Youtube fitness people and gear

YoungThor said:
I’m reviving this. We talked about Jeff Cavalier more than enough but there are some guys claiming natty out there that I think are probably telling the truth, but of course there’s always room for speculation in this era of fitness.

So do you believe that these guys are actually natty?
- Omar Isuf
-Jeff Nipard
- Alan Thrall
- Alpha Destiny (Alex Leonidas)
- Mike O’Hearn (JUST KIDDING!)

Feel free to pick and choose who you want to talk about. I’m interested to know if you believe these guys.
Click to expand...
-Omar
I see no reason why he couldn’t be natty. I know nothing about him, but he’s not insanely big or excessively lean at a big size.

-Jeff
Bigger than Omar, and leaner too. No idea.

-Alan
Strong, but not insanely big or lean. I see no reason why he can’t be natty, but I don’t know anything about him either.

-Alpha
Pretty big, but not excessively so, and not insanely lean at that size either. Same comments as for Alan and Omar really.

Of the four, Jeff would be the most questionable IMO, as he’s the leanest and seems to be the most muscular overall (not just one body part), but maybe that’s partially him just being leaner too, making him look more muscular. But he’s not insanely huge and ripped at the same time, so who knows?
 
bigbeaph said:
I agree. Leave mike ohearn off the list. Hes clearly a hard working natty and I wish you would all just leave him alone. Did you see the post the other day where someone found a video where cavalier said to run trt dose with some tren to get ripped...lmao
Click to expand...

Haha yeah, he was joking around but it made me think that’s what he does.
 
YoungThor said:
I’m reviving this. We talked about Jeff Cavalier more than enough but there are some guys claiming natty out there that I think are probably telling the truth, but of course there’s always room for speculation in this era of fitness.

So do you believe that these guys are actually natty?
- Omar Isuf
-Jeff Nipard
- Alan Thrall
- Alpha Destiny (Alex Leonidas)
- Mike O’Hearn (JUST KIDDING!)

Feel free to pick and choose who you want to talk about. I’m interested to know if you believe these guys.
Click to expand...
I definately think Omar and Alpha are natural. Omar has worked very hard getting strength up on big important lifts, he has so much knowledge and work very hard, I think hes natty
 
muscleupcrohn said:
-Omar
I see no reason why he couldn’t be natty. I know nothing about him, but he’s not insanely big or excessively lean at a big size.

-Jeff
Bigger than Omar, and leaner too. No idea.

-Alan
Strong, but not insanely big or lean. I see no reason why he can’t be natty, but I don’t know anything about him either.

-Alpha
Pretty big, but not excessively so, and not insanely lean at that size either. Same comments as for Alan and Omar really.

Of the four, Jeff would be the most questionable IMO, as he’s the leanest and seems to be the most muscular overall (not just one body part), but maybe that’s partially him just being leaner too, making him look more muscular. But he’s not insanely huge and ripped at the same time, so who knows?
Click to expand...

Without the conversation drifting completely onto Jeff, I’d like to point out he’s in his mid-50’s, while the other guys are all late-20’s, early-30’s.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Pretty much definitely pre-steroids:

1940:
Invalid Link Removed
1941:
Invalid Link Removed
1942:
Invalid Link Removed

1947, likely before steroids; early Reeves:
Invalid Link Removed
Also 1947:
Invalid Link Removed

Early Bill Pearl in 1953:
Invalid Link Removed
Then in 1956:
Invalid Link Removed
1961:
Invalid Link Removed
1962 (looks to be taken in 1961, see above):
Invalid Link Removed

Yorton 1964:
Invalid Link Removed

Pearl in 1965:
Invalid Link Removed

Scott 1965:
Invalid Link Removed

Looks to me like steroids were definitely around by the 1960s, probably not in the 1940s, and likely sometime in the 1950s.

Look through the covers by month yourself and see:
http://www.musclememory.com/mags.p...ment than we had around the time of WW2 haha.
Click to expand...
 
