Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
> Like.. lots of you might think that Eva here is on some kind of PED's because of her appearance of muscularity or "bulkiness." > > But there's no way that she would use an illegal controlled substance. With the countless possession cases brought every year and the overwhelming number of PED users being sentenced to life-destroying amounts of jail time, there's no way she would ever risk that. > > Nope, she got huge just from good old chicken and rice and hard work. Maybe some whey protein in there too! > >
> > /s obviously > > Also note: I've seen her at my gym and she's a f**king champion and super impressive. But yeah her gear stash must look like the stockroom of a Walgreens. Not that there's anything wrong with that, seriously. More power to her.
Just imagine how much Renee Toney takes.
Bro she’s not trying to go to prison. If you just had your diet and training in place, you would look just like her. Probably even bigger!
The "U.S. Attorney" might have trouble finding cops to execute these search warrants that ol' winstanley is so obsessed with.
From way back in 1989, when winstanley was still lucid.
The "U.S. Attorney" might have trouble finding cops to execute these search warrants that ol' winstanley is so obsessed with.
From way back in 1989, when winstanley was still lucid.
Lol well to be fair cops are able to (1) bust people for all sorts of illegal drugs while (2) dealing and using illegal drugs themselves.
Not all cops ofc, but some have been shown to walk and chew gum at the same time.
You're a U.S. attorney who wants to prosecute a Bikini competitor for possession of a controlled substance.
That's quite a collar. People are generally not going to prison for non-violent offenses. State prisons, which are substantially less pleasant than federal prisons, are home to about eight times as many people. The vast-vast majority of people imprisoned for drug-related offenses are dealers. Those people imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses have almost always plea-bargained down. In reality, if the feds wanted to go after a bikini competitor, they could. They'd use the threat of imprisonment to build a case against someone else. Drug dealers are often done in by wives, mistresses, and girlfriends.
We have tons of people using opioids despite the public health crisis.
On the left side of this picture is John Romano, who has been pretty open about steroid use (and steroid abuse in Crossfit). The juicy lady in the center is his wife. She's a former prosecutor.
That's quite a collar. People are generally not going to prison for non-violent offenses. State prisons, which are substantially less pleasant than federal prisons, are home to about eight times as many people. The vast-vast majority of people imprisoned for drug-related offenses are dealers. Those people imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses have almost always plea-bargained down. In reality, if the feds wanted to go after a bikini competitor, they could. They'd use the threat of imprisonment to build a case against someone else. Drug dealers are often done in by wives, mistresses, and girlfriends.
We have tons of people using opioids despite the public health crisis.
On the left side of this picture is John Romano, who has been pretty open about steroid use (and steroid abuse in Crossfit). The juicy lady in the center is his wife. She's a former prosecutor.
Oh wow, never knew that and never heard of her. She looks amazing!
Trans athletes in women's sports: Is this fair? This video basically sums up in the first 5min what I meant in my other posts. Yes it's true low myostatin is very rare, too rare to even consider. But there are so many other genetic conditions (Hyperandrogenic 46XY DSD happens in 1 out of 20,000), the truth is you might never know for sure, although you can use statistics to make a more precise and educated guess it's never going to be 100%.
What's for sure is that those with XX chromosomes and normal female hormonal profile are at a big disadvantage when compared to males or females with those conditions that raise test levels. Even then, those with genetic conditions still have less testosterone than male athletes with the lowest test levels recorded. So yeah if you see even a genetically and hormonally gifted woman with the average (or even slightly below average) strength trained male's muscle mass you can be 99.999% sure she is on some form of peds.
Thing is I am pretty sure 99% of the top crossfit female athletes, powerlifters, fbbs etc etc.. are taking something but they must also be gifted to begin with. Even in the most well tested sports, of course there are still ways to pass the tests, microdosing for one is very common. But most professional female and male athletes must also have high levels of test for one reason or another to begin with, and those are the ones who go pro or compete at a pro level because that's what separates them from the rest. That's why I for one would not condemn the use of drugs in sports, people who are not hormonally genetically gifted could at least bridge the gap.
This goes for most sports except for those like natural powerlifting where the advantage size and proportion give can sometimes overlap with sheer muscle mass.
Ehhh, probably best to keep the never ending trans athlete debate off this thread, it's not relevant.
I agree with quite a few of your points, but you can't compare a male to female trans athlete (used to have a male hormonal profile, now suppresses that with estrogen and/or surgery) vs a female bodybuilder or fitness girl.
Even a small physique girl is going to be on a spectrum of PED's that have much further reaching effects than a legacy of formerly male testosterone levels.
