Time stamps: 2:35 99.9% of our genetics are the same, so how much impact can they have on our strength/size? 12:25 Lyle McDonalds work vs. talent model - does it work in practice? 21:25 Natural limits for muscle mass? Usefulness of different models? 36:36 How much influence does our structure, bone size have on our muscular potential? Does this relate to somatotypes?
Jeff! highly appreciated and same way around. We haven't had you on for quite some time, huh? This calls for a reunion in near future ;) Btw. not Steve but Pascal here :) Cheers
A couple add-ons: When comparing evolutionary traits, we use the terms 'conserved' vs. 'derived.' So, the cellular machinery like DNA, ATP, phospholipid bilayers etc., are highly conserved traits for all organisms (billions of years ago), while things like thumbs, eyeballs, skin, etc. are derived characteristics that have evolved more recently evolved (hundreds of millions of years ago). Eukaryotic cells contain both non-coding regions (introns, or 'junk' DNA) and protein coding regions (exons). The human genome is only 1.5% exons, the rest are introns. Most genes are composed of exons and introns. So, we can make comparisons between other organisms based on the total genome (exons and introns) or just the exons, which are the actual genes. The human genome has 10,000-20,000 genes in it; the human proteome (all the different proteins in humans) are around 90,000. It is the combining of the various exons that make up a gene that create all the protein diversity in humans; splice variants are thought to make up 70,000+ proteins in the human genome.
Oh yah, I studied molecular genetics as part of grad school where I did cancer research for 3+ years so I'm filled with all sorts trivia. I also worked as a line cook/kitchen manager for the last 3 years, so if you got any culinary questions, let me know.
Thanxz for vid brother, was very informative. Would love to see more round tables in the future too. Great to see minds, spit balling ideas and being able to dissect topics.
That was mega the baseline genetic thing. I think I’ve put near on 100lbs on over 5 years. How someone looks before lifting has zero sight on future progress. Love it ❤️👍
Greg paraphrasing from Thinking, Fast and Slow around the 36min mark like the goddamn boss he is. Kinda stole Mike's thunder on this one, never thought I'd see someone outshine him.
I found myself falling into the category ofsomeone who does not put a lot on at once but has consistently put on five pounds every year which adds up to a lot
On the note of base rate neglect, the likelihood of finding someone who does steroids in the gym is significantly more likely than finding someone on the street who does them. Those who work on their physiques in the gym are far more likely to use PEDS and this is why i disagree with Greg. It's important to look at where certain populations cluster.
Hahaha oh man. Yea the bicycle tire tattoo is definitely suspect. I will say though that if he is a hipster, he's the most jacked hipster in the US. That makes Mike king of the Hipsters?
I'm curious as to how you've been lifting for a relatively long period of time but you still look so small and skinny. Like a Daniel Radcliffe with a tiny bit more muscle.
This is all wonderful but is any of you a geneticist or qualified to talk about it. I don't think so when it comes to bodybuilding and powerlifting I listen to people who powerlifters and bodybuilders when it comes to genetics I listen geneticist an internationally-recognized researchers really know no topic. maybe in the future you should invite a geneticist to join that conversation and that would be really valuable but as of now not so much.
Of course you have a valid point in that someone directly working in the field will have some insight to share, however, how many of them do research on those type of athletes? Greg did a lot of research and digging, not only for his website but also for the monthly research review "MASS". Also, not all experts are true experts. Unfortunately, I know many professors, doctors, etc. who do not know enough to give out qualitative information. It's seen on a daily basis...unfortunately, but still, you got a point but we should keep an open mind.
Well.... I'm published in scientific journal for cellular/molecular signalling and did 3 years of grad school molecular genetics research, and I didn't hear any question on here that a geneticist could answer, or answer better... unless they were a population geneticist.... which is a statistician... of which I also took a grad-level multivariate statistics class and bioinformatics. There was only one real question that was asked: how much muscle can a person add over their lifetime? How much muscle a person can grow over their lifetime, that's a large, polygenetic, multifactorial trait that has a significant response depending on external stimuli. Gene regulation is such a complex subject, especially when considering traditional genetics and epigenetics, that predicting how much muscle a person can pack on based on their genome, would be a fool's errand. Geneticists answer questions like, "what are the transcription factors that bind to the promoter region of the testosterone gene?" , or "what are the genetic mechanisms that cause the downregulation of testosterone as a person ages?" , and stuff like that.
