically cursed individual gained more than _triple_ the weight than the most metabolically blessed individual, stored 100% of excess calories in his tissues (compared to only 40% tissue storage for the most-blessed individual), and increased abdominal visceral fat by 200% (compared to 0% in the case of the most-blessed individual).

Similar variances were shown by Bouchard with twins consuming constant energy intake while exercising frequently.

Perusse showed that heritability accounts for 42% of subcutaneous fat and 56% of abdominal visceral fat. This means that genetics greatly influence _where_ you store fat, and some individuals have an alarming predisposition to store fat in their abdominal region.

Bouchard and Tremblay estimate that 40% of the variability in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise is genetically related. They also reported that levels of habitual physical activity are highly influenced by heredity.

Loos and Bouchard proposed that obesity has a genetic origin, and that sequence variations in adrenergic receptors, uncoupling proteins, the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, and lepton receptor genes were of particular relevance.

O'Rahilly and Farooqi add that the insulin VNTR and IGF-1 SNPs may be implicated in obesity as well, and Cotsapas showed 16 different loci that affect body mass index (BMI) which are all linked to extreme obesity as well. Rankinen mapped out hundreds of possible gene candidates that could promote obesity.

Fawcett and Barroso showed that the fat mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO) is the first universally accepted locus unequivocally associated with adiposity. FTO deficiency protects against obesity, and elevated levels increase adiposity most likely due to increased appetite and decreased energy expenditure.

Tercjak adds that FTO may affect insulin resistance too, and suggests that over 100 genes influence obesity. Herrerra and Lindgren list 23 genes that are associated with obesity, and suggest that heredity accounts for 40-70% of BMI!

Faith found evidence for genetic influences on caloric intake. Similar conclusions were drawn by Choquette, who examined 836 subjects' eating behaviors and found six genetic links to increased caloric and macronutrient consumption, including the adiponectin gene.

What's all that mean? It mans that some individuals are genetically predisposed to adiposity and abdominal fat storage.

But are some folks born to be great athletes while others are born to warm the bench? Let's find out.

*
Genetics and Athletes.
*

*
While we still have much to learn about genetics as it relates to human performance, we do know that many different genes can affect performance.
*

Bray et al. (2009) mapped out the current knowledge of human genes that affect performance as of 2007 and concluded that 214 autosomal genes and loci as well as 18 mitochondrial genes appear to influence fitness and performance.

*
The most popular performance-enhancing gene is ACTN3, also known as alpha-actin-3.
*

There are two alpha-actin proteins: ACTN2 and ACTN3. Alpha actins are structural proteins of the z-lines in muscle fibers, and while ACTN2 is expressed in all fiber types, ACTN3 is preferentially expressed in type IIb fiber types. These fibers are involved in force production at high velocities, which is why ACTN3 is associated with powerful force production.

Approximately 18% of individuals, or one billion people worldwide, are completely deficient in ACTN3 and their bodies create more ACTN2 to make up for the absence. These individuals just can't explode as quickly as their alpha-actin-3-containing counterparts, as elite sprinters are almost never alpha-actin-3 deficient (Yang).

The ACE gene, also known as the antiotensin converting enzyme, has also been implicated in human performance. An increase in the frequency of the ACE D allele is associated with power and sprint athletes, while an increased frequency of the ACE I allele is associated with endurance athletes (Nazarov).

Cauci showed that the variants of the VNTR IL-1RN gene is associated with improved athleticism. This gene affects the interleukin family of cytokines and enhances the inflammatory response and repair process following exercise. The work of Reichman lends support to this research, as they found that the interleukin-15 protein and receptor were associated with increased muscle hypertrophy.

Plenty of other genes exhibit potential to improve athletic performance, such as the myostatin gene, but conclusive evidence doesn't yet exist, or we just don't possess a clear enough understanding of the entire puzzle.

Don't Panic, Chicken Legs. You're Not Doomed!