Besides Janae Kroc - who arguably isn't that trans, and does a Rich Piana level of PED's - can you find a trans athlete that even has the muscle size and definition of Serena Williams? Guaranteed that even a smaller, moderately juicing girl like Dana Lynn Bailey is going to wildly outperform a natural transgender woman.
Also... side note... if anyone on here thinks that Serena Williams is natty than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.
What's for sure is that those with XX chromosomes and normal female hormonal profile are at a big disadvantage when compared to males or females with those conditions that raise test levels. Even then, those with genetic conditions still have less testosterone than male athletes with the lowest test levels recorded.
Which is, of course, why XXs and XYs compete separately and women generally have slower times or distances. In both daily workouts and competitive events, Crossfit always specifies separate men's and women's weights; the women's is always right around 70% of the men's, and the women still have slower times, larger numbers not completing the workout within the time limit, and other indicators of lower performance.
Thing is I am pretty sure 99% of the top crossfit female athletes, powerlifters, fbbs etc etc.. are taking something but they must also be gifted to begin with. Even in the most well tested sports, of course there are still ways to pass the tests, microdosing for one is very common.
Crossfitters, power lifters, and bodybuilders are very different animals. Some of the stuff bodybuilders use creates superficially large muscles by increasing non-muscular tissue in them, so that they are not as strong as their dimensions suggest. That's OK in bodybuilding because the point there isn't to be strong but only to look strong. Crossfit doesn't try to match powerlifting; early in the development of Crossfit it's founder said that the objective was to be able to "outlift the runner and outrun the lifter" (I don't think Crossfitters are very fast, but they might be faster than powerlifters). Bodybuilding doesn't test for anything, so taking PEDs isn't cheating even if it's illegal. In powerlifting it is, and there have been enough positive PED tests that weightlifting has been dropped from the 2028 Olympics (but not the 2024, presumably because there had been extensive preparations already), along with boxing for the same reason. Crossfit tests at competitions and at unannounced times between them (driving at least one woman out because she didn't want to report her whereabouts all the time), and catches users at both competitions and between them. To state that "microdosing ... is very common" requires both a definition of "very common"--90%? 75? 51%?--and some way to determine its frequency. What is the actual frequency and, if it is a way to "beat the tests," how was that frequency measured? (I'm not disputing the truth of the statement here, but asking of there is any evidentiary basis for it.)
But most professional female and male athletes must also have high levels of test for one reason or another to begin with, and those are the ones who go pro or compete at a pro level because that's what separates them from the rest.
This is a proposition that could be tested. Has it been? Some sports don't require much strength, but depend almost entirely on coordination, balance, agility, reflexes, and other characteristics. Fencing is an example that comes readily to mind--sabers, foils, and epées just aren't very heavy. American football and gymnastics might be the sports that require the highest combination of both strength and coordination/agility. Is there any evidence of systematic differences in testosterone levels among sports with different requirements? Professional athletes obviously differ in many ways, including interest and training,from the general population as well as from non-professional practitioners of their sports, but is there evidence of difference in inherent testosterone levels? Before German unification, East German sports administrators did a lot of work trying to match young athletes to the sports in which they could be most successful, and I think the Chinese are doing that now. Any Chinese data are probably state secrets, but the East German data came to light after unification (that's when former East German female athletes found out what the "vitamins" they had been given really included; they sued their former coaches for damage to their long-term health). Did the East Germans test post-puberty testosterone levels across sports, or did they just "supplement" them as needed?
Ehhh, probably best to keep the never ending trans athlete debate off this thread, it's not relevant.
Oh yes, I agree, the first 5 min of the video are what I was trying to reference, the rest of it starts a much broader discussion. (there might be a few more points here and there, she is very thorough and always puts references and citations in the description) Basically one of the takeaways of this video is, you can't talk about the advantage that genetically male and transgender athletes have on women without talking about the advantage that women already have on other women (and men on other men) because of other genetic factors. Her main point (even though it's off topic in this case) is where do you stop controlling for the many variables?
To state that "microdosing ... is very common" requires both a definition of "very common"--90%? 75? 51%?--and some way to determine its frequency. What is the actual frequency and, if it is a way to "beat the tests," how was that frequency measured? (I'm not disputing the truth of the statement here, but asking of there is any evidentiary basis for it.)
There hasn't been a study on it yet because it's still so difficult to test even with the most sophisticated methods, although there have been a few studies and some have already done investigative papers on it. It's common among the youngsters, especially women because even a small amount is a big competitive advantage, with men not so much but it can still give the edge if one is already gifted.
This is a proposition that could be tested. Has it been?
Yes, this was in the video, but there have already been many papers on this.
Nowdays the natural discussion should be if the muscle itself is natural.
Do you think Anna Mroczkowska is a "genetic outlier" that has a round gluteus maximus and not a squared one like past legends?