Oh yes Eli, definitely points worth mentioning. On a related note. How many people who are actually visiting this channel and are listening to that episode are looking for a highly complex discussion or presentation from a geneticist who's talking about in depth processes. Interesting but I guess not what people are looking for :)
Learning about the genetic pathways and regulation of processes associated with exercise stimuli on a molecular level is kinda like getting one's blood tested for testosterone levels: its kinda cool to know, but unless a person is going to do something actionable w/the information e.g. do molecular research or take exogenous testosterone, its knowing for the sake of knowing, which some may argue is fruitless.
Sorry to hear that you have issues on your end. However, we have one of the best audio quality with video recordings out there. We can't expect our guests to have high-quality mics and audio recording software on their end.
This is great stuff, but surely the elephant in the room is Mike. Prior to these discussions, should he not just openly volunteer his level of use? 5ft 6in (apologies if that is not accurate), and 230 plus pounds with lean visible abs. Anyone who has been involved with\ used themselves PEDs, can see Mike uses (an indeterminate amount of) gear. So, accordingly, his comments in relation to 'natural' genetic standards\limits are inherently biased. Of course he can't come out and discuss PEDs openly; his position as a college professor would naturally be in jeopardy were he to do so, but for the masses of people who will watch this video, surely is this discussion not even a smidgen disingenuous?
Nick Smith Whether Mike is on something or not, this I don't know, I think it has no bearing on the validity of his perspective. He isn't speaking from experience of a sample of n=1, he has been studying the literature for years as well as training people, many of which are surely natural, so I wouldn't really require him to disclose his hypothetical stack to give context to his observations before I take them seriously, and I'm sure plenty of people would agree.
Time stamps:
2:35 99.9% of our genetics are the same, so how much impact can they have on our strength/size?
12:25 Lyle McDonalds work vs. talent model - does it work in practice?
21:25 Natural limits for muscle mass? Usefulness of different models?
36:36 How much influence does our structure, bone size have on our muscular potential? Does this relate to somatotypes?
In!! Thanks for doing the good lord's work Steve
Jeff Nippard You need to be interviewed here. Massive fan of yours also 👍
Jeff! highly appreciated and same way around.
We haven't had you on for quite some time, huh? This calls for a reunion in near future ;)
Btw. not Steve but Pascal here :)
Cheers
Jeff has been on the show. Check out episode numero 2!!
Yes, 2!!
let's do it!
Jeff, you have the power of viewership to bring some attention to this underappreciated channel. Shout it out in a big way, because why not?
Mike's rhetoric and word flow is crazy, and Greg pulls studies from the databases in his brain, authors and dates included....
Yeah, no wonder that they are such authorities
I swear i hit like even before watch this! Awesome channel please do not change anything! We need this content on youtube
Yeah, I'm still so pumped about having both of them together on the show!
A couple add-ons:
When comparing evolutionary traits, we use the terms 'conserved' vs. 'derived.' So, the cellular machinery like DNA, ATP, phospholipid bilayers etc., are highly conserved traits for all organisms (billions of years ago), while things like thumbs, eyeballs, skin, etc. are derived characteristics that have evolved more recently evolved (hundreds of millions of years ago).
Eukaryotic cells contain both non-coding regions (introns, or 'junk' DNA) and protein coding regions (exons). The human genome is only 1.5% exons, the rest are introns. Most genes are composed of exons and introns. So, we can make comparisons between other organisms based on the total genome (exons and introns) or just the exons, which are the actual genes.
The human genome has 10,000-20,000 genes in it; the human proteome (all the different proteins in humans) are around 90,000. It is the combining of the various exons that make up a gene that create all the protein diversity in humans; splice variants are thought to make up 70,000+ proteins in the human genome.
