+OmarIsuf it's questionable, but as long as you're jumping from a high enough ledge/tree/mountain/etc. it's guaranteed to cause muscle damage (and perhaps damage to other things as well). Worth a shot, at least.
Really shocked you didn't mention diet in this video. I have realised lately that some people have very repressed appetites and some people have big appetites naturally. I ran starting strength, got results the first few weeks and then it really tapered off. I thought I was eating a lot but actually I wasn't eating like a bird. I fixed this after a few months and my gains in both strength and size were better than the first few weeks of SS when I was getting true noob gains. My point is if the subjects in these studies were not on strictly controlled diets then the explanation is right there. The only way someone can lose lean weight after 16 weeks of working out is if they are in a caloric deficit. No doubt the people who made amazing gains were probably in a high caloric surplus and gained a lot of fat to go with their muscle too.
hey i just wanted to thank you and Omar for the awesome programs you brought out, a good friend of mine just finished 4 weeks and made insane progress, im at week 2 intermediate/advanced and so far i really enjoy it.
I'm sure that if the 'non responders' had something like a deload half way through their 16 weeks hard training that the results could very well be different for them.
+MidnightSTALKER979 I think this is a huge factor. Maybe the genetic outliers were just eating a lot more and better than everyone else while the people decreasing in size just aren't eating enough
+RealLifeKA youre compltely wrong. unless it specifically states in the study that they were all on some sort of plan then they were not. thats just how science works. if you are controlling a variable it is stated.
Yes but your genetics has a limit when I worked I only got so big and after that I started to get fat and get sick. So my doctor told me I needed to lose that weight or I would eventually have a heart attack
+Strengtheory , 1.) Did they control for calorie intake (deficit vs maintenance vs surplus)? If not, I speculate that a significant percentage of those who had lost size were individuals with poor appetite who didn't increase their caloric intake to accommodate new circumstances, but maintained their usual diet possibly landing themselves into large deficit. While I do believe that for responders (who are new to training) to gain size it's not essential whether they're in a deficit or surplus, but for non-responders at least maintaining caloric balance is a requirement otherwise loss of mass is likely. Additionally, I believe (almost) no one is such a non-responder as to lose mass being at caloric maintenance or even surplus. 2.) In the context of genetics, how to explain when certain muscle(s) progress rapidly and for some it's quite the opposite, taking into account that the same or similar dedication is put into training them. Personally, for example, my biceps is huge and if I directly train it for more than just 1 or 2 sets a week to say that it starts growing disproportionately would be an understatement; everything the opposite applies to my hamstrings despite trying practically all in the past 10 or so years of serious training (even tried "training" it similar to my biceps and lost some size lol). Can something as simple as androgen receptor density explain these differences? 3.) I think the 70 something percent guy was on TRT. :) 4.) Do these or any other studies you're familiar of show that (endogenous) androgen levels play a big role when interpreting data concerning genetics and muscle gains. 5.) I can confirm from a personal experience the notion that you don't know the card you've been dealt until you play it. I was a skinny 19 year old, 183cm tall, but when I started lifting I gained muscle size rapidly that most had thought I was on steroids. Also, I had average libido at best throughout my whole life, yet when I tested basic hormonal parameters for the first time at 25 and not long ago at 30 the second time my total testosterone was on the upper limit or the reference range and biologically available testosterone above the reference range.
+John Pawn Pope the Second 1) that's been addressed about half a dozen other places in the comments 2) One simple reason could just be that you start with more muscle fibers or fewer muscle fibers in each muscle. Motor patterns play a role as well - some people just aren't good at activating certain muscles. 3) nah, they checked hormone concentrations. There are people who just grow like that. 4) not really. Within the normal physiological range, there's not any good data (I'm aware of) that androgen levels make much of a difference.
Of course that genetics will make a difference, but it would be very important to know - are all those people in studies had equal food quality in terms of macro and micronutrients and also sufficient calorie intake? Are all those people recover the same from workouts? Lifestyle plays huge role there. Are they all sleeping enough? What is their stress level, what job they do? What is their cortisol level? Hundreds of factors and most probably not many of them were controlled by study.
Regardless of my genetic disposition, I did not gain at an appreciable rate until I started really focusing on staying in a caloric surplus. Prior to that, I stayed 175-180 during high school and freshman year of college. 25 years later I'm 310.
Dude, I've been "trying" for around 2 years now. Insanely hardwork. 6x a week, took extra rest when needed too. Not overtraining mentally or physically, and not the muscle for that matter too. Barely any difference. Only visible when on pump anyways. There isn't anything i can do? Genetics is genetics? I sound stupid even asking. I've been tired my whole life even before i started lifting though, could be low test, or some health problem? I did have a overall bloodtest and everything was fine. So im left confused and depressed, and lost. Basically suicidal.
@@beel94-de I have almost all the knowledge or that's what i think about weight gaining but I don't want to or can't apply them in my life. Diet needs proteins and fats which require usually eggs meat fish etc. which is beyond me as I'm veg. Even in vegetarian items there are very few things I like to eat as I prefer taste over nutrition (if I don't like taste, I won't eat it). Second is exercises. Everyone recommends to go to gym but I can't go to gym due to various reasons. I can perform some basic exercises at home/hostel like pushups squats planks that's it. I lack continuity and tend to quit after some days. I'm also addicted to masturbation. At this point I've given up on everything. My parents were like me when they were at my age and started gaining weight after their marriage at about 26 - 28 years of age. So I believe my genetics won't let me gain weight rn.
Im in a similar boat ive been working out again for 2 years now what helped me not feel so tired all the time was actually drinking more water surprisingly , so whenever i feel tired i drink more water and after a couples minutes im more awake Second i was training too hard , for example if you take EVERY set to failure like i was during the rest of the day you will feel super tired in my case so now on my first set i take it to failure then on my second and third i keep 1 rep in the tanks Last sleeping more helped a lot
Mark Lobliner made a video recently where he said that Kevin Levrone was about 175 lbs 12 weeks out from the 2002 Mr Olympia. Maybe he is exaggerating, but apparently that is how Levrone approached his training. Only working for about 3-4 months begore the Olympia every year.
