Genetics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_truth_about_bodybuilding_genetics

Every so often, T-nation actually has something interesting to read :

How the Mutants Do It

World-record deadlifter Andy Bolton squatted 500 and deadlifted 600 the very first time he tried the lifts.

Former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates bench-pressed 315 pounds on his first attempt as a teen.

Metroflex Gym owner Brian Dobson tells the story of his first encounter with then-powerlifter and future Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman. He describes Ronnie's enormous thighs with veins bulging through the spandex, despite the fact that Ronnie had never used an anabolic steroid at that time.

Arnold Schwarzenegger looked more muscular after one year of lifting than most people do after ten.

It's just plain obvious that some individuals respond much better to training than others. But what makes the elite respond so much better than us regular folks?

Genetics: The Cold Hard Truth

This probably isn't what you want to hear, but your progress is largely dependent on your genetics.

Recent research shows that some individuals respond very well to strength training, some barely respond, and some don't respond at all. You read that correctly. Some people don't show any noticeable results. Researchers created the term "non-responders" for these individuals.

A landmark study by Hubal used 585 male and female human subjects and showed that twelve weeks of progressive dynamic exercise resulted in a shockingly wide range of responses.

The worst responders lost 2% of their muscle cross-sectional area and didn't gain any strength whatsoever. The best responders increased muscle cross-sectional area by 59% and increased their 1RM strength by 250%. Keep in mind these individuals were subjected to the exact same training protocol.

The Hubal study isn't the only study showing these types of results. Petrella showed that 16 weeks of progressive dynamic exercise involving 66 human subjects failed to yield any measurable hypertrophy in 26% of subjects. Wow, sucks to be them!

Now, the question is, what mechanisms explain this? Let's dig into the current research.

How Genetics Affect Muscle Growth
Bench Press

Strong evidence suggests that the results you see in the gym are highly dependent on the efficacy of satellite cell-mediated myonuclear addition. In laymen's terms, your muscles won't grow unless the satellite cells surrounding your muscle fibers donate their nuclei to your muscles so they can produce more genetic material to signal the cells to grow.

Petralla showed that the difference between excellent responders in comparison to average and non-responders in strength training was mostly due to satellite cell activation. Excellent responders have more satellite cells that surround their muscle fibers, as well as a remarkable ability to expand their satellite cell pool via training.

In this study, excellent responders averaged 21 satellite cells per 100 fibers at baseline, which rose to 30 satellite cells per 100 fibers by week sixteen. This was accompanied by a 54% increase in mean fiber area. The non-responders averaged 10 satellite cells per 100 myofibers at baseline, which did not change post-training, nor did their hypertrophy.

A different article by Bamman using the same researchers involving the exact same experiment showed that out of 66 subjects, the top 17 responders experienced a 58% gain in cross-sectional area, the middle 32 responders gained 28% cross-sectional area, and the bottom 17 responders didn't gain in cross-sectional area. In addition:

• Mechanogrowth factor (MGF) upregulated 126% in the top 17 responders and 0% in the bottom 17 responders.

• Myogenin upregulated 65% in the top 17 responders and 0% in the bottom 17 responders.

• IGF-IEa upregulated 105% in the top 17 responders and only 44% in the bottom 17 responders.

Research by Timmons indicates that there are several highly expressed miRNAs that are selectivity regulated in subjects representing the lowest 20% of responders in a longitudinal resistance training intervention study.

Research by Dennis showed that individuals who have high expression of key hypertrophy genes have a distinct adaptive advantage over normal individuals. Individuals with lower baseline expression of key hypertrophy genes showed less adaptations to strength training, despite the fact that training did increase their gene expression in response to exercise.

The Bottom Line

Some folks hit the genetic jackpot, while others have gotten the genetic shaft. Genetically-speaking, anything that negatively impacts the ability of the myofibers to increase their number of myonuclei in response to mechanical loading will reduce hypertrophy and strength potential.

This ranges from the number of signaling molecules, to the cell's sensitivity to the signals, to satellite cell availability, to satellite cell pool expansion, to miRNA regulation. Nutrition and optimal programming play a role in hypertrophy of course, and certain genotypes may be associated with hypertrophy too.

