Muscle Potential and Years Lifting?

Fithealthyforlife

Theoretical question with practical applications:

Say you have 2 identical twins, and both eat a maintenance diet from age 18-25, but one lifted and developed strength during this time (with no muscle gain). The other played soccer during this time. Both are the exact same height, weight, body composition, lead the same lifestyle, and have the same maintenance intake.

Now, say the one who played soccer starts lifting. The other continues lifting. Both begin eating a slight surplus. Both follow the same bodybuilding program and diet.

Do they have the same muscle gain potential? Or does the one who lifted for years have less? Do we even know the scientific answer to this? I'm asking because I've heard that if you have a number of quality years of lifting under your belt, your muscle gain potential diminishes over time. But I have trouble believing that the untrained twin will have a greater mass gain potential just because of not lifting all those years. Does this make sense?

tross0924

I think there's a flaw in your original premise. You can't have 2 identical people, have one do cadio for 2 years and have one lift for 2 years, and at the end of the 2 year period, have them wind up in the exact same spot with the exact same bodies. The weight lifting will change your body just as much as the cardio will.

It would be theoretically possible to find someone who has lifted for 2 years that is a match in age, weight, muscle mass,and body type to the soccer player, but that example doesn't really answer your question, because they would have different genetics. In that case the weight lifter would have worked 2 years to get to the level of an untrained soccer player; I think that's the definition of a hard gainer and the genetic potential of the soccer player would definitely allow him to have better gains.

JeffseekingV

Did they both stop? And now starting from the same strength? If that's the case then the guy that lifted will gain back his strength faster than the guy that didn't.

If they both have NOT stopped then they guy that did cardio would probably see faster gains. BUT in the end, both will probably end up lifting about the same weight. Unless one is extremely skinner than the other

mustgetmuscles1

Theoretical question with practical applications:

Say you have 2 identical twins, and both eat a maintenance diet from age 18-25, but one lifted and developed strength during this time (with no muscle gain). The other played soccer during this time. Both are the exact same height, weight, body composition, lead the same lifestyle, and have the same maintenance intake.

Now, say the one who played soccer starts lifting. The other continues lifting. Both begin eating a slight surplus. Both follow the same bodybuilding program and diet.

Do they have the same muscle gain potential? Or does the one who lifted for years have less? Do we even know the scientific answer to this? I'm asking because I've heard that if you have a number of quality years of lifting under your belt, your muscle gain potential diminishes over time. But I have trouble believing that the untrained twin will have a greater mass gain potential just because of not lifting all those years. Does this make sense?

A persons potential to grow muscle diminishes because of the amount of muscle they have already gained not the number of years they have lifted.

You cant lift for two years at maintenance and not grow (assuming even a half way decent progressive program) so this scenario would never happen.

The guy that lifted for two years would have a head start but eventually both would peak out about the same.

Rayman79

I agree with MGM.

I would assume that they still have the same overall genetic potential, but as the weight-trained twin already would add muscle more quickly when he resumed training, that his 'potential for growth' after this time would be reduced (as the difference in potential would have already been realised).

eg. Joe and Jack have the genetic potential to carry 30lbs of additional muscle. Joe, as a previously trained lifter, gains the first 10lbs in the same time that Jack adds 5. At this point, you could say that Jack has the potential to add more mass than Joe does, but the net result is still the same.

This is theoretical though, as we really have no way of accurately determining anyone's real genetic limitations that I know of - just close estimations.

Fithealthyforlife

All:

The last few responses make a lot of sense.

My beef was just that I've read some (cr@p?) articles that have said individually that:
article a.) You can't add muscle on a true maintenance diet
article b.) Years of quality lifting reduce muscle gain potential. (With nothing said for diet.)

I simply extrapolated (this is potentially dangerous, especially when your sources are sub-par ;-)) from that that if one twin lifted for those years and gained strength but gained no muscle, that he would then not be able to gain muscle later with a different type of training and diet optimized for hypertrophy, since he had already "used up" his training life to gain pure neurological strength.

I was thinking this would be a bunch of BS in real life, and your answers seem to agree with what I thought. ;-)

Now consider another totally wacked-out but plausible scenario...

I was reading that most individuals have the genetic potential to add 40 lbs of muscle from their starting point. But what's the starting point?