+Strengtheory LOL not for 20 years of steroids use.... please don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. blaha is a coward, failure and valor thief in case you didn't know. if you support the scumbag, I won't support you...
My problem is not gaining weight. My problem is the lack of increase in muscle mass and strength (I only had an increase in strength in the first weeks as a newbie). Caloric surplus = building belly fat. Even at high volume and intensity. I am a negative responder. I tend to lose strength and muscle instead of building.
When I was 15-16 I gained 8-9lbs in 8 months of training on icf 5x5, average genetics I was also a late bloomer so my muscle memory still isn’t up there (I’m 23 now)
The paper didn't mention anything about controlling the test subjects' diets. Wouldn't that affect how much their quads grew or deteriorated, more so than genetics? For example if low responders tended to eat fewer calories than they burned and vice versa?
+TheAssgas the magnitude of difference in muscle growth here was MUCH larger than differences attributable to nutritional factors in basically any study.
Very good/interesting video. I think one thing impossible to gauge though is the amount of effort given by each participant, which could vary massively. This, coupled with caloric intake in my anecdotal observations is the most important factor in muscle growth and I suspect it was a huge player in these studies. But I'm sure m sheer muscle growth genetics played a big role as well
leroy jankins in a lab that knows how to run a good training study (I don't know much about Bamman's lab, but I know the folks at McMaster know how to run a good study), not too many.
+Strengtheory fair enough, but a lab cannot force someone to break past their own mental limitations. People can have all the signs of failure and even fail (even a squat) and have many reps left in the tank. I've personally seen it with multiple people. I've watched someone grind a 3-5 second deadlift (almost faking failure It seemed but only because I knew him well) and then I starting yelling at him and he cranked out 5 more reps
Quad/noob gains! Did they do any genotyping for myostatin? Some blood typing? Didn't hear you mention that but I'll read the studies. Have you come across any mono/dizygotic twin studies as well?
+Haaris Majid Training this was the really abbreviated version. I've been putting this article off for a while because it's going to be a monster, and I keep coming across more and more research. As for now, this is about 2/3 of what I have: www.dropbox.com/s/lllxp0sc2xwncar/Screenshot%202015-12-02%2017.16.55.png?dl=0 Myostatin doesn't play a very large role. An absurdly small percentage of people are homogeneous for the nonsense allele (I think there have been a total of 3 reported cases), and the percentage of people who are heterogeneous is still really, really tiny. Now, there ARE some genetically influenced factors in a few myostatin signaling pathways (upstream influencers and downstream targets) that seem to make a difference, but myostatin levels themselves aren't overly important (similar to testosterone - if it's within the normal physiological range, it's probably not going to make a huge difference). What are you getting at with blood typing? There are a few twin studies as well. Check out Bouchard's pubmed profile - he's done a lot of them: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bouchard%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=16358397
Greg, this is somewhat off topic but still a genetics related question. I have been looking over twin study data regarding obesity, markers of fitness (glucose tolerance, lipid profile, etc) and I'm noticing the heritability estimate ranges for obesity and said markers are quite high (.5-.7). The heritability of pathological fat accumulation seems to be subject to a large degree of heritability. does this simply mean some people are dealt a shit tier hand and have to do more work for less benefit?
Thank you for the response. Is there any evidence that environmental change can reduce the heritability of obesity over time, or will people who tend to store fat be fighting an uphill battle their entire life?
darklord220 As with anything, it'll be a matter of degree. Anyone can lose weight (i mean, you can't cheat thermodynamics), but it does seem that some people do just simply have a tougher time than others, with a largely genetic basis, potentially through different hormonal set points, differences in number of fat cells they're born with, etc.
+Cristian García Herrero The Davidsen one was. You see a similar spread in studies that control for diet. It's pretty rare to see a study where the standard deviation (plus or minus 1 standard deviation accounts for 60-65% of participants) is smaller than about 25% of the mean in terms of the changes seen. So within just 1SD you generally see a magnitude of variation around 50%, with roughly 1/6 of people being above or below that.
Hey greg love the videos on this channel and your other account. One question ;] Is it normal for a natural lifter to be exhausted for 3-4 days after a heavy training session of deadlifts? Squats dont seem to affect me in this way. Your response is appreciated
+Mario-2700 I don't think that's too uncommon. I'm down for the count for 2-3 days after a pretty hard DL day, and a really tough one can easily wear me out for 4 days.
Question: I think you talked about this before (seem to recall something about people responding best on 4 sets of 5 with 50%). Without lab equipment, is there a way to test how well your respond to certain types of loading schemes and make general conclusions about your "optimal" training?
+Ties H Just self-experimentation really. I can't think of a good way to know for sure. I'm actually trying to convince a friend who's getting his PhD in machine learning to help me develop an algorithm that would do that using Banister's Impulse Response model, but I don't know of anything out there right now that can do it.
Yeah I figured that was the only way, but was hoping for a simpler solution. I just don't see myself doing sets at 50% for a long period of time...Thanks for responding! If you ever come up with a way to do this, that would be a massive game changer for "average" people looking to make progress in strength training. (I'm assuming top athletes aren't the ones responding best to 50% training)
Obviously I should be less lazy and read the article but anyway.... What kind of diet were these people on? (I'm assuming it was the same) could it be possible those that didn't respond as well simply respond differently to a particular diet than the others. I also wonder what kind of emotional/motivational factors may have played a role as unseen variables
+Tyler Thomas The Davidsen study had a controlled diet. You see a similar spread in studies that control for diet anyway, though. It's pretty rare to see a study where the standard deviation (plus or minus 1 standard deviation accounts for 60-65% of participants) is smaller than about 25% of the mean in terms of the changes seen. So within just 1SD you generally see a magnitude of variation around 50%, with roughly 1/6 of people being above or below that.
