To what extent can performance-enhancing drugs compensate for subpar genetics?

This question reminds me a little of the debate on “nature vs. nurture” or “structure vs. agency” as invariably the two topics in a debate are intertwined to a degree and when one tries to bifurcate them to identify something that is determinant or governing an interesting debate can ensue. 

I think of genetics as an outline or promise as to what the future can hold.  Certainly good genetics without an application of force, work, will or structured plan will not necessarily reveal anything astounding.  However, if good genetics are in place and the individual nurtures the possibilities these genetics hold then a marvelous result can be achieved.  I credit a lot of my progress in the sport of bodybuilding to the fact that I was equipped through a genetic makeup or predisposition to hold muscle on my frame in a way that would be appealing to IFBB judges.  However, if I had never applied an inordinate amount of dedicated work I would not have brought out these elevated traits. 

If someone has genetics that do not lend them to building muscle, can performance-enhancing drugs compensate?  Again, without the common ingredient of work, discipline and action I have yet to hear of a drug that will allow a devotee of this sport to miraculously pack on muscle.  So, in both the case of genetics and performance enhancing drugs one thing we know for certain is the athlete is still going to have to do a lot of work in the gym to get the types of results we are talking about. 

To get the best possible outcome from a bodybuilding standpoint one probably needs to use a combination of both good genetics and performance-enhancing drugs again married to the common denominator of concerted and dedicated work effort. 

If we take a person with bad genetics that chooses to use performance enhancing drugs they will most likely get a result that is better than they would if they did not use the drugs, but not as good as a person with superior genetics that uses the drugs.

If we take a person with good genetics that chooses not to use performance-enhancing drugs they probably won’t get the same elevated result they would if they layered the drugs into the total equation. 

Would bad genetics with drugs beat good genetics and no drugs?  That depends. 

Where does this leave us?:

1. Genetics definitely play a role
2. Performance-enhancing drugs play a role
3. A combination of both give the athlete the best chance of a superior result
4. Without a lot of work and discipline the discussion becomes academic, as the work is a primary and essential ingredient for any success. 

I therefore look at both genetics and performance enhancing drugs as things that promote an outcome.  One can be controlled and one is determined at birth.  What an athlete chooses to do is a personal matter, but these choices along with his genetic makeup will ultimately determine a large part of the results that are obtained. 

I hope this sheds some light on a question that has long been debated and will undoubtedly be further explored until such time as scientists can find a way to reprogram DNA and genetic makeup. 

Peace Out,

Kevin

Category: TLR