Defining genetic limits

[Dreaded Pirate Roberts]

I just read a clear misunderstanding of the definition of what genetic limit is by a very well respected and knowledgable member so I Will set the record straight. The definition of one's genitic limit is the peak muscle growth naturally? It is not peak of the muscle you can maintain. It is possible to gain muscle growth far beyond one's genitic limits with performance enhancing compounds and maintain them after the discontinuation of use. Further more it is now possible to grow more muscle fiber cells increasing the number in the body that has been fixed by the use of folistatin.

Now discuss.

 

[Hypnotix]

1. I think we're all going to land differently under different conditions.

2. I'd think we all have a natural rate of growth, natural maximum amount of sustainable mass, natural rate of recovery, and natural limit to all things tied to this. Strength, Endurance, Power, Speed.

3. I think we underestimate the actual possibilities of all the above listed things at their peak. I also think most don't have the natural hormone production to even reach it, as gouged by 99% of what our obese country makes readily available to us on the cheap, and per activists pussifying or "de-feminizing" the males in this country.

 

[Hypnotix]

I've always thought also, with something like GH, how it creates new cells.. that could change natural limitations after discontinuation, forever.

AAS, I believe will always drop you off over time without optimal natural hormone levels or TRT.

 

[halfwit]

Your post is confusing to me DPR. If one's genetic limit is the amount of muscle (at peak) which one can obtain, how is this sustainable beyond said limit?

For example: I was a teenager with a raw score of 1800 in powerlifting natural. I got hurt in my early 20's, went hypogonadal, and subsequently LOST a HUGE portion of that lean mass. This is no different than going above one's androgen output, putting on additional mass, then losing beyond what their natural output can sustain.

If we were able to sustain supraphysiological levels of lean mass without having supraphysiological values of androgens, there would be no need to B&C. Of course I'm not infallible, but that makes no sense to me.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Genetic limit refers to BOTH muscle growth & maintenance.

I'm not aware of a single person who has eclipsed their genetic limit through AAS and magically maintained it without the use of AAS for the long term. Not one.
And yes, I've read the data about AAS causing a permanent positive change at a cellular level (more nuclei, etc) but what people seem to forget is that NONE of those studies show this permanent change translating to the ability to keep size beyond your genetic limit. None of them.

Why?
Because the STIMULUS to take advantage of this environment is missing since normal meta-bolic limits apply once your off cycle. The protein synthesis rate isn't the same, the glycogen retention rate isn't the same, the training performance isn't the same, the hormonal environment isn't the same, etc.

Muscle growth is a complicated process involving multiple factors.
Focusing exclusively on what happens to satellite cells, AR regulation, etc without paying attention to the plethora of other contributors is, IMO, missing the forest for the trees.

 

[weavy88]

agreed. I have learned through experience. I have cycled off, kept everything as far as diet and training goes PERFECT, and over time I still fall back right to where i was. The ONE EXCEPTION here is maybe a first cycle, since most people that run their very first cycle have not already reached their potential. But after that, no way man.

 

[ozzyozzy21]

Great conversation! MAN all I know is I hope DPR is right about gaining and maintaining beyond one's own genetic limits!

 

[weavy88]

Great conversation! MAN all I know is I hope DPR is right about gaining and maintaining beyond one's own genetic limits!

we all hoped it was true at one point. But like learning santa clause aint real...gotta wake up sometime.

 

[weavy88]

Great conversation! MAN all I know is I hope DPR is right about gaining and maintaining beyond one's own genetic limits!

we all hoped it was true at one point. But like learning santa clause aint real...gotta wake up sometime.

 

[Dreaded Pirate Roberts]

Your post is confusing to me DPR. If one's genetic limit is the amount of muscle (at peak) which one can obtain, how is this sustainable beyond said limit?

For example: I was a teenager with a raw score of 1800 in powerlifting natural. I got hurt in my early 20's, went hypogonadal, and subsequently LOST a HUGE portion of that lean mass. This is no different than going above one's androgen output, putting on additional mass, then losing beyond what their natural output can sustain.

If we were able to sustain supraphysiological levels of lean mass without having supraphysiological values of androgens, there would be no need to B&C. Of course I'm not infallible, but that makes no sense to me.

You know and I know you stopped training and eating properly after your injury. Your making an excuse of your losses. The fact that you didnt recover back to normal levels contributed to the losses. I my own experences are consistent with what Ive stated. Ive worked with a large number of pro athletes is many different sports who were able to get off the high doses of androgens and keep thwre gains. Where that as strong as they were with the androgens no. the strength gains were still measurable. My work was so well reconized that More than one of the projects I was responsible for were part of the Mitchel report in congress. Now lets be clear strength gains are never equal off to when on. For the purpose of this discussion we will limits conversation to maximum muscle growth. More muscle doesnt require a higher level to maintain.by your reasoning larger the man higher the blood level and that is wrong.

 

[Mad- scientist]

Wow I just read some of the Mitchel report for the first time that is some interesting stuff. It's pretty amazing that a few of the projects you were responsible for are in that report.

 

[halfwit]

You know and I know you stopped training and eating properly after your injury. Your making an excuse of your losses. The fact that you didnt recover back to normal levels contributed to the losses. I my own experences are consistent with what Ive stated. Ive worked with a large number of pro athletes is many different sports who were able to get off the high doses of androgens and keep thwre gains. Where that as strong as they were with the androgens no. the strength gains were still measurable. My work was so well reconized that More than one of the projects I was responsible for were part of the Mitchel report in congress. Now lets be clear strength gains are never equal off to when on. For the purpose of this discussion we will limits conversation to maximum muscle growth. More muscle doesnt require a higher level to maintain.by your reasoning larger the man higher the blood level and that is wrong.

DPR, I suspect that I know who you are, and yes - I do respect your knowledge.

I just do not understand how it is even remotely possible to sustain muscle mass without the necessary building blocks like nitrogen. Are you saying that guys which are obviously WAY beyond what their bodies should possess can retain that mass by just eating at their TDEE and continued stimulus to their muscles? Ronnie Coleman comes to mind - I can't picture him staying as large as his prime indefinitely - without the hormones. Schwarzenegger stop eating properly or train enough?

Again, I mean no disrespect, but this is contrary to everything I've ever learned or seen.

I make no excuses whatsoever for my experiences, but I've seen first hand how difficult it is to do anything anabolic without the proper hormones. I'm currently 323lbs at about 14% body fat, and my TRT dose of 250mg/wk barely keeps me at 1000ng/dL, yet I know many that approach 2200+ on the same dose. Volume must have something to do with it, or I'd be able to get away with much smaller doses, no?

Instead of posting a bunch of studies that agree with my understanding, I would prefer if you explain to me how the medical community (or my understanding of their findings) is wrong. I totally know the difference between being on and off cycle, but I'm thinking long-term here. My personal goal is to arrive at 350lbs with stage ready body fat percentages - I'd hate to work as hard as I have had to to lose all that. The gym is an integral part of my life, so that won't be going away ever - but who knows what will happen to the availability of AAS in the decades to come.