+Strengtheory Great vid, Greg! Id like to add to Tylers thoughts: How can we explain the effect of "degrading" muscle mass in some ppl that brings about the zero effect for the whole non-responder group? If that means that the training degraded the muscles aka overtraining - then Im not sold by the "diet controlled" argument. Because it really should be possible to avoid these negative consequences of that particular training program in untrained (!) ppl with a caloric and protein surplus. Or does it simply mean that there are random variations of your muscle mass going on, partly generated by external factors like sleep, stress and so on? Roughly speaking, regressing to the mean by "La Vie". :) Also it is interesting that - albeit in a 2-cluster-grouping - there was no "zero gains" group in the Davidson study. I completely support the normal distribution fact - but Im very skeptical about the "negative outcome in a training program effect". Id also wouldve liked the Baumann study results shown as a continuous curve/normal distribution (which it is) just for didactic reasons, although I understand the statistical reasons they did a k-means-clustering and made a graph with it.
***** I'll probably get into this in the article more, but it seems that the lowest responders simply have an inappropriate response to training stimuli. When you look at all of the stuff going on after training (gene expression, signaling pathways up- or down-regulated, local hormone concentrations, etc.), you expect to see some degree of an inflammatory response (IL-6, TNFa, maybe CRP, etc.) but a very robust hypertrophic response (mTOR/p70s6k upregulation, local IGF-1 and MGF levels increasing, and, most importantly, increases in MPS). In very low responders and nonresponders, those hypertrophic factors barely change from baseline, and the inflammatory response is *way* too strong. It seems like their bodies interpret it as a serious threat (like an injury almost - distress using Seyle's terms) that overwhelms the potential for positive adaptation, rather than a positive stressor (eustress) that leads to beneficial growth and remodeling. That's why I alluded to the fact that it's not entirely appropriate to call them nonresponders, because they very well may have responded well to lower-intensity exercise initially before the magnitude of the stressor increased. However, at a basic level, it's not that the nonresponders didn't respond at all - their problem was that their bodies responded inappropriately.
+Strengtheory Thx for your answer. Sounds very plausible. On an individual applied level that would mean for me to look to diminis inappropiate responses as far as possible. Maybe playing around with intensity (lowering it), assessing inflammatory levels, cortisol levels and so on. In a very ambitious person who wants to train in spite of his genetic card, for example. What would you do with low responders other than recommending another pastime? :)
***** Same thing I'd recommend to anyone else: experiment ruthlessly. Ultimately, you're your own N=1 case study. Something worth trying, though: start with more strength endurance work to increase local aerobic adaptations (which decreases oxidative stress, and hence local inflammation) and decrease the amount of tension you're working under initially (to mitigate muscle damage to a degree). I also have a strong hunch that things would just get better over time because gene expression patterns can change pretty considerably. Some change pretty quickly, and some take longer.
Hey Greg, is there a difference in maximum potential between high responders and low responders or is it just a difference in how long it takes to reach (reasonably) full potential?
+Dahgne That's a good question. I can't pretend like there are any studies to back this up (I don't think we'll see a 20 year training study any time soon), but I doubt they'd come out at the same place, or anywhere close to the same place. You can look at other sports as an analogy. I don't think 99.999999% of people would have any hope of catching Usain Bolt's record if they have unlimited time to train, and I don't think 99.9999% of people would even be able to crack a 10 second 100m dash. Same goes with a sub-2:15 marathon time. I think the same would apply for powerlifting or bodybuilding.
Put all my siblings (6 of us) in a similar experiment and we will be the top gainers or high responders, I think. I wonder if it would be the same with other families.
Just wondering how you would interpret that 70% of extra CSA growth in terms of inches.Does it mean his quads grew from (for example) 10inches to 17 inches or how did it increase?Or am I looking at this completely wrong.
+ElanTV quads are roughly 40-50% of the thigh's total cross-sectional area (bone, hamstrings, and adductors as well, obviously). If we assume they're a semi-circle (they aren't but it's close enough: d13geadg2uyg93.cloudfront.net/content/jap/104/5/1320/F4.large.jpg), then the area of a semicircle is 1/2*pi*r^2. To increase in area by 70%, the radius would increase by 30%. So the length of the arc (the side of the quad facing forward, not back toward the bone or the hamstrings) would be 2*pi*r/2 or just pi*r. That would increase 30%. Since that's about 1/2 of the leg's circumference, the circumference of the leg would increase by about 15%. So, if the legs were 20 inches before, be 23 inches, or if they were 10 inches before, they'd be 11.5 inches. Very rough math, but close enough to put you in the right ballpark.
hey Gregson, great video as always. Quick question about the 28 programmes if I may. For the 3x per week squats is it intentional that only 2 weeks is planned? If so, is one to assume to just run it twice in line with the 4 weeks that the other movements offer?
Questionnnn! Do you think that extreme responders and shit responders in general will end up somewhere within the same level with 10-20 years of training? Generally speaking you would expect to see the amount of muscle you can gain in a given time period drop for every pound you gain. So if one person gains muscle slower he could potentially end up close to someone with superior genetics if he just kept training, whereas the extreme responder would see rapid gains in the first few years of lifting and then almost no gains in the following years? Am I making sense? I'm tired kpeaceout
+Mikkel Jørgensen I don't think it necessarily works like that. My expectation would be that extreme responders also have a higher genetic potential. However, I don't have any studies to back that up, so that's that...
+Mikkel Jørgensen That's a good question. I can't pretend like there are any studies to back this up (I don't think we'll see a 20 year training study any time soon), but I doubt they'd come out at the same place, or anywhere close to the same place. You can look at other sports as an analogy. I don't think 99.999999% of people would have any hope of catching Usain Bolt's record if they have unlimited time to train, and I don't think 99.9999% of people would even be able to crack a 10 second 100m dash. Same goes with a sub-2:15 marathon time. I think the same would apply for powerlifting or bodybuilding.
+tommyboy790 In the Bamman study, no iirc. In the Davidsen study, yes. I had a much longer version of this video that went into how poorly controlled basically all genetics studies are (even twin studies have major issues. Identical twins don't have identical DNA - CNV plays a nontrivial role as well), but that turned out to be a 10 minute aside/rant that I figured most people didn't have the patience for.
+Strengtheory Thanks for clarifying Greg. I'm guessing that genetics studies are conducted out of curiosity and not necessarily for general application to our training principles.