Say you're 150 lbs at 6% body fat in high school (that's what I was, so I'll use it as an example)...

Now, if you then lose 20 lbs of muscle over the next ten years, is my genetic potential now reduced?

e.g. 150+40=190 but 130+40=170.

Or conversely, say I gained 40 lbs in college due to lack of exercise. Say 10 lbs of that gain was muscle (whch is probably typical).

Now, 160+40=200. Has my genetic potential increased in this scenario?

Now, my numbers aren't adjusted precisely for LBM, but you get the picture.

JeffseekingV

You can only be what you can be. Not much use racking your brain with different comparisons.

Fithealthyforlife

You can only be what you can be. Not much use racking your brain with different comparisons.

Well, I'm genuinely curious.

The rule of thumb is 40 lbs from your "starting point".

But how is starting point defined? And how how does non-training-induced LBM gain or loss impact that starting point.

An extreme example would be someone who suffered from anorexia and lost 35 lbs of LBM. Has their starting point and potential been skewed forever as a result? Or someone who has dieted excessively and improperly.

Likewise, if someone became extremely obese and gained 40 lbs of LBM in the process...can they then go and gain another 40 lbs through training, and effectively double their default potential?

I feel these are realistic questions.

mustgetmuscles1

I think it still comes down to what your personal muscle potential would be. No matter how long it took you to get there.

Hypo:
Say there is a dude and he has the potential to be 180 but is currently 150 (same bf%).

If he trains optimally he can can 15 the first year 10 the second and 5 the third.

Same guy trains less than optimal. I still think his max potential is the same. If he only gains 7 the first year I dont think he is just SOL. His potential to gain for the next years will just be a little higher until he reaches his potential.

Age may be a factor. Guy starts at 20 might have a higher top end than if he started at 40. Not sure though.

At least all of this is my hope. I lifted the first year in a calorie deficit to lose 50 lbs and started when I was 35. : )

mustgetmuscles1

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

Fithealthyforlife

I think it still comes down to what your personal muscle potential would be. No matter how long it took you to get there.

Hypo:
Say there is a dude and he has the potential to be 180 but is currently 150 (same bf%).

If he trains optimally he can can 15 the first year 10 the second and 5 the third.

Same guy trains less than optimal. I still think his max potential is the same. If he only gains 7 the first year I dont think he is just SOL. His potential to gain for the next years will just be a little higher until he reaches his potential.

Age may be a factor. Guy starts at 20 might have a higher top end than if he started at 40. Not sure though.

At least all of this is my hope. I lifted the first year in a calorie deficit to lose 50 lbs and started when I was 35. : )

I suspect your view is correct. But I'm not 100% sure, of course. That would mean that no matter how much LBM you gain or lose before or inbetween training years, you would still have the same potential (assuming your age was still young enough to reach it). So, 40 lbs above starting weight isn't the end-all-be-all, I would suspect. Since starting LBM can vary based on diet history, etc.

Of course, that also means, in theory, that a highly obese individual who gained 40 lbs of LBM from being obese would have zero growth potential left.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging

Fithealthyforlife

This information from studies is really interesting, and sheds some light on the question I asked earlier about whether weight gain or obesity might increase one's muscular potential (through strict interpretation of "LBM" and "starting point"). The answer appears to be "probably not".

http://skylertanner.com/2011/05/04/more-on-muscle-gain/

This also means that all the studies that found high (30-50%) LBM gain from overfeeding but no resistance training, may be skewed because they did not qualify the LBM as muscle. Most of it may simply have been water!

Fithealthyforlife

I also noticed that all of the LBM potential formulas essentially use height as the major predictive variable for an average individual, with a slight additional skew due to individual bone mass.

None of them use starting LBM or starting weight as a variable. This should be telling.

Source: http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/

JeffseekingV

I used one of your formulas.

ROUGH Est. At 170lbs I'm approx. 18% body fat. (who knows how accurate that is). That puts me at 140lbs of muscle and everything else

(Your Height in Inches -70) x 5 + 160 = Maximum LBM

Using your formula, at my weight/height, my max muscle mass potential is 145lbs. But I don't know if that's JUST muscle or if it includes everything else.