Although the research in this article is pretty scary, I have something to say about it.

First, we _all_ have issues with genetics that we have to work around. Some of us are predisposed to carrying excess fat, some of us are lean but have stubborn areas of fat deposition, some have trouble building muscle, and some are muscular but have weak body parts. Some of us have all of this combined, and nobody has perfect genetics!

My list of genetic curses is a mile long, but despite this I've managed to develop a pretty respectable physique and somewhat impressive strength levels.

Second, the protocols used in the research didn't involve any experimentation, tweaking, and auto-regulatory training. We all need to tweak the variables and figure out our optimal programming methodology.

Some people respond best to variety, some to volume, some to intensity, some to frequency, and some to density. You have to discover the best stimulus for your body, which evolves over time.

And third, I've spoken to my colleagues about this issue and we're all in agreement: we've never trained any individuals who didn't look better after a couple of months of training, assuming they stick with the program. All of them lose fat and gain some muscular shape.

While some individuals have a much easier time than others developing an impressive physique, I've yet to see a lifter who trained in an intelligent manner fail to see any results.

So even if you're a "hard gainer" and you don't respond well, you can and will see results as long as you're consistent and as long as you continue to experiment. Of course, the rate and amount of adaptation is highly influenced by genetics, but sound training methods will always account for a large portion of training effects.

The lesson: Genetics make a difference, but smart training, diet, and supplements can help you maximize what your parents gave you!

*
References
*



Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, Gordon PM, Moyna NM, Pescatello LS, Visich PS, Zoeller RF, Seip RL, Clarkson PM. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. _Med Sci Sports Exerc_ 37: 964-972, 2005.


Petrella JK, Kim JS, Mayhew DL, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Potent myofiber hypertrophy during resistance training in humans is associated with satellite cell-mediated myonuclear addition: a cluster analysis. _J Appl Physiol_ 104: 1736-1742, 2008.


Bamman MM, Petrella JK, Kim JS, Mayhew DL, Cross JM. Cluster analysis tests the importance of myogenic gene expression during myofiber hypertrophy in humans. _J Appl Physiol_ 102: 2232-2239, 2007.


Timmons JA. Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation. _J Appl Physiol_ [Epub ahead of print], 2010.


Dennis RA, Zhu H, Kortebein PM, Bush HM, Harvey JF, Sullivan DH, Peterson CA. Muscle expression of genes associated with inflammation, growth, and remodeling is strongly correlated in older adults with resistance training outcomes. _Physiol_ _Genomics_ 38(2):169-75, 2009.


Bouchard C, Tremblay A, Despres JP, Nadeau A, Lupien PJ, Theriault G, Dussault J, Moorjani S, Pinault S, Fournier G. The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins. N Engl J Med. 322(21):1477-1482, 1990.


Bouchard C, Tremblay A, Despres JP, Theriault G, Nadeau A, Lupien PJ, Moorjani S, Prudhomme D, Fournier G. The response to exercise with constant energy intake in identical twins. Obes Res 2:400-410, 1994.


Perusse L, Despres JP, Lemieux S, Rice T, Rao DC, Bouchard C. Familial aggregation of abdominal visceral fat level: results from the Quebec family study. Metabolism 45:378-382, 1996.


Bouchard C, Tremblay A. Genetic effects in human energy expenditure components. Int. J. Obes 49-55. discussion 55-8, 1990.


Loos RJ and Bouchard C. Obesity - is it a genetic disorder? _J Intern Med_254(5) 401-25, 2003.


Cotsapas C, Speliotes EK, Hatoum IJ, et al.: Common body mass index-associated variants confer risk of extreme obesity. _Hum Mol Genet_ 18:3502-3507, 2009.


Rankinen T, Zuberi A, Chagnon YC, Weisnagel SJ, Argyropoulos G, Walts B, Perusse L, Bouchard C. The human obesity gene map: the 2005 update. Obesity (Silver Spring) 14(4):529-644, 2006.


