Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
This 100%. If they want to alter their physiques with drugs, it's their body, and their prerogative. What I have an issue with is when people claim to be natural and are clearly not, giving false expectations to newer lifters that go into the gym expecting to add 20-40 pounds of lean muscle mass in a year without "assisstance". It's just a straight-up lie, and discourges people that just want to healthily gain muscles with just a good nutrition and workout routine.
Fake natural claims never made sense to me. What is gained from it, those of us involved in bodybuilding know they're lying.
Fake natural claims never made sense to me. What is gained from it, those of us involved in bodybuilding know they're lying.
Mostly to keep their sponsors (especially supplement companies) happy. A supplement manufacturer is going to be very pissed if an athlete who promotes their products claiming that “hey, I use this and it’s how I got this body!” admits that they are on PEDs.
It’s for the gullible so they don’t get the mark of a cheater or the black spot of a “steroid user”. Plus they immediately become unmarketable so they don’t bring it up. Unfortunately it creates a bit of a loop because kids see them and think they’re natty if they don’t have any experience and think they can pull that off with enough work and then end up taking steroids anyways.
I do wonder if any of them might have PCOS, which I ought to think would help muscle building (even if the docs never tell such girls to do that, since that would probably mean less money for the docs).
Alexis Castro does, though I’m pretty sure she’s cycled. However I did used to train with a girl from time to time who also had it and she was 18 so lots of parental oversight and she was pretty built
If they're skinny and ripped, they can look like this:
If they're big and strong, they can look like this:
PS: Not saying those girls are natural, it's impossible to tell. But those bodies are close to the max potential of a natural female in terms of definition & size.
Just assume every single girl you see on this site is artificially enhanced - you'll be right 99.5% of the time.
I was present when this pic was taken:
This girl was 100% natty at this time; she competed in NPC and MM and you could tell she was natty compared to the other competitors who had more enhanced shape, size, and leanness. She was under 5 feet tall, can't remember her weight, I think 105 pounds, and had 12" biceps.
12" biceps seems to be the limit for chicks who lift. Any bigger, and they are on gear and/or they have bigger bones (taller)
My girlfriend is natty with 14" arms. She don't look big tho. Shes 5'2" or so. Took her years of lifting on and off and been doing it straight for 6 years now. Again shes tiny
My girlfriend is natty with 14" arms. She don't look big tho. Shes 5'2" or so. Took her years of lifting on and off and been doing it straight for 6 years now. Again shes tiny
Exactly.
Problem today is: most of the girls who want to be huge do not have the genetics for it, and no patience. Back in the day, it was actually more sturdy women who knew they had the genes to grow big, and they loved it. Today, most "big boned" girls want to be skinny, not replace their fat with muscles. Remember: where there's good fat growth, there can be muscle. If you do it before you're 20, you won't built up more fat cells, they just get bigger or smaller. Some girls are naturally skinny and slender, and will never grow huge. Those are often the ones taking stuff.
Here's another nice natural most musclar pose. Sure, not ripped. But still a 6 pack and huge traps and pecs. And that's actually a look most guys would find attractive. (They might feel intimidated when she flexes though :))
It’s clear many of you have no idea what you’re talking about holy crap haha
In what way
Cass Martin, Stephano Sanzo and Lauren Findley are what naturals look like. They post legit proven bodybuilding workouts in their IG. They are seen as Naturals by the infamous Kenny KO who is a non-natty buster. And they show no signs of steroids on their face or voice. I personally don’t think a women can get too muscular without steroids. Not naturally atleast. Even Cass Martin who appears to be muscular is not very big in person.
Cass and Lauren have definitely used something.
Dani Reardon obviously used but her voice was always pretty much the same. If you have a good coach that actually knows things and don’t blast you will prevent or mitigate the worst of the side effects
To say you can tell a girl is on steroids by her size, face and voice, and by that implying if she uses it's obvious from the very first cycle, is a fallicy. I know a couple of girls who have used and unless they specifically tell you, it's impossible to tell they've done a cycle. One girl is 5' and hovers around 100-110lbs and she's done a couple of anavar cycles in the past.
To say you can tell a girl is on steroids by her size, face and voice, and by that implying if she uses it's obvious from the very first cycle, is a fallicy. I know a couple of girls who have used and unless they specifically tell you, it's impossible to tell they've done a cycle. One girl is 5' and hovers around 100-110lbs and she's done a couple of anavar cycles in the past.
The whole myth of “she can only be on steroids if she is massive and has a voice like Tom Waits” needs to end.
Jessica Buettner is in a heavily drug tested federation and I’d still say she’s in incredible shape. It’s very ignorant and unintelligent to say woman can’t get big without PEDs, genetics play a bigger role though. I do however think Jess is a good example of being close to the limit of what can be achieved naturally however, and of course there’s plenty of woman who lie about it. That doesn’t mean there’s not still some natural woman in amazing shape
I’m not saying they are 100% not on steroids. I’m just saying these are the body types that are achievable through hard work by a women. Obviously there is no sure fire 100% way to know if they are not on steroids but these women are the closest to natty as you’re going to get. Any more muscular is obviously steroids. Any less muscular and they probably show no definition at all.
Jessica Buettner is in a heavily drug tested federation and I’d still say she’s in incredible shape. It’s very ignorant and unintelligent to say woman can’t get big without PEDs, genetics play a bigger role though. I do however think Jess is a good example of being close to the limit of what can be achieved naturally however, and of course there’s plenty of woman who lie about it. That doesn’t mean there’s not still some natural woman in amazing shape
She's clearly natural, the giveaway is she's not single digit body fat, and her delts aren't bowling balls. Look at most figure women, with veins everywