Youtube fitness people and gear

[muscleupcrohn]

You are somehow still maintaining that steroids could have possibly been used before the 1930s. That’s asinine, and I’ll continue to tell you so.

I still believe that steroid use in American bodybuilders wasn’t prevalent until the late 40s at the earliest, but I amended my views to include all possible timetables from the late 30s to the mid 40s.

Also, if you read even a single one my last several posts, you’d see I HAVE BEEN saying that at least some people were likely using testosterone by the mid 40s. I amended my views several posts ago and you’re the one still arguing nonsense.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Also, you were in this thread before me lol.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

We KNOW steroids weren’t used before 1935.

We KNOW they were used in America in the late 40s to early 50s.

Figuring out when between those times it started and how prevalent it was at these times is the “speculation” you’re so fond of talking about.

I amended my claims to be more detailed and include all possibilities. You keep saying “maybe someone used it before it was discovered.” That’s asinine.

 

[Chados]

You are somehow still maintaining that steroids could have possibly been used before the 1930s. That’s asinine, and I’ll continue to tell you so.

I still believe that steroid use in American bodybuilders wasn’t prevalent until the late 40s at the earliest, but I amended my views to include all possible timetables from the late 30s to the mid 40s.

Also, if you read even a single one my last several posts, you’d see I HAVE BEEN saying that at least some people were likely using testosterone by the mid 40s. I amended my views several posts ago and you’re the one still arguing nonsense.

I said they could very well have been testing things in humans before it was medically used and that it doesn't mean it had any positive effect. As I said I'm learning as I go, you are still arguing that I somehow ever claimed that a bodybuilder used and not only that, CREATED testosterone himself, thats asinine of anything. Not only is the theory crazy but I also never made such a stupid claim.

You said 50s then you changed it. I said it's impossible to know, now with the information we got its still impossible to know but since it was created in the 30s I think it would be quite ignorant of you to start an argument and say it's either the 50s or the 40s given it was mentioned in a magazine earlier than that. Even the fact that it was mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't used earlier than the magazine in the US. It could be 30s,40s, 50s. Nobody knows because we do not know who first used it.

Yes I've been in this thread earlier but you've been doing the studying not me so instead of trying to prove me wrong, (and I had no idea I had to read up on this hence why I called it speculation) maybe you should just acknowledge that you most likely are wrong.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I said they could very well have been testing things in humans before it was medically used and that it doesn't mean it had any positive effect. As I said I'm learning as I go, you are still arguing that I somehow ever claimed that a bodybuilder used and not only that, CREATED testosterone himself, thats asinine of anything. Not only is the theory crazy but I also never made such a stupid claim.

You said 50s then you changed it. I said it's impossible to know, now with the information we got its still impossible to know but since it was created in the 30s I think it would be quite ignorant of you to start an argument and say it's either the 50s or the 40s given it was mentioned in a magazine earlier than that. Even the fact that it was mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't used earlier than the magazine in the US. It could be 30s,40s, 50s. Nobody knows because we do not know who first used it.

Yes I've been in this thread earlier but you've been doing the studying not me so instead of trying to prove me wrong, (and I had no idea I had to read up on this hence why I called it speculation) maybe you should just acknowledge that you most likely are wrong.

I’m wrong? I just clarified my stance to it was used by the late 40s. This is known.

I said it wasn’t used before 35. This is also known.

I said it almost certainty wasn’t used before 37. Technically anything between 1937 and the mid-40s is speculation.

This is “most likely wrong?” This is incontrovertibly right.

You’re still thinking I’m saying what I originally said; I modified my views several posts ago man.

 

[Chados]

I think you can make the argument that over the last 120 years bodybuilding knowledge has actually regressed rather than advanced. If you’d have told the strongmen/bodybuilders of Sandow’s era that they can only work each muscle once a week they’d have laughed at you. They’d have asked, “How am I supposed to make a living?” They put on strength shows several times a week and even trained on their free time. This included a lot of heavy compound lifts. Today we have people offering advice like this: blast the biceps and triceps with 20 sets each and then let them rest for seven days. Well what’s the point of that? Protein synthesis will increase in the muscle for 24 to maybe 72 hours and then you’re just not doing anything for the remainder of the week. Sure you might be sore five days later but that doesn’t mean your growing. So the constant reiteration of the threat of overtraining and the importance of bro-splits has been beat into our heads by this point but that doesn’t mean it’s actually helped progress our understanding of muscle building and strength training. If anything, I believe it has stunted our progress. You should stimulate the muscle a couple times a week rather than annihilate it once, and you should favor heavy compound work over light isolation work. But there should also be variety in your training. These guys also did calisthenics and Olympic lifts like the clean and jerk. They were more broad minded about training in general.

You're probably correct in some ways here. I think the absolute top back in the days lived for it and I think 99.9% didn't work out. Now I think there are more people because there are more people working out that has the right diet, work outs etc, but also more people who do the wrong thing.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You said:

I don't think anyone used it before the 30s but I can't guarantee it just because it wasn't used in medicine. Now do I trust the information it was probably not used before at least 1935-1937? Sure.

We are talking about steroids. It’s not that they weren’t used in medicine before the 30s, it’s that we hadn’t even identified, isolated, or synthesized them until the 30s. I can guarantee that no one used them before they were identified, isolated, or synthesized. It’s not “probably,” it’s definitely.

 

[Chados]

I’m wrong? I just clarified my stance to it was used by the late 40s. This is known.

I said it wasn’t used before 35. This is also known.

I said it almost certainty wasn’t used before 37. Technically anything between 1937 and the mid-40s is speculation.

This is “most likely wrong?” This is incontrovertibly right.

You’re still thinking I’m saying what I originally said; I modified my views several posts ago man.

Well if you feel that I'm misquoting you I just have to say welcome to the club. Yes you did change it and I never said you didn't. What you do is that you are trying to create an argument from me saying we don't know (which we don't) your original statement was speculation at best and since we're apparently on the same path I think we can call it off don't you think? In every post you say (most likely) or something in that manner and then you argue with me for using the word speculation. I fail to see why we can't meet halfway here. So testosterone was made in the 30s, it was mentioned in a magazine in the US in the 30s. Bottom line we don't know who the first guy was, we don't know if it was 30s 40s or 50s = it's all speculations.

 

[Chados]

You said:

We are talking about steroids. It’s not that they weren’t used in medicine before the 30s, it’s that we hadn’t even identified, isolated, or synthesized them until the 30s. I can guarantee that no one used them before they were identified, isolated, or synthesized. It’s not “probably,” it’s definitely.

Its discovery followed that of an androgen (male hormone) called androsterone, which was isolated from urine in 1931. However, testosterone proved to be more potent than androsterone.


Since you're arguing it was first used in 1935 or 37
Take that as you want.

The human trials are said to be in 1937

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Well if you feel that I'm misquoting you I just have to say welcome to the club. Yes you did change it and I never said you didn't. What you do is that you are trying to create an argument from me saying we don't know (which we don't) your original statement was speculation at best and since we're apparently on the same path I think we can call it off don't you think? In every post you say (most likely) or something in that manner and then you argue with me for using the word speculation. I fail to see why we can't meet halfway here. So testosterone was made in the 30s, it was mentioned in a magazine in the US in the 30s. Bottom line we don't know who the first guy was, we don't know if it was 30s 40s or 50s = it's all speculations.

My point now is that we know they weren’t used before the 30s. You say probably, I say definitely.

Its discovery followed that of an androgen (male hormone) called androsterone, which was isolated from urine in 1931. However, testosterone proved to be more potent than androsterone.


Since you're arguing it was first used in 1935 or 37
Take that as you want.

The human trials are said to be in 1937

And considering it took 70 bathtubs full of piss to make 15mg of it, and it wasn’t synthesized until 1934 we can say even this predecessor of testosterone wasn’t used before then. So we can say FOR SURE that steroids/hormones weren’t used before the 30s. You say probably. It’s not probably.

 

[Chados]

No you said steroids weren't used before 35 which you don't know, you said it wasn't isolated before 35 which is false. It's very possible androsterone was tested in humans at some point considering they called testosterone more potent, maybe they just knew or maybe they tested, I have no freaking clue to be honest. The human trials are said to have begun 1937 with testosterone. You claimed it wasn't used in the US before the 50s which you don't know and you changed your opinion to (likely at best the 40s). You're focusing on testosterone, I never said bodybuilders injected it 1920 just that we don't know wether it was tested and arguably didn't work and If you go back you can find that I said just that.

Coming in to this thread (again) yesterday I didn't know and im learning by reading but with the information we have I said, we don't know while you instead of just agreeing say (you're speculating) while at the same time saying it was (most likely)


You are clearly speculating, im speculating. I admit speculating, you don't.

To you I'm speculating but you are just (most likely more right) because if testosterone was created in Europe in the 1930s it must be impossible to exist in the US?. I fail to where I'm wrong exactly, I'm saying it's possible it existed in the 30s but since you (most likely are right) which to you means you actually are right and I'm wrong even though I admit I don't know,
You must be sitting on some information nobody else does.

You see where I fail to see the whole idea of arguing?

It goes like this
(You) , nobody used steroids in the US before the 50s

(Me) , we don't know that

(you), it was at best used in the 40s

(me) we don't know that

(you) it was most likely not before the 40s

(me) we don't know that

(you) it could have been used in the 30s, you are speculating and I'm most likely right.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

No you said steroids weren't used before 35 which you don't know, you said it wasn't isolated before 35 which is false. It's very possible androsterone was tested in humans at some point considering they called testosterone more potent, maybe they just knew or maybe they tested, I have no freaking clue to be honest. The human trials are said to have begun 1937 with testosterone. You claimed it wasn't used in the US before the 50s which you don't know and you changed your opinion to (likely at best the 40s). You're focusing on testosterone, I never said bodybuilders injected it 1920 just that we don't know wether it was tested and arguably didn't work and If you go back you can find that I said just that.

Coming in to this thread (again) yesterday I didn't know and im learning by reading but with the information we have I said, we don't know while you instead of just agreeing say (you're speculating) while at the same time saying it was (most likely)


You are clearly speculating, im speculating. I admit speculating, you don't.

To you I'm speculating but you are just (most likely more right) because if testosterone was created in Europe in the 1930s it must be impossible to exist in the US?. I fail to where I'm wrong exactly, I'm saying it's possible it existed in the 30s but since you (most likely are right) which to you means you actually are right and I'm wrong even though I admit I don't know,
You must be sitting on some information nobody else does.

You see where I fail to see the whole idea of arguing?