Fawcett KA, Barroso I. The genetics of obesity: FTO leads the way. Trends Genet. pp. 266-274, 2010.


Tercjak M, Luczynski W, Wawrusiewicz-Kurylonek N, Bossowski A. The role of FTO gene polymorphism in the pathogenesis of obesity. _Pediatr_ _Endocrinol Diabetes Metab_ 16(2) 109-13, 2010.


Herrera B and Lindgren C. The genetics of obesity. _Curr_ _Diab Rep_ 10:498-505, 2010.


Faith MS, Rha SS, Neale MC, Allison DB. Evidence for genetic influences on human energy intake: results from a twin study using measured observations._Behav Genet_ 29:145-54, 1999.


Choquette AC, Lemieux S, Tremblay A, Chagnon YC, Bouchard C, Vohl MC, Perusse L. Evidence of a quantitative trait locus for energy and macronutrient intakes on chromosome 3q27.3: the Quebec Family Study. _Am J Clin Nutr_ 88(4): 1142-8, 2008.


Bray MS, Hagberg JM, Perusse L, Rankinen T, Roth SM, Wolfarth B, Bouchard C. The human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes: the 2006-2007 update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 35- 73, 2009.


Cauci S, Santolo M, Ryckmann KK, Williams SM, Banfi F. Variable number of tandem repeat polymorphisms of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist gene IL-1RN: a novel association with the athlete status. _BMC Med Genet_ 11(29) 2010.


O'Rahilly S., Farooqi I.S. Genetics of obesity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361:1095-1105, 2006.


Riechman SE, Balasekaran G, Roth SM, Ferrell RE. Association of interleukin-15 protein and interleukin-15 receptor genetic variation with resistance exercise training responses. _J Appl Physiol_ 97: 2214-2219, 2004.


Yang N, MacArthur DG, Gulbin JP, Hahn AG, Beggs AH, Easteal S, North K. ACTN3 genotype is associated with human elite athletic performance.Am J Hum Genet 73: 627-631, 2003.


Nazarov IB, Woods DR, Montgomery HE, Shneider OV, Kazakov VI, Tomilin NV, Rogozkin VA (2001) The angiotensin converting enzyme I/D polymorphism in Russian athletes. _Eur_ _J Hum Genet_ 9:797-801, 2001.


----------



## AlexH96 (Jun 3, 2015)

Sasnak said:


> What has Brad Wills got in common with Dallas McCarver?
> 
> Nothing
> 
> (yet)


 Probably an enlarged heart , f**ked up insides and an early death ....Guys transformation is nothing short of incredible amazing work BUT this kid will surely have an untimely death being this big at 18 jesus christ thats insane most top pros arn't this big at 18 the gear he will be taking too at such a young age but each to there own wish him health and success.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> *
> 
> *
> 
> ...


 Just seems like. the m being argumentative, buy the conclusion the author of the article draws is nonsense.

Every study that involves humans and activity needs t be taken with the forethought that a large percentage will 1. Lie

2, not follow the protocol

Also things like, as mentioned above, effort and dedication.

I can go in and lift the same.weight as my training partner but hey more from.the workout, is that genetics or is it the simple fact my training partner is lazy and just gets through a set as opposed to working.

And any talk of genetics without a test for specific genes or facts to state what or why certain genes are doing X Y or z is irrelevant and guess work. Or completely non scientific.

See the point I'm making now.

And a study never states anything.

You always need to be careful what you read in to it.

A study merely presents results.

Not facts about anything. It isn't what a study is for. It's to test results given a certain criteria.

But regardless, this recent trend to just say "genetics" is ridiculous.

It's based on nothing and spouted by "bros" who, in the main, wouldn't even be able.to tell you what the word means and who have not even the slightest base in any of the sciences.

So, for me, no, it's nonsense talk.