Genetics and Body Fat

Genes can affect fat storage and fat loss by influencing energy intake, energy expenditure, or nutrient partitioning. Researchers have coined the term "obesogenic environment" to describe the manner in which our changes in lifestyle over the past century has exposed our underlying genetic risk factors for excessive adiposity.

Natural selection may have favored those who possessed genes associated with thrifty metabolisms, which would have allowed for survival during times of nutrient scarcity. Now that much of the world has adopted a modern lifestyle characterized by sedentarism and excessive caloric intake, these same genes now contribute to poor health and obesity.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Research
Stuck inside a fat man

Bouchard took twelve pairs of twins and subjected them to 84 days over a 100-day period of overfeeding by 1,000 calories per day, for a total of 84,000 excess calories. Subjects maintained a sedentary lifestyle during this time. The average weight gain was 17.86 pounds, but the range went from 9.48 pounds to 29.32 pounds!

Even though each subject adhered to the same feeding schedule, the most metabolically cursed individual gained more than triple the weight than the most metabolically blessed individual, stored 100% of excess calories in his tissues (compared to only 40% tissue storage for the most-blessed individual), and increased abdominal visceral fat by 200% (compared to 0% in the case of the most-blessed individual).

Similar variances were shown by Bouchard with twins consuming constant energy intake while exercising frequently.

Perusse showed that heritability accounts for 42% of subcutaneous fat and 56% of abdominal visceral fat. This means that genetics greatly influence where you store fat, and some individuals have an alarming predisposition to store fat in their abdominal region.

Bouchard and Tremblay estimate that 40% of the variability in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise is genetically related. They also reported that levels of habitual physical activity are highly influenced by heredity.

Loos and Bouchard proposed that obesity has a genetic origin, and that sequence variations in adrenergic receptors, uncoupling proteins, the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, and lepton receptor genes were of particular relevance.

O'Rahilly and Farooqi add that the insulin VNTR and IGF-1 SNPs may be implicated in obesity as well, and Cotsapas showed 16 different loci that affect body mass index (BMI) which are all linked to extreme obesity as well. Rankinen mapped out hundreds of possible gene candidates that could promote obesity.

Fawcett and Barroso showed that the fat mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO) is the first universally accepted locus unequivocally associated with adiposity. FTO deficiency protects against obesity, and elevated levels increase adiposity most likely due to increased appetite and decreased energy expenditure.

Tercjak adds that FTO may affect insulin resistance too, and suggests that over 100 genes influence obesity. Herrerra and Lindgren list 23 genes that are associated with obesity, and suggest that heredity accounts for 40-70% of BMI!

Faith found evidence for genetic influences on caloric intake. Similar conclusions were drawn by Choquette, who examined 836 subjects' eating behaviors and found six genetic links to increased caloric and macronutrient consumption, including the adiponectin gene.

What's all that mean? It mans that some individuals are genetically predisposed to adiposity and abdominal fat storage.

But are some folks born to be great athletes while others are born to warm the bench? Let's find out.

Genetics and Athleticism
young Arnold

While we still have much to learn about genetics as it relates to human performance, we do know that many different genes can affect performance.

Bray et al. (2009) mapped out the current knowledge of human genes that affect performance as of 2007 and concluded that 214 autosomal genes and loci as well as 18 mitochondrial genes appear to influence fitness and performance.
The most popular performance-enhancing gene is ACTN3, also known as alpha-actin-3.

There are two alpha-actin proteins: ACTN2 and ACTN3. Alpha actins are structural proteins of the z-lines in muscle fibers, and while ACTN2 is expressed in all fiber types, ACTN3 is preferentially expressed in type IIb fiber types. These fibers are involved in force production at high velocities, which is why ACTN3 is associated with powerful force production.

Approximately 18% of individuals, or one billion people worldwide, are completely deficient in ACTN3 and their bodies create more ACTN2 to make up for the absence. These individuals just can't explode as quickly as their alpha-actin-3-containing counterparts, as elite sprinters are almost never alpha-actin-3 deficient (Yang).

