Pre-Genetic Limit

[KRATOS]

A lot of people suggest that anabolic steroids should only be used after one's genetic limit has already been achieved naturally - "why waste money on something that you can obtain on your own?" My question relates to this thought and also to losing mass after your cycle. If you took gear before you reached your genetic limit, along with proper diet, rest and training, so that you reached your genetic limit, once off the cycle and continuing proper diet and training then you shouldn't really lose all of your gains, right? People speak of losing gains after cycles (apart from water weight), am I right in thinking that this mass loss is any mass OVER their genetic limit and therefore mass that requires gear in order to be maintained?

[Ben0]

I dont believe anyone can reach their  genetic limit. Things may slow up, but never stop. I think everyone uses for different reasons, but number one is wanting to get big, fast. Can get two years worth of results in 10-12 weeks. And I think this is fine as long as you have a solid base to work off. 

From my understanding, the loss is gains is from the time during pct that you are not injecting test, and your bodys natural levels still havent recovered, hense below natural test levels. 

[Leeroid]

If you exceed your genetic limit (height in cms minus 80 in kgs at 10% bodyfat) with the use of AAS then you will eventually recede back to below your genetic limit even after a successful PCT. The body can only support a certain amount of skeletal muscle tissue and any mass that is surplus to requirements cannot be retained once medication has been discontinued. However if you took a cycle to reach or get close to your genetic limit then you should be able to maintain most of your gains, providing that HPTA recovery has been successful.

And yeah I don't believe that you need to reach your genetic limit before commencing gear use. In order to legitimately reach your genetic limit, one would have to train for at least 5 years, the last 2 of which they would be lucky to gain 3kgs of muscle per year. If you train natty for two years then spent the next 3 years training enhanced, you could have gained 20kgs of solid muscle easily.

Also I don't believe in cycling as it is a form of cardio

[Pseudonym]

your genetic limit (height in cms minus 80 in kgs at 10% bodyfat)

Where do you get that formula from, Leeroid? You can't put a formula on your genetic limit - it totally depends on your genetics!

For me at 183cm tall, that formula suggests my genetic limit is 103kg at 10% BF. I'm pretty confident that's not a point I'll ever reach - and if I do, it certainly wouldn't be naturally.

 

[Leeroid]

I meant the genetic elite. So probably 1% of the population have that potential. No solid data but just what I have observed, Rapz is a good example he was 105kg natty with abs and he's around 6ft too. Major flavaz is 105kg at 20% but only 170ish cms tall. Another well known member of this forum reached 98kg at 12% at 5'7 before using gear. Also 90% of the Islander male population lol. They're all gifted with great genetics for building muscle. For normal people its probably closer to height minus 90-100

[Realtalk]

That formula is a load of rubbish lol just stop right now before you make it sound even stupider.

there is no possible way to predict or recognize when you have reached a genetic limit.

What's the benefit to waiting until you reach some kind of weight at a certain bodyfat anyway?

there are no benefits.

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

im with #realktalk why bother calculating and trying to determine your genetic potential when it's very likely there really isn't one (though am sure there must be a point of diminishing returns) .

more likely perhaps that you will be in to your 40s by the time something like that happens and the reason will be lower test levels rather than some so called genetic code saying 'this guy can't be bigger than 70kg at 8% bodyfat'

[Dinahlady]

I don't think there is a real natty limit of growth. I think If you work hard, smart and consistently for 15 years you will be bigger than if you worked hard, smart and consistently for 5 years or 10 years. but I think you'll still be smaller compared to if you had done some or many cycles (along side the consistent training and nutrition) within that time though. 

I don't believe you lose heaps or all of your mass after you stop a cycle. If you continue training and dieting consistently you will keep majority of gains. you might not feel as good or look as swole, lose some water weight, less inflammation, glycogen and water or other molecules in the muscle due to decreased cellular activity within the muscle, or possibly a very small amount of muscle. But I dont believe its just the hormone that supports your muscle. I think it's pretty hard for your body to lose muscle mass even when hormones are involved. It takes over a week of complete starvation and nil by mouth for your body to start very very slowly breaking down skeletal muscle. Yes exogenous hormones are powerful but I dont think a reduction in them will alone actively cause muscle tissue breakdown because that is a very important adaptation for survival that your body wants to avoid.

unless you are talking about stopping hormone, reducing food inttake dramatically, and reducing training dramatically. These things do often go together in a small reduction when people come off cycle because of reduced recovery capabilities, strength and food requirements.  but I think if you're smart they can be minimised, though obviiously a small amount will be lost it is much more about appearance than actual decrease in physical muscle tissue/release of alanine from muscle. But I guess it depends what part of that you think is important - I guess most people do train for appearance... 

Just all my opinion and based upon my own learningses.