It goes like this
(You) , nobody used steroids in the US before the 50s

(Me) , we don't know that

(you), it was at best used in the 40s

(me) we don't know that

(you) it was most likely not before the 40s

(me) we don't know that

(you) it could have been used in the 30s, you are speculating and I'm most likely right.

Holy s**t. Andro wasn’t isolated until 1931. So it couldn’t be used before then. And it couldn’t be used then either since it took a freaking cement truck full of piss to get 15mg of it. Given that it was the first hormone to be isolated, it’s also logical that nothing else was being used before it if it wasn’t even discovered. Testosterone could have been used at the earliest 1935. That is all I can say for sure. I can then go on saying it’s more likely to have been used at different points after that, with it definitely being used by some people by the mid-40s, and for sure in America in the late 40s. It’s possible that it was used anywhere as early as 1935, but no earlier, at all.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Andro was isolated in 31, but wasn’t synthesized until 34, so wasn’t viable to use before then.

Butenandt isolated the first pure sex hormone, estrone, in 1929 from the urine of pregnant women. He then isolated 15 mg. of a pure substance from an immense quantity of policemen urine, variously reported as 15,00020 to 25,00021, 22 l. Butenandt identified this product as androsterone (andro ? male, ster ? sterol, one ? ketone),23 and presented its discovery at a Hamburg chemical meeting on October 23, 1931. His ideas for the structure of andros- terone were confirmed in 1934 when Leopold Ruzicka (1887– 1976), a chemist in Zurich, synthesized the hormone.

https://www.jurology.com/doi/pdf/10.1097/00005392-200102000-00004

Testosterone could have been used in 1935 at the absolute earliest. Much more likely 37-39.

Androsterone could have been used no earlier than 1934, and it was the first hormone of its kind to be synthesized.

So I’m not most likely right now, I am right. It took a lot of me speculating and back and forth with you to get there, but now I’m giving explicit and verifiable dates for the the earliest points and when we know it was used for sure. Anything between then is speculation, but those limits are not.

 

[Chados]

Holy s**t. Andro wasn’t isolated until 1931. So it couldn’t be used before then. And it couldn’t be used then either since it took a freaking cement truck full of piss to get 15mg of it. Given that it was the first hormone to be isolated, it’s also logical that nothing else was being used before it if it wasn’t even discovered. Testosterone could have been used at the earliest 1935. That is all I can say for sure. I can then go on saying it’s more likely to have been used at different points after that, with it definitely being used by some people by the mid-40s, and for sure in America in the late 40s. It’s possible that it was used anywhere as early as 1935, but no earlier, at all.

Yeah so it was isolated 1931 right? Do we know what they did with this? Do we have anything on it? Nope. I'd assume if they tried it it did very little to nothing. Do we know they only did experiment once? Nope.



So basically it could have been used in the US as early as the 30s. Glad we could solve this.

 

[Chados]

Andro was isolated in 31, but wasn’t synthesized until 34, so wasn’t viable to use before then.

https://www.jurology.com/doi/pdf/10.1097/00005392-200102000-00004

Testosterone could have been used in 1935 at the absolute earliest. Much more likely 37-39.

Androsterone could have been used no earlier than 1934, and it was the first hormone of its kind to be synthesized.

So I’m not most likely right now, I am right. It took a lot of me speculating and back and forth with you to get there, but now I’m giving explicit and verifiable dates for the the earliest points and when we know it was used for sure. Anything between then is speculation, but those limits are not.

No you're not right because you admit to what I've been saying all along. We don't know and it could date back to the 30s.

You can't just say 50s then 40s then 30s then claim that I said something I didn't. You changed your opinion after we started talking so you obviously know we're wrong. You've been calling it (most likely) the whole time yet you refuse to accept that we needed up with what (I) said from the beginning.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

No you're not right because you admit to what I've been saying all along. We don't know and it could date back to the 30s.

You can't just say 50s then 40s then 30s then claim that I said something I didn't. You changed your opinion after we started talking so you obviously know we're wrong. You've been calling it (most likely) the whole time yet you refuse to accept that we needed up with what (I) said from the beginning.

I quoted you saying it could have been used BEFORE the 30s, which is impossible. That’s my only issue with what you’re saying now.

You said you can’t say for sure it wasn’t used before the 30s. Yes, you can...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yeah so it was isolated 1931 right? Do we know what they did with this? Do we have anything on it? Nope. I'd assume if they tried it it did very little to nothing. Do we know they only did experiment once? Nope.



So basically it could have been used in the US as early as the 30s. Glad we could solve this.

I can promise you that nothing worth mentioning was done with something that took the urine of 41 men keeping all their entire piss for a year to get 15mg lol.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I’ve admitted multiple times to have amended my claims. I’m saying that now, with your help, what I say is true is true. I was not correct before, I am now.

 

[Chados]

I quoted you saying it could have been used BEFORE the 30s, which is impossible. That’s my only issue with what you’re saying now.

Okay and what didn't you get by that? That they could have been testing androsterone at some point and it didn't work? This is 1930s.

No that's not your only problem. You are arguing that I'm wrong but you're (most likely right) that it wasnt used before the 50s then the 40s and now yeah it could have been the 30s but probably not, at least not in the US.