TheSuppGuy said:
I definately think Omar and Alpha are natural. Omar has worked very hard getting strength up on big important lifts, he has so much knowledge and work very hard, I think hes natty
Click to expand...


I think it’s strange that the alpha guy admitted to losing 2 inches on his neck “because he didn’t train it as much for a few months.” Makes me think he cycled something for a while and then came off for a while. His traps seem to change size too much for a natty as well.
 
YoungThor said:
Without the conversation drifting completely onto Jeff, I’d like to point out he’s in his mid-50’s, while the other guys are all late-20’s, early-30’s.
Click to expand...
Jeff? He looks no older than 30? If you mean Mike, no one in their right mind actually thinks he’s natty, so I didn’t even mention him lol.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
See these pics. The pics from the 1940s were almost certainly natty. The ones before ~1956 also have a good shot at being natty. Early Reeves and Pearl seem to be at least as big as any of the guys we’re now talking about. Granted they were the elite of the elite, so not what the normal person could likely do, but we do have a better understanding of nutrition, supplements, and training/equipment than we had around the time of WW2 haha.
Click to expand...


Very impressive physiques. Steroids weren’t affordable and available in there states until around 1953 so almost all those pictures are guaranteed to be natty. And 1951 or 1952 in Europe. Check out the podcast with Omar Isuf and Eric Helms if you’re interested in the history of steroids and when they hit the scene.
 
YoungThor said:
I think it’s strange that the alpha guy admitted to losing 2 inches on his neck “because he didn’t train it as much for a few months.” Makes me think he cycled something for a while and then came off for a while. His traps seem to change size too much for a natty as well.
Click to expand...
That does sound suspicious. I was thinking that, just based on pics, not progression or fluctuation, that maybe his back and traps were just standout body parts of his, as the rest of him isn’t nearly to that level, but what you say about the fluctuation does seem to indicate some use, but who knows.
 
YoungThor said:
Very impressive physiques. Steroids weren’t affordable and available in there states until around 1953 so almost all those pictures are guaranteed to be natty. And 1951 or 1952 in Europe. Check out the podcast with Omar Isuf and Eric Helms if you’re interested in the history of steroids and when they hit the scene.
Click to expand...
Did you read this entire thread lol? I talked about it too, and even cited sources, both anecdotes from people who were in the industry and academic papers. The pictures I quoted were from that very discussion haha.
 
Yeah Mike O’Hearn is really a disgrace to the fitness community and makes the whole thing look bad. He was once selling a dozen duck eggs for $700 a carton! Think about that for a second.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Did you read this entire thread lol? I talked about it too, and even cited sources, both anecdotes from people who were in the industry and academic papers. The pictures I quoted were from that very discussion haha.
Click to expand...

I kept up with this thread when it was going but since forgot we talked about that. My bad. And we are mixing up our Jeff’s. Nipard is in his 20s and Cavalier is in his 40s.
 
Cavalier isn’t quite as big as Nippard, but he’s a lot leaner, dryer, and older. To stay that lean and dry year round, especially at that age, while maintaining solid if not overwhelming size is a bit suspicious.

He’s the least likely to he natty of the (now 5) people we’re discussing IMO.
 
Maybe I'm being a little judgemental but I'm quite convinced most if not all of these guys are on steroids, nobody would ever admit it. You don't have to be jacked to be in steroids and these guys always pretend they just do (these exercises) or these diets). Thrall looks natty the other guys I really wouldn't bet money on, and not because they have crazy physiques but just the fact that I've seen too many people in my life doing different diets, working out like their life depends on it and they still don't look like that. We've seen people on this forum using gear and they still don't look like that. Now before we argue genetics.. Everyone that's big regardless of steroid or not are said to have good genetics. The size isn't hard to achieve, it's the cutting while not on gear. Look at the so called natural bodybuilders, (not that I really would bet they're all natty) but still, these guys are super heavyweights, if you look at the size, how lean they are etc it's really not what you'd expect is it?

Sure they look better than most people but there are tons of guys on YouTube that claims they are natty that look bigger, leaner and weigh 20-50lbs less. The natty bodybuilders never make it on YouTube simple as that.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Chados said:
Maybe I'm being a little judgemental but I'm quite convinced most if not all of these guys are on steroids, nobody would ever admit it. You don't have to be jacked to be in steroids and these guys always pretend they just do (these exercises) or these diets). Thrall looks natty the other guys I really wouldn't bet money on, and not because they have crazy physiques but just the fact that I've seen too many people in my life doing different diets, working out like their life depends on it and they still don't look like that. We've seen people on this forum using gear and they still don't look like that. Now before we argue genetics.. Everyone that's big regardless of steroid or not are said to have good genetics. The size isn't hard to achieve, it's the cutting while not on gear. Look at the so called natural bodybuilders, (not that I really would bet they're all natty) but still, these guys are super heavyweights, if you look at the size, how lean they are etc it's really not what you'd expect is it?

Sure they look better than most people but there are tons of guys on YouTube that claims they are natty that look bigger, leaner and weigh 20-50lbs less. The natty bodybuilders never make it on YouTube simple as that.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Except Cavalier, the other four aren’t that lean, speaking in the context of actual bodybuilding, not to the general public. They may well be on steroids, but it’s not something where you can just look at them and say there’s no way they’re natty, like Mike.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Except Cavalier, the other four aren’t that lean, speaking in the context of actual bodybuilding, not to the general public. They may well be on steroids, but it’s not something where you can just look at them and say there’s no way they’re natty, like Mike.
Click to expand...

No obviously not.. But I mean look at this guy and look at his tits. He's jacked but obviously on steroids

Invalid Link Removed

Now this guy doesn't have tits but he doesn't look very big either, lean yes, not very big arms or shoulders. Could be natural but I would still not bet on it.

Invalid Link Removed

Just saying these are competitors, some at high level and surely they take steroids too even if it's less than an ibff pro. Olympic competitors are all juiced so I don't see why these guys wouldn't haha.


Anyways, anyone with the right diet and training regime would beat the natural bodybuilders if they took enough steroids. It doesn't take many successful cycles to look like a freak.

it takes countless cycles for most people to realize it's not a magical pill, very few guys on steroids actually look like they are on steroids if we go by the eye measurement. Kids are running dbol solo and gets bloated and only the trained eye will know what's going on. Had a guy at my gym that's around 20 that was bragging about just about everything. I knew he was on steroids but everyone just though he was a natural beast. He gained 30lbs withing 2 weeks and got the classic moonface, strong as an oxe compared to the rest of the kids and bloated like a whale. Well he did get caught and while the average eye just thought he looked puffy, the trained eye would say he's on dianabol.

Steroids aren't what we expect sometimes.
 
Chados said:
No obviously not.. But I mean look at this guy and look at his tits. He's jacked but obviously on steroids

Invalid Link Removed

Now this guy doesn't have tits but he doesn't look very big either, lean yes, not very big arms or shoulders. Could be natural but I would still not bet on it.

Invalid Link Removed

Just saying these are competitors, some at high level and surely they take steroids too even if it's less than an ibff pro. Olympic competitors are all juiced so I don't see why these guys wouldn't haha.


Anyways, anyone with the right diet and training regime would beat the natural bodybuilders if they took enough steroids. It doesn't take many successful cycles to look like a freak.

it takes countless cycles for most people to realize it's not a magical pill, very few guys on steroids actually look like they are on steroids if we go by the eye measurement. Kids are running dbol solo and gets bloated and only the trained eye will know what's going on. Had a guy at my gym that's around 20 that was bragging about just about everything. I knew he was on steroids but everyone just though he was a natural beast. He gained 30lbs withing 2 weeks and got the classic moonface, strong as an oxe compared to the rest of the kids and bloated like a whale. Well he did get caught and while the average eye just thought he looked puffy, the trained eye would say he's on dianabol.

