Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

The Official Genetic Limitation Thread

spatts

High End Bro
Platinum
This thread is for talking about your genetic limits, and the limits of others. From now on, the weekly wrist argument will be moved here. Anytime this topic degenerates an otherwise useful thread, it will be cut and merged here.

:kiss:

Is it possible? Do I have no genetic limit? ....originally posted by Exodus

Simple-minded people ....originally posted by b_fold_the_truth

Work Ethic vs Genetic Potential ....originally posted by bigp3

Assisted vs Natural Training ....originally posted by BigBadBootyDaddy29
 
I dont think there really is a genetic limit. Progress slows down, but it never truly stops...if it does your not trying hard enough.
 
wildonsquats said:
What's a genetic limit? :p

No legs.


Seriously, if you have fully functioning limbs, and fully fuctioning internal organs, then you have no room to whine about genetics.

This is the last time I'll ever post on this thread.
 
strangebrew said:
I dont think there really is a genetic limit. Progress slows down, but it never truly stops...if it does your not trying hard enough.

I'm sure there is a point where it would stop. Something to consider though, is that age will start to intervene at some point. Strength gains will slow and slow and eventually your strength will start to decrease. This is of course a fact of life and need not really be considered...the main point is to make the most of what you're endowed with, whether you have piss-poor genetics or that of the elite. This is the philosophy I've always followed.
 
slobberknocker said:


No legs.


Seriously, if you have fully functioning limbs, and fully fuctioning internal organs, then you have no room to whine about genetics.

This is the last time I'll ever post on this thread.
:


FRlol: :FRlol: :FRlol: :FRlol: Didnt you say that last week?
 
A percieved "limit" can be for a number of factors aside from genetics:

Weak mindedness, missing limbs, unavailable food, but aside from these type of things, I dont believe "genetics" limits the human body. It is also possible that due to somewhat of a time limit (say 80 years on this earth) there may not be enough time to weigh 650lbs naturally. Use of anabolics and growth can speed the process I believe, but I think if you could eat enough and train hard enough the body would continue to grow. IMO I dont think any of these things can be conclusively proven either, cuz there are so many variables and different types of people. Theories are about as good as it gets IMO.
 
I just don't know if my genetics will allow me to not post on this tread on a multi-daily basis. I'll try to fight it though...

B True
 
Im a fucking Beast and it isnt physical strength that makes me such....I dont fit in a tamed ,domesticated social environment. Im fucking wild......... Down with humanity!!!!
 
Longevity--the ultimate genetic limitation

A link to longevity: Cholesterol-bearing molecules
Mary Duenwald/NYTIMES
Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Scientists trying to figure out why only one person in 10,000 lives to be 100 have found an important clue in the blood.

Centenarians, a new study shows, tend to have larger than average cholesterol-carrying molecules.

The study, published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, adds to an emerging collection of evidence suggesting that the size of lipoproteins, both good and bad, may play a significant role in heart disease and diabetes and consequently in longevity.

"Large particle size seems to give people an extra 20 years of life, with very little disability to go along with it," said Dr. Nir Barzilai, who directed the study at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Barzilai also traced large lipoproteins to a specific gene that influences lipoprotein size.

The study looked at the health characteristics of 213 centenarians and 216 of their offspring, as well as a control group of 256 people in their 60's and 70's whose parents did not live to 100.

The three groups were similar in their average total cholesterol; in their bad cholesterol, or low density lipoproteins; and in their body mass indexes, which are based on a ratio of height and weight and are used to gauge whether people are overweight. The centenarians and offspring, as would be expected, had higher levels of the good cholesterol.

But when the researchers looked at lipoprotein size, the centenarians stood out. Eighty percent of them were found to have an unusually high proportion of large particles.

Nearly half of their children also had the large particles, suggesting an even chance of inheriting the quality, Barzilai said.

Only 8 percent of the control group had the larger lipoproteins.

The researchers also found that subjects with cardiovascular problems were less likely to have large lipoproteins.

"It's no surprise that centenarians would be specially protected against cardiovascular disease," said Dr. Thomas Perls, a geriatrician at Boston Medical Center who directs a separate study of centenarians. "It's the No. 1 killer among old people, and centenarians must have some protection against it."

Another researcher, Dr. James Vaupel, director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, in Rostock, Germany, cautioned against overinterpreting the new study.

Smaller lipoprotein size "looks to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease," Vaupel said.

"But there are many other risk factors - high blood pressure, smoking, eating a fatty diet, not getting enough exercise," he added.

In the past five years, other researchers have also found a connection between small molecules of the bad cholesterol, or LDL, and the perilous buildup of plaques in the arteries.

Small LDL particles are better at digging into blood vessel walls and creating the conditions for plaques to form, said Dr. W. Timothy Garvey, chairman of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, who has done some of this research. "All LDL particles are bad," Garvey said, "but the smaller ones are worse than the bigger ones."

When people who have been sedentary start getting regular exercise, their LDL particles grow bigger, Dr. William Kraus, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, and his colleagues showed a year ago in a study of people 40 to 65.

"For years, scientists had known that exercise helped prevent heart disease, but we didn't know how it could be beneficial because it didn't affect cholesterol levels," Kraus said. "Now we know that exercise makes small, dense LDL particles larger and fluffier."

How size affects the operation of the good cholesterol, or high density lipoproteins, is not known. HDL carries cholesterol out of the blood vessels and into the liver, and one possibility is that the larger HDL molecules simply carry a bigger load.

But, Barzilai said, "The situation may be more complex."

Barzilai traced the larger particles to a mutation in a gene that is responsible for creating a protein known as CETP, or cholesterol ester transfer protein, which helps regulate cholesterol particle size.

He found that nearly 25 percent of the centenarians in his study carried two copies of a particular variant of the gene, which suppresses CETP activity. In the control group, only 8 percent had the same variant.

The gene may be one reason why some of the centenarians in Barzilai's study have lived to 100, even though they were overweight or had poor nutritional habits, Barzilai said.

"I hate to say it, but I think it's true," he said. "If you have this gene, you can smoke and you can be fat and you can not exercise. This sounds to me terrible."

Barzilai suspects that perhaps four or five other genes also play a role in determining lipoprotein size. He said he had already begun to zero in on a second gene that appears to be as important as the CETP gene.
 
If there is no such thing as a genetic limit, then why did my gains stop after 7 years of serious training? And for the next 3 years, I tried every training approach, every supplement, and every variation in nutrition, but still couldnt gain a pound.
If that wasnt me hitting my natural genetic limit, then I would love to know what the cause of 3 wasted years was
 
needsize said:
If there is no such thing as a genetic limit, then why did my gains stop after 7 years of serious training? And for the next 3 years, I tried every training approach, every supplement, and every variation in nutrition, but still couldnt gain a pound.
If that wasnt me hitting my natural genetic limit, then I would love to know what the cause of 3 wasted years was

Mind to body connection is much harder than mind to strength connection.

-sk
 
Warpath said:
Of course there's a genetic limit, it's just wishful thinking otherwise. A genetic limit shouldnt be used as an excuse for a mental limit however.

THANK YOU. I was AMAZED at how many people are actually arguing the fact that we have genetic limits. Where were you on the other threads :D
 
The best thing I ever did lifting-wise was losing my HGer mindset. I now believe that moaning about my supposed genetic limits and wrist size and all that bullshit was responsible for me subconciously sabotaging my own progress. That's what I love about this forum compared to others I've read, no-ones making excuses about why they're not gaining :)
 
strangebrew said:
I dont think there really is a genetic limit. Progress slows down, but it never truly stops...if it does your not trying hard enough.

this in itself certainly does not mean that there is no limit.

Personally i think there is a rather abstract limit that we all approach.
 
It's nuts to think we don't have genetic limitations. Also it's ironic when a lot the people who are arguing that there are none are on steroids. If genetics limits didn't exist, I would be able to achieve a pro bodybuilder caliber physique without drugs. It's simply not going to happen. And it's not for lack of the right attitude or lack of trying hard enough, it's just not possible.
 
I'm with [doesn't]Needsize, Debaser and Warpath. There are definitely genetic limitations...otherwise, why would someone like Ronnie Coleman, who fights for ever-greater deadlift poundages (etc.) routinely compete around the same bodyweight? Lack of food or test ain't the answer, that's for sure.

Why can't I be a 5'6", 340 lbs. ripped bodybuilder for that matter? God knows I bust my ass and train pretty intelligently.

Answer: Ronnie's pushing the envelope of his genetics. So, too, would I be as I approached 340 ripped ;) (J/k...I don't even wish for that. I have enough trouble getting around 100 lbs. lighter and far from shredded. 300+ is almost scary to me.)

Where I agree with everyone is that "genetic limitations" is too often a cheesy cop-out. As much as I like most of what someone like Brooks Kubik or Stuart McRobert says, I wince every time I see the term "hard-gainer" or read where someone believes they're at their genetic limit when they don't even have 16" arms.

Generally speaking, Pragmatism Is Good (tm). Bust your tail and make the best of what you have...don't fret about limits until they're beating down your door, and fight them even then.
 
maybe its opptimism or naivety but I belive that I have a lot of room left to grow, and that my genetic limit is still far off. If I were to belive for a second that I couldn't get any better I would fucking quit. Regardless of the truth I will not bitch about the problems I have or the shortcomings. I will focus on the things that I can do something about.
 
It has come to my attention that I'm genetically limited to 5' 8.75" in height. I wear size 12 shoes, and have for nearly 20 years.
I don't wish to divulge dimensions for a bodypart that hasn't seemed to get bigger over the years.

I haven't yet determined the genetic potential for size or strength gains in my case.

Looks like I'll just have to keep trying.
 
it ended up taking me 7 years to reach my natural limit, its not something you do in the first few years of training
 
supersizeme said:
It's nuts to think we don't have genetic limitations. Also it's ironic when a lot the people who are arguing that there are none are on steroids. If genetics limits didn't exist, I would be able to achieve a pro bodybuilder caliber physique without drugs. It's simply not going to happen. And it's not for lack of the right attitude or lack of trying hard enough, it's just not possible.

well i dont belive in a genetic limit, and im not on steriods.

and needsize............. you have some of my utmost respect on this board......but you say you tried everything. did you try wsb and quit making gains???........not trying to piss you off, i know you trained with a powerlifter for a while, im just doing a logical debate....

i used to belive i had bad genetics and small wrist, but my wrist have gotten bigger, and my genetics seem to be improving, hmmmm........ i guess im just special.


X
 
Is this "argument" about possible genetic limitations with regard to gaining muscle mass, or limitations regarding strength?

I seem to be hearing both of those during these genetic limitation posts and threads. Wrist size determing if you can lift really heavy weights, hard-gainers, etc......


Muscle mass-wise - Perhaps there is a limit to what one can grow to naturally. Needsize may very well be a perfect example of that. As well as B-Fold. He has stated himself that he has a hard time staying above 285. (I believe that was the weight.)

Strength-wise - This is where I think a lot of the heated arguments stem from. I DO NOT believe that there is a limit to how strong someone can become. B-Fold again as an example: He gets stronger and stronger all the time, yet his wieght stays somewhat stagnant. I am the same way, right now. I am getting stronger, but my weight hasn't changed in the last few months.

My point being: I think it needs to be clarified what exactly the limitations we are debating are for. Size vs strength. I don;t think they are related, when discussing genetic limitations.


.02,
Joker
 
Exodus said:


and needsize............. you have some of my utmost respect on this board......but you say you tried everything. did you try wsb and quit making gains???........not trying to piss you off, i know you trained with a powerlifter for a while, im just doing a logical debate....
X

Didnt try the actual wsb system as this was 5 years ago, I had no internet access and none of the reseach that I had done came up with that approach, was it even around back then?
I have no doubt in my mind that I hit my limit back then. 3 years of putting everything you have into training, nutrition and rest, completely dedicating myself to the lifestyle, and not gaining a pound, no doubt at all in my mind. Even now with the use of steroids, my body still does not want to gain any more mass, no matter what I do. And when I come off, my body immediately attempts to go back to the size it was before I ever did a cycle
 
just an idea needsize, but you seem to stay fairly lean, below 15% at all times, why dont you try going above that, maybe to 20% and will throw your body out of sync, and maybe help out your delemia.

X
 
If you have genes, then you have a genetic limit. However, you won't know what that is until you give it your all. Even then, it is rare to hit it.
 
Imakarum_Mirabilis said:
If you have genes, then you have a genetic limit. However, you won't know what that is until you give it your all. Even then, it is rare to hit it.

Good thing I dont wear genes..........:alien:
 
Imakarum_Mirabilis said:
If you have genes, then you have a genetic limit. However, you won't know what that is until you give it your all. Even then, it is rare to hit it.

now theres some logical proof. show me something documented, scientifically, untill then, no one should say there is a limit.,....in my honest opinion.

we have constantly evolved in levels of size and strength, but there has never been any proof of a limit. other wise ronnie coleman would still be as big as reg park, and scott mendelson would still only be as strong as grimmick.

X
 
By the way, genes don't care what anyone thinks, believes, or feels. Science doesn't feed on whim.
 
Exodus said:


we have constantly evolved in levels of size and strength, but there has never been any proof of a limit. other wise ronnie coleman would still be as big as reg park, and scott mendelson would still only be as strong as grimmick.

X

You don't think there are OTHER factors accounting for Ronnie's success? Maybe the huge amounts of gear, GH, insulin, etc? And as gul dukat said, his bodyweight doesn't appear to be changing much despite his shit-heavy training, vicious overeating and extreme drug dosages.
 
DRUGS. Do you really think bodybuilders train smarter than the old schoolers? It is in fact the exact opposite. Reg Park and the like knew how to train far more productively than many of today's pros. Because they didn't use extreme gear dosages they had to figure out what WORKED.
 
Debaser said:
DRUGS. Do you really think bodybuilders train smarter than the old schoolers? It is in fact the exact opposite. Reg Park and the like knew how to train far more productively than many of today's pros. Because they didn't use extreme gear dosages they had to figure out what WORKED.


True. I agree. I should of asked it better. I meant why is it that greg kovacs abuses drugs as does ronnie and one gets alot bigger then the other? Im thinking Kovacs takes more drugs. Maybe Im wrong. But in such a case its hard to tell if ronnie has really reached his limit. Maybe he needs to take more drugs, or even eat more?
 
Debaser said:
DRUGS. Do you really think bodybuilders train smarter than the old schoolers? It is in fact the exact opposite. Reg Park and the like knew how to train far more productively than many of today's pros. Because they didn't use extreme gear dosages they had to figure out what WORKED.

I think many of todays pros are straight up dumb. They will inject anything.

I thought that Dorian was smart and meticulous about his training and diet.
 
Exodus said:


well i dont belive in a genetic limit, and im not on steriods.

and needsize............. you have some of my utmost respect on this board......but you say you tried everything. did you try wsb and quit making gains???........not trying to piss you off, i know you trained with a powerlifter for a while, im just doing a logical debate....

i used to belive i had bad genetics and small wrist, but my wrist have gotten bigger, and my genetics seem to be improving, hmmmm........ i guess im just special.


X
It doesnt matter whether you believe in genetic limits or not, because they exist, you may also not believe in gravity, but it exists. Skeletal muscle can hypertrophy to a degree in response to increased load if adequate nutrients are supplied in an appropriate anabolic environment, but they cant divide and increase in number (hyperplasia). On a purely mechanical argument, the nuclei can only accomodate so much transcription activity to produce the actin and myosin that compose skeletal muscle. Once the myofibril reaches a certain size, transcription cant keep up with demands. Hence, you have a genetic limit.
 
Exodus said:
just an idea needsize, but you seem to stay fairly lean, below 15% at all times, why dont you try going above that, maybe to 20% and will throw your body out of sync, and maybe help out your delemia.

X

I dont know if I've gone over 15%, ubt during that 3 year period where I couldnt gain anything, I did try upping my calories to 6000-8000 per day. I ened up with very minimal strength increases, and no size gained. This past year, on gear, I went up to 13%, which was pretty high for me, and all it did was add more crap that I had to diet off when contest time came.

This time around I'm trying something a little different..I always get 250-300grams of protein per day, minimum, this time around the minimum is 400grams, 500 if I can do it, so we'll see what that does
 
i think we have genetic limitations.....
just how many of us will ever reach them?

1-2%

years of the "perfect routine" (that changes)

years of the "perfect diet" (if you can find it)
 
There are 2 reasons why an elephant would be a total god in bed.

1. His trunk is prehensile. That means he can move it around while inside.

2. His tongue is right by his trunk.

Think about it.
 
Debaser said:
There are 2 reasons why an elephant would be a total god in bed.

1. His trunk is prehensile. That means he can move it around while inside.

2. His tongue is right by his trunk.

Think about it.

Is there something you aren't telling us debaser? Are you really an elephant in disguise?

-sk
 
Well, my tongue isn't right next to my johnson. But I do have special..."abilities."
 
All this talk about genetic limits- yet each year that passes, people are getting stronger, faster, bigger... evolution does not happen that fast... There is no difference in the genes... The drugs have truly not changed that significantly... Sure the best training and nutrition info is more readily available, bit none of it is significantly different than anything that was available to elite athletes 10 years ago or more. There are 18 year old kids deadlifting 800 pounds, and no amount of supportive gear will ever make that easier... That was unthought of a couple years ago... people would have though guys like Ronnie were impossible 10 years ago.... I remember when a 4.4 or 4.3 40 was hella fast. Now some guys are supposedly breaking 4.2 (David Boston) and linebackers are running 4.35s (Boss Bailey).

Ten years from now, they will have new standards and the old ones we are amazed by now, will no longer be impressive... The truth is the bar is getting raised each and every day... and those people who boggle your mind are not arguing about limits and human potential, they are stepping up to the plate... the only question is- why aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Warpath said:

It doesnt matter whether you believe in genetic limits or not, because they exist, you may also not believe in gravity, but it exists. Skeletal muscle can hypertrophy to a degree in response to increased load if adequate nutrients are supplied in an appropriate anabolic environment, but they cant divide and increase in number (hyperplasia). On a purely mechanical argument, the nuclei can only accomodate so much transcription activity to produce the actin and myosin that compose skeletal muscle. Once the myofibril reaches a certain size, transcription cant keep up with demands. Hence, you have a genetic limit.

show me a proven case study, not some fancy shit you whip down, where it proves there is a genetic limit.... give me the case study, where to find it a link to the article. something proven..... then i will say i was wrong.


X
 
Debaser said:


You don't think there are OTHER factors accounting for Ronnie's success? Maybe the huge amounts of gear, GH, insulin, etc? And as gul dukat said, his bodyweight doesn't appear to be changing much despite his shit-heavy training, vicious overeating and extreme drug dosages.

fine then........ todays ammatures, many of which who take a 3rd of what reg park took, if any at all, look as good or even better.

so how do you say we have a limit, when in just a small period of 50 years, common place ammatures can look as good or better than the pro's from half a century ago???

X
 
the idea of a genetic limit to me is false.

lifting weights, eating, resting, recovery techniques, steroids, are all tools....there really is no such thing as a genetic limit, and no way of telling you have reached a genetic limit.

why draw the line at steroids? Eating a ton of protein is just as unnatural as shooting steroids, because you are purposely eating to gain mass. Same as lifting weights, etc. It's all "unnatural".

some people simply have the ability to recover and grow more over a certain given time. It would seem you can always enhance that....more rest, more food, different training, different supplements, more juice. There is always going to be some factor in that equation that could possibly hold you back. If you say you've reached your genetic limit, maybe sleeping an extra 3 hrs a day would push you beyond.....that might not feasible for most of our lifestyles, but, it's not impossible.

One thing that is pretty much undeniable, is gear will certainly get you there a lot quicker.
 
I am going to be realistic here. I think positively, I do not have a negative attitude towards training, I have a realistic one. I don't aspire to be mediocre, in fact, I take every step possible to not accept failure and to constantly progress and better myself. I believe that one of best qualities I have as a person is that I am not stubborn and when I see something not working, I will make the necessary change(s).

Do I feel there is a total genetic brickwall so to speak? No. I do, however, feel that a human being reaches a point when their gains become so insignificant that they may have well reached their genetic limit. When you reach the point when your bench press increses 5lbs per year, it is safe to say you are looking at a brick wall.

If genetics knew no limits, then why do athletes bother to use steroids? If genetics knew no limits, why is it that powerlifting records and physiques built seem to only be shattered with scientific advancements (shirts, suits, belts, steroids, hGH, the discovery that insulin can slap 10-20lbs on a body so saturated with sauce that the steroid receptors look like fried chicken)???

I do not believe that all men and women are created equal. Some are brilliant, some are kind and compassionate, some are deep thinkers, some excell in the area of mathematics, and some are predisposed to not only size and strength, but the ability to gain it and the luxury of tendons like steel cables.

If after so many years of natural training a gifted athlete squats 700lbs, how can anybody be foolish enough to say that any Joe Blow can squat 700lbs if they trained, ate, and slept exactly like the 700lb squatter for just as long as he did???

Also, we're all at different levels. I am 24, have been training hard-core, non-stop since late 1992. If any teenagers or newbies want to argue with me, hold that thought, stop kidding yourself, and talk to me at the end of the decade. I bet there will be no discussion because you will see what I am saying. People whose bench is increasing at the mind-blowing pace of 10lbs per year can talk all they want about knowing no limits, me? I am gonna keep piling on the plates with the needle as good as in my ass.
 
Exodus said:


show me a proven case study, not some fancy shit you whip down, where it proves there is a genetic limit.... give me the case study, where to find it a link to the article. something proven..... then i will say i was wrong.


X
Fancy shit I whip down?:D All right believe whatever you want X. What I wrote isnt fancy "shit", it's fact. Maybe believing you have no limits will help you break some mental barriers. I prefer to know the reality of what I'm dealing with. No flame intended.
 
Warpath said:

Fancy shit I whip down?:D All right believe whatever you want X. What I wrote isnt fancy "shit", it's fact. Maybe believing you have no limits will help you break some mental barriers. I prefer to know the reality of what I'm dealing with. No flame intended.

no flame taken..... as i see what i wrote came out the wrong way, im sorry. yeah it has a lot of technical terms. but thats no proof. i can take technical terms and make it say that brushing your teeth causes cancer, but that doest mean it does.

give me some proof. where did you get your "fact" from???

X
 
I get the information from my own personal understanding of how muscle cells function. From what I have read on this thread the people who dont believe in a genetic max refuse to be limited in what they can accomplish. Thats probably a good thing, because if you do believe in a genetic max then it could hold you back from acheiving your potential, even if it was unconcious. Suffice it to say that you probably will never hit your genetic max and will continue to make some gains over the years.
 
Absence of evidence does equate to evidence of absence.

Some of you should take some Bio courses to learn a thing or fifty.

Mindless rabble. What a tragic waste of effort. Warpath, I would not bother to continue arguing, were I you. I know I won't be doing so any further.

If any of you don't believe in genetic limits, practice everyday, and maybe -one day- you can respire underwater, grow to a height of twenty feet, and digest cellulose.

This is why many believe lifters to be dim-witted.
 
Imakarum_Mirabilis said:
Absence of evidence does equate to evidence of absence.

Some of you should take some Bio courses to learn a thing or fifty.

If any of you don't believe in genetic limits, practice everyday, and maybe -one day- you can respire underwater, grow to a height of twenty feet, and digest cellulose.

This is why many believe lifters to be dim-witted.

Someone missed the point...lol.

I did take several BIO courses as well as Anatomy and Phisiology. At no point did the short fat professor talk about genetic limitations of the elite athlete.

Also...I don't think that ANYONE has even mentioned respirating water, growing to 20', or digesting cellulose. You argue using points that can not be done no matter how you work.

Heck...what do I know though. I haven't done anything to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. lol

B True
 
Imakarum_Mirabilis said:
practice everyday, and maybe -one day- you can respire underwater, grow to a height of twenty feet, and digest cellulose.

I knew this kid when I was in school that could breathe underwater...

...but he doesn't work out anymore.


Joker
 
JOKER47 said:


I knew this kid when I was in school that could breathe underwater...

...but he doesn't work out anymore.


Joker

You are talking about Frank the giant?

You are correct. . last time I heard he quit training. He was a genetic freak.
 
As may have already been said in some form, a law of diminishing returns certainly applies to growth as it does almost everywhere else. I think what the term -genetic limit- should mean is this: The point at which strenth or size gains are not proportionate to a consistent or even increased level of training. Or something like that.

I was born and raised into a positive affirmationist/metaphysical environment. I do, in fact, believe that limits are merely barriers that we allow to be placed upon us to satisfy the status quo and to justify apathy on the part of insecure people.

I think I just contradicted myself.

But, what I am trying to convey is that although there may be no real limits, there comes a time when one surpasses the body's pre-programmed state of equilibrium.
 
b fold the truth said:


Someone missed the point...lol.

I did take several BIO courses as well as Anatomy and Phisiology. At no point did the short fat professor talk about genetic limitations of the elite athlete.


Heck...what do I know though. I haven't done anything to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. lol

B True

They don't have to talk specifically about the genetic limitations of elite atheletes. Humans are humans. The same physiology that applies to you applies to me and applies to the 400lb slob sitting on the couch eating a 20 piece bucket of friend chicken.

No matter how you meant it your right when you say you did nothing to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. You ate hard and you worked hard and you got big. There will come a point when you stop getting bigger and stronger. It's a fact of life.

The human body can accomplish amazing things. It can not however continue to grow and get stronger as you see fit. I'm not thinking pessimistically I'm thinking realistically.

I'm not sure I agree with the people saying that the pros trained smarter back then compared to how they train now. Obviously some pros of today may train poorly compared to those of the past but as a whole today's atheletes are much smarter with their training. Drugs and greater understanding of how the body works is why the records of old are being broken.
 
You know...who cares if I have genetic limitations.

The only thing that matters...is game day. Till everyone decides to stand toe to toe and put their game where their mouth is...it means nothing. It is all talk till then.

Yet another reason why I love Strongman. Lots of people talk...but they don't even show up on game day.

B True
 
b fold the truth said:
You know...who cares if I have genetic limitations.

The only thing that matters...is game day. Till everyone decides to stand toe to toe and put their game where their mouth is...it means nothing. It is all talk till then.

Yet another reason why I love Strongman. Lots of people talk...but they don't even show up on game day.

B True


I think that's the third or fourth post of yours I read today that I wanted to give you karma for, but it keeps saying I have to spread it around.


:fro:
 
b fold the truth said:


Someone missed the point...lol.

I did take several BIO courses as well as Anatomy and Phisiology. At no point did the short fat professor talk about genetic limitations of the elite athlete.

Also...I don't think that ANYONE has even mentioned respirating water, growing to 20', or digesting cellulose. You argue using points that can not be done no matter how you work.

Heck...what do I know though. I haven't done anything to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. lol

B True

Someone sure did.

That's because genes don't apply only to elite athletes. They apply to all things with genes. Mention of elite athletes is of no consequence.

They are done by organisms which have different genes and, thusly, different genetic limits.

No, you haven't done anything to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. lol
 
Imakarum_Mirabilis said:


No, you haven't done anything to prove science and genetic limitations wrong. lol

You are right...and wrong.

Wrong: I was told when I was 15 and dying that I would always be skinny and thin. Just imagine me at 152 pounds with big hands and feet and 6'2". How many people do you know at age 16 that wore a size 16 shoe and was only 6'2" and weighed 152? Not many here.

I was also told that I would never be able to be big, lift weights, or train in Martial Arts...much less compete ever again. Within 2 years I competed at my first Martial Arts Tournament back...and won 1st in Forms, 1st in Weapons, Overall Grand Champion, and took first in Fighting too. Heck...I won my last fight in 38 seconds...5-0 (including the time it took the judges to say break and score points).

As a Pro Strongman...I look back and laugh at those doctors who told me that it would be impossible to be what I am. Sure...without being sick for several years I surely would have been A LOT taller and maybe even bigger...but I did the best that I could with what little I had.

Right: You are right...maybe I didn't prove science wrong with anything that I did. I was given some of the best mental genetics on Earth...and I have put them to good use. Maybe, just maybe, I have been given average genetics and I have put them to BETTER use than most everyone else has. Yeah...I think THAT is correct. I just made the MOST of mine...where so many others have given up along the way.

B True
 
Remember guys, by saying there is no genetical limit it doesn't mean we are going against science. Maybe science has to catch up ...

-sk
 
b fold the truth said:


You are right...and wrong.

Wrong: I was told when I was 15 and dying that I would always be skinny and thin. Just imagine me at 152 pounds with big hands and feet and 6'2". How many people do you know at age 16 that wore a size 16 shoe and was only 6'2" and weighed 152? Not many here.

I was also told that I would never be able to be big, lift weights, or train in Martial Arts...much less compete ever again. Within 2 years I competed at my first Martial Arts Tournament back...and won 1st in Forms, 1st in Weapons, Overall Grand Champion, and took first in Fighting too. Heck...I won my last fight in 38 seconds...5-0 (including the time it took the judges to say break and score points).

As a Pro Strongman...I look back and laugh at those doctors who told me that it would be impossible to be what I am. Sure...without being sick for several years I surely would have been A LOT taller and maybe even bigger...but I did the best that I could with what little I had.

Right: You are right...maybe I didn't prove science wrong with anything that I did. I was given some of the best mental genetics on Earth...and I have put them to good use. Maybe, just maybe, I have been given average genetics and I have put them to BETTER use than most everyone else has. Yeah...I think THAT is correct. I just made the MOST of mine...where so many others have given up along the way.

B True


Just because the people who gave their opinions regarding your future were doctors does not mean they were correct, that their predictions were based on science, and it certainly doesn't have any impact on an argument regarding genetics.
 
If there is such thing as a genetic limit, or there isn't. I dont care. You guys shouldnt eaither. I made the LEAST progress in my training when I kept bitching to myself about how my peers were MUCH bigger and stronger than me even though they didnt even work out.

I just stopped caring about it and I started making big gains because I told myself that I can grow as much as anyone can if I lift hard and eat right

I will keep thinking and training like I have the ability to be as big as strong as I WANT to be. you guys who keep trying to prove there are genetic limitations with these rediculous examples can keep making excuses for yourselves
 
t3c said:
If there is such thing as a genetic limit, or there isn't. I dont care. You guys shouldnt eaither. I made the LEAST progress in my training when I kept bitching to myself about how my peers were MUCH bigger and stronger than me even though they didnt even work out.

I just stopped caring about it and I started making big gains because I told myself that I can grow as much as anyone can if I lift hard and eat right

I will keep thinking and training like I have the ability to be as big as strong as I WANT to be. you guys who keep trying to prove there are genetic limitations with these rediculous examples can keep making excuses for yourselves

Good post.
 
I agree with t3c!!!

And one more thing. . . guys. . be careful about spreading your genetics. . . . it can lead to bad things.


You know what I am talking about!
 
I think some people on this thread may have misunderstood my intentions in stating that we have genetic limits. I didnt mean it to be an excuse to be lazy or to be a pathetic whiner, which is what most people who complain about being screwed with bad genetics do. I read these boards to learn from the experts (you guys) about how to work out. If I find an opportunity to contribute what I know to the conversation then I do it. The original question in this thread was "do we have genetic limits to how big and strong we can be". My answer to that is still yes, because it is the truth. Understand that I am not using that fact as an excuse to be lazy or complain. It's just the way things are. You are always better knowing the reality of things even though you may not like it so that you can effectively deal with it. Denying what is true because one doesnt want to believe it just makes that person seem foolish and holds them back from acheiving their goals. I think a lot of the reason why so many people hate the idea of having a genetic limit is because people have been telling them their whole lives that they cant acheive their goals because they are too sick, too short, too fat, too dumb, etc. Surprise: those people have no idea in hell what your genetic limit is do they? Do they have a copy of your genome in front of them? NO. Do they know who you are? No. Truth of the matter is most people dont have the balls to do the work to find out what their limit is. Human beings are finite, we all have limits, but its up to you to find out what that limit is, not have some one tell you what it is.
 
Last edited:
t3c said:
If there is such thing as a genetic limit, or there isn't. I dont care. You guys shouldnt eaither. I made the LEAST progress in my training when I kept bitching to myself about how my peers were MUCH bigger and stronger than me even though they didnt even work out.

I just stopped caring about it and I started making big gains because I told myself that I can grow as much as anyone can if I lift hard and eat right

I will keep thinking and training like I have the ability to be as big as strong as I WANT to be. you guys who keep trying to prove there are genetic limitations with these rediculous examples can keep making excuses for yourselves

No one here has made excuses t3c. Not once have I said." I will not get any bigger than this because of damn genetics," or "my arms are small because I have shit genetics." So please don't talk down to people like they're pussy's because they're willing to acknowledge that the body might not be capable of everything.
 
This is one of the cases where the realists won't achieve the level of strength and muscle that the ignorant will.
 
Warpath said:
I think some people on this thread may have misunderstood my intentions in stating that we have genetic limits. I didnt mean it to be an excuse to be lazy or to be a pathetic whiner, which is what most people who complain about being screwed with bad genetics do. I read these boards to learn from the experts (you guys) about how to work out. If I find an opportunity to contribute what I know to the conversation then I do it. The original question in this thread was "do we have genetic limits to how big and strong we can be". My answer to that is still yes, because it is the truth. Understand that I am not using that fact as an excuse to be lazy or complain. It's just the way things are. You are always better knowing the reality of things even though you may not like it so that you can effectively deal with it. Denying what is true because one doesnt want to believe it just makes that person seem foolish and holds them back from acheiving their goals. I think a lot of the reason why so many people hate the idea of having a genetic limit is because people have been telling them their whole lives that they cant acheive their goals because they are too sick, too short, too fat, too dumb, etc. Surprise: those people have no idea in hell what your genetic limit is do they? Do they have a copy of your genome in front of them? NO. Do they know who you are? No. Truth of the matter is most people dont have the balls to do the work to find out what their limit is. Human beings are finite, we all have limits, but its up to you to find out what that limit is, not have some one tell you what it is.

Exactly.

I am amazed at the lie perpetuated when people tell others (mainly children) that one can be anything one wishes to be, so long as the desire is there and the effort is put forth.

However, one will never know if one never makes the attempt.
 
slobberknocker said:
I am a Viking Warrior.

I'm not...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

B True
 
Beast, genes are a term for a given set of nucleotides (adenine, thymine, cytosine or guanine), which are the molecular components of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). And yes, genes have been identified numerous times through various techniques and are observed and manipulated every day. They are analogous to a blue print, a blue print for building proteins. A specific gene will serve as a blue print for a certain protein which is constructed from amino acids by ribosomes. Genes code for many different proteins; hair, skin, heart and what everyone here is talking about- muscle.
 
I personally think its obvious we are limited by our genes, we'll never be able to generate as much force as a rocket launching to space for instance, I don't care how hard you try. However, I don't think working out with the philosophy "I'm going to maximize my potiential until I reach my limitations"(which may be true!), isn't nearly as good of a philosophy as "There is no end to my potiential, I will always improve". The latter is more motivating, and its likely you'll always be able to improve yourself a little more cause new and better training methods are always discovered. If you go in thinking what prevents you from progressing is your genetics, which you don't have control over, rather then training methods, perhaps you'll give in too easy because it'll be out of your hands.
 
Is it Genetic?
By Len Kravitz, Ph.D. and Robert R. Robergs, Ph.D.

You know how you compare to others in your ability to run a mile, compete on the racquetball court or in triathlons, or perhaps to generate muscular strength. You have probably asked yourself why your capabilities differ from others. Of course, it is easy to explain your weaknesses as a reflection of a poorly dealt set of genetic cards. Conversely, when explaining your superiority, it is even more tempting to claim that you train harder and have a better mental attitude during competition. Obviously, some characteristics of the healthy human body have a clear genetic input, such as body height, physique, and the color of the skin, eyes and hair. For events where physique is important, such as long distance cycling, marathon running, power lifting, and body building, genetics is obviously important. However, how important is genetics to the development of fitness components ? Are differences in fitness components between individuals a reflection of training, genetic characteristics, or a combination of both ? Furthermore, if both training and genetics are important, which component is more influential for given components of fitness, and why ? The purpose of this article is to present a concise explanation of the genetic contributions to exercise performance.

Genetic Limitation: A Lame or Valid Argument ?
The contribution of genetics to athletic performance is difficult to apply to a broad population. There is no question that genetic differences separate elite athletes from those of us who no matter how much we train, are restricted to compete against our previous personal best time. However, this does not detract from the performance feats of elite athletes. Sedentary individuals differ in their fitness level because of physical inactivity and not genetic capacities. Training is required to exploit the genetic potential of any individual. Elite athletes, although genetically gifted, need to be respected for the training they have completed in order to achieve their genetic potential. The difficulty lies in quantifying how much of an influence genetics has on specific components of fitness, and how certain genetic traits enable a given individual to respond more to a given training stimulus than another.

The role of genetics in determining exercise performance is best viewed at different levels of influence (Figure 1). The very nature of genetics is based on the expression of genetic information (i.e. from genes) that directs the cellular development of an organism. In humans, we can exemplify cellular genetic regulation in the type and concentration of certain enzymes in skeletal muscle, which in turn influences the metabolic capacity of the muscle, which in turn influences adaptability to training, which in turn will determine the potential to excel during exercise. A similar approach can be taken for other tissues that are known to be important during exercise, such as the heart, lungs, blood, and nervous system. However, before discussing how genetics influences exercise performance, it is important to understand how research is conducted to study the genetic contribution, and the limitations associated with these approaches.

Research methods used to study genetic contributions to exercise performance
The most common models to study the role of genetics in the development of fitness are listed in Table 1. Of these models, the most informative approach is to compare the differences in fitness components between twins to differences between other individuals. Furthermore, a comparison between identical twins (from one egg, or monozygous) to non-identical twins (from different eggs, or dizygous) better separates inherited genetic traits from the influences of the environment (which includes training).

Table 1: Models used in research of genetic influences to exercise performance.

Model Example Question

Family members and relatives Do all family members have the same body composition ?

Family vs adopted members Do family members differ from adopted children ?

Monozgous vs dizygous twins Are monozygous twins more similar in certain capacities than dizygous twins ?
Is there a more similar training potential between
monozygous twins than dizygous twins ?

Molecular biology Do individuals with similar exercise performance have similar genetically determined cellular characteristics?
Can a given exercise capacity be traced to the presence of specific genes ?

However, even twin studies have their limitations due to small sample sizes (only a few twins can be studied) and the difficulties in generalizing the results from these subjects to the whole population. Consequently, even the world's leading authority on the study of the genetic influences on exercise performance, Claude Bouchard, has stated, "....the heritability of most performance is only low to moderate, with no evidence for a strong effect" (Bouchard, Dionne, Simoneau, & Boulay, 1992). It remains unclear whether our current knowledge of genetic influence to exercise is limited by inadequate research. It is apparent that research has not yet been able to identify the genetic influences on specific functional capacities, or the detection of genes that foster the development of given capacities of human function. Perhaps, from a moral and philosophical perspective, this is a good thing !!!!

Genetics of motor development, strength, balance
Motor development refers to the process of acquiring movement skills and patterns, and generally occurs during childhood. Many basic movement patterns are established during the first 7 years of a child's life. There may be considerable variation in the skill level of these patterns between children. However, studies have demonstrated that heredity only plays a moderate factor with motor characteristics (Malina & Bouchard, 1986) . It is interesting to note that brothers tend to resemble each other in motor tasks and in strength tests, more than sisters resemble each other in these characteristics. However, this gender difference has been explained more to social and familial pressures, and less to a genetic influence.

With muscular strength measurements, three kinds of strength are commonly denoted: 1) isometric strength, 2) concentric and eccentric contraction strength, and 3) explosive strength, which measures the muscles' ability to create maximal force in the shortest possible time. The limited data on muscular strength tends to show that there is a significant degree of similarity in strength among siblings. More extensive research has been completed with parent-offspring comparisons in strength. Grip strength, arm strength, and relative body strength appear to have strong resemblances between parents and their offspring (Malina & Bouchard, 1986) . Some studies indicate that female offspring tend to resemble their parents more than the male children in strength characteristics. Also, Malina cites some investigations that indicate that male offspring resemble their father's strength whereas females are more similar to their mother.

Information on parent-child similarities in running, jumping and throwing is limited. The difficulty with these investigations is that many of the dynamic strength tests used for the youth are not suitable for adults. However, evidence does seem to suggest some strong father-son similarities in sprinting, running and jumping.

Balance is a skill that requires a combination of fine and gross motor control in maintaining equilibrium. It is an essential component of performance in specialized skills, such as gymnastics and diving events. Available investigations seem to indicate a fairly strong parent to off-spring similarity in beam walking balance tests (Wolanski & Kasprzak, 1979) .

Genetics of body size, composition and muscle tissue
Each of body size, physique, body composition and biological maturation share similarities in genetic influences. Although human stature is mainly determined by genetics, it is also influenced by the environment (i.e., malnutrition). Segmental body lengths and bone-related mineral mass show a high degree of genetic control. Body weight, skinfolds and body circumferences show a lesser degree of genetic inheritance due primarily to changes occurring in the environment such as nutritional intake and variation in physical activity. However, fat patterning is apparently a highly heritable trait, which shows ethnic and racial variation (Mueller & Wohlleb, 1981) .

Medical geneticists have clearly shown that all muscular properties are subject to inherited influences. Muscle fiber numbers are presumably determined by the second trimester of fetal development (McArdle, Katch, & Katch, 1991) . The genetic contributions to muscle tissue fiber composition and size are significant. However, physical training may play a significant role in modifying fiber size and area, and the relative area composed of Type I (slow twitch, oxidative muscle) and Type II (fast twitch, glycolitic) fibers as well as their metabolic capacities. However, as will be discussed in the sections to follow, the proportion of slow and fast twitch muscle fiber types is genetically determined and can not be influenced by training (Costill, Fink, & Pollack, 1976; Gollnick, et al., 1972; Pette & Staron, 1990).
Genetics of blood, arterial blood pressure and heart structure
Investigations have examined the genetic effect of hemoglobin (the oxygen carrying component in the blood) and hematocrit (the relation of red blood cells to total plasma volume). There appears to be a significant inherited pattern of variation in hemoglobin concentration while the hematocrit shows a lower genetic effect (Bouchard & Malina, 1983) . Differences in hemoglobin concentration and total blood volume between the genders adds to the evidence of genetic control of these variables.

Studies of the genetic effect of arterial blood pressures and hypertension have been of great concern. Clearly, factors such as a person's body weight, age, gender, level of stress, salt intake, and socioeconomic condition are associated with systolic (the pumping cycle of the heart) blood pressure. These factors are proposed to only account for 30% of the variation in blood pressure. A summary of the trends in the literature suggest that 50% to 60% of the variation in resting systolic blood pressure, in normotensive individuals (people who have average blood pressure) is due to a genetic effect while 40% of the variation in diastolic blood pressure is due to genetics (Bouchard & Lortie, 1984) .

In regards to heart structure, investigations suggest a strong inheritance with vascular wall thickness of the coronary arteries and in the branching patterns of the coronary arteries. Non-invasive measurements of heart structures, size and functions suggest a significant familial resemblance (Bouchard & Malina, 1983) . Since the size of the heart is an important determinant of stroke volume, which is a limiting factor to aerobic performance, it appears that genetics may play a crucial role in determining one's aerobic capacity potential.


Genetics of endurance performance
The cardiorespiratory, muscular, orthopaedic, and body composition components of human structure and function that influence cardiorespiratory endurance and prolonged exercise performance are illustrated in Figure 2. These determinants can be grouped into three components: peripheral, central, and other. Peripheral components refer to those within skeletal muscle, whereas central components are those that concern the heart and cardiovascular system.


Peripheral determinants
During the 1970's and 1980's, there were many scientists who strongly believed that the capacity of skeletal muscle to use oxygen was what limited VO2max and endurance performance. For example, blood leaving contracting skeletal muscle was known to still have considerable oxygen content, indicating that there may be a limitation in oxygen uptake from blood. In addition, endurance training was shown to cause large increases in muscle mitochondria (organelles that consume oxygen) and their enzymes, and the density of capillaries in skeletal muscle. These changes occurred in concert with increases in VO2max (Costill, Fink, & Pollack, 1976; Gollnick et al., 1972). Collectively, these facts indicated that increasing the ability of skeletal muscle to use oxygen increased VO2max.

The capacity of skeletal muscle to utilize oxygen has strong genetic and training components. The maximal ability of skeletal muscle to utilize oxygen will depend on the proportion of slow twitch muscle fibers in the working muscle, as well as the endurance training nature of the muscle. Slow twitch muscle has a higher capacity to consume oxygen than fast twitch muscle, and the proportions of these fibers are developed during fetal life and consolidated during infancy. Strength or endurance training can not change these proportions. However, strength and endurance training can alter the capacities of these fibers. For example, endurance training will increase the ability of certain fast twitch muscle fibers to use oxygen, thereby increasing the endurance potential of the muscle (Costill, Fink, & Pollack, 1976; Gollnick et al., 1972). Conversely, strength or sprint training will detrain the oxygen uptake capacity of slow twitch muscle, and train fast twitch muscle to better utilize muscle glycogen and the ability to continue generating ATP at high rates with minimal oxygen consumption.


Central determinants
During the last decade, numerous research studies have clearly revealed the importance of the cardiovascular system in determining a person's abilities to consume oxygen during exercise (Coyle, Hemmert, & Coggan, 1986; Cox, Bennett, & Dudley, 1986). For example, individuals with a large heart and large volume of each ventricle can pump more blood to contracting muscles per minute (cardiac output) during intense exercise, which allows them to have a higher maximal oxygen consumption (Cox, Bennett, & Dudley, 1986; Pellicia et al., 1991). In addition, when the blood's capacity to transport oxygen is increased without training (breathing pure oxygen, increasing hematocrit and hemoglobin, increasing plasma volume), the maximal rate of oxygen consumption (VO2max) is also increased (Coyle, Hemmert, & Coggan, 1986; Spriet, Gledhill, Froese & Wilkes, 1986). These research findings indicate that a person's maximal ability to transport oxygen is crucial to the body's ability to consume oxygen. Based on Figure 2, the genetic control of these capacities are strong, as each of heart size and dimensions, blood hemoglobin, and blood volume have a strong genetic influence. Nevertheless, endurance training can increase blood volume by increasing the plasma component of blood (Coyle, Hemmert, & Coggan, 1986), and heart function can improve with training causing increases in the maximal volume of blood pumped each beat (stroke volume), which in turn increases maximal cardiac output.

It is incorrect to assume that physiological capacities alone dictate how well a person will perform during endurance events. Differences in body physique, body composition, the distribution of fat, and gender also contribute to explain differences in VO2max and endurance performance. Added to these components are the neural influences to motor performance and sports skill, as well as the psychological issues pertaining to motivation, desire, concentration, competitiveness, and for some people and events, pain tolerance ! Except for body physique, where the genetic influence is obvious, the remainder of these variables have complicated interactions between genetics and the environment.

Summary of Genetics of Endurance Performance
The purpose of this section was not to discuss the controversy of central and peripheral limitations to VO2max and endurance exercise performance, but to use this organization to reveal how genetics and training combine to determine a person's suitability for endurance exercise. Clearly, the genetic control over central cardiovascular and peripheral muscle oxygen uptake capacities indicates that there is a strong genetic determinant over how much a person can train to increase VO2max and improve endurance exercise performance. Figure 3 reveals how each of the previous components relates to one another in determining the body's maximal ability to consume oxygen. Despite the pivotal position of many capacities that have a strong genetic component, it is also clear that any individual can train their body to cause dramatic improvements in their capacity to consume oxygen by a host of alternative mechanisms. Thus our body is highly adaptive to endurance training, and it is the extent of adaptation that appears to be determined by genetics.

Conclusions
The impact of genetics in exercise appears to have multiple influences. Its positive effect on exercise performance must be combined with effective training programs and favorable lifestyle habits for optimal success. Although this review shows the many interactions genetics does play on exercise, it also highlights how training and lifestyle can significantly affect exercise training and performance. As health and fitness practitioners, it is good to appreciate the interrelation that genetics plays in our profession. However, the best message we can share with our clients and students is that regardless of hereditary, regular participation in aerobics and resistance training will lead to remarkable improvements and enhancement of quality of life.


References:
Bouchard, C., Dionne, F.T., Simoneau, J.A., & Boulay, M.R. (1992). Genetics of aerobic and anaerobic performances. In: Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, edited by J.O. Holloszy. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Bouchard, C., Boulay, M.R., Simoneau, J.A., Lortie, G., & Perusse, L. (1988). Heredity and trainability of aerobic and anaerobic performances: An update. Sports Medicine, 5, 69-73.

Bouchard, C., & Lortie, G. (1984). Hereditary and endurance performance. Sports Medicine, 1, 38-64.

Bouchard, C. & Malina, R.M. (1983). Genetics of physiological fitness and motor performance. In: Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, edited by R.L. Terjung. Syracuse: Institute Press.

Coyle E.F., Hemmert, M.K. & Coggan, A.R. (1986). Effects of detraining on cardiovascular response to exercise: role of blood volume. Journal of Applied Physiology, 60, 95-99.

Costill, D.L., Fink, W.J. & Pollack, M.L. (1976). Muscle fiber composition and enzyme activities of elite distance runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 8, 96-100.

Cox, M.L., Bennett III J.B., & Dudley, G.A. (1986). Exercise training-induced alterations of cardiac morphology. Journal of Applied Physiology, 61, 926-931.

Essen B., Jansson, E., Henriksson, J., Taylor, A.W., & Saltin, B. (1975). Metabolic characteristics of fiber types in human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiological Scandinavia, 95, 153-165.

Gollnick, P.D., Armstrong, R.B., Saubert IV, C.W., Piehl, K., & Saltin, B. (1972). Enzyme activity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trained men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 33, 213-319.

Malina, R.M., & Bouchard, C. (Ed.). (1986). Sport and human genetics. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., & Katch, V.L. (1991). Exercise physiology: Energy, nutrition, and human performance (3rd ed). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Mueller, W.H., & Wohlleb, J.C. (1981). Anatomical distribution of subcutaneous fat and its description by multivariate methods: How valid are principal components? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 54, 25-35.

Pellicia, A., Maron, B.J., Spataro, A., Proschan, M.A., & Spirito, P. (1991). The upper limit of cardiac hypertrophy in highly trained endurance athletes. New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 295-301.

Pette, D. & Staron, R.S. (1990). Cellular and molecular diversities of mammalian muscle fibers. Reviews in Physiological Biochemical Pharmacology, 116, 1-76.

Rowell, L.B. (1988). Muscle blood flow in humans: how high can it go? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, S97-S103.

Spriet L.L., Gledhill, N., Froese, A.B., & Wilkes, D.L. (1986) Effect of graded erythrocythemia on cardiovascular and metabolic responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 61, 1942-1948.

Wolanski, N., & Kasprzak, E. (1979). Similarity in some physiological, biochemical and psychomotor traits between parents and 2-45 years old offspring. Studies in Human Ecology, 3, 85-131.
 
Top Bottom