With you changing your opinion that much so you really think you're the voice of reasoning? I havent claimed that I'm right because I have no idea (I'm speculating) and I don't find it unreasonable it would exist in the US in the 30s. You are telling me I'm wrong about that which means your (most likely statements) must be the fact. You don't have the facts and neither do I, yet you just said this..

So I’m not most likely right now, I am right.

 

[YoungThor]

Now that we got into the topic of old school strongmen and bodybuilders you guys should check out “Legends of Strength” on Netflix. Watch episode two on Apollon (1862-1928). He was freakishly strong and was around 6’3, 250lbs.. He had 20 inch forearms and 20 inch calves. He wasn’t lean, maybe 25% body fat, but I still think his size and feats of strength were amazing.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

If it was first isolated in 31, how could it have been used before the 30s? Before the 30s means the 20s. It wasn’t being used then. Drinking piss that contains andro doesn’t count as using andro.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Okay and what didn't you get by that? That they could have been testing androsterone at some point and it didn't work? This is 1930s.

No that's not your only problem. You are arguing that I'm wrong but you're (most likely right) that it wasnt used before the 50s then the 40s and now yeah it could have been the 30s but probably not, at least not in the US.

With you changing your opinion that much so you really think you're the voice of reasoning? I havent claimed that I'm right because I have no idea (I'm speculating) and I don't find it unreasonable it would exist in the US in the 30s. You are telling me I'm wrong about that which means your (most likely statements) must be the fact. You don't have the facts and neither do I, yet you just said this..

So I’m not most likely right now, I am right.

What I said I’m NOW RIGHT about is only that we know testosterone couldn’t have been used before 1935, and andro before 1934. And that it was used by some people by the mid-40s. That is what I’m saying IS RIGHT. Everything between I have made abundantly clear is speculation.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You explicitly said:

I don't think anyone used it before the 30s but I can't guarantee it just because it wasn't used in medicine.

Before the 30s means the 20s. Given that andro wasn’t even isolated until 31, and synthesized until 34, how can you not be sure that it wasn’t used before the 30s?

 

[Chados]

I’ve admitted multiple times to have amended my claims. I’m saying that now, with your help, what I say is true is true. I was not correct before, I am now.

Well you didn't really admit you just changed your statement and claimed I said something else by twisting what I said.

Never did I say a bodybuilder created steroids in the 20s, I said its likely they experimented earlier than with testosterone and that it didn't work. You also claim to know they only did this urine sample once which I haven't seen any proof of, I also haven't seen any proof they never used in humans, but since they claimed to understand testosterone was stronger it either means they found out by testing it in humans or that they knew for some other reason.

Now you say it isn't worth mentioning which is fair I guess if you want the argument to go your way and if you assume 15mg is all they ever had which again I don't know, but I'm willing to accept either or if you find something on that.

 

[bigbeaph]

A puny 15mg first gonadal steroid was isolated from 15,000+ liters of goddamned piss in 1931.

I'm having a tough time keeping up with this discussion. But I'm glad I kept at it long enough to learn how to make my own testosterone. I'm currently routing all the toilets in my house into a giant rubbermaid tub. I'll let you guys know when I have some product for sale!

 

[hairygrandpa]

I bet vintage strongmen and bodybuilders tried to up their testosterone by eating bull, ram or goat testicles. Would that be considered "natty"?

 

[Chados]

You explicitly said:

Before the 30s means the 20s. Given that andro wasn’t even isolated until 31, and synthesized until 34, how can you not be sure that it wasn’t used before the 30s?

And what did you take from that? Chados said that testosterone was created and used in the 20s? When what I actually said was I don't think anyone used it before the 30s.

I then in my next comment said as a response to you your comment..

I said it wasn't used before 35-37 and that it was possible they were playing with hormones/steroids before that and that just because it wasn't used in medicin it doesn't mean it didn't exist somehow which I think you even admitted earlier.

Now reading further on this because my whole idea wasn't to have an argument i I'm more willing to accept that at least nothing worth mentioning was done in the 20s. You're deviating the attention from the real argument here which you started and that's that you do not know when steroids first were used in bodybuilding neither do you know when it arrived to the US.

 

[Chados]

I bet vintage strongmen and bodybuilders tried to up their testosterone by eating bull, ram or goat testicles. Would that be considered "natty"?

I'm willing to consider testing it for you as long as I can have that metal detector of yours

 

[muscleupcrohn]

And what did you take from that? Chados said that testosterone was created and used in the 20s? When what I actually said was I don't think anyone used it before the 30s.

I then in my next comment said as a response to you your comment..

I said it wasn't used before 35-37 and that it was possible they were playing with hormones/steroids before that and that just because it wasn't used in medicin it doesn't mean it didn't exist somehow which I think you even admitted earlier.

Now reading further on this because my whole idea wasn't to have an argument i I'm more willing to accept that at least nothing worth mentioning was done in the 20s. You're deviating the attention from the real argument here which you started and that's that you do not know when steroids first were used in bodybuilding neither do you know when it arrived to the US.

None of these anabolic/steroid/hormones were even identified and isolated until andro in 31. What could have been used before then man? No one could have used test before it was identified and synthesized in 34/35, and no one could have used andro before it was at least identified and isolated in 31, and probably until it was synthesized in 34. If it was never identified in any research until 31, then how could anyone have used it? No isolated hormones, which is what these steroids are really, could have been used before the 30s, as no one had identified or isolated them...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Well you didn't really admit you just changed your statement and claimed I said something else by twisting what I said.

Never did I say a bodybuilder created steroids in the 20s, I said its likely they experimented earlier than with testosterone and that it didn't work. You also claim to know they only did this urine sample once which I haven't seen any proof of, I also haven't seen any proof they never used in humans, but since they claimed to understand testosterone was stronger it either means they found out by testing it in humans or that they knew for some other reason.

Now you say it isn't worth mentioning which is fair I guess if you want the argument to go your way and if you assume 15mg is all they ever had which again I don't know, but I'm willing to accept either or if you find something on that.

Even if they got more than the initial 15mg, that was still in 31, which is not before the 30s. So the earliest is 31, not before the 30s.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I'm having a tough time keeping up with this discussion. But I'm glad I kept at it long enough to learn how to make my own testosterone. I'm currently routing all the toilets in my house into a giant rubbermaid tub. I'll let you guys know when I have some product for sale!

To get 15mg of a compound less potent than testosterone you’ll need to keep your urine for about 40 years lol.

 

[Chados]

Even if they got more than the initial 15mg, that was still in 31, which is not before the 30s. So the earliest is 31, not before the 30s.

Alright well as I said I'm willing to accept potential earlier discoveries had little to do with the subject. Now let's leave this.

 

[BarryScott]

I'm having a tough time keeping up with this discussion. But I'm glad I kept at it long enough to learn how to make my own testosterone. I'm currently routing all the toilets in my house into a giant rubbermaid tub. I'll let you guys know when I have some product for sale!

Hey, if you just drink enough piss you wouldn't have to synthesise it, assuming you can absorb it orally. Maybe a trip to the nearest public toilet is in order?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Alright well as I said I'm willing to accept potential earlier discoveries had little to do with the subject. Now let's leave this.

Cool. And I do appreciate the dialogue, and you were a great help in figuring out the known times as well as trying to fill in the blanks in between.

 

[MrKleen73]

Sometimes Genetics can be a Huge factor when it comes to Athletes,and bodybuilders. I believe one can look ripped with popping veins and without using gear year round.

Absolutely they can. However it is far more pleasing to look at someone in better shape than you and accuse them of cheating and that is why the are doing better than you. So people are happy to jump on the band wagon and assume all are.

Lmao Scott Herman and Jeff Cav are not that big, they have been lifting for 20+ years combined. They appear natural which I believe they are. If you guys think you can’t obtain that naturally you either eat like **** or train like **** or both.

BOOM, those guys are well built but acheivable natty for your average man. A skinny guy, not so much, a thick chunky guy like me no problem, requires dieting... An "average built" guy could definitely get there over years of hard work.

I work with a guy like that. He doesn’t use gear and he doesn’t workout but he’s always cut, full muscles, and crazy vascular. He did some lifting about 5 years ago but hasn’t touched weights since. I thought he was on winstrol or something but it’s just genetics. Btw, our job is manual labor so he does get a good workout in on the job. But he doesn’t look good enough to be a YouTube fitness guy. Those guys use gear.

Vascularity has to do with the size of the veins the thinness of the skin and volume of fluid in them. Sure guys on gear can get vascular, but other than possibly getting higher RBC on cycle there is nothing about gear that is going to make you any more vascular than being lean and muscular. I am vascular any time I am lean, gear or not a lot of it is genetic. My veins look like road maps on my arms and legs when lean.

Veins are one thing but the fullness you get from most aas is a very specific look that I don't know if it can be achieved naturally. Thin skin, full muscle bellies, sub 10% bf, and not looking like you came from a concentration camp is aas. You guys know what I mean right?

I'm veiny all the time. Cycle or no cycle. Sure some extra veins pop out when on cycle but mostly they were all there before. So veins is imo not the best indication of on cycle but rather the aas look I was describing above.

The public has a totally skewed male body image. It's crazy, ridiculous what people think is natty and or achievable withouth devoting your life 100% to this and having those 1% genetics. For me aas are a lot of fun, do I need them? No not really. I was 90% happy before. My profile pic is from when I was still natty... Do I feel better now, yeah I do haha

Everything you just said doesn't happen without AAS happens with a solid and appropriate diet every single time. Full muscle bellies are genetic... You have them or you don't, has nothing to do with gear or diet unless you are referring to being depleted which is easy to fix with carbs. THin skin comes with leanness and age, sub 10% comes from proper diet, if you looked like you came from a concentration camp your diet was wrong for you, or you weren't big enough to start cutting and still look good yet. Plain and simple.

LOL at this thread becoming a Jeff Cavalier natty discussion.

Oh well, I'll join in...
U call this natty?? :

View attachment 170655

This is high dose trt. Off course he is on trt, who isn't?? His whole career depends on him looking like that, so he is probably on more then just trt...

Juts look at how he continued to get bigger as the athleanx channel grew.

Relatively thin and ripped dude with a pump flexing, yep could easily be natty. Would have to be one of those dedicated almost to the point of OCD guys but their are plenty of them out there.

Jeff's Stats and diet

Diet Plan

Breakfast – 8:30am*

Pumpkin oatmeal

Scrambled eggs & salsa

Skimmed Milk

Kiwi slices

Snack – 11:00am

Protein shake with a banana and strawberries

Lunch – 1:45pm*

Cajun grilled chicken wrap with grilled vegetables, sun dried tomatoes and hot sauce

Greek yoghurt

Sparkling water

Snack – 4:00pm*

Black bean, vegetables and onion soup

Sparking water

Dinner – 7:00pm*

Sesami tuna steak

Grilled cajun asparagus

Sweet potato mash

Sparkling water

Post Workout Snack – 10:00pm*

Protein shake
Invalid Link Removed

I am really curious where you got this, but it appears to be inaccurate from this video. I don't know where you got it, but he is 5'10.5' and 178lbs according to this video where he measures himself and weighs himself and this is pretty recent. He is not that big. That pic of him looking beefy he was pumped out of his mind and never really looks like that. Even I was like hmmm he looks bigger than normal in that pic.

[video=youtube;ykMNii9vQDs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykMNii9vQDs[/video]

When i tore my shoulder when I was 36 I didn't lift for 8-9 months, and only did cardio I was 220 and chunky so I decided to just cut while I couldn't lift. I lost 50lbs down to 170 @ 5'8 and looked about the same as him probably 9% at the time. I hadn't touched gear in 15 years at that point and had only done 2 cycles ever, one when I was 19 and one when I was 21. I got in a major accident at the end of that cycle and stopped lifting for 2 years while healing and lost everything. So 220 and chunky was just my normal frame. So yeah, some natty people could definitely do that. You could say well you did those cycles when you were young so you weren't truly natty, but I would respond with I also wasn't training so that should more than even things out.

Also you will see his legs are RIPPED AF, but not big at all so not a lot of weight being carried there.

I legit don't think he is on gear. On TRT very likely, but even then there is a tiny chance he just has great genetics.

More importantly though his info is legit and very helpful!

He’s actually one of those hardcore “Don’t overtrain!” guys. He always says 45 minutes max, and you should never workout for longer then an hour. I believe he works out around 3 hours a week, assuming he follows his own rules.

Yeah he is.

You're right, I actually forgot to factor that in. Dang this guy is as slippery fxcker to pin down.

Not really, I mean with training age comes the ability to apply a lot more intensity and get more out of less volume. The mind muscle connection is just so efficient after training for a long time that you get better contractions. Plus he seems to know every tweak to get the most out of each movement too. I am not sure how old you are but if the old in your screen name implies anything I imagine you are probably familiar with this.

Interesting fact of the day - back then having a small penis was seen as a good thing. It stood for moderation and actually was deemed a more masculine trait than a big penis (associated with lustful idiots).....

It was also considered a sign of intelligence, and a large one was considered you were likely unintelligent. Which is also part of why all statues had small dongs, no one wanted to be portrayed as stupid.

I just found this out on the morning show I listen too yesterday. They do a section called Fun Facts where the give you info like that you can bring up in general conversation

The biggest thing I see is that chest development has improved by a good bit since then, likely due to improved equipment for working chest, like bench presses and incline presses. Sandow has a very respectable physique, but not really a chest that is up to the level of his other body parts by today’s standards. His physique with a more “modern” chest in what we’d consider in proportion with the rest of his body would put him at a VERY solid level for a natty lifter, and there’s no reason to assume he wouldn’t have a chest in proportion with the rest of his body if he had access to today’s equipment.

Back in that day the overhead press was king, bench press didn't become popular for years after this.

He is more like 190 at 8% bf with full muscles not all dried up. And the point of this thread was how are all these youtubers looking like they are on cycle year round not IF they are on cycle or IF they cycle at all lol

He is 5'10.5" and 178, look at the video I posted of him measuring himself a couple months back.

Oops... that isn't how you worded it which is why it went down this rabbit hole. See?

Was thinking the other day... Lots of fitness youtuber's look like they are on cycle year round. Jujimufu, Calum, Bradley Martin, Kali, Jeff Cavalier, and all other fu*k boyz that shoot videos on a daily...

What do you guys think? Just very high trt or basically on cycle most of the time...? I think I would cycle between aas and peptides if I was on display all the time like that.

Looks like you asked if we thought they were either cruising or on cycle all the time. You left no option for being natty just on high TRT or cycling all year.

There is no such thing as high dosed TRT, that is just a cycle or cruising that someone got prescribed so it would be legal to have, it goes far beyond testosterone replacement. If you are over the normal range intentionally you are NOT on TRT. You are on a legal cycle or cruise dose. Funny some people call 500mg of gear a cruise dose... or even worse TRT.

Look at Marc lobliner and jerry ward and many other posting about there HRT regimens. Marc’s recent video showed his hrt protocol of 300mg test cyp per week 200mg deca per week, adex, sermorelin etc.. by bodybuilding standards those doses are laughable but they will def be way better than staying natural. I myself am on higher TRT and very much prefer that than cycling and coming off.. when you are off you will eventually loose all that you have built through hormonal means.. it may not be right away but eventually it will go.. that’s why we cycle in the first place

Sorry, but 300 test and 200 deca is a small stacked cycle not TRT in any way shape or form. TRT is to get increase low testosterone to normal natural levels. That would put anyone far above natty levels and the Deca isn't test, there is no DRT to replace natural deca, it is a designer hormone not natural. If you are running higher you are on cycle all the time, or you could call it cruising and blasting but not even close to TRT. Just because you can pay a doc to prescribe it doesn't mean it is TRT. A lot of TRT clinics will prescribe high doses just to make money. I am not knocking it but if running that high it is a non stop low dose cycle, or cruising and blasting if you do cycles in between, but it is not TRT.

In the end though I agree a lot of these guys probably do run gear, Jeff could easily go either way. His body is far from unattainable naturally. It is also just as likely he does, or did some gear at some point. However he tends to look pretty much the same all the time. I have been watching his stuff for years.

Either way though, more than anything, I would not put him in the F*ckboy category, he offers a lot of great information. The older i get the more I value his stuff.

Very interesting topic. I will have to come back to read some of the rest of it. Too many things in here to make you want to respond too! I only made it page 5 before having to bail and respond...

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Absolutely they can. However it is far more pleasing to look at someone in better shape than you and accuse them of cheating and that is why the are doing better than you. So people are happy to jump on the band wagon and assume all are.


BOOM, those guys are well built but acheivable natty for your average man. A skinny guy, not so much, a thick chunky guy like me no problem, requires dieting... An "average built" guy could definitely get there over years of hard work.



Vascularity has to do with the size of the veins the thinness of the skin and volume of fluid in them. Sure guys on gear can get vascular, but other than possibly getting higher RBC on cycle there is nothing about gear that is going to make you any more vascular than being lean and muscular. I am vascular any time I am lean, gear or not a lot of it is genetic. My veins look like road maps on my arms and legs when lean.



Everything you just said doesn't happen without AAS happens with a solid and appropriate diet every single time. Full muscle bellies are genetic... You have them or you don't, has nothing to do with gear or diet unless you are referring to being depleted which is easy to fix with carbs. THin skin comes with leanness and age, sub 10% comes from proper diet, if you looked like you came from a concentration camp your diet was wrong for you, or you weren't big enough to start cutting and still look good yet. Plain and simple.


Relatively thin and ripped dude with a pump flexing, yep could easily be natty. Would have to be one of those dedicated almost to the point of OCD guys but their are plenty of them out there.


I am really curious where you got this, but it appears to be inaccurate from this video. I don't know where you got it, but he is 5'10.5' and 178lbs according to this video where he measures himself and weighs himself and this is pretty recent. He is not that big. That pic of him looking beefy he was pumped out of his mind and never really looks like that. Even I was like hmmm he looks bigger than normal in that pic.

[video=youtube;ykMNii9vQDs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykMNii9vQDs[/video]

When i tore my shoulder when I was 36 I didn't lift for 8-9 months, and only did cardio I was 220 and chunky so I decided to just cut while I couldn't lift. I lost 50lbs down to 170 @ 5'8 and looked about the same as him probably 9% at the time. I hadn't touched gear in 15 years at that point and had only done 2 cycles ever, one when I was 19 and one when I was 21. I got in a major accident at the end of that cycle and stopped lifting for 2 years while healing and lost everything. So 220 and chunky was just my normal frame. So yeah, some natty people could definitely do that. You could say well you did those cycles when you were young so you weren't truly natty, but I would respond with I also wasn't training so that should more than even things out.

Also you will see his legs are RIPPED AF, but not big at all so not a lot of weight being carried there.

I legit don't think he is on gear. On TRT very likely, but even then there is a tiny chance he just has great genetics.

More importantly though his info is legit and very helpful!


Yeah he is.

Not really, I mean with training age comes the ability to apply a lot more intensity and get more out of less volume. The mind muscle connection is just so efficient after training for a long time that you get better contractions. Plus he seems to know every tweak to get the most out of each movement too. I am not sure how old you are but if the old in your screen name implies anything I imagine you are probably familiar with this.


It was also considered a sign of intelligence, and a large one was considered you were likely unintelligent. Which is also part of why all statues had small dongs, no one wanted to be portrayed as stupid.

I just found this out on the morning show I listen too yesterday. They do a section called Fun Facts where the give you info like that you can bring up in general conversation

Back in that day the overhead press was king, bench press didn't become popular for years after this.

He is 5'10.5" and 178, look at the video I posted of him measuring himself a couple months back.

Oops... that isn't how you worded it which is why it went down this rabbit hole. See?

Looks like you asked if we thought they were either cruising or on cycle all the time. You left no option for being natty just on high TRT or cycling all year.

There is no such thing as high dosed TRT, that is just a cycle or cruising that someone got prescribed so it would be legal to have, it goes far beyond testosterone replacement. If you are over the normal range intentionally you are NOT on TRT. You are on a legal cycle or cruise dose. Funny some people call 500mg of gear a cruise dose... or even worse TRT.



Sorry, but 300 test and 200 deca is a small stacked cycle not TRT in any way shape or form. TRT is to get increase low testosterone to normal natural levels. That would put anyone far above natty levels and the Deca isn't test, there is no DRT to replace natural deca, it is a designer hormone not natural. If you are running higher you are on cycle all the time, or you could call it cruising and blasting but not even close to TRT. Just because you can pay a doc to prescribe it doesn't mean it is TRT. A lot of TRT clinics will prescribe high doses just to make money. I am not knocking it but if running that high it is a non stop low dose cycle, or cruising and blasting if you do cycles in between, but it is not TRT.

In the end though I agree a lot of these guys probably do run gear, Jeff could easily go either way. His body is far from unattainable naturally. It is also just as likely he does, or did some gear at some point. However he tends to look pretty much the same all the time. I have been watching his stuff for years.

Either way though, more than anything, I would not put him in the F*ckboy category, he offers a lot of great information. The older i get the more I value his stuff.

