What is the number 1 limiting factor of muscle growth?

[SOUR DIESEL]

The same way you would conduct a study with everything remaining equal the answer will always be genetics. You simply cannot refute that.

^^^i don't understand what you mean here??

..are you saying that "genetics" makes something not toxic??

.

 

[qbkilla]

The same way you would conduct a study with everything remaining equal the answer will always be genetics. You simply cannot refute that.

This is a good point.

A long term study could probably be set up to easily prove genetics. Keep diet and training the same for all subjects, and genetics will show the difference in results. Then have all subjects allow some varience in diet with guidelines to ensure they aren't sabatoging their own progress by eating too little or eating like 100g protein and skipping the gym, and see how little minor manipulations in diet (choices of protein, an extra 200 calories, carb to fat ratio) and training ( frequency, volume) make a difference when compared to genetics. A long term study would probably be best.

 

[qbkilla]

^^^i don't understand what you mean here??

..are you saying that "genetics" makes something not toxic??

.

I'm guessing he is saying how genetics is the one factor we can't manipulate, where training and diet and dosage can be manipulated by everyone. In terms of some guys claiming they can't tolerate say..tren..or saying they are estrogen sensitive, that falls back on genetics.

 

[SOUR DIESEL]

The same way you would conduct a study with everything remaining equal the answer will always be genetics. You simply cannot refute that.

^^^i don't understand what you mean here??

..are you saying that "genetics" makes something not toxic??.

I'm guessing he is saying how genetics is the one factor we can't manipulate, where training and diet and dosage can be manipulated by everyone. In terms of some guys claiming they can't tolerate say..tren..or saying they are estrogen sensitive, that falls back on genetics.

^^^WOW ..this is my mistake

..i'm on several boards (..usually simultaneously) ..& so i always have several tabs open at the top so i can read/respond to PM/make posts etc etc

^^^ANYWAY i thought his post was in the "No more DECA or EQ ???" thread ◄& that's what i thought i was replying to bc i was reading both, back & forth

dang ..i need to stop multi-tasking so much, lol


►my bad ..just disregard my post ..carry on

.

 

[maldorf]

This is a good point.

A long term study could probably be set up to easily prove genetics. Keep diet and training the same for all subjects, and genetics will show the difference in results. Then have all subjects allow some varience in diet with guidelines to ensure they aren't sabatoging their own progress by eating too little or eating like 100g protein and skipping the gym, and see how little minor manipulations in diet (choices of protein, an extra 200 calories, carb to fat ratio) and training ( frequency, volume) make a difference when compared to genetics. A long term study would probably be best.

A good study would be to look at identical twins. One does everything just about perfect but the other just gets by with his training and diet. Compare how they look. It would be a good comparison to the type of study you mentione where everything but genetics is the same. In this case the genetics are the same and everything else is different.

 

[buck]

Consistency. Preferably in al areas.

 

[buck]

A good study would be to look at identical twins. One does everything just about perfect but the other just gets by with his training and diet. Compare how they look. It would be a good comparison to the type of study you mentione where everything but genetics is the same. In this case the genetics are the same and everything else is different.

The BBC was running a story on identical twins recently and how different diets etc would effect them. The Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King's College London has been doing work in this are for some time.

 

[ass2grass]

I say nutrition/diet. Eating, training and recovery are just as important as each other but when it all boils down, its definitely the amount of calories you take in. I would say genetics but hard gainers (as in people who just cant put on size no matter what they do) are actually pretty rare and i wouldnt consider the rare exception to the rule the number 1 limiting factor. You can hold onto muscle when youre not lifting just by staying on top of your eating. If you wanna be big, you gotta eat big.

 

[qbkilla]

A good study would be to look at identical twins. One does everything just about perfect but the other just gets by with his training and diet. Compare how they look. It would be a good comparison to the type of study you mentione where everything but genetics is the same. In this case the genetics are the same and everything else is different.

This would be an interesting one too. It could be used to see what's more important when it comes to diet or training, and between different diets and methods of training. The one flaw would be since genetics are equal it wouldn't provide any insight into what most agree Is the factor that limits muscle growth, genetics.

 

[qbkilla]

I say nutrition/diet. Eating, training and recovery are just as important as each other but when it all boils down, its definitely the amount of calories you take in. I would say genetics but hard gainers (as in people who just cant put on size no matter what they do) are actually pretty rare and i wouldnt consider the rare exception to the rule the number 1 limiting factor. You can hold onto muscle when youre not lifting just by staying on top of your eating. If you wanna be big, you gotta eat big.

No one can grow eating 1,000 calories. But since anyone can eat over maintenance and beyond that, it's not a limiting factor.

It's like saying the limiting factor in becoming a nuclear scientist is some people don't have the Time to take the courses. Everyone has 24 hour days and 7 day weeks. However the real limiting factor is intelligence, to pass the courses, understand what they are about, and be able to do the job

 

[maldorf]

This would be an interesting one too. It could be used to see what's more important when it comes to diet or training, and between different diets and methods of training. The one flaw would be since genetics are equal it wouldn't provide any insight into what most agree Is the factor that limits muscle growth, genetics.

Funny thing is though, both guys might end up not looking too much different if they both have the same genetics. As long as both are doing some training. Sure they guy training harder would be bigger somewhat, but by how much? Probably not as much as you would think.

 

[SlickNJ]

I would say it’s obviously trading properly and consistently. You simply cannot build muscle without training. With that said you obviously need the diet and rest/recovery, I woukd absolutely put training first.

 

[Thappy]

I have a close mate who loves to party and i mean he is terrible... Like 4 days of partying constantly.. will do this every week for 6 months and not train. Then he decides he will hit the gym. 4 weeks later looks like a freak and everyone asks him how much gear is he on ect.. He doesnt even touch anything. Tried peptides once for about 3 days and said it was to much effort. He is strong as an ox too straight off the bat first day back at the gym.

Ill say genetics

 

[maldorf]

Neat study here on identical twins!

Identical Twin Study Shows Impact of a Lifetime of Exercise on FItness

When it comes to being fit, are genes or lifestyle more important? Researchers removed the nature part of the equation by studying a pair of identical twins who had taken radically different fitness paths over three decades. One became an Ironman triathlete while the other remained relatively...

www.technologynetworks.com

One twin is an Ironman triathlete and the other relatively sedentary and a truck driver. VO2 max and overall health of the athlete was much greater in the athlete, better than those much younger than him. The other driver was like most his age.

"To look at the effects of exercise on these two brothers, Bagley and his colleagues analyzed their physiques, blood profiles, cardiovascular and pulmonary health, skeletal muscle size, strength and power, and molecular markers of muscle health. Not surprisingly, the athletic twin exhibited much better overall health: lower body fat, lower resting heart rate and blood pressure, lower cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar, and greater aerobic capacity and endurance. There was one surprise, however. The truck driver had larger, stronger leg muscles.
“The untrained twin had been carrying around more weight his whole life, which can build bigger muscles,” said Bagley.

The athletic twin also had 55 percent more “slow-twitch” muscle fibers than the truck-driving twin, meaning that he could run for hours without getting fatigued. “He was like a machine,” Bagley said."

 

[maldorf]

I've noticed how obese people usually have some pretty big calves, better than some bodybuilders. Carrying the weight definitely build muscle in the legs.

 

[Love_to_Bodybuild]

If we're talking pure size it's definitely food, and the consistency to pound down lots of it.

If we're talking successful contest bodybuilder I'd go with genetics.

Agreed look at Steve Kluco versus Brandon Curry this past weekend Steve kluco definitely has more muscle on his frame I think , he's also got bigger bones ligaments and tendons height , the waist is thicker too but as far as shape I would rather look like have the shape of Brandon Curry. Im not taking anything away from Steve he's a beast and I really like him I've talked with him before very nice guy super nice some of the other pros I've talked to they were like more sarcastic but I can speak for him super nice guy super honest straightforward that's my subjective experience with him

 

[qbkilla]

I've noticed how obese people usually have some pretty big calves, better than some bodybuilders. Carrying the weight definitely build muscle in the legs.

Carrying all the weight also gives them a higher energy expenditure. We all know fat people can lose weight at higher calories than lean people. Even more evidence that the argument"my metabolism is so slow, I can't lose weight easy" is a bs excuse, as they chug down a coke.

 

[ass2grass]

No one can grow eating 1,000 calories. But since anyone can eat over maintenance and beyond that, it's not a limiting factor.

It's like saying the limiting factor in becoming a nuclear scientist is some people don't have the Time to take the courses. Everyone has 24 hour days and 7 day weeks. However the real limiting factor is intelligence, to pass the courses, understand what they are about, and be able to do the job

The way you put it, youre right, thats the same facts and logic with sleeping and training. those are everything we have control over and if those are holding someone back then its their own self limiting themselves and since theres nothing you can do about genetics then yeah, that is absolutely the #1 limiting factor. genetics. even after using steroids, at some point those genetics are going to become a factor again and youre going to hit that wall. well said, qbkilla

 

[Type-IIx]

The answer to this depends on the interpretation of the call of the question. By that I mean: diet is a necessary but not sufficient variable for maximal muscle growth, same goes for training. Diet should provide the necessary building blocks for muscle growth. Training should provide an optimal stimulus (training is to stimulate not destroy). These two (diet > training) are the number 1 most common limiting factors of muscle growth.

This ties in to recovery: these days, guys are by and large seem mostly on point with their recovery (unless one takes the erroneous "volume is the primary driver of growth" to its extreme, as recovery is in fact most hindered by excessive training volumes). But for the most part, if a guy is on a logical split (PPL, etc.) training 4 day weekly, his recovery (and this is greatly augmented by drug dosage) is near optimal.

Drug dosage is, IMO, not a matter of constantly titrating up absolute dose but rather presenting a greater stimulus in each subsequent blast (this can be by the proper combination of drugs rather than increased dosage). But the fact is that AR activation and in fact number (mRNA expression) is upregulated by testosterone, just as an example. Many drugs offer useful properties that can act in combination with other (adjuvant) drugs that should be individually tailored based on tolerance and response. I consider this knowledge essential and proprietary information of sorts.

Then, genetics: this factor is the absolute bar to muscle mass growth (where the aforementioned factors are necessary but not sufficient to maximize an individual's muscle growth, this factor goes to absolute potential). To me, at bottom, genetics dictate the ceiling for muscle mass growth in terms of drug tolerability vs. response (something I have written about but never shared is the concept of androgen capacity-resilience that encompasses particular genes that vary in expression on an inter-individual basis). Once you reach the ceiling for absolute growth (recruitment and hypertrophy of the available pool of myofibers) there are steps you can take to stimulate muscle cell (myoblasts to myotubes) proliferation & differentiation (involving particular drugs and training methods used appropriately). This is, though, advanced beyond the needs of 98% of the population.

 

[alfresco]

The answer to this depends on the interpretation of the call of the question. By that I mean: diet is a necessary but not sufficient variable for maximal muscle growth, same goes for training. Diet should provide the necessary building blocks for muscle growth. Training should provide an optimal stimulus (training is to stimulate not destroy). These two (diet > training) are the number 1 most common limiting factors of muscle growth.

This ties in to recovery: these days, guys are by and large seem mostly on point with their recovery (unless one takes the erroneous "volume is the primary driver of growth" to its extreme, as recovery is in fact most hindered by excessive training volumes). But for the most part, if a guy is on a logical split (PPL, etc.) training 4 day weekly, his recovery (and this is greatly augmented by drug dosage) is near optimal.

Drug dosage is, IMO, not a matter of constantly titrating up absolute dose but rather presenting a greater stimulus in each subsequent blast (this can be by the proper combination of drugs rather than increased dosage). But the fact is that AR activation and in fact number (mRNA expression) is upregulated by testosterone, just as an example. Many drugs offer useful properties that can act in combination with other (adjuvant) drugs that should be individually tailored based on tolerance and response. I consider this knowledge essential and proprietary information of sorts.

Then, genetics: this factor is the absolute bar to muscle mass growth (where the aforementioned factors are necessary but not sufficient to maximize an individual's muscle growth, this factor goes to absolute potential). To me, at bottom, genetics dictate the ceiling for muscle mass growth in terms of drug tolerability vs. response (something I have written about but never shared is the concept of androgen capacity-resilience that encompasses particular genes that vary in expression on an inter-individual basis). Once you reach the ceiling for absolute growth (recruitment and hypertrophy of the available pool of myofibers) there are steps you can take to stimulate muscle cell (myoblasts to myotubes) proliferation & differentiation (involving particular drugs and training methods used appropriately). This is, though, advanced beyond the needs of 98% of the population.

Very well said and explained. Right on