Worth gold. Thanks for this amazing add!
Oh yah, I studied molecular genetics as part of grad school where I did cancer research for 3+ years so I'm filled with all sorts trivia. I also worked as a line cook/kitchen manager for the last 3 years, so if you got any culinary questions, let me know.
Really enjoyed hearing Mike rip apart somatotyping with Greg on the backup :D
Man, they are a great couple!
Rewatching this. Would be great to have more Greg and Mike on, even about this topic itself. There's a lot of interesting stuff there.
You're right, we definitely should!
- Pascal
Been binge-watching the podcasts lately. Great Job!
There will be so many more episodes ;)
never really thought i would hear a discussion on Bayes Law on a fitness channel
Let's make the term "fitness" great again
Thanxz for vid brother, was very informative. Would love to see more round tables in the future too. Great to see minds, spit balling ideas and being able to dissect topics.
Love to hear that you liked it. Definitely working on more roundtable discussions!
Looking mighty jacked in this episode, Steve.
Stop giving him compliments! ;P
- Coach Pascal
Mike is Hilarious
Most funny & jacked dude out there
Revive Stronger Agreed!
Maybe its time for a new roundtable on what we have leared about genetics and what we can do with what we have been dealt from our past?
I typed Jay Cutler's stats (175 cm, 127.3 kg) into the steroid checker and got a 00.000% chance of being drug-free lol
Lol, hahaha
Entertaining, informative and science based...what more could you ask for?!
Keep it up Steve 😁💪
Yes, that's music to my ears!
That was mega the baseline genetic thing. I think I’ve put near on 100lbs on over 5 years. How someone looks before lifting has zero sight on future progress. Love it ❤️👍
Absolutely agree!
- Pascal
Don't even need to watch to hit that like button 😁
Clickbait title ;P
This was really awesome.
I loved the comparison with the 11 seconds 100m dash runner.
Low key wish it went on longer hehe. Awesome discussion Steve!!
We needed to save something to get them on for another time ;)
Greg paraphrasing from Thinking, Fast and Slow around the 36min mark like the goddamn boss he is. Kinda stole Mike's thunder on this one, never thought I'd see someone outshine him.
He's just such a brain!
Been waiting for this one, and it certainly didn't disappoint. Super valuable content here!
I get goosebumps every single time I think about this setup!
Example straight out of Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow at 35:55 :)
Oh my god i love you for this
And I love you for loving this (and listening)
- Coach Pascal
Excellent !
Thx Allan!
knowledge bombs! solid video gents
Two highly intelligent guys talking...and then there's Mike. Hahahaha
Get Lyle McD and eric helms to do a roundtable. Would be so sick
That would be sick!
Perhaps together with Broderick as well
Would be so happy I'd cry
Screw that! I think Lyle McDonald with Mike Israetel, and Layne Norton would make bang up job!
boxerfencer fuck Layne Nortan.
I found myself falling into the category ofsomeone who does not put a lot on at once but has consistently put on five pounds every year which adds up to a lot
Probably better than the ones who put on quickly but stall out quickly too
- Pascal
So much for "practical" from Greg haha
Greg Nuckols being all Bayesian on predicting natty or not 😂
Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
Great video but the last time stampIs completely off, starts more around 37:40
And it seems like it was based way more on the somatype idea than actual relation of bone structure to muscle building capability
Going to check it. Thanks for the hint though
brother please upload your interviews to stitcher or itunes.
Itunes are always available on Tuesdays!
It's simply Itunes approval that takes long
I'll look into it!
Nice
hoooly effin molly!
Youuuu name it!
💪💪❤️❤️‼️
Thank you!
- Coach Jess
Oh boy, this is like fuckin Christmas Steve ! (Basher1337 on Instagram :D )
It mosdef is!
On the note of base rate neglect, the likelihood of finding someone who does steroids in the gym is significantly more likely than finding someone on the street who does them. Those who work on their physiques in the gym are far more likely to use PEDS and this is why i disagree with Greg. It's important to look at where certain populations cluster.