+tommyboy790 Right. And not many actually split the groups out to look at responsiveness to try to figure out WHY they responded differently, but if you look at the stats for most studies (including ones where calories are controlled) you still see similar ranges: For example, check out this classic training study: www.researchgate.net/publication/11378217_A_Comparison_of_Linear_and_Daily_Undulating_Periodized_Programs_with_Equated_Volume_and_Intensity_for_Strength Scroll to page 4. Just to use one example, comparing strength gains from week 1 to week 12 in the leg press for the DUP group, the average was a 55.8% increase. But, the standard deviation was 22.8%. That means that roughly 60-65% (basically the middle 2/3, similar to the Bamman study's moderate responder cluster) would be expected to gain somewhere between 33-78.6% of their initial strength by week 12. That's HUGE in and of itself, but it also means you'd expect about 1/6 to gain less than 33%, and about 1/6 to gain more than 78.6%. That's pretty common when you actually look at standard deviations, and not just means. Sometimes you see standard deviations even larger than the magnitude of change. (this study didn't control calories either, but I'd already typed this out in response to a comment on Facebook, and I was too lazy to find another study to illustrate)
I'd be really interested to see if there are any destinct between race muscle building ability. Just observing that a lot of my middle eastern friends are crazy strong, despite having similar training age/style and muscle mass as caucasian friends. Likewise a lot of the more freakish looking bodybuilders appearing recently seem to be coming from places like Egypt. Although I think that may have something to do with the availability of pharmaceutical grade drugs in those countries.
+TobiasUstun haha that's a politically incorrect question, but a really good/interesting one. It's too much to type out in a comment, though. If I ever feel like getting flamed, I may make a video about it at some point. Basically, yes, maybe/probably. It's more likely for groups that are more isolated (i.e. the Basque people of spain, who haven't intermarried with many other groups, or the Kalenjin tribe of Kenya which has produced a disproportionate amount of exceptional marathon runners). However, it's difficult to separate genetic/physiological factors (which play a role) from cultural factors (such as stone lifting being a/the major sport for the Basques, and running being the major sport for the Kalenjin).
+Strengtheory Not that politically incorrect if you approach it right. We all have different weaknesses and strengths. The race type with less muscle may just be a lot faster or nimble than another. Look at africans blowing us away at any marathon.
True. I don't personally see it as politically incorrect, races exist, and there are distinguishable differences in the physical characteristics of each although I admit it can be a bit of a taboo subject. I'm just curious about it is all :)
+Ben Kalman He was drug-free in all likelihood. The main point of the study was to see what gene expression/endocrinological factors were associated with muscle growth, so it would have been obvious if someone was on gear, and they would have been kicked out of the study.
Yes some people are given a bad hand for weight lifting but are often gifted in other areas. I know a lot of guys who are huge in terms of muscle but athletically are pretty terrible. Ask them to kick or catch a ball and prepare to burst into laughter. I have been competing in Muay Thai for several years and when a weightlifter comes in it's amazing to see them realise that people "weaker"/"smaller" than them are actually far more athletic or stronger in other ways. Some guys are great weightlifters and get big easily but have terrible proprioception. Truth is, truly athletically strong people who can also perform movements really well that translate into sport are fucking incredibly rare. Weightlifting isn't a good metric by which to judge athleticism genetically because compared to other sports it is dealing with an incredibly tiny sample size. Several thousand serious weightlifters are nothing compared to hundreds of thousands of soccer players in just a few European countries for example - Lionel Messi is a far more gifted sportsman/athlete than someone who can lift a ton of weight but not do much else. Weightlifters get into this bubble where being big and strong is the only measure of athleticism or "freak ability" - it isn't.
Olympic weightlifters would be closer to your definition of an athletic person. They are very strong, very explosive and have very good mobility as well as stability. If you leave out endurance, I think that oly lifters are probably the most athletic people.
Are extreme depth jumps an effective way to train your quads (asking for a friend)?
+OmarIsuf it's questionable, but as long as you're jumping from a high enough ledge/tree/mountain/etc. it's guaranteed to cause muscle damage (and perhaps damage to other things as well).
Worth a shot, at least.
+OmarIsuf Go big or go home. Felix jumps only!
+OmarIsuf Calves you ment? :p
your voice comforts me
I know right?
Not only do I beat my insomnia, I learn a ton about exercise science!
Greg never leave us again pls
THANK GOD GREG MADE A VIDEO BLOG! SUBSCRIBED
Really shocked you didn't mention diet in this video. I have realised lately that some people have very repressed appetites and some people have big appetites naturally. I ran starting strength, got results the first few weeks and then it really tapered off. I thought I was eating a lot but actually I wasn't eating like a bird. I fixed this after a few months and my gains in both strength and size were better than the first few weeks of SS when I was getting true noob gains. My point is if the subjects in these studies were not on strictly controlled diets then the explanation is right there. The only way someone can lose lean weight after 16 weeks of working out is if they are in a caloric deficit. No doubt the people who made amazing gains were probably in a high caloric surplus and gained a lot of fat to go with their muscle too.
hey i just wanted to thank you and Omar for the awesome programs you brought out, a good friend of mine just finished 4 weeks and made insane progress, im at week 2 intermediate/advanced and so far i really enjoy it.
+flaffa besseling Sweet! Glad to hear you like them, and that they worked so well for your friend!
Oh thank you lord, there's only so many old Strengtheory videos I can re-watch
I'm sure that if the 'non responders' had something like a deload half way through their 16 weeks hard training that the results could very well be different for them.
Thx man, that are the studys I was looking for. Finally a youtuber who is telling the truth and beeing critical on that point.
I really enjoy these kind of videos. Please keep up the good work!
For the study, did they actually make sure that everybody is on a caloric surplus and eats enough protein?
+MidnightSTALKER979 I think this is a huge factor. Maybe the genetic outliers were just eating a lot more and better than everyone else while the people decreasing in size just aren't eating enough
+MidnightSTALKER979
Non responders probably didn't
+RealLifeKA youre compltely wrong. unless it specifically states in the study that they were all on some sort of plan then they were not. thats just how science works. if you are controlling a variable it is stated.
+MidnightSTALKER979 Yes, diet was controlled and there were no differences in energy, protein or fat intake.
Yes but your genetics has a limit when I worked I only got so big and after that I started to get fat and get sick. So my doctor told me I needed to lose that weight or I would eventually have a heart attack
Great video and great commentary. Definitely excited to see more content in the future!