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

simonboyle said:


> Just seems like. the m being argumentative, buy the conclusion the author of the article draws is nonsense.
> 
> Every study that involves humans and activity needs t be taken with the forethought that a large percentage will 1. Lie
> 
> ...


 Not sure I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly or not. Are you saying genetics play no part in ability to build muscle ? I.e if my training, diet and supplementation was 100% I could win the Mr O?

Sorry if I'm reading that wrong, my phone is playing up.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

MR RIGSBY said:


> Not sure I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly or not. Are you saying genetics play no part in ability to build muscle ? I.e if my training, diet and supplementation was 100% I could win the Mr O?
> 
> Sorry if I'm reading that wrong, my phone is playing up.


 No.

Not even slightly.

I'm saying people should stop putting their head in the sand and looking for the "X" factor, that one unobtainable something.

And making excuses like "he probably doesn't use a lot" "clearly genetically gifted" etc when the glaringly obvious is the answer.

Genes influence everything in our lives, but just spouting it at and from."bros" is nonsense.

Like the post in this thread about not being able to do something as he doesn't have the genes for it, so he hasn't even tried. Bollocks.

And without testing and knowing, saying genetics is silly. May as well say it was god, or superman rubbing his Kryptonian cock on him. Unprovable, unsubstantiated nonsense.

We have only.the most basic understanding of the human genome. There is every possibility, that in years to come they could find out that genes have very little to no influence on muscular development in PED enhanced athletes, it's not likely, but until it is known just shouting it and saying it's the be all and end all is the height of nonsense.

If the scientific community doesn't have a handle on it, then us goons trying to act like we know is a fu**ing farce.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

simonboyle said:


> No.
> 
> Not even slightly.
> 
> ...


 I know exactly what you mean, like those sub 5' folk wanting to be 6' + and screaming genetics when they ain't even tried being taller.

I remember when I was about 8, I'd got a tad of hair on my top lip but I wanted a full on beard and be able to shave. My mam told me that I wasn't old enough but I'd just not tried cos by the time I was 16 I was needing to shave regularly and by17 I was f'ked off with it to say the least. Must try harder to stop the growth. :tongue:

On a more serious note, I agree that too many people don't even try putting the effort in before long they've exhausted everything but the effort and then scream bad genetics. Lots of lads I had work for me on the door had a similar mentality yet we're doing so much coke that they couldn't eat much and were tired all week in the gym. Candle...both ends...burnt. Funny thing was, they'd always say it's alright for me as I was born to be strong as a silverback gorilla. They'd see me in the gym pouring with sweat doing heavy enough lifts to get most of the lads stop to watch for some damage yet they still thought it came easy. Bonkers. With this said, I do think that my genetics allow me to be where I am, I'd say I'm above average but nowhere near great genetics. I'm now too old to really push it without falling apart. Haha


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

simonboyle said:


> Provide one study or reference in relation to genetics and training performance.
> 
> Just throwing the word "genetics" in doesn't mean it's valid.
> 
> Drugs influence genes. Drugs change gene expression.


 Gene expression in response to drugs is genetic

^_^


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

simonboyle said:


> No.
> 
> Not even slightly.
> 
> ...


 Kind of get what you're saying to an extent. However as you say genetics plays a part in every single function in our body, some people will undoubtedly have a propensity to grow muscle at a faster rate than others. With this in mind, it is reasonable to say this kid has good genetics for bodybuilding.

