Drugs or Genetics. Born or made? 🧬

June 22, 2026 James Brown

Can The Enhanced Games Make the Perfect Athlete? Or Is Genetics The Key To Success?

A deep dive into two landmark Muhdo Health studies, and what they reveal about the true ceiling of human athletic potential.

Are elite athletes born or made? It's one of sport's oldest questions, and the nature vs nurture debate has rumbled on for decades without a clean answer. But in 2026, that question got a great deal more complicated.

The Enhanced Games, the controversial new competition that openly permits the use of performance-enhancing drugs, has reignited the debate with a provocative twist. If athletes are allowed to chemically optimise their bodies, does genetics still matter? Or does pharmacology simply level the playing field and render your DNA irrelevant?

The short answer: not even close.

Take Usain Bolt arguably the greatest sprinter in human history. One in a billion doesn't quite cover it. Mother Nature was extraordinarily generous when handing out the sprinting genes. But here's the thing, had Usain stayed at home, stuck to cricket, and never dedicated himself to the track day after day, week after week, year after year, those gifts would never have become greatness. The genetics were always there. The potential, however, needed unlocking.

And it's why the old saying still holds:

"Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard."

The reality is that creating a world-class athlete is less about a single superpower and more about a precise biological cocktail: the right genetics, the right environment, and perhaps a dash of timing and fortune. And it's here that two new Muhdo Health studies reframe the entire debate with hard data.

STUDY ONE: BORN EQUAL? Mapping the Genetic Blueprint of Elite Sport

Muhdo Health, working alongside researcher Alasdair Heasman, contributed to the preprint study 'Born Equal', an analysis of one of the largest cohorts of genotyped athletes and sports performance data in existence. The study examined six of the most heavily researched gene variants linked to athletic potential across three distinct sporting categories.

The Athlete Groups:

Strength & Power (N = 1,981) — Sprinting (100–400m), Powerlifting, Olympic Lifting, Long Jump, Triple Jump, Throwing Events, Sprint Cycling
Endurance & Stamina (N = 1,381) — Football/Soccer, Long-distance Running, Cycling, Tennis, Rowing
Bodybuilding (N = 1,115) — Resistance Training for Aesthetic Competition

The Six Genes Under Investigation:

ACTN3 — Often dubbed the 'sports gene,' governing fast-twitch muscle fibre function. The difference between explosive and endurance phenotypes at a molecular level.
MSTN — The myostatin gene, regulating muscle mass. Rare inhibitory variants are strongly associated with exceptional power output and muscle hypertrophy.
NOS3 — Controls nitric oxide production and thus blood flow and oxygen delivery. The C allele showed clear affinity for endurance disciplines.
ACE — Associated with cardiovascular efficiency. The II genotype is consistently overrepresented in elite endurance athletes.
AMPD1 — Governs energy metabolism during high-intensity exercise, influencing how efficiently the body recycles AMP to sustain muscle contractions.
TRHR — Linked to body composition, metabolic rate, and thyroid regulation, critical for both strength and aesthetic disciplines.

Across all six genes, power, strength, and bodybuilding athletes showed the strongest combined genotype affinity. The ACTN3 C allele, MSTN G allele, NOS3 T allele, ACE II genotype, AMPD1 C allele, and TRHR C allele all demonstrated a lean towards power, strength, and bodybuilding phenotypes. Only the NOS3 C allele showed a clear affinity towards endurance and stamina performance.

Intriguingly, these same genes appeared to have a comparatively smaller influence on endurance athletes, suggesting that whilst genetics matters enormously in power-based sport, endurance performance may be more trainable and environmentally driven.

The implication is profound: if you're built for speed and strength, you likely can't run your way out of your DNA. But if you're built for distance, you might be able to train your way towards your ceiling more effectively than a sprinter ever could.

No single genotype outright prevents athletic performance, but the right combination dramatically raises the ceiling.

STUDY TWO: GENES VS DRUGS: WHAT ACTUALLY BUILDS ELITE MUSCLE?

