Natural sizes versus roided sizes Question
- 01-28-2009, 09:41 AM
Natural sizes versus roided sizes Question
Ok so I just watched 'Bigger Faster Strong' on youtube, some guy uploaded it in 11 parts, however only 10 are available so I missed the last possible 10mins
anyway im sure you guys have discussed the film in these forums before (cbf searching atm) but my curiousity has left me with this question...
What size in terms of bodybuilding / power lifting is achievable without the use of roids?
It may seem like a simple / stupid question, but basically if people have any photos of bodybuilders for example who can be certain they are not on roids... could you please show me? (a lot of the natural pics i see of bb posing the guys seem kinda small - ie once theyre on stage all oiled up, id rather like shots of guys in their garage/beach etc so I can see what they look like everyday at a respectable body fat)
I ask this because... 1. the movie makes you question how many people use roids. I always had this mindset that only mega reidiculously huge guys would be on them, but as it turns out, a lot more people than you think could be using them. You dont have to be massive to be on roids.
2. the beach scene in the film of the guy having his photo taken for a fitness mag promotion... awesome build/size/physique... to me that looks pretty achievable with a lot of hard work and time... (if anyone who has seen the film recently if you remember what im talking about?)... the guys size was good, he was big, but not mr olympia big... your typical model for a fitness mag that would see chicks would cream over, yet the guy admits he uses roids to get his look... now im wondering... would his size at that rough body fat % be impossible or would people like him use it to just get the results easier?
I'm not in any way considering using it I'm just curious, I'm all for natural but who knows where my mindset will be in 5 years or 10 years when I'm more educated on this topic and more experienced.
So if anybody can answer these questions for me, preferably with photos of decent looking blokes who have not used steroids so i can have a better image in my head of whats achievable naturally it would be greatly appreciated!
- 01-28-2009, 09:46 AM
01-28-2009, 09:47 AM
this dude is probably one of your better examples. Other than people with a natural myostatin deficiency, i doubt naturally much bigger than this is all that likely
there is where some amount of genetics comes into play, some people are naturally bigger. Steve Reeves http://www.ifbbpro.com/hall-of-fame-.../steve-reeves/ is an iffy one, its possible he juiced, possible he was natural with superb genetics
01-28-2009, 10:30 AM
Even with so-so genetics you should be able to get up to 3.5lb per inch at less than 16% bodyfat. But it may take so much time and effort that you quit much earlier or seek "help".
01-28-2009, 10:30 AM
There are many variables to this, and individual genetics is going to be the biggest factor....I have worked with guys with crappy physiques who took grams a week, and I've worked with guys who were natural who could have won smaller regional shows....
01-28-2009, 10:36 AM
scott adam's keep an interesting blog. i think this sums it up....
I just heard that sprinter Justin Gatlin, the world record holder for 100 meters, tested positive for testosterone and steroids. I was shocked!
My first thought went to the second-fastest man in the world. I have this image of him being so happy when he heard the news that he leaped for joy with his mighty legs, penetrated the ceiling, continued on through the attic and roof, and landed in an nearby pond, where he downed...
How happy are the guys who sell illegal steroids? You can't buy that kind of advertisement. And it sure makes it harder for the just-say-no people. "Kids, don't do steroids. If you do, you might become the fastest man in the world and have so much poontang and money that... I forgot my point."
Just once maybe there should be a story about an athlete who did steroids and didn't set a world record, and didn't hump his way through the entire Victoria Secrets model list. Otherwise you have what I call a mixed message.
Have you ever seen one of the bodybuilding competitions where all the contestants are "natural", meaning they tested negative for drugs? The winner still looks like he could lift a car, and that's impressive. But the winner of the nonnatural competition looks like he could crush the car into a small ball, eat it, and poop it five miles into the center of a mountain. There's a difference.
As I understand it, the side effects of steroids include pimples, shrunken nuggets, and the occasional rage. Are you telling me that science can't fix those things? Just give me some Retin-A, nutsack implants, and Prozac and I'm good to go. I think it would be worth it if I could pull a grown tree out of the ground with my bare hands. Then, at holiday gatherings, when the life-of-the-party guy starts playing the piano. I could upstage him by lifting the house off its foundation and shaking all the furniture to one side until his stupid piano falls out a side door and into the pool.
- Scott Adams (Stick To Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!)
01-28-2009, 10:57 AM
01-28-2009, 11:51 AM
As another poster said, muscular development is all about the individual's genetics.
That being said, the vast majority of roid users get on juice well before they reach their genetic limitations. Hell, many roid users don't even learn how to train and eat properly before they start using the juice (not casting stones, been guilty of this myself).
My advice to you is this:
Dont worry about this.
Strive to be as good as you possibly can be before you worry about how big you are able to get. That is like "Joe the Plumber" worrying about all the taxes he is going to pay on the business that he doesn't own yet.
Train your ass off, eat right, and then see how your body looks. Life experience has taught me that when you are in good shape you are not only bigger and stronger, but you exude more confidence. People, women especially, pick up on this and act accordingly (cream as you put it? ).
For right now make your worries along the line of "am I training hard enough, could I have got another rep?" not " I wonder how big I might be one day if I decide not to do roids."
