muscle building and genetics, special snow flake?

Apologies must have copied the wrong link. Hope it works this time:

http://www.jappl.org/content/104/6/1736.full

"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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

Add intelligence, motivation, etc to the list, too.

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's the part that leaves me completely flat. basically the article and the studies were a lot of words saying "genetics matter". I'm not sure where the news is here. yes, a lot of people here claim to be special snowflakes in one regard or another but i don't really see people arguing that genetics don't matter. they matter in everything else, from height to strength to speed to intelligence to medical anomalies so why wouldn't they matter when it comes to adaptation? i don't really recall people on the other side of this.

that said, everyone can make a change for the better or worse. we all have limitations but we can train and adapt to make quite a bit of difference within whatever genetic limits we were gifted from our parents.

i think that's the part that leaves me completely flat. basically the article and the studies were a lot of words saying "genetics matter". I'm not sure where the news is here. yes, a lot of people here claim to be special snowflakes in one regard or another but i don't really see people arguing that genetics don't matter. they matter in everything else, from height to strength to speed to intelligence to medical anomalies so why wouldn't they matter when it comes to adaptation? i don't really recall people on the other side of this.

that said, everyone can make a change for the better or worse. we all have limitations but we can train and adapt to make quite a bit of difference within whatever genetic limits we were gifted from our parents.

I think we're in agreement. Lets be honest: how many people are ever actually going to bump up against their genetic limits? Just because they're there doesn't mean you'll ever tap them out. Only people training to the highest level (olympians, NFL, etc) are going to discover their limits and they'll compensate for them by other means. Being strength limited outside of strongman or power/olympic lifting probably isn't going to hurt your chances too much. Most sports you just have to be "strong enough" so a certain amount of weakness is not a drawback. Then, all things being equal, skill at the game (and a whole host of other factors) will be the determinant between players

I've noticed often times someone will say I put on muscle easily or something along those lines and it seems many are quick to respond with you are not a special snowflake term. Or maybe just certain people say it a lot and it's not really a lot of people. Now i'm saying it a lot, lol. I just was putting another point of view out there so others can see genetics play an important role in our fitness too.

I think you're missing context though...I would assume people making the snowflake comments are doing so because someone is claiming to be gaining muscle because they gain muscle easily...even though they're eating like a little bird and netting 800 calories per day or whatever. Energy surplus is still required to build substantial muscle. You gots to eat to have a shot at putting on any substantial muscle...and for the average joe/jane out there, it is a painfully slow process.