The FFMI Study: Quantifying the Genetic and Pharmacological Ceiling

If the 'Born Equal' study established that genetic differences exist between athlete types, Muhdo's second landmark study asked a bolder question: when you introduce performance-enhancing drugs into the equation, does genetics still matter, or does chemistry win?

Sixty-two male weightlifters and bodybuilders (mean age ~33 years) were categorised into four distinct groups based on two variables: whether they possessed a high polygenic genetic score, and whether they self-reported using anabolic steroids and/or SARMs or prohormones.

The primary outcome measure was Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI), a height-adjusted measure of muscularity widely used in sports science and considered one of the most reliable proxies for absolute muscle development.

Genotyping was performed using a Eurofins GSA v3 microarray, gold-standard technology, and a point algorithm was applied across six gene variants: ACTN3, MSTN, FTO, TCF7L2, TRHR, and VDR.

Athletes scoring 15 or above were classified as 'genetically gifted.' Body composition was assessed via skinfold callipers (90%) and DXA scanning (10%), ensuring high-precision measurement.

The Results — Four Groups, Four Ceilings:

Non-Gifted, Drug-Free → FFMI 21.1 ±2.0 — Baseline muscularity
Gifted, Drug-Free → FFMI 23.4 ±2.0 — Natural genetic advantage
Non-Gifted, PED User → FFMI 25.2 ±1.0 — Pharmacology without genetics
Gifted + PED User → FFMI 29.1 ±1.0 — Genetic ceiling, pharmacologically reached

All differences were statistically significant (p<0.01). All PED-using athletes averaged an FFMI of 25 or above, exceeding the commonly cited natural human limit. Yet even among PED users, the genetically gifted group pulled dramatically ahead. A non-gifted PED user averaged 25.2. A gifted PED user averaged 29.1. That 3.9-point FFMI gap represents an enormous real-world difference in muscle mass, and no syringe in the world bridged it.

Enhancement can help you reach your ceiling. It cannot raise it.

This finding has profound implications for the Enhanced Games. Proponents of PED legalisation often argue it levels the playing field, that chemistry democratises elite performance. The Muhdo data suggests the opposite. Pharmacological enhancement may actually amplify genetic inequality, because the athletes with the best genetic architecture gain the most from the drugs. The gifted get more gifted, faster.

THE VERDICT: WHAT TWO STUDIES TELL US ABOUT HUMAN POTENTIAL

Taken together, the 'Born Equal' study and the FFMI polygenic study construct a remarkably consistent picture of elite athletic development, one that is neither purely nature nor purely nurture, but a deeply intertwined interaction of both.

Certain genotypes, such as rare inhibitory variants in MSTN, carry an exceptionally high affinity for power sports. Others are more widely distributed, their influence subtler, but no less real when measured at scale across nearly 5,000 athletes.

The Enhanced Games thinks it has found a shortcut. And perhaps, in the narrowest sense, it has. But a shortcut to your ceiling is still your ceiling. You cannot enhance what isn't there. Testosterone, HGH, and peptides can amplify an athlete's existing genetic architecture. They cannot rewrite it.

If anything, the Enhanced Games may inadvertently prove the geneticists right: the ceiling is biological, and pharmacology simply helps you reach it sooner. Which raises the inevitable question, if we're going to optimise athletes pharmacologically, shouldn't we be mapping their genetics first?

The Perfect Athlete is All Three: But DNA Was Always First 🧬

A combination of nature and nurture will always be required to bring the best out of an individual. It would be naïve to dismiss the role of natural gifts, but equally naïve to assume they're sufficient alone. The perfect athlete isn't purely born, isn't purely made, and certainly isn't purely pharmaceutical.

They're all three. But the DNA was always first.

So why train blind? The MuhdoHub DNA Test Kit decodes your unique genetic blueprint revealing 180+ topics such as your muscle fibre composition, recovery profile, injury risk, and nutritional needs, so every session, every meal, and every decision is built around the body you actually have.

Stop guessing. Start knowing.

Your DNA has always been your greatest competitive advantage. Now you can read it…

👉 Get your DNA Test Kit today … https://muhdohub.com/collections/main-shop/products/dna-kit