+Strengtheory ,
1.) Did they control for calorie intake (deficit vs maintenance vs surplus)?
If not, I speculate that a significant percentage of those who had lost size were individuals with poor appetite who didn't increase their caloric intake to accommodate new circumstances, but maintained their usual diet possibly landing themselves into large deficit.
While I do believe that for responders (who are new to training) to gain size it's not essential whether they're in a deficit or surplus, but for non-responders at least maintaining caloric balance is a requirement otherwise loss of mass is likely.
Additionally, I believe (almost) no one is such a non-responder as to lose mass being at caloric maintenance or even surplus.
2.) In the context of genetics, how to explain when certain muscle(s) progress rapidly and for some it's quite the opposite, taking into account that the same or similar dedication is put into training them.
Personally, for example, my biceps is huge and if I directly train it for more than just 1 or 2 sets a week to say that it starts growing disproportionately would be an understatement; everything the opposite applies to my hamstrings despite trying practically all in the past 10 or so years of serious training (even tried "training" it similar to my biceps and lost some size lol).
Can something as simple as androgen receptor density explain these differences?
3.) I think the 70 something percent guy was on TRT. :)
4.) Do these or any other studies you're familiar of show that (endogenous) androgen levels play a big role when interpreting data concerning genetics and muscle gains.
5.) I can confirm from a personal experience the notion that you don't know the card you've been dealt until you play it. I was a skinny 19 year old, 183cm tall, but when I started lifting I gained muscle size rapidly that most had thought I was on steroids. Also, I had average libido at best throughout my whole life, yet when I tested basic hormonal parameters for the first time at 25 and not long ago at 30 the second time my total testosterone was on the upper limit or the reference range and biologically available testosterone above the reference range.
+John Pawn Pope the Second
1) that's been addressed about half a dozen other places in the comments
2) One simple reason could just be that you start with more muscle fibers or fewer muscle fibers in each muscle. Motor patterns play a role as well - some people just aren't good at activating certain muscles.
3) nah, they checked hormone concentrations. There are people who just grow like that.
4) not really. Within the normal physiological range, there's not any good data (I'm aware of) that androgen levels make much of a difference.
Oh Greg how I've missed you.
+Nikhil Thomas 4 months between uploads! NEW PR
+Strengtheory sickening volume
+Strengtheory Mentzer approved
Greg, it's not polite to laugh at non responders, 2:55 hahaha
+ECL1PSEEEE @11:05 too. lol.
Of course that genetics will make a difference, but it would be very important to know - are all those people in studies had equal food quality in terms of macro and micronutrients and also sufficient calorie intake? Are all those people recover the same from workouts? Lifestyle plays huge role there. Are they all sleeping enough? What is their stress level, what job they do? What is their cortisol level? Hundreds of factors and most probably not many of them were controlled by study.
How do u know cortisol level
nice video Greg! Always amazing content you produce! Waiting for you seminar BTW :))
Regardless of my genetic disposition, I did not gain at an appreciable rate until I started really focusing on staying in a caloric surplus. Prior to that, I stayed 175-180 during high school and freshman year of college. 25 years later I'm 310.
310 is morbidly obese
Solid video G nucks, keep up the good work!
Dude, I've been "trying" for around 2 years now. Insanely hardwork. 6x a week, took extra rest when needed too. Not overtraining mentally or physically, and not the muscle for that matter too. Barely any difference. Only visible when on pump anyways. There isn't anything i can do? Genetics is genetics? I sound stupid even asking. I've been tired my whole life even before i started lifting though, could be low test, or some health problem? I did have a overall bloodtest and everything was fine. So im left confused and depressed, and lost. Basically suicidal.
@@beel94-de I have almost all the knowledge or that's what i think about weight gaining but I don't want to or can't apply them in my life.
Diet needs proteins and fats which require usually eggs meat fish etc. which is beyond me as I'm veg. Even in vegetarian items there are very few things I like to eat as I prefer taste over nutrition (if I don't like taste, I won't eat it).
Second is exercises. Everyone recommends to go to gym but I can't go to gym due to various reasons. I can perform some basic exercises at home/hostel like pushups squats planks that's it. I lack continuity and tend to quit after some days. I'm also addicted to masturbation.
At this point I've given up on everything. My parents were like me when they were at my age and started gaining weight after their marriage at about 26 - 28 years of age. So I believe my genetics won't let me gain weight rn.
Also I have hyperhidrosis and slight constipation problems
Im in a similar boat ive been working out again for 2 years now what helped me not feel so tired all the time was actually drinking more water surprisingly , so whenever i feel tired i drink more water and after a couples minutes im more awake
Second i was training too hard , for example if you take EVERY set to failure like i was during the rest of the day you will feel super tired in my case so now on my first set i take it to failure then on my second and third i keep 1 rep in the tanks
Last sleeping more helped a lot
And now?
would sign up for an exercise science class with Professor Nuckols.
Mark Lobliner made a video recently where he said that Kevin Levrone was about 175 lbs 12 weeks out from the 2002 Mr Olympia. Maybe he is exaggerating, but apparently that is how Levrone approached his training. Only working for about 3-4 months begore the Olympia every year.
is Jason Blaha one of the people who loses muscle
+ben greenberg he squats somewhere in the 500s, right? He's a fairly strong dude.
***** yes strong within the sense that he can squat much more than the average person. However, given his training age the gear that he's taken.....
+Strengtheory lol he has taken steroids for 20 YEARS, he most likely has klinesfelters syndrome,
ben greenberg he's not a world-class lifter, but he's got a solid total, no matter what qualifiers you put on it.
+Strengtheory LOL not for 20 years of steroids use.... please don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. blaha is a coward, failure and valor thief in case you didn't know. if you support the scumbag, I won't support you...
66 people in the study it sik it piss it sciencening
Please start uploading more videos
My problem is not gaining weight.
My problem is the lack of increase in muscle mass and strength (I only had an increase in strength in the first weeks as a newbie).
Caloric surplus = building belly fat.
Even at high volume and intensity.
I am a negative responder. I tend to lose strength and muscle instead of building.