I'm sure there are other kids around with nailed on diet and training taking huge amounts of gear who look nothing like him. It is just one factor though, everything needs to be in place to make these sort of gains, Steve would have us believe it is just the huge gear use, it isn't. This lad is super dedicated, he lives and breathes bodybuilding. Diet is spot on, trains harder than 99% of gym rats. Takes a lot of gear and yes has decent genetics for bodybuilding.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I know exactly what you mean, like those sub 5' folk wanting to be 6' + and screaming genetics when they ain't even tried being taller.
> 
> I remember when I was about 8, I'd got a tad of hair on my top lip but I wanted a full on beard and be able to shave. My mam told me that I wasn't old enough but I'd just not tried cos by the time I was 16 I was needing to shave regularly and by17 I was f'ked off with it to say the least. Must try harder to stop the growth. :tongue:
> 
> On a more serious note, I agree that too many people don't even try putting the effort in before long they've exhausted everything but the effort and then scream bad genetics. Lots of lads I had work for me on the door had a similar mentality yet we're doing so much coke that they couldn't eat much and were tired all week in the gym. Candle...both ends...burnt. Funny thing was, they'd always say it's alright for me as I was born to be strong as a silverback gorilla. They'd see me in the gym pouring with sweat doing heavy enough lifts to get most of the lads stop to watch for some damage yet they still thought it came easy. Bonkers. With this said, I do think that my genetics allow me to be where I am, I'd say I'm above average but nowhere near great genetics. I'm now too old to really push it without falling apart. Haha


 I agree with some.of what you say.

The point I'm making is that none of us on here know what our genetics are.

It's that simple. So saying it is or isn't someis bollocks as we simply have no proof.

Again, like saying god did it.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Sphinkter said:


> Gene expression in response to drugs is genetic
> 
> ^_^


 No.

It isn't.

"Your" genes can.be altered. So "your" genetics and gene expression changed by drugs. Meaning "your" genetics are being altered.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

MR RIGSBY said:


> Kind of get what you're saying to an extent. However as you say genetics plays a part in every single function in our body, some people will undoubtedly have a propensity to grow muscle at a faster rate than others. With this in mind, it is reasonable to say this kid has good genetics for bodybuilding.
> 
> I'm sure there are other kids around with nailed on diet and training taking huge amounts of gear who look nothing like him. It is just one factor though, everything needs to be in place to make these sort of gains, Steve would have us believe it is just the huge gear use, it isn't. This lad is super dedicated, he lives and breathes bodybuilding. Diet is spot on, trains harder than 99% of gym rats. Takes a lot of gear and yes has decent genetics for bodybuilding.


 No, as your genetics don't allow for over a gram of test in.your system. So you're essentially over writing them. Get me now?

Again, I'm not saying it is X or Y. But those saying it IS something, like his genes, are being silly. Prove it or shut it. Just pissed me.off.

Like the shite you used to get a few years ago, like.people saying they were a non responder to certain drugs, or AAS in general. Aye pal, that's theost likely scenario. It could possibly be you're lazy and eat shite. No....not that eh. So why is it too difficult to understand the reverse here.


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

simonboyle said:


> No.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> "Your" genes can.be altered. So "your" genetics and gene expression changed by drugs. Meaning "your" genetics are being altered.


 I was taking the piss lol.

All anyone has to is look at female bodybuilders lol.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Sphinkter said:


> I was taking the piss lol.
> 
> All anyone has to is look at female bodybuilders lol.


 Gotcha.


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

simonboyle said:


> Gotcha.


 Only thing genetics have any bearing on in bodybuilding is bone structure.


----------



## green81 (Oct 24, 2016)

the only genetics involved here are drive, muscle shape and intelligence and whether or not he got a good coach or what not early on. I don't think Dallas McCarver's acromegly & 7g of test w/ tren metabolites autopsy results is genetics. No one would be speaking about genetics if Pros never had to convince people it's their ambition and dedication that got them there but then there's people that believe almost anything. Dave Palumbo still says he went cold turkey 2 months a year every other #askdave podcast.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

simonboyle said:


> And without testing and knowing, saying genetics is silly. May as well say it was god, *or superman rubbing his Kryptonian cock on him.* Unprovable, unsubstantiated nonsense.