Steroids aren't what we expect sometimes.
Click to expand...
The second guy you posted isn’t elite though, is he? It seems cherry picked TBH. Granted most “natty” BBs aren’t really natty, but the only way to really determine an upper limit, unless you know people you trust at that limit, is to look at before steroids were really around. Given that anything pre early-50s was likely natural, we can say that surely with today’s nutrition and training improvements, that general size can be achieved, if not the proportions and aesthetics that the elite bodybuilders like Reeves had.
 
Funny how you say most guys that juice dont look like it. I'm learning that and that a lot of guys on juice barely look like they lift! Maybe mostly in shape but not a muscular physique and certainly not the kind of strength. I always said if I do steroids I dont want people to wonder if I'm on gear I want them to say " look at that freak, hes definitely on steroids" lol...and the mission continues
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The second guy you posted isn’t elite though, is he? It seems cherry picked TBH. Granted most “natty” BBs aren’t really natty, but the only way to really determine an upper limit, unless you know people you trust at that limit, is to look at before steroids were really around. Given that anything pre early-50s was likely natural, we can say that surely with today’s nutrition and training improvements, that general size can be achieved, if not the proportions and aesthetics that the elite bodybuilders like Reeves had.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I didn't say he was, just that some elite natural bodybuilders don't come close to some average Joe's on steroids. I mean we're speculating now so to say that anyone before 50s could have been natty I call a speculation. Its not so much what I believe (can) be achieved but more the fact that i dont buy in to people that say I'm natty. That's like asking Usain bolt if he ever juiced, of course he did. He's amazing still but you don't live in Jamaica with a fake testing lab and crush every other athlete on steroids and epo.

If I had to bet how many natural bodybuilders that's on the juice or has been is say it's well over 50%
 
bigbeaph said:
Funny how you say most guys that juice dont look like it. I'm learning that and that a lot of guys on juice barely look like they lift! Maybe mostly in shape but not a muscular physique and certainly not the kind of strength. I always said if I do steroids I dont want people to wonder if I'm on gear I want them to say " look at that freak, hes definitely on steroids" lol...and the mission continues
Click to expand...

Steroids might build muscle but if you ask me do they? I'd say no.. My answer would be something like, if you know what to eat and if you take advantage of that protein synthesis, if you work out harder than the rest of the guys and eat like you mean it and also use the right protocol for steroids, you might look insane with one or two cycles. If not youll just look a bit better than you did before cycle.

If you get better results on your 10th cycle than your first you know you did something wrong, the body doesn't get better with time.
 
Chados said:
I don't know, I didn't say he was, just that some elite natural bodybuilders don't come close to some average Joe's on steroids. I mean we're speculating now so to say that anyone before 50s could have been natty I call a speculation. Its not so much what I believe (can) be achieved but more the fact that i dont buy in to people that say I'm natty. That's like asking Usain bolt if he ever juiced, of course he did. He's amazing still but you don't live in Jamaica with a fake testing lab and crush every other athlete on steroids and epo.

If I had to bet how many natural bodybuilders that's on the juice or has been is say it's well over 50%
Click to expand...
There’s pretty extensive documentation, both anecdotes with names and dates, as well as published academic papers and dates of medical research and patents that make it pretty unlikely for anyone to have used even just testosterone, forget any other steroids, pre early 1950s. Call it speculation, but I have some evidence; you’re just spitballing numbers and using random internet pictures of random guys.
 
Invalid Link Removed

This YouTube guy ran several intense cycles. Does he look like he’s on steroids? I don’t think so. So it is very hard to tell. If you are pretty weak, kind of small, and have bad genetics and then hop on a cycle of test, deca, dbol, with winstrol as a finisher, the end result might be you looking like a guy who’s been lifting for one or two years. So you’ll look like a novice, natty lifter even with the juice, kind of like the guy above.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
There’s pretty extensive documentation, both anecdotes with names and dates, as well as published academic papers and dates of medical research and patents that make it pretty unlikely for anyone to have used even just testosterone, forget any other steroids, pre early 1950s. Call it speculation, but I have some evidence; you’re just spitballing numbers and using random internet pictures of random guys.
Click to expand...

Well you don't find it strange that as you said with better nutrition etc the guys natural back then looks as good or better than the naturals now that's arguably on steroids?
 
And I’m not saying that guy has a bad physique but it’s pretty terrible for the amount of drugs he’s used. There’s men who do nothing else but move furniture for a living and have a better build than that.
 
Chados said:
Well you don't find it strange that as you said with better nutrition etc the guys natural back then looks as good or better than the naturals now that's arguably on steroids?
Click to expand...

I don’t find that strange because the only guys we remember from back then were the very best in the world. They were at the top. But to be famous today all you have to do is make a YouTube account and promote yourself and before you know it guys on AM are wondering if your natty. To get widespread recognition in 1940 (to the point of still being talked about 80 years later) you had to be an absolute genetic freak. You had to be the best.
 
YoungThor said:
Invalid Link Removed

This YouTube guy ran several intense cycles. Does he look like he’s on steroids? I don’t think so. So it is very hard to tell. If you are pretty weak, kind of small, and have bad genetics and then hop on a cycle of test, deca, dbol, with winstrol as a finisher, the end result might be you looking like a guy who’s been lifting for one or two years. So you’ll look like a novice, natty lifter even with the juice, kind of like the guy above.
Click to expand...

Genetics here and there. I'd you don't know how to train or eat you'll always look like an average guy regardless if you do 20 cycles. People with good genetics aren't superhumans.. It takes more for some but the problem is that people don't do (more) to achieve it. There will always be people that are better, but everyone can be jacked and look like they're taking something.

If you have 500lbs of fat obviously it's on the verge of impossible to achieve but that's not normal, a skinny guy with bad genetics might need to eat a lot more than what he thinks and the fact is that the people that say they don't gain weight isn't eating enough regardless of genetics.
 
Chados said:
Well you don't find it strange that as you said with better nutrition etc the guys natural back then looks as good or better than the naturals now that's arguably on steroids?
Click to expand...
There are PLENTY of proclaimed supposed nattys in 2019 who are bigger than the 1940s pros. Some are easily dismissed as juiced, but some of them are still much bigger than the guys you showed; you showed one guy with gyno and one guy who isn’t even elite. That middle ground may be natty, who knows.
 
And it’s a historical fact that testosterone was created in the mid 30s but wasn’t readily available until the early 50s. And there has always been men who put on muscle easily, regardless of how much training and nutrition knowledge they have. Humans have known for thousands of years that the two basic principles of getting bigger and stronger is lifting heavy things and eating lots of food. That’s all you need to know and then combine that with good genetics and you get a muscular man. There were likeky men in Ancient Greece walking around who looked like natural bodybuilders. So no, I don’t find it suspicious that nattys from 1940 look as good or better than nattys in 2019. Nattys from 500 BC probably also looked pretty good.
 
YoungThor said:
I don’t find that strange because the only guys we remember from back then were the very best in the world. They were at the top. But to be famous today all you have to do is make a YouTube account and promote yourself and before you know it guys on AM are wondering if your natty. To get widespread recognition in 1940 (to the point of still being talked about 80 years later) you had to be an absolute genetic freak. You had to be the best.
Click to expand...

Well we're speculating aren't we? Nobody knows what people can achieve but it's highly suspicious when someone is bigger than almost everyone at a gym and says I'm natural, especially if he's also jacked. The average guy doesn't even have a 6pack. That's just what it is, suspicious.
 
YoungThor said:
And it’s a historical fact that testosterone was created in the mid 30s but wasn’t readily available until the early 50s. And there has always been men who put on muscle easily, regardless of how much training and nutrition knowledge they have. Humans have known for thousands of years that the two basic principles of getting bigger and stronger is lifting heavy things and eating lots of food. That’s all you need to know and then combine that with good genetics and you get a muscular man. There were likeky men in Ancient Greece walking around who looked like natural bodybuilders. So no, I don’t find it suspicious that nattys from 1940 look as good or better than nattys in 2019. Nattys from 500 BC probably also looked pretty good.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the pics from 1941 were unquestionably natural, and the ones from 1947 were also very likely natty too. Look at the pics I posted from 1941; besides relatively weak chest development, which was expected since bench pressing was still in its infancy and overhead presses were still all the rage for upper body pushing lifts, he was very solid and well built.
 
YoungThor said:
Haha then he just looks good for his age. But I did make a mistake, he’s mid-40’s, not 50’s.
Click to expand...

The thing with gear user and people that stay on for years and years would look so much older and bald then they really are. Yet mike ohearn looks great for 49 or 50.. full head of hair.. yet running tren or anything else would show the opposite
 
muscleupcrohn said:
There are PLENTY of proclaimed supposed nattys in 2019 who are bigger than the 1940s pros. Some are easily dismissed as juiced, but some of them are still much bigger than the guys you showed; you showed one guy with gyno and one guy who isn’t even elite. That middle ground may be natty, who knows.
Click to expand...

Of course there are but they aren't natty. I mean for God sake every sport is full of cheaters and you'd even for one second suggest that the amateurs let alone the top 10s in the world are natty? Even the bikini girls are on the juice. Of course chances are the top competitors back in the 40s could have gotten steroids. Maybe it wasn't common but it's not crazy to assume it didn't exist.
 
Chados said:
Well we're speculating aren't we? Nobody knows what people can achieve but it's highly suspicious when someone is bigger than almost everyone at a gym and says I'm natural, especially if he's also jacked. The average guy doesn't even have a 6pack. That's just what it is, suspicious.
Click to expand...
The “average guy” knows nothing about nutrition or training, and doesn’t put in any real effort or dedication to anything; what do they have to do with anything at all?
 
Chados said:
Of course there are but they aren't natty. I mean for God sake every sport is full of cheaters and you'd even for one second suggest that the amateurs let alone the top 10s in the world are natty? Even the bikini girls are on the juice. Of course chances are the top competitors back in the 40s could have gotten steroids. Maybe it wasn't common but it's not crazy to assume it didn't exist.
Click to expand...
“Chances are” they used in the 1940s? Go back and read the multiple articles and published academic papers I posted on the topic. Pre-1950 was almost undoubtably natural. Not to mention that the huge traps that are often associated with juice were nowhere to be found back then; their traps were very mundane relative to the rest of their bodies. Even Reeves, who was considered a genetic marvel even by Arnold for crying out loud.
 
Chados said:
Of course there are but they aren't natty. I mean for God sake every sport is full of cheaters and you'd even for one second suggest that the amateurs let alone the top 10s in the world are natty? Even the bikini girls are on the juice. Of course chances are the top competitors back in the 40s could have gotten steroids. Maybe it wasn't common but it's not crazy to assume it didn't exist.
Click to expand...

You need to watch the podcast with Eric Helms and Omar Isuf. Eric Helms has his PhD and is an expert on this topic. You will realize that it was impossible for bodybuilders to use steroids in the early 1940s. You needed several hundred bull testicles to produce a milligram or testosterone at that point. It would’ve cost billions of dollars to run a cycle. It was impossible. There weren’t enough bull testicles on this planet haha.
 
And this conversation was really about a few specific you tubers but now we’re just talking about people who claim natty in general which is too broad of a topic. Of course the majority of so called nattys today use drugs. For this to be a productive conversation it needs to be more narrow.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The absolute earliest accusation/claim of steroids reaching even a small portion/area of bodybuilders in the US is the late 40s to early 50s:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/410...teroids_application_in_sport_and_exercise.pdf

But this early timeframe (late 40s) isn’t as generally accepted as the 1954 date which seems more likely, as it gives a name of the person who brought the knowledge back to the US, who he learned it from, and who he first gave it to in the US.

Either way, that means anyone before the late 40s in the US was essentially irrefutably natural, and anyone in the late 40s was most likely natural.
Click to expand...
muscleupcrohn said:
Androgenic-anabolic steroids and the Olympic Games.



So if the knowledge of testosterone being used by the Russians arrived in the US in the 1950s, please tell me how US bodybuilders would have even known about them, forget used them, in the 1940s. Also, there were not many steroids besides testosterone at the time. Diababol didn’t even exist until the late 1950s.


https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/95/4/1533/2596379
Click to expand...
muscleupcrohn said:
So this was Reg Park (Arnold’s idol) at 21 in 1950, which almost universally accepted as before bodybuilders ever used steroids, and before things like diababol even existed.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

He of course almost certainly used steroids later in his career as they became available, but he was almost certainly not on steroids here, and likely could have gotten at least a little bigger naturally, as he was only 21 here.

John Grimek, almost certainly pre-steroids in the early-mid 1940s.

1943:
Invalid Link Removed

Supposedly him in 1945, but this one looks insane:
Invalid Link Removed

1946:
Invalid Link Removed

1949:
Invalid Link Removed

John Grimek in 1951, likely pre-steroids, and a few years before he is claimed to have started using them:
Invalid Link Removed

Also, for fun, Mickey Hargitay, Mr. Universe 1955, and Mariska Hargitay’s (from Law and Order) father.
Invalid Link Removed
and his wife (on the right):
Invalid Link Removed

Talk about good genes.
Click to expand...
Late 40s is the EARLIEST anyone even claims people even STARTED experimenting with it in a few places.
 
Look at Reg Park, ARNOLD’S IDOL, in 1950. Solid development all over, and substantial mass, but VERY relatively lacking traps; look at his back.
 
YoungThor said:
And this conversation was really about a few specific you tubers but now we’re just talking about people who claim natty in general which is too broad of a topic. Of course the majority of so called nattys today use drugs. For this to be a productive conversation it needs to be more narrow.
Click to expand...
Yep. And based on elite bodybuilders of old, it is possible that all four of them, but not Cavalier, are natty. It may not be likely, but it’s possible.
 
One of the reasons you don't see many natty guys like that these days, which in turn makes people question if they were on steroids is that most training info now more or less assumes you're juicing and is totally inappropriate for natty development.

Guys in the 40s were doing full body, compound lifts, low reps and focusing on increasing the weight lifted. Now people listen to blatantly fake nattys like Jeff Nippard and following BS advice like pre- activation exercises, pump work, 6 day splits, etc. All completely worthless unless you're on AAS.
 
It makes me sad when I go to the gym to squat, press, pull and maybe do some dips, chins and curls and see 140lbs kids doing lateral raises with 4kg dumbbells and 45 year old dyel-ers grunting through their fifth set of smith machine calf raises.
 
BarryScott said:
One of the reasons you don't see many natty guys like that these days, which in turn makes people question if they were on steroids is that most training info now more or less assumes you're juicing and is totally inappropriate for natty development.

Guys in the 40s were doing full body, compound lifts, low reps and focusing on increasing the weight lifted. Now people listen to blatantly fake nattys like Jeff Nippard and following BS advice like pre- activation exercises, pump work, 6 day splits, etc. All completely worthless unless you're on AAS.
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong. Even Arnold started with Reg Park inspired basic compound powerlifting, and recommends this for beginners, only goin on to actual bodybuilding once you have a solid foundation. Still isolation for biceps of course, but a focus on compound lifts, yes. Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top