Finally if you are still this concerned about your appearance just get some implants, thats what the chicks do
01-28-2009, 12:44 PM
If you want to look anywhere close to the bb's of today, it ain't happening naturally.
I think EJL summed it up good. \
And IMO, Reeves did juice some.
01-28-2009, 08:00 PM
01-28-2009, 08:03 PM
01-28-2009, 08:06 PM
01-28-2009, 08:17 PM
01-28-2009, 08:17 PM
01-28-2009, 08:27 PM
01-28-2009, 09:15 PM
Muscle Pharm Rep
01-28-2009, 11:25 PM
01-28-2009, 11:44 PM
I'm not looking for agreement or disagreement, but whatever gains you get with gear and keep after discontinuing gear, you should be able to get naturally. As you said, that would be a matter of discipline and lot of patience because that would take a few more years of hard work which may or may not be worth it given that there is a shortcut and the keepability is a function of diet and time and endocrine status to a lesser extent.
I have a couple more comments but I'd rather go to bed now.
01-29-2009, 12:02 AM
01-29-2009, 12:27 AM
i'd say my genetics are average, but my motivation is way above average.
i've only run a couple mild 4 wk cycles over a 6yr period and after pct i feel that they almost set me back more than they advanced my progress.
i haven't run anything other than natural test boosters in the past yr and look and feel better than ever.
01-29-2009, 12:32 AM
My dad is 6'5" at 270... so 3.5 works fine (coming in at 3.5*77 inches=269...) anyways, he is prol around 20% body fat but im not sure about his body fat but he's definately not fat... (hasn't worked out in years just ran for military he's 50 now...lol)
01-29-2009, 01:17 PM
01-29-2009, 01:31 PM
I don't know if I could say Stan is natty. On another note, most of your natural ability is based off of your frame/genetics. Every now and then you get that natural beast kind of a guy, but then a lot of that could be an illusion.
Lots of different factors here.
01-29-2009, 08:47 PM
I think I've got a good frame, but with the genetics I'd say average (time will tell I havent had enough time to see big enough results yet)
01-30-2009, 09:22 AM
02-23-2009, 03:24 PM
I put together some projections based on 300 naturals champions over the last several decades.
If you are at 6% bodyfat (more or less a competition weight)...you can expect...
I'd post the link to the full article, but I don't know the link rules here at AM.The reduced formula with wrist and ankle circumferences and a 6% bodyfat percentage is…
Height, 66 inches = 166.4 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 177.0 pounds
Height, 67 inches = 170.2 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 181.1 pounds
Height, 68 inches = 174.0 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 185.1 pounds
Height, 69 inches = 177.9 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 189.3 pounds
Height, 70 inches = 181.8 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 193.4 pounds
Height, 71 inches = 185.7 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 197.6 pounds
Height, 72 inches = 189.6 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 201.7 pounds
Height, 73 inches = 193.6 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 206.0 pounds
Height, 74 inches = 197.6 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 210.2 pounds
Height, 75 inches = 201.6 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 214.5 pounds
Height, 76 inches = 205.6 lean body mass potential. Competition weight = 218.7 pounds
02-23-2009, 03:33 PM
02-23-2009, 03:48 PM
02-23-2009, 11:08 PM
I think genetics plays a big part but i also do think diet and training consistency are important. I was 5'7" 190lbs at 9% bodyfat in the Marine Corps. 100% natural. I used to be firmly against aas. I remember the numbers so well because I had to get a weight waiver because my max weight was 175lbs. Every quarter I had to get bodyfat tested and pictures taken and submit the package for approval which was a huge pain. Bodyfat was tested using calipers and/or one of those electric things at the wellness center where I was stationed. They allowed that over the stupid tape measure scale thankfully. Anyway, most of my family is stocky but I would hardly say I have the best genetics. My arms during this time were 17.5" which for my frame I felt were pretty decent. I was extremely consistent with diet and training during this period,never missing a meal or workout, but more important in my opinion I didn't BELIEVE that I needed aas to get big because frankly i didn't really know alot about them. As far as how I trained ,I was a huge yates fan and patterned my training after him. After I got out with no weight waiver to worry about I ate everything in site and trained more infrequently. I got up to over 240lbs still natural, but kinda pudgy. I didn't touch aas until around 26 or 27. Anyway today, not natural, I weighed 243 and my arms are slightly under 20" cold but it's a much different(in a better way) 240 lbs. I guess my point is that while aas definitely makes a difference, I think that a person can build a lot of size naturally and i think that consistency and just actually believing you can is a huge part of it. The whole idea of considering how big a role aas plays is a limiting factor in itself.
02-24-2009, 07:44 AM
Speaking as a natural (currently), I have been training on and off for 26 years. There is a point - a wall - that you hit; a genetic limit. I have been at that wall for 10 years.
In fact, as an easygainer, I decided to find out if other naturals hit a wall...and found they do.
Similar Forum Threads
- By zenstinkfist in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 2Last Post: 04-14-2010, 10:18 PM
- By Smiler51 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 9Last Post: 03-23-2007, 07:21 AM
- By wojo in forum NutraplanetReplies: 5Last Post: 11-10-2006, 01:40 PM
- By PumpingIron in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 11-09-2006, 02:31 PM
- By tommyboy in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 09-15-2004, 02:22 PM