 :lol:


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

Joseph Normanson said:


> Isn't it way more than that, for example someones muscle bellies, the muscle tie ins, the shape of their musculature etc. For example Serge Nubret had genetics that most heavy gear users don't have which is why he looks how he looks. Steroids might get you giant, but unless you have the genetics, you won't ever look like him.
> 
> View attachment 149001


 Genetics account for so much in bodybuilding.

https://www.t-nation.com/training/truth-about-bodybuilding-genetics


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

Joseph Normanson said:


> Isn't it way more than that, for example someones muscle bellies, the muscle tie ins, the shape of their musculature etc. For example Serge Nubret had genetics that most heavy gear users don't have which is why he looks how he looks. Steroids might get you giant, but unless you have the genetics, you won't ever look like him.
> 
> View attachment 149001


 Ok bone structure and muscle bellies/insertions


----------



## InAndOut (Dec 3, 2015)

Sasnak said:


> I do feel sorry for the modern pro. The stacks they have to use to compete are scary. Bring back the good old days. Mentzer, Arnie and co.


 It's silly now. physique based on the highest stack wins. Pro bodybuilding is a laughing stock IMO.


----------



## jake87 (May 7, 2010)

Joseph Normanson said:


> Isn't it way more than that, for example someones muscle bellies, the muscle tie ins, the shape of their musculature etc. For example Serge Nubret had genetics that most heavy gear users don't have which is why he looks how he looks. Steroids might get you giant, but unless you have the genetics, you won't ever look like him.
> 
> View attachment 149001


 The guy is a certified manlet though. He's standing in normal length grass in that picture


----------



## MFM (Jul 25, 2013)

He'll be dead soon.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Body has its own way of telling how much stress it is in. I am not questioning how much effort this guy would be putting in the gym. When we say genetics, genetics are not only about growing on AAS, they are also about how much side effects they are having while growing with AAS.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

jake87 said:


> The guy is a certified manlet though. He's standing in normal length grass in that picture


 Pmsl. I'll never look at that pic again without thinking that he's a Manlet.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Pmsl. I'll never look at that pic again without thinking that he's a Manlet.





jake87 said:


> The guy is a certified manlet though. He's standing in normal length grass in that picture


 He's just over 6ft, he's not a manlet. Manlet is sub 5' 10


----------



## jake87 (May 7, 2010)

Starz said:


> He's just over 6ft, he's not a manlet. Manlet is sub 5' 10


 And he will stick up for you when someone claims you're a midget.

Have a day off


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

jake87 said:


> The guy is a certified manlet though. He's standing in normal length grass in that picture


 I believed you!! :boohoo:



Starz said:


> He's just over 6ft, he's not a manlet. Manlet is sub 5' 10


 I googled after you said, you're right although I'd say a Manlet is sub 5' 6. In fact, whatever height @Ross1991 is a Manlet height. :thumb


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I believed you!! :boohoo:
> 
> I googled after you said, you're right although I'd say a Manlet is sub 5' 6. In fact, whatever height @Ross1991 is a Manlet height. :thumb


 Haha just over 5 7. All you giants are just jealous of the aesthetics a manlet can acquire :whistling:


----------



## UK2USA (Jan 30, 2016)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I believed you!! :boohoo:
> 
> I googled after you said, you're right although I'd say a Manlet is sub 5' 6. In fact, whatever height @Ross1991 is a Manlet height. :thumb


 The difference though is @Ross1991 has a magic mirror, he can be as tall as he wants to be


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

UK2USA said:


> The difference though is @Ross1991 has a magic mirror, he can be as tall as he wants to be


 This is true. I can manipulate bodyfat with a slider on the side also and few other tricks.


----------



## UK2USA (Jan 30, 2016)

Ross1991 said:


> Haha just over 5 7. All you giants are just jealous of the aesthetics a manlet can acquire :whistling:


 When you're right, you're right. Guilty as charged M'lord.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Every extra inch counts, bros!


----------



## UK2USA (Jan 30, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> Every extra inch counts, bros!


 Size matters.


----------

