muscle building and genetics, special snow flake?
ummommyme
Posts: 362 Member
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_bodybuilding_genetics
Just wanted to share this article, sorry I don't know how to post the clickable link.
Just wanted to share this article, sorry I don't know how to post the clickable link.
0
Replies
-
"Don't Panic, Chicken Legs. You're Not Doomed!"0
-
Ya, I have chicken legs so there is hope for me yet;) Well when I was skinny I had chicken legs, lol. Trying to get skinny again but with thicker thighs and actually having a butt this time.0
-
I'm surprised there hasn't been a stronger response to this OP given the standard mfp: "you're not a special snowflake" answer to a lot of posts!0
-
the link doesn't go to an article - just a contents index.0
-
the link doesn't go to an article - just a contents index.
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_bodybuilding_genetics0 -
I am just as surprised;) Thanx for posting the link.0
-
Half way through, haven't found anything controversial yet. Every sport favours a certain combination of characteristics - I wouldn't expect Arnold to be able to dribble a ball anymore than I'd expect Lionel Messi to bench 400 pounds, no matter how hard they worked at it.0
-
Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...
The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:0 -
"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."
Ok...that last part is rather terrifying.0 -
Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...
The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:
as far as I can tell the study didnt regulate diet... if I eat like crap and do too much volume of lifting i'll lose muscle mass... pretty much anyone and everyone will.... even with a proper diet, too much volume combined with too little recovery will result in a net loss..0 -
"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."
Ok...that last part is rather terrifying.
I don't believe it.0 -
Almost any scientific study I've ever seen has people who lay off the curve to some degree. The results draw a nice line through the data and present it along with significant margins of error.
What about the proportion of people that lay off curves (in either direction) when it comes to fat loss, improvements in VO2Max, strength increases or muscle increases?
The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate. Any experienced trainee will know to ignore all that bullsh!t and tweak their training programme and diet to fit them, rather than some imaginary average person. For beginners, it doesn't matter because they will derive benefit following a cookie-cutter programme versus either doing nothing of doing some form of f*ckarounditis.
Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. Taking 12 sedentary people and exposing them to an exercise programme to see how they respond is not a science. Nor is trying to derive lessons for the general population from studies done on professional athletes, who are by definition outliers.
There are such things as special snowflakes. Most people are so far from any genetic potential that they'll never know it though. That's why cookie cutter stuff works for beginners and it's always best practice to advise a beginner to do something like C25K if they want to start running or Starting Strength if they want to start lifting.0 -
Interesting. Sucks to be a "non-responder". I must be one of the medium responders. I have built some noticeable definition and some significant strength gains, but nothing spectacular after a couple of years. I'm mostly just maintaining at this point. I always figured it was because I didn't want it (the total hard-body) bad enough to push myself further. Maybe it's in my genes to stay kinda scrawny. I'm pretty satisfied with the genes I got, though. No complaints here! :drinker:
(edit for typo)0 -
Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...
The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:
as far as I can tell the study didnt regulate diet... if I eat like crap and do too much volume of lifting i'll lose muscle mass... pretty much anyone and everyone will.... even with a proper diet, too much volume combined with too little recovery will result in a net loss..
first hit on google scholar for 'hubal hypertrophy' gives you a pdf of this 2005 study. it is well designed, and there were sensible dietary controls in the sample, designed to control for factors relevant to the study's aims.0 -
Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...
The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:
as far as I can tell the study didnt regulate diet... if I eat like crap and do too much volume of lifting i'll lose muscle mass... pretty much anyone and everyone will.... even with a proper diet, too much volume combined with too little recovery will result in a net loss..
first hit on google scholar for 'hubal hypertrophy' gives you a pdf of this 2005 study. it is well designed, and there were sensible dietary controls in the sample, designed to control for factors relevant to the study's aims.
There was no dietary control.
"Subjects were instructed to maintain their habitual dietary
intake and physical activity levels (with the exception of the
addition of the unilateral arm training) over the course of the
study so that significant weight loss or gain was avoided.