The ACE gene, also known as the antiotensin converting enzyme, has also been implicated in human performance. An increase in the frequency of the ACE D allele is associated with power and sprint athletes, while an increased frequency of the ACE I allele is associated with endurance athletes (Nazarov).

Cauci showed that the variants of the VNTR IL-1RN gene is associated with improved athleticism. This gene affects the interleukin family of cytokines and enhances the inflammatory response and repair process following exercise. The work of Reichman lends support to this research, as they found that the interleukin-15 protein and receptor were associated with increased muscle hypertrophy.

Plenty of other genes exhibit potential to improve athletic performance, such as the myostatin gene, but conclusive evidence doesn't yet exist, or we just don't possess a clear enough understanding of the entire puzzle.

Don't Panic, Chicken Legs. You're Not Doomed!
bodybuilders

Although the research in this article is pretty scary, I have something to say about it.

First, we all have issues with genetics that we have to work around. Some of us are predisposed to carrying excess fat, some of us are lean but have stubborn areas of fat deposition, some have trouble building muscle, and some are muscular but have weak body parts. Some of us have all of this combined, and nobody has perfect genetics!

My list of genetic curses is a mile long, but despite this I've managed to develop a pretty respectable physique and somewhat impressive strength levels.

Second, the protocols used in the research didn't involve any experimentation, tweaking, and auto-regulatory training. We all need to tweak the variables and figure out our optimal programming methodology.

Some people respond best to variety, some to volume, some to intensity, some to frequency, and some to density. You have to discover the best stimulis for your body, which evolves over time.

And third, I've spoken to my colleagues about this issue and we're all in agreement: we've never trained any individuals who didn't look better after a couple of months of training, assuming they stick with the program. All of them lose fat and gain some muscular shape.

While some individuals have a much easier time than others developing an impressive physique, I've yet to see a lifter who trained in an intelligent manner fail to see any results.

So even if you're a "hard gainer" and you don't respond well, you can and will see results as long as you're consistent and as long as you continue to experiment. Of course, the rate and amount of adaptation is highly influenced by genetics, but sound training methods will always account for a large portion of training effects.

The lesson: Genetics make a difference, but smart training, diet, and supplements can help you maximize what your parents gave you!

[sanjuro_ronin]

The point really is this:
We are indeed individuals and what works for A may not work for B and certainly won't work for C.
SO what to do?
Easy really, first off accept that if after 4 weeks of consistent training yo see NO GAINS or even see a loss, then that protocol is NOT for you.
Try something else.
Just because someone tells you that "so-so doesn't work man, I tried it and it didn't work for me" doesn't mean it won't work for YOU and even vice-versa.

On a side note, that applies to MA as well, if not even more so.

[uki]

LOL... i see you are finally coming around... DNA is what it is all about my friend. a simple look around the world and the eradication process that the leaders are involved in and it becomes quite apparent that the masses are beginning to mutate faster than they can be killed off and kept sick. there is an oppositional side to genetic diseases.

:D

[uki]

change your DNA at will... http://www.aeonia.com/russian-dna-discoveries-mind-blowing ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL... i see you are finally coming around... DNA is what it is all about my friend. a simple look around the world and the eradication process that the leaders are involved in and it becomes quite apparent that the masses are beginning to mutate faster than they can be killed off and kept sick. there is an oppositional side to genetic diseases.

:D

No need for "conspiracy views" to state an opinion Bro.

[uki]

No need for "conspiracy views" to state an opinion Bro.not stating an opinion - i am stating a fact... humans DNA is evolving as is all things in this solar system. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

not stating an opinion - i am stating a fact... humans DNA is evolving as is all things in this solar system. :)

At a micro level, for sure, its call "adaptability" and it is one of the many things that allows ALL living creatures to survive.