Very interesting topic. I will have to come back to read some of the rest of it. Too many things in here to make you want to respond too! I only made it page 5 before having to bail and respond...

Isn’t Jeff Cav that lean and dry year round though? That’s what’s sort of a red flag of sorts for me more than anything really.

 

[BEAST73]

I know some Natty guys like Jeff Cav,and they look better.

 

[swimfan65]

I bet vintage strongmen and bodybuilders tried to up their testosterone by eating bull, ram or goat testicles. Would that be considered "natty"?

HGP....Netflix has a show on called the history of strength which profiles the first bodybuilders and strongmen...very cool to watch..at least for old dudes like us who can still watch, listen, and learn from media devices.

 

[hairygrandpa]

HGP....Netflix has a show on called the history of strength which profiles the first bodybuilders and strongmen...very cool to watch..at least for old dudes like us who can still watch, listen, and learn from media devices.

Good info, will look into it!
This! I use internet 80% for learning, about anything. 5% AM, 10% streaming services and 5% porn. Not like the youth -or the bulk of the populace.

 

[BEAST73]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Invalid Link Removed

Wait, is that what it’s called the Hack squat?

 

[BEAST73]

Yes Sir..

 

[YoungThor]

Yeah we grossly underestimate what’s naturally possible now days. We’d rather be cyclical and just assume everyone uses gear because...well Instagram and YouTube exist. But the truth is, some people are big and strong and they don’t give a shyt about impressing the masses. And luckily we can take a glance at history to see examples of these extreme physical specimens who didn’t even have the opportunity to “cheat” and trick people by using anabolic drugs. But our DNA hasn’t changed over the last hundred years so those physiques are still possible. The only difference is that today you have to view staying natty as a moral feat, or at least see it as safer long term, otherwise you’ll likely start using anabolic drugs because why wouldn’t you? It enhances the hobby and seems to be everywhere now days. Either way I immensely respect the strongmen and bodybuilders who existed before steroids, and at the same time we can’t just automatically assume everyone is juicing.

......But Jeff Cavalier was the strength and conditioning coach for the Mets during an era when the whole team was on steroids and I have to think Jeff was partially responsible for this and possibly using them himself. And then he quickly got out when the steroid era hit the media hard and opted to make YouTube videos and sell products instead of get that guaranteed paycheck from a pro sports team. That’s fishy.

 

[Jinsun]

Everything you just said doesn't happen without AAS happens with a solid and appropriate diet every single time. Full muscle bellies are genetic... You have them or you don't, has nothing to do with gear or diet unless you are referring to being depleted which is easy to fix with carbs. THin skin comes with leanness and age, sub 10% comes from proper diet, if you looked like you came from a concentration camp your diet was wrong for you, or you weren't big enough to start cutting and still look good yet. Plain and simple.

Ahaha c'mon mate, you are just beeing argumentative. As an experienced aas user you most definitely know what I was referring to there "the on cycle" look. All the intramuscular watter retention that aas cause, brings a specific look to the muscle. This is what I was talking about. I am not going to defend this fact any further. Kudos to you, if you look the same on cycle or off cycle ; )

 

[Chados]

Cool. And I do appreciate the dialogue, and you were a great help in figuring out the known times as well as trying to fill in the blanks in between.

Haha always a pleasure crohn

 

[Old Witch]

Is Kali Muscle natty or not?

Invalid Link Removed

Best post in the whole thread.

 

[Chados]

Its very easy to maintain a shredded look after a cycle by being in trt as long as you got diet nailed down. Obviously if you run something like winstrol at low bodyfat you won't keep the extreme dryness but far to many people start adding fat drastically after a cycle even if they run a pct because they don't control their diet.

A theory is to eat more or just as much after the cycle which won't work because you'll loose protein synthesis and metabolism from steroids, cortisol goes up and you're shut down. Sure it's nice to maintain all the weight but it's not the right way to go if you're looking to keep the physique.

A bmr for an (average) guy is somewhere between 1800-2000 (sitting still). This is just to maintain weight. Most people only need say 2500 calories if natural and most people on steroids don't even eat more than 2500 calories from what I've seen, and if they do its not a clean diet which is much more important than steroids to create a physique.

The biggest problem is sugar and carbs. Keep bloodsugar stable so you don't need or crave sugar. (If you do) say after a hard workout, have a little sugar, no more than 5-10gr (and that's all you should need during a whole day), at the same time have slow carbs and some protein because if you only have a little sugar the bloodsugar will spike and then go down again and you're back to low bloodsugar again.

Don't think you know how much calories you're using because it's always different. Whenever you feel hungry or have low bloodsugar chances are you're eating too little. Stop counting calories and start feeling what your body responds to.

Macros are also a bit overrated. Nobody knows how much carbs or fat you need. Protein while natural = double on steroids
Fats should probably be much higher than the average person eats and carbs should be lower.

Sure thinking like this sucks for the average guy and more so if you're used to have sugar which in fairness is addictive. It also sucks having to eat all the healthy expensive food but it might be what makes the difference.

 

[YoungThor]

Best post in the whole thread.

Haha finally someone acknowledges it

 

[bigbeaph]

Haha finally someone acknowledges it

Haha...my thought was...he is not natty ... hes muthphukin hyphee!

 

[Old Witch]

Dude has a ****ing cloverleaf shaped vein.