When I was 15-16 I gained 8-9lbs in 8 months of training on icf 5x5, average genetics I was also a late bloomer so my muscle memory still isn’t up there (I’m 23 now)
The paper didn't mention anything about controlling the test subjects' diets. Wouldn't that affect how much their quads grew or deteriorated, more so than genetics? For example if low responders tended to eat fewer calories than they burned and vice versa?
+TheAssgas the magnitude of difference in muscle growth here was MUCH larger than differences attributable to nutritional factors in basically any study.
gosh greg is so dreamy
The fact that this video has downvotes upsets me.
Very good/interesting video. I think one thing impossible to gauge though is the amount of effort given by each participant, which could vary massively. This, coupled with caloric intake in my anecdotal observations is the most important factor in muscle growth and I suspect it was a huge player in these studies. But I'm sure m sheer muscle growth genetics played a big role as well
Yo Leroy do you even lift brah?
+leroy jankins You still see similar spreads in studies that take all sets to failure, and in studies that control calorie intake as well.
+Strengtheory many peoples "failure" is literally like an RPE 6 for others
leroy jankins in a lab that knows how to run a good training study (I don't know much about Bamman's lab, but I know the folks at McMaster know how to run a good study), not too many.
+Strengtheory fair enough, but a lab cannot force someone to break past their own mental limitations. People can have all the signs of failure and even fail (even a squat) and have many reps left in the tank. I've personally seen it with multiple people. I've watched someone grind a 3-5 second deadlift (almost faking failure It seemed but only because I knew him well) and then I starting yelling at him and he cranked out 5 more reps
Some people grow slower but have a similar upper limit, genetics determine your maximal size, epigenetic’s dictate speed of growth.
I just need a real myostatin inhibitor
Quad/noob gains! Did they do any genotyping for myostatin? Some blood typing? Didn't hear you mention that but I'll read the studies. Have you come across any mono/dizygotic twin studies as well?
+Haaris Majid Training this was the really abbreviated version. I've been putting this article off for a while because it's going to be a monster, and I keep coming across more and more research. As for now, this is about 2/3 of what I have: www.dropbox.com/s/lllxp0sc2xwncar/Screenshot%202015-12-02%2017.16.55.png?dl=0
Myostatin doesn't play a very large role. An absurdly small percentage of people are homogeneous for the nonsense allele (I think there have been a total of 3 reported cases), and the percentage of people who are heterogeneous is still really, really tiny. Now, there ARE some genetically influenced factors in a few myostatin signaling pathways (upstream influencers and downstream targets) that seem to make a difference, but myostatin levels themselves aren't overly important (similar to testosterone - if it's within the normal physiological range, it's probably not going to make a huge difference).
What are you getting at with blood typing?
There are a few twin studies as well. Check out Bouchard's pubmed profile - he's done a lot of them: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bouchard%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=16358397
Greg, this is somewhat off topic but still a genetics related question.
I have been looking over twin study data regarding obesity, markers of fitness (glucose tolerance, lipid profile, etc) and I'm noticing the heritability estimate ranges for obesity and said markers are quite high (.5-.7).
The heritability of pathological fat accumulation seems to be subject to a large degree of heritability. does this simply mean some people are dealt a shit tier hand and have to do more work for less benefit?
forgive me, I said heritability twice lmao
unfortunately, yes.
Thank you for the response.
Is there any evidence that environmental change can reduce the heritability of obesity over time, or will people who tend to store fat be fighting an uphill battle their entire life?
darklord220 As with anything, it'll be a matter of degree. Anyone can lose weight (i mean, you can't cheat thermodynamics), but it does seem that some people do just simply have a tougher time than others, with a largely genetic basis, potentially through different hormonal set points, differences in number of fat cells they're born with, etc.
Where the studies controled for diet? that's a very critical aspect to have into account.
And upload moar videos please haha
+Cristian García Herrero The Davidsen one was. You see a similar spread in studies that control for diet. It's pretty rare to see a study where the standard deviation (plus or minus 1 standard deviation accounts for 60-65% of participants) is smaller than about 25% of the mean in terms of the changes seen. So within just 1SD you generally see a magnitude of variation around 50%, with roughly 1/6 of people being above or below that.
Yay! A new video!
Hey greg love the videos on this channel and your other account. One question ;] Is it normal for a natural lifter to be exhausted for 3-4 days after a heavy training session of deadlifts? Squats dont seem to affect me in this way. Your response is appreciated
+Mario-2700 I don't think that's too uncommon. I'm down for the count for 2-3 days after a pretty hard DL day, and a really tough one can easily wear me out for 4 days.
***** wow lol Thanks greg i just wanted to see if it was normal. My friends juice and they only need 1 to 2 days tops to recover.
Question: I think you talked about this before (seem to recall something about people responding best on 4 sets of 5 with 50%). Without lab equipment, is there a way to test how well your respond to certain types of loading schemes and make general conclusions about your "optimal" training?
+Ties H Just self-experimentation really. I can't think of a good way to know for sure. I'm actually trying to convince a friend who's getting his PhD in machine learning to help me develop an algorithm that would do that using Banister's Impulse Response model, but I don't know of anything out there right now that can do it.
Yeah I figured that was the only way, but was hoping for a simpler solution. I just don't see myself doing sets at 50% for a long period of time...Thanks for responding! If you ever come up with a way to do this, that would be a massive game changer for "average" people looking to make progress in strength training. (I'm assuming top athletes aren't the ones responding best to 50% training)
Where do you get your information? Not questioning the validity of your resources, just interested in reading fitness related research articles.
+Matty Patty92 Textbooks, google scholar/pubmed, chatting with researchers, and coaches who have more experience than me.
Obviously I should be less lazy and read the article but anyway.... What kind of diet were these people on? (I'm assuming it was the same) could it be possible those that didn't respond as well simply respond differently to a particular diet than the others. I also wonder what kind of emotional/motivational factors may have played a role as unseen variables
+Tyler Thomas The Davidsen study had a controlled diet. You see a similar spread in studies that control for diet anyway, though. It's pretty rare to see a study where the standard deviation (plus or minus 1 standard deviation accounts for 60-65% of participants) is smaller than about 25% of the mean in terms of the changes seen. So within just 1SD you generally see a magnitude of variation around 50%, with roughly 1/6 of people being above or below that.