[uki]

At a micro level, for sure, its call "adaptability" and it is one of the many things that allows ALL living creatures to survive.all things are on a micro level - manifestation is in the macro. :p

[SoCo KungFu]

change your DNA at will... http://www.aeonia.com/russian-dna-discoveries-mind-blowing ;)

So you introduce an article that opens with obscene statements based solely at sensationalism. It contains only one referenced source and conveniently that is unavailable in English. Which on the surface isn't too bad, upon further search has absolutely no reference other than other hippie psychobabble websites which all, in nearly complete capacity, seem to have copy/pasted the exact same nonsense. There is seemingly no reference to any peer review nor attempts to duplicate any of the work in the Russian study that I could find in my university references (infotrac, etc) nor the typical internet ones. Although I didn't exactly do an exhaustive search. And its not surprising because the claims made are absolutely ridiculous. You have one study, which apparently hasn't been reproduced. Yet somebody took one small portion (harmonics effecting a chemical on a molecular structure) and made some asinine stretch of rationalization to use that to explain psychic phenomena? And no its not a cover up. Its no surprise this gets absolutely no attention. When you have something so ridiculous as claiming a frog turned into a salamander because they shined some light? That doesn't even begin to approach reality in how DNA actually works. DNA (a physical chemical) functions though enzymatic transcription to RNA (another physical chemical). Light has no bearing in this. The fact this reference so grossly misses the mark on this illustrates to overall falsehood of it all. And while light (radiation) can have some issues in mutation (altering the nucleic acid sequence, thymine dimers, etc; no I'm not going to go into an explanation of all this) these mutations are in most cases self correcting. Either the DNA is repaired, or in the case it goes unchecked, in most cases resulting in a nonfunctioning cell that will die off. And in the event that it does go on to survive, you have a single cell change, not an entire systemic mutation. This in no way is going to altar from one organism to another. Especially one already in development, as this claim seems to make. In fact, while its not completely understood, that "junk DNA" that the article so references, is actually believed to be partly responsible for these very reparative actions.

Seriously, this is about the worst possible reference you could make for a claim. Like worse than wiki. And that's pretty harsh. Now if you have some other scientific study substantiating such claims, please present them. Otherwise you are essentially making an assumption based off some philosophical component which while might seem novel and all, is entirely ignorant of the physical realities of the mechanisms at play. And don't even get started on worm holes in your brain...

[SoCo KungFu]

At a micro level, for sure, its call "adaptability" and it is one of the many things that allows ALL living creatures to survive.

Artificial distinction. There really is no difference between micro and macro. Its merely a mental point of reference. Most people make an incorrect assumption that there is some difference in the actual mechanisms. Usually perpetrated by those with a reason to discredit evolutionary theory (creationists) which has unfortunately caused a large amount of misunderstanding in all reporting of the topic. They both function on the same mechanisms and most biologists don't even bother with those terms anymore.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Artificial distinction. There really is no difference between micro and macro. Its merely a mental point of reference. Most people make an incorrect assumption that there is some difference in the actual mechanisms. Usually perpetrated by those with a reason to discredit evolutionary theory (creationists) which has unfortunately caused a large amount of misunderstanding in all reporting of the topic. They both function on the same mechanisms and most biologists don't even bother with those terms anymore.

I was speaking in the general "public" sense of micro and macro.
Micro being changes at the microscopic level and Macro as obvious changes to a Human for example, like growing a 3rd arm.
And FYI, I do "believe" in the Evolutionary theory.
I put believe in "" because I believe in Evolution like I believe in Gravity.

[Drake]

This is largely an opinion based off of a very basic understanding of the field (ie, read the same articles as everyone else), but I feel that genetics, while it plays a factor in your development, really only comes into play at the extreme levels of fitness.

In other words, regardless of genetics, you can still be in excellent physical shape if you work at it, but don't think you'll be a Mr. Universe at trhe weights or Thorpe in the pool. I'd say the higher end of the fitness spectrum has much to do with genetics, but excellent physical fitness can be applied to anyone with enough discipline.

[SoCo KungFu]

This is largely an opinion based off of a very basic understanding of the field (ie, read the same articles as everyone else), but I feel that genetics, while it plays a factor in your development, really only comes into play at the extreme levels of fitness.

In other words, regardless of genetics, you can still be in excellent physical shape if you work at it, but don't think you'll be a Mr. Universe at trhe weights or Thorpe in the pool. I'd say the higher end of the fitness spectrum has much to do with genetics, but excellent physical fitness can be applied to anyone with enough discipline.

