Are genetics the most important thing in lifting? Literally

genetics are most important thing in EVERYTHING
so, yes, answer to your questin is yes

zyzz was a complete twig and looked like shit

>>41962011

You could tell he had good genetics though even when he was skinny. All his insertions were decent and he had visible abs.

Genetics play a much larger role than most people believe. The best looking people now were probably the best looking people when they were young too. The only way to overcome shit genetics is to give up the natty card. Even then genetics will hinder you but the drugs will even your playing field pretty well.

File: broad shoulders.jpg (80KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 540x720px

>>41962011
Not true like anon said he always had good insertions, was tall, and had a great shoulder:waist ratio

>>41962052
Is saw this kid get on the bus today, must have been like 10 yo max. Had undeniably model tier facial genetics, was kinda jelly. N-no p-pedo

>>41962322
hey fuck you buddy, i dont look that young

>>41962263
He was lifting already there

File: IMG_1438.jpg (49KB, 420x443px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 420x443px

>exercise science major
>first day of my exercise physiology class
>professor draws a huge pie chart on the board
>each slice of the pie represents athletic ability
>a slice takes up half the chart
>it says "genetics"

Yea I'd say. It's always been the nature of our world

>>41962263
>flat collarbones
>flat chest
>tiny ass hips
>wide shoulders
>le chad cheeks
he was born to be aesthetic brehs

Sort of.

Thoughts, metathoughts, and personality are all highly heritable traits.

Your decision to lift weights in the first place is related to your genes and environment, so although getting bigger muscles via weight lifting is considered "environmental", technically a big part of it is genetic.

>>41962494
Cool story.
Obviously not the point being talked about.

I don't know, I started bodybuilding at 15 starting from skelly and was "peaking" aesthetically at 17-18. Now I mostly do strength stuff for fun only and my physique seems to be maintained nonetheless at maybe 90% of its former prime

>>41962528
it is though

https://www.youtube.com/user/sixpackimpact
the channel is pure cancer but the dude looked like garbage before training. also mute the videos

>>41962528
It is once you realize how many traits people with similar hobbies/interests/experiences share. I'm not sure human agency even exists, it's all just genes playing out their part.

Basketball americans are generally fully developed quite a few years before humans, so you could translate 13 to 18. That aside, I start to think about this more and more because generally I never see people surpass even what is considered the baseline of strength/muscle mass in a gym, even if their training isn't shit. People with better genetics for muscle growth will just look better with less work, of course.

>>41963072
* what is considered the baseline for us, not normal standards.

>>41961926
The short answer is yes. Genetics are everything. I know many guys that lifted and dieted just as hard as I did, and I was successful and they were not. Its not because they didn't try.