+Strengtheory Great vid, Greg! Id like to add to Tylers thoughts: How can we explain the effect of "degrading" muscle mass in some ppl that brings about the zero effect for the whole non-responder group? If that means that the training degraded the muscles aka overtraining - then Im not sold by the "diet controlled" argument. Because it really should be possible to avoid these negative consequences of that particular training program in untrained (!) ppl with a caloric and protein surplus. Or does it simply mean that there are random variations of your muscle mass going on, partly generated by external factors like sleep, stress and so on? Roughly speaking, regressing to the mean by "La Vie". :)
Also it is interesting that - albeit in a 2-cluster-grouping - there was no "zero gains" group in the Davidson study. I completely support the normal distribution fact - but Im very skeptical about the "negative outcome in a training program effect".
Id also wouldve liked the Baumann study results shown as a continuous curve/normal distribution (which it is) just for didactic reasons, although I understand the statistical reasons they did a k-means-clustering and made a graph with it.
***** I'll probably get into this in the article more, but it seems that the lowest responders simply have an inappropriate response to training stimuli. When you look at all of the stuff going on after training (gene expression, signaling pathways up- or down-regulated, local hormone concentrations, etc.), you expect to see some degree of an inflammatory response (IL-6, TNFa, maybe CRP, etc.) but a very robust hypertrophic response (mTOR/p70s6k upregulation, local IGF-1 and MGF levels increasing, and, most importantly, increases in MPS).
In very low responders and nonresponders, those hypertrophic factors barely change from baseline, and the inflammatory response is *way* too strong. It seems like their bodies interpret it as a serious threat (like an injury almost - distress using Seyle's terms) that overwhelms the potential for positive adaptation, rather than a positive stressor (eustress) that leads to beneficial growth and remodeling.
That's why I alluded to the fact that it's not entirely appropriate to call them nonresponders, because they very well may have responded well to lower-intensity exercise initially before the magnitude of the stressor increased.
However, at a basic level, it's not that the nonresponders didn't respond at all - their problem was that their bodies responded inappropriately.
+Strengtheory Thx for your answer. Sounds very plausible. On an individual applied level that would mean for me to look to diminis inappropiate responses as far as possible. Maybe playing around with intensity (lowering it), assessing inflammatory levels, cortisol levels and so on. In a very ambitious person who wants to train in spite of his genetic card, for example. What would you do with low responders other than recommending another pastime? :)
***** Same thing I'd recommend to anyone else: experiment ruthlessly. Ultimately, you're your own N=1 case study.
Something worth trying, though: start with more strength endurance work to increase local aerobic adaptations (which decreases oxidative stress, and hence local inflammation) and decrease the amount of tension you're working under initially (to mitigate muscle damage to a degree).
I also have a strong hunch that things would just get better over time because gene expression patterns can change pretty considerably. Some change pretty quickly, and some take longer.
Hey Greg, is there a difference in maximum potential between high responders and low responders or is it just a difference in how long it takes to reach (reasonably) full potential?
+Dahgne That's a good question. I can't pretend like there are any studies to back this up (I don't think we'll see a 20 year training study any time soon), but I doubt they'd come out at the same place, or anywhere close to the same place.
You can look at other sports as an analogy. I don't think 99.999999% of people would have any hope of catching Usain Bolt's record if they have unlimited time to train, and I don't think 99.9999% of people would even be able to crack a 10 second 100m dash. Same goes with a sub-2:15 marathon time. I think the same would apply for powerlifting or bodybuilding.
Put all my siblings (6 of us) in a similar experiment and we will be the top gainers or high responders, I think. I wonder if it would be the same with other families.
Just wondering how you would interpret that 70% of extra CSA growth in terms of inches.Does it mean his quads grew from (for example) 10inches to 17 inches or how did it increase?Or am I looking at this completely wrong.
+ElanTV quads are roughly 40-50% of the thigh's total cross-sectional area (bone, hamstrings, and adductors as well, obviously).
If we assume they're a semi-circle (they aren't but it's close enough: d13geadg2uyg93.cloudfront.net/content/jap/104/5/1320/F4.large.jpg), then the area of a semicircle is 1/2*pi*r^2. To increase in area by 70%, the radius would increase by 30%. So the length of the arc (the side of the quad facing forward, not back toward the bone or the hamstrings) would be 2*pi*r/2 or just pi*r. That would increase 30%. Since that's about 1/2 of the leg's circumference, the circumference of the leg would increase by about 15%.
So, if the legs were 20 inches before, be 23 inches, or if they were 10 inches before, they'd be 11.5 inches.
Very rough math, but close enough to put you in the right ballpark.
Thanks a million Greg !
hey Gregson, great video as always. Quick question about the 28 programmes if I may. For the 3x per week squats is it intentional that only 2 weeks is planned? If so, is one to assume to just run it twice in line with the 4 weeks that the other movements offer?
+Man Vs Iron That's because the same progression is in place week to week. Just run it until you stop getting stronger with it, and then move on.
+Strengtheory Gotcha, thanks!
Questionnnn! Do you think that extreme responders and shit responders in general will end up somewhere within the same level with 10-20 years of training? Generally speaking you would expect to see the amount of muscle you can gain in a given time period drop for every pound you gain. So if one person gains muscle slower he could potentially end up close to someone with superior genetics if he just kept training, whereas the extreme responder would see rapid gains in the first few years of lifting and then almost no gains in the following years?
Am I making sense? I'm tired kpeaceout
+Mikkel Jørgensen I don't think it necessarily works like that. My expectation would be that extreme responders also have a higher genetic potential. However, I don't have any studies to back that up, so that's that...
ClimbingCalisthenics Are you telling me ill never deadlift 800lb while living off of orange juice and starbursts? ;(
Mikkel Jørgensen Oh well ...um... you never know until you try it... *cough*
+Mikkel Jørgensen That's a good question. I can't pretend like there are any studies to back this up (I don't think we'll see a 20 year training study any time soon), but I doubt they'd come out at the same place, or anywhere close to the same place.
You can look at other sports as an analogy. I don't think 99.999999% of people would have any hope of catching Usain Bolt's record if they have unlimited time to train, and I don't think 99.9999% of people would even be able to crack a 10 second 100m dash. Same goes with a sub-2:15 marathon time. I think the same would apply for powerlifting or bodybuilding.
What about their calorie intake?
Would the top group in the quad growth group also be in the top group of the lean growth study? (except for that freak who would of course)
+Mark Smith in all likelihood
Greg, do these studies objectively measure perceived effort in the subjects?
+rbgolfer2013 All sets in both studies were taken to volitional failure iirc.
Where have you been?!?
+tommyboy790 Doing other things. I'm camera-shy, so it's hard to force myself to make videos.
+Strengtheory Haha but your voice is so soothing! 😂 Great video. Did they have any control of the subjects diets?
+tommyboy790 In the Bamman study, no iirc. In the Davidsen study, yes. I had a much longer version of this video that went into how poorly controlled basically all genetics studies are (even twin studies have major issues. Identical twins don't have identical DNA - CNV plays a nontrivial role as well), but that turned out to be a 10 minute aside/rant that I figured most people didn't have the patience for.
+Strengtheory Thanks for clarifying Greg. I'm guessing that genetics studies are conducted out of curiosity and not necessarily for general application to our training principles.
+tommyboy790 Right. And not many actually split the groups out to look at responsiveness to try to figure out WHY they responded differently, but if you look at the stats for most studies (including ones where calories are controlled) you still see similar ranges:
For example, check out this classic training study: www.researchgate.net/publication/11378217_A_Comparison_of_Linear_and_Daily_Undulating_Periodized_Programs_with_Equated_Volume_and_Intensity_for_Strength
Scroll to page 4.
Just to use one example, comparing strength gains from week 1 to week 12 in the leg press for the DUP group, the average was a 55.8% increase. But, the standard deviation was 22.8%. That means that roughly 60-65% (basically the middle 2/3, similar to the Bamman study's moderate responder cluster) would be expected to gain somewhere between 33-78.6% of their initial strength by week 12. That's HUGE in and of itself, but it also means you'd expect about 1/6 to gain less than 33%, and about 1/6 to gain more than 78.6%.
That's pretty common when you actually look at standard deviations, and not just means. Sometimes you see standard deviations even larger than the magnitude of change.
(this study didn't control calories either, but I'd already typed this out in response to a comment on Facebook, and I was too lazy to find another study to illustrate)
How much of a visual difference is gaining 70% of your cross-sectional area?
I'd be really interested to see if there are any destinct between race muscle building ability. Just observing that a lot of my middle eastern friends are crazy strong, despite having similar training age/style and muscle mass as caucasian friends. Likewise a lot of the more freakish looking bodybuilders appearing recently seem to be coming from places like Egypt. Although I think that may have something to do with the availability of pharmaceutical grade drugs in those countries.
+TobiasUstun haha that's a politically incorrect question, but a really good/interesting one. It's too much to type out in a comment, though. If I ever feel like getting flamed, I may make a video about it at some point.
Basically, yes, maybe/probably. It's more likely for groups that are more isolated (i.e. the Basque people of spain, who haven't intermarried with many other groups, or the Kalenjin tribe of Kenya which has produced a disproportionate amount of exceptional marathon runners). However, it's difficult to separate genetic/physiological factors (which play a role) from cultural factors (such as stone lifting being a/the major sport for the Basques, and running being the major sport for the Kalenjin).
+Strengtheory Not that politically incorrect if you approach it right. We all have different weaknesses and strengths. The race type with less muscle may just be a lot faster or nimble than another. Look at africans blowing us away at any marathon.
True. I don't personally see it as politically incorrect, races exist, and there are distinguishable differences in the physical characteristics of each although I admit it can be a bit of a taboo subject. I'm just curious about it is all :)
Where the wild things are poster gotta respect that
By 70% growth do you mean say his quads were say 10" they are now 17" ? Or am I being stupid?
+Strengtheory okay understood thanks for the reply, I thought I was being stupid and I was😂
I’m a nonresponder
Can you write more?
I know Clarence Kennedy was the dude that grew his quads 70% wasn't it?
I always thought he was born that way...
I admire the hours you put in on Google scholar
His voice is asmr
where are the wild things
I wonder how much nutrition played a role in the studies.
+Richard Cassel You see a similar spread even in studies where nutrition is controlled for.
Weird, then I can't imagine why anyone's body would lose size working out.
beginner gains are real
the extremely extreme outlier was def not natty.
+Ben Kalman He was drug-free in all likelihood. The main point of the study was to see what gene expression/endocrinological factors were associated with muscle growth, so it would have been obvious if someone was on gear, and they would have been kicked out of the study.
lol think im a low responder
lol greg you said sex cluster
Yes some people are given a bad hand for weight lifting but are often gifted in other areas. I know a lot of guys who are huge in terms of muscle but athletically are pretty terrible. Ask them to kick or catch a ball and prepare to burst into laughter. I have been competing in Muay Thai for several years and when a weightlifter comes in it's amazing to see them realise that people "weaker"/"smaller" than them are actually far more athletic or stronger in other ways. Some guys are great weightlifters and get big easily but have terrible proprioception.
Truth is, truly athletically strong people who can also perform movements really well that translate into sport are fucking incredibly rare. Weightlifting isn't a good metric by which to judge athleticism genetically because compared to other sports it is dealing with an incredibly tiny sample size. Several thousand serious weightlifters are nothing compared to hundreds of thousands of soccer players in just a few European countries for example - Lionel Messi is a far more gifted sportsman/athlete than someone who can lift a ton of weight but not do much else.
Weightlifters get into this bubble where being big and strong is the only measure of athleticism or "freak ability" - it isn't.
Olympic weightlifters would be closer to your definition of an athletic person. They are very strong, very explosive and have very good mobility as well as stability.
If you leave out endurance, I think that oly lifters are probably the most athletic people.
Well this is depressing
66 people in the study? it piss
+Lucas Dmitruk welcome to exercise science
are you stoned ?
+Golfwang2o5 Nope
+Strengtheory if you are waiting for the waiter, aren't you the waiter ?