Outtlaw
New member
I never said genetics didnt play a role in how much muscle you can hold. Where did you ever see me say that? What I said was that the drugs allow you to make up for that. If you can build muscle at a rate of 5, the drugs allow you to push that percentage up. What your saying is that the guy with the lesser genetics will always fall second to the guy with superior genetics and we both know that's not true.silverbackn said:Genetics don't just apply to insertions and origins of muscle. You think genetics don't play a role in how much muscle you can hold? You are absolutely clueless. No, drugs don't take out the genetic factor at all, they proliferate it. The pro bb'ers you see onstage have comparable genetics in terms of rarity to that of an olympic sprinter. I feel like I'm wasting my time rebutting your ridiculous statements. You're so far off the truth that you don't have a chance.
And dont sit up here and give me this bullshit about the rarity of an olympic sprinters genetic make up. Of course they have more fast twitch fibers. After years of training as a sprinter, it's only natural that they are gonna have an elevated level of muscle, and specifically certain types of muscle. But you cant prove that it was ALWAYS geneticly that way from birth. By the same token, I cant disprove that it wasnt. So I guess we're at a deadlock. Believe what you want, and I'll do the same until discredited. But I bet I could find a sprinter who wasnt always the fastest kid, and a pro bodybuilder who wasnt always the biggest kid... which would definitely say something about your theory of being born with the genetics.