The skinny fat hipster body type LOL Mike has lived in Fishtown too long haha
Hehehe, he's actually one himself. Only hipsters deny that they are one.
Hahaha oh man. Yea the bicycle tire tattoo is definitely suspect. I will say though that if he is a hipster, he's the most jacked hipster in the US. That makes Mike king of the Hipsters?
I'm curious as to how you've been lifting for a relatively long period of time but you still look so small and skinny. Like a Daniel Radcliffe with a tiny bit more muscle.
This is a question I can't answer you because I have no context what you're doing currently in terms of training/nutrition ;)
This is all wonderful but is any of you a geneticist or qualified to talk about it. I don't think so when it comes to bodybuilding and powerlifting I listen to people who powerlifters and bodybuilders when it comes to genetics I listen geneticist an internationally-recognized researchers really know no topic. maybe in the future you should invite a geneticist to join that conversation and that would be really valuable but as of now not so much.
Of course you have a valid point in that someone directly working in the field will have some insight to share, however, how many of them do research on those type of athletes? Greg did a lot of research and digging, not only for his website but also for the monthly research review "MASS".
Also, not all experts are true experts. Unfortunately, I know many professors, doctors, etc. who do not know enough to give out qualitative information. It's seen on a daily basis...unfortunately, but still, you got a point but we should keep an open mind.
Well.... I'm published in scientific journal for cellular/molecular signalling and did 3 years of grad school molecular genetics research, and I didn't hear any question on here that a geneticist could answer, or answer better... unless they were a population geneticist.... which is a statistician... of which I also took a grad-level multivariate statistics class and bioinformatics.
There was only one real question that was asked: how much muscle can a person add over their lifetime?
How much muscle a person can grow over their lifetime, that's a large, polygenetic, multifactorial trait that has a significant response depending on external stimuli. Gene regulation is such a complex subject, especially when considering traditional genetics and epigenetics, that predicting how much muscle a person can pack on based on their genome, would be a fool's errand.
Geneticists answer questions like, "what are the transcription factors that bind to the promoter region of the testosterone gene?" , or "what are the genetic mechanisms that cause the downregulation of testosterone as a person ages?" , and stuff like that.
Oh yes Eli, definitely points worth mentioning.
On a related note. How many people who are actually visiting this channel and are listening to that episode are looking for a highly complex discussion or presentation from a geneticist who's talking about in depth processes. Interesting but I guess not what people are looking for :)
Learning about the genetic pathways and regulation of processes associated with exercise stimuli on a molecular level is kinda like getting one's blood tested for testosterone levels: its kinda cool to know, but unless a person is going to do something actionable w/the information e.g. do molecular research or take exogenous testosterone, its knowing for the sake of knowing, which some may argue is fruitless.
Please invest in half decent microphones... it's not always clear to understand, especially when your mother tongue isn't English.
Sorry to hear that you have issues on your end. However, we have one of the best audio quality with video recordings out there. We can't expect our guests to have high-quality mics and audio recording software on their end.
Thank you for your response :)
Always :)
This is great stuff, but surely the elephant in the room is Mike. Prior to these discussions, should he not just openly volunteer his level of use? 5ft 6in (apologies if that is not accurate), and 230 plus pounds with lean visible abs. Anyone who has been involved with\ used themselves PEDs, can see Mike uses (an indeterminate amount of) gear. So, accordingly, his comments in relation to 'natural' genetic standards\limits are inherently biased. Of course he can't come out and discuss PEDs openly; his position as a college professor would naturally be in jeopardy were he to do so, but for the masses of people who will watch this video, surely is this discussion not even a smidgen disingenuous?
Nick Smith Whether Mike is on something or not, this I don't know, I think it has no bearing on the validity of his perspective. He isn't speaking from experience of a sample of n=1, he has been studying the literature for years as well as training people, many of which are surely natural, so I wouldn't really require him to disclose his hypothetical stack to give context to his observations before I take them seriously, and I'm sure plenty of people would agree.