reaching a genetic limit as early as 3 years in?

**ben 21** · 19-12-2011 12:16 AM

ive heard recently that a natural trainer can hit his genetic limit within 3 years of serious training. most say 5 years at the most (natural). is there anybody out there that has been training 5+ years intensivly and still gaining mass and extra definition naturally?

**stavrog1** · 19-12-2011 12:42 AM

That is a very very vague question. It's impossible to say in training years, because you might be training completely wrong, your diet might be crap etc etc.
If you are worried that you've been training for 5 years and not going to gain anymore then I wouldn't.

completely ridiculous for someone to say that!

**ben 21** · 19-12-2011 02:27 AM

it was just something that caught my eye the other day, just passing on what ive seen. and i love what i do, i dont want to belive that gains basicly plato after 3 or 5 years. i want to train until im 102 and still get those gains. and if you cant ask a ridiculous question on the internet when can you? lol

**SpiderDan** · 19-12-2011 08:08 AM

where'd you hear that from?

**fctilidie** · 19-12-2011 09:06 AM

It sounds like something a steroid user would come up with to justify it to himself. Are you talking about just in lifting weights or sport in general? As I'm sure there are millions of people who have started at sport young and still set pb's into there 30s.

**Barrington** · 19-12-2011 10:35 AM

There must a limit i can't imagine you can go on gaining size indefinetly. I would be chuffed if i managed to get to my genetic potential, it probably never happens for most mortals though.

**Zeigler** · 19-12-2011 11:08 AM

Martin Berkhan has a pretty decent looking formula for what your genetic potential is. To quote -

"(Height in centimeters - 100) = Body weight in kilo ("shredded", i.e. 5-6% body fat).

Example: If your height is 180 cm (5'11), subtract 100 and you get 80.

80 kg (176 lbs) is your maximum muscular potential when you are in peak condition; rock hard abs with visible veins running across them, striated arms and delts, and so forth. Scroll down a bit to see examples of what I mean."

It obviously has its limits and drawbacks but I reckon it is actually pretty accurate, check out the article on his site

**Elvis** · 19-12-2011 11:44 AM

Quote

Originally Posted by Zeigler

("shredded", i.e. 5-6% body fat).

That figure may be right for shredded, I think with a little less strict bf requirement most people could get a few more kilos of lbm, and the genetically gifted certainly do better.

**Zeigler** · 19-12-2011 11:56 AM

For sure, you'd still look awesome at 10-12%

He does also mention the genetically gifted, it is just an estimation for the average trainee, though.

**NU_nutrition_TS** · 19-12-2011 01:31 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Zeigler

Martin Berkhan has a pretty decent looking formula for what your genetic potential is. To quote -

"(Height in centimeters - 100) = Body weight in kilo ("shredded", i.e. 5-6% body fat).

Example: If your height is 180 cm (5'11), subtract 100 and you get 80.

80 kg (176 lbs) is your maximum muscular potential when you are in peak condition; rock hard abs with visible veins running across them, striated arms and delts, and so forth. Scroll down a bit to see examples of what I mean."

It obviously has its limits and drawbacks but I reckon it is actually pretty accurate, check out the article on his site

As much as it is reviled within fitness circles, I reckon that formula is based on BMI. If you work out BMI values based on the final BW given by the formula you quote above and the height of the person in question, you will find it comes to just under 25 - which is considered the upper limit of a normal weight to height ratio.

The person (Quetelet) who 'discovered' the BMI formula was, after all, seeking to establish a figure for 'normal distribution' of the 'average man'. It was only later that it was appropriated by the insurance and medical profession as a way to categorise people as 'normal' weight or 'under/over weight'.

Thinking of it as purely a 'normal distribution' among humans, it would make sense that most people following healthy growth rates, would fall into the ~25 BMI bracket and may indicate that there is an 'ideal' ratio between height and body mass that the body seeks to maintain but, when metabolic processes go awry, can mean some people have more fat mass than lean mass and why achieving single digit body fat levels is not an easy task.