People are still using old anabolic steroids, but estetic procedure is where the change happening.
This and photoshop.
Nowdays the natural discussion should be if the muscle itself is natural.
Do you think Anna Mroczkowska is a "genetic outlier" that has a round gluteus maximus and not a squared one like past legends?
People are still using old anabolic steroids, but estetic procedure is where the change happening.
This and photoshop.
Man.. just you wait until AI Imagine optimization gets rolled out on phones.
"Gabby Arcade" managed to fool an entire army of simps with like an Iphone 5 and the first filter that snapchat ever made. No one will be able to tell AI from reality.
not to shit on the AI or filter argument but women have been doing this forever.
this woman has gone viral several times because of her night out transformations. if dudes are easily fooled by this (and they are) we're already beyond the pale
not to shit on the AI or filter argument but women have been doing this forever.
this woman has gone viral several times because of her night out transformations. if dudes are easily fooled by this (and they are) we're already beyond the pale
It's not just the women who are doing it.
It's not just the women who are doing it.
Haha, that reminds me even more of Gabby Arcade. There's a funny thread on her here which mentions our forum..
https://www.reddit.com/r/girlswithbigmuscles/...
I remember telling people that it's not possible that a hulking muscle woman has endlessly flawless skin, the same exact makeup every day, and she also literally never leaves the house. But there were like FORGET IT BRO SHE'S REAAAAL!!!
Self delusion is a hell of a drug. Gabby wasn't trans. Gabby was a guy who probably looked like that Japanese biker who threw on some cheap women's clothes and used a heavy filter on his face. He honestly wasn't that fit either.
(
) maybe?
Yet again, possible but unlikely. Just like a million other girls.
There hasn't been a study on it yet [testosterone "microdosing"] because it's still so difficult to test even with the most sophisticated methods, although there have been a few studies and some have already done investigative papers on it. It's common among the youngsters, especially women because even a small amount is a big competitive advantage, with men not so much but it can still give the edge if one is already gifted.
Some sports have weight classes, but I've never heard of testosterone level categories, so natural or genetic variations are acceptable, and having an inherently high level within the normal range isn't either illegal or cheating. I suppose one could argue that "microdosing" to get to the two-sigma level that would be around the 97.5 percentile in a normal distribution wouldn't be unfair or "cheating," although it rules out those without access to the supplement. I wonder, however, how it has been determined that it's "common among youngsters, especially women." It seems that it would be easy to go"too far" and that women doing that could be detected. Maybe they are, but I don't recall anyone being banned or losing a medal because of it. I don't think that's what the doctrine here that 100% of Olympic athletes, Crossfit participants, and "fitness influencers" ore "juicing."
Sixty years ago, there were complaints about men from the Soviet bloc posing as men, such as the Press "sisters." They retired when chromosome testing was introduced to determine gender in 1966. Any cells will do to determine who has two X chromosomes and who has an X and a Y (or some other combination, such as XXY; there was speculation that the Presses might have been in that category), and I think the initial tests were scrapings from inside each contestant's check. That can't be avoided by "cycling."
(
) maybe?
Sorry not a chance that she’s natural
Too lean over too much time, too much mass at her age
If she was like 35 with 10 years of training under her belt, then she could maybe be natty and diet down to look like this for a few weeks.
Sorry not a chance that she’s natural
Too lean over too much time, too much mass at her age
If she was like 35 with 10 years of training under her belt, then she could maybe be natty and diet down to look like this for a few weeks.
Yeah, your last bit about "for a few weeks" is the key. Women's bodies are designed to maintain a higher bodyfat percentage than men. The most common reason that women use steroids isn't to get "big", it's to burn fat and lose weight. If a girl is that lean for an extended period of time, she's 100% using something, but people don't see big arms, shoulders, etc and think there's a chance she's natty when there isn't.
> > It must have been an incredibly light exercise regimen then. Steroids promoting muscle growth with or without exercise is absolutely factual, but the bit about using steroids and doing nothing promoting more growth than a proper lifting regimen is what I'm calling bullshit on. The findings are being misinterpreted or the sample size is flawed or the study is improperly constructed, etc.
Yeah, I'm still having a hard time buying that. There seems to be a lot of room for error in that study.
What about the lifestyle? Maybe they gets lots of "passive" workout.
(
) maybe?
100% drugs, only debate is how much more than anavar.
I can't understand you people, on page 7, I gave you (in her own honest words) a bikini competitor and her multiple compounds drug stack and you keep posting women 10-15 pounds more muscular and you still question their natty status.
That she has zero visible androgenic side effects at the moment means nothing. That's the brief moment in time where they get all the benefits and none of the negatives. The more beautiful a girl the more time she has before drug use becomes evident.