Yep. Although I'm concerned that it seems as time goes on and we learn more, while yes our understanding is greater, we also have more and more excuses.

Its seems like people are more happy with finding new reasons they can't live a healthy life with a fit body, than actually doing what it takes to live a healthy life.

There's another trend that we are starting to see. Just like anything else in our environment, lack of physical exertion is an environmental stressor. Some of these genes that can have a detrimental effect on fitness, are increasing in frequency of expression from parent to children. Essentially, parents living a sedentary lifestyle with little exercise have children not only with a greater propensity to poor habits/decisions concerning health/fitness, but also a greater genetic predisposition to obesity, etc.

[SanHeChuan]

While we cannot change our genetic code, how we live can change the way our genes are expressed. Epigenomes are the control panel for our genes and act like a dimmer switch for genetic expression, turning genes on/off and controlling intensity. And the changes we make to our epigenomes are passed to the next generation. So, if you’re predisposed to obesity and diabetes, and you engage in unhealthy actives, your kids get a double whammy of both heightened genetic factors and the poor example you set. On the other hand if you fight you genetic predisposition tooth and nail and live a healthy active life your kids will not have to fight as hard to overcome their risk factors.

Time: Why Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html)
What is above our genes? (http://www.trans4mind.com/cultivate-life-magazine/issue-032/Jahiel-Yasha-Kamhi.html)
Think You're Genetically Predisposed to Disease and Obesity? (http://bodyecology.com/archive/genetically-predisposed-to-disease.php)
Stop Blaming Genetics for Your Health Problems (http://naturalbias.com/stop-blaming-genetics-for-your-health-problems/)

Oh, and since the way we think influences how we live our lives, that's kinda like controling your DNA with YOUR MIND!

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is largely an opinion based off of a very basic understanding of the field (ie, read the same articles as everyone else), but I feel that genetics, while it plays a factor in your development, really only comes into play at the extreme levels of fitness.

In other words, regardless of genetics, you can still be in excellent physical shape if you work at it, but don't think you'll be a Mr. Universe at trhe weights or Thorpe in the pool. I'd say the higher end of the fitness spectrum has much to do with genetics, but excellent physical fitness can be applied to anyone with enough discipline.

I agree, the issue is that there are really some "non-responders" out there, as the study showed.
There is also enough mis-information that many young bodybuilders and ST athletes DO end up turning to drugs because they believe it will give them what they THINK the need to be at that level.

Some people ARE predisposed to carry mire fat, other to carry less, some will have great arms no matter what and other will have great calves by doing nothing other than walking.
An understanding of genetic potential and limitations can help those people that feel "more work" or "more drugs" may be the answer.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This also does lead into MA in the following way:
We have all heard the stories of "MA Freaks" and they tend to be the ones that give a "name" to a certain MA and we all know that there are many that want to be like "Mike", if you know what I mean.
Fact is, an understanding that what made WFH, for example, so strong was the fact that was was NATURALLY strong and had nothing to do with his training in HK ( he would have been that strong if had had taken up White Crane for example) well help those that feel the HK develops strength ( for example).
Of course most MA know enough to play to their strengths, WFH's HK was very power oriented because he was a powerful guy, but it seems that some have not paid attention to that detail.
Understanding genetics can also help us to understand that, if we are "genetically predisposed" to being strong, but not very fast, while working on getting faster is crucial, one should always focus on one strengths.

[uki]

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13977 ;)

[David Jamieson]

DNA = A/G/C/T in combined patterns on a double helix.

The combinations change over generations due to environmental conditions including available energy sources for food and water etc.

Here's waht is interesting to me.

About every 7 or 8 years every atom in your body has been swapped out for new ones.

Yet, we can carry scars, disease etc over those change outs.

Very interesting.

To date, no one has increased their longevity consciously or cognitively with a method.

What is happening that makes it appear as if humans are living longer (they aren't) is that the mortality numbers have gone down and more people are surviving early childhood and more people are receiving better care as seniors.

This is what is spiking population and spiking statistics. Globally, the average age of death is unchanged more or less and no one is making it past the age as indicated even in the bible of 129 years.

What's funny is that if people want to be healthier, what they need to get rid of is the modern lifestyle. :)