Individuals who had supplemented their diet with additional
protein or taken any dietary supplement reported to build
muscle or to cause weight gain (dietary supplements containing
protein, creatine, or androgenic precursors) were not included.
Data for subjects who lost a significant amount of body weight
were excluded from analysis. As slight weight gain would be
expected with the addition of muscle volume, those that in-
creased body weight were included in the analysis."
They just told them to eat normally. Thats not control. The fact that they had to exclude people from the results is an even bigger indicator that they had no control of their diet.
I agree with jimmmmer's comment "The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate."0 -
0
-
Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...
The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:
as far as I can tell the study didnt regulate diet... if I eat like crap and do too much volume of lifting i'll lose muscle mass... pretty much anyone and everyone will.... even with a proper diet, too much volume combined with too little recovery will result in a net loss..
first hit on google scholar for 'hubal hypertrophy' gives you a pdf of this 2005 study. it is well designed, and there were sensible dietary controls in the sample, designed to control for factors relevant to the study's aims.
There was no dietary control.
"Subjects were instructed to maintain their habitual dietary
intake and physical activity levels (with the exception of the
addition of the unilateral arm training) over the course of the
study so that significant weight loss or gain was avoided.
Individuals who had supplemented their diet with additional
protein or taken any dietary supplement reported to build
muscle or to cause weight gain (dietary supplements containing
protein, creatine, or androgenic precursors) were not included.
Data for subjects who lost a significant amount of body weight
were excluded from analysis. As slight weight gain would be
expected with the addition of muscle volume, those that in-
creased body weight were included in the analysis."
They just told them to eat normally. Thats not control. The fact that they had to exclude people from the results is an even bigger indicator that they had no control of their diet.
I agree with jimmmmer's comment "The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate."
The aim of the study was to explore the impact of lifting across a broad subject base. They allowed for variability in dietary practice in the sampling strategy. They controlled for problems like the impact of calorie restriction on the ability to gain mass.
The controls implemented were appropriate to the study. There's no real evidence out there that eating a big mac each day impacts negatively on the ability to gain muscle. In contrast, there's ample evidence that dietary restriction does.
Quite what controls do you imagine were needed? i.e. things that might actually obscure the impact of the IV on the DV?
I generally agree with jimmmmmer's comments too. unfortunately, in relation to this particular study, they are ill founded. This study is reasonably well designed, has a decent sample size, and seems entirely replicable.0 -
0
-
Almost any scientific study I've ever seen has people who lay off the curve to some degree. The results draw a nice line through the data and present it along with significant margins of error.
What about the proportion of people that lay off curves (in either direction) when it comes to fat loss, improvements in VO2Max, strength increases or muscle increases?
The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate. Any experienced trainee will know to ignore all that bullsh!t and tweak their training programme and diet to fit them, rather than some imaginary average person. For beginners, it doesn't matter because they will derive benefit following a cookie-cutter programme versus either doing nothing of doing some form of f*ckarounditis.
Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. Taking 12 sedentary people and exposing them to an exercise programme to see how they respond is not a science. Nor is trying to derive lessons for the general population from studies done on professional athletes, who are by definition outliers.
There are such things as special snowflakes. Most people are so far from any genetic potential that they'll never know it though. That's why cookie cutter stuff works for beginners and it's always best practice to advise a beginner to do something like C25K if they want to start running or Starting Strength if they want to start lifting.
ALL OF THIS0 -
These seem to be two different studies. I wonder which the article is referring to. Not that I really understand either one. :happy: It seems the second one posted it was old women that did not see significant increase.0 -
Apologies must have copied the wrong link. Hope it works this time:
http://www.jappl.org/content/104/6/1736.full0 -
Surprised at the continued lack of reaction to this one given the propensity with which X study is normally whipped out to combat Y claim on this site. I thought the special snowflake thing was real big around here...0
-
"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!"
I find this interesting because it was similar to another study done that someone posted the link to in another thread. It was a link to a bbc video on youtube on a study for gaining weight. There the participants had to eat so many extra calories a day and week to see how people gained weight. At the end of the study some gained a little weight and looked like they gained nothing. Some gained a lot of weight and had some bigger bellies, and another guy they studied a bit more because he gained some weight but looked smaller then when he started and he gained muscle. So the researchers were talking about how his genes had played a role in how his body stored extra calories. For him it was right to muscle (lucky guy) for others half and half, others only fat etc. It was interesting. Sounds like the article had some of the same ideas.0 -
what controls do you imagine were needed?
Id like them to eat like rats in a lab... absolute control... but hey, that ain't gonna happen...
That being said, drawing conclusions off of the extreme results of the study is kinda cherry picking unfounded data. The people who did the study just gave theresults, T-nation took it out of context and magnified less important data. They have no clue what sort of "stupid" stuff those participants might have been doing on their free time.0 -
Yeah, unfortunately lab control is unfeasible for a long term study... :-)
As a scientist in a related area, I'd be pretty confident with this study. I think it's reasonably well designed and that it's findings are described in a measured and sensible way. I think the implications are significant. We're comfortable with the notion that genetics influence our ability to learn music, to learn to dance, to achieve academically... why not weight lifting too?
It's a big sample for this kind of study. I'm not sure I see the kind of evidence of outliers influecing the interpretation unduly that you're suggesting. I do agree that it was sensationalised in the popular reporting, but that's not a comment on the science itself - it's bad reporting. (And trust me, that is super common. I've cringed about things the media have claimed I've said in my work!)0 -
Yes, the special snowflake thing is normally pretty active on these boards.0
-
Yeah, unfortunately lab control is unfeasible for a long term study... :-)
As a scientist in a related area, I'd be pretty confident with this study. I think it's reasonably well designed and that it's findings are described in a measured and sensible way. I think the implications are significant. We're comfortable with the notion that genetics influence our ability to learn music, to learn to dance, to achieve academically... why not weight lifting too?
It's a big sample for this kind of study. I'm not sure I see the kind of evidence of outliers influecing the interpretation unduly that you're suggesting. I do agree that it was sensationalised in the popular reporting, but that's not a comment on the science itself - it's bad reporting. (And trust me, that is super common. I've cringed about things the media have claimed I've said in my work!)
I think that is a pretty good comparison. Everyone can be taught something but some people will just be really bad or really good at it. Most people will just be average at it. :happy: Then there is the outliers that are just completely tone def or the ones that become exceptional without any training.
The study is troubling because of the huge percentage of people that were considered nonresponders and the article makes it sound like it is just genetics and those people just cant do anything about it.
I dont know if the study shows that and they mention it in the summary.Whether these subjects are truly nonresponders or actually delayed responders requires further study. The possibility certainly exists that this cohort would experience hypertrophy with additional weeks of training. Studies with prolonged recovery periods between bouts (2 days/wk loading) have often resulted in more robust hypertrophy of myofibers than 3 days/wk training for both men (15, 21) and women (12, 13), particularly in older adults. It therefore stands to reason that some subjects who failed to experience hypertrophy in this study may better respond to extended recovery time between bouts and/or additional weeks of training, and both factors should be considered in future evaluations of the mechanisms driving resistance training-mediated hypertrophy among humans.0 -
The study is troubling because of the huge percentage of people that were considered nonresponders and the article makes it sound like it is just genetics and those people just cant do anything about it.
As a parent, I get to see kids (my own and those of countless others) exposed to all kinds of things. IMO, most people are "non-responders" to most types activity, so the result is consistent with my own observations.
I'm comfortable with the implications.0 -
Yes, the special snowflake thing is normally pretty active on these boards.
usually when I see "special snowflake" it is in re to someone thinking they're somehow not subject to the laws of thermodynamics or something. I don't think it's exactly earth shattering news that genetics is going to play a substantial roll in re to athletic performance and/or ability.0 -
Yes, the special snowflake thing is normally pretty active on these boards.
usually when I see "special snowflake" it is in re to someone thinking they're somehow not subject to the laws of thermodynamics or something. I don't think it's exactly earth shattering news that genetics is going to play a substantial roll in re to athletic performance and/or ability.
Nah, everyone has pretty much the same shot at being successful in the NFL and NBA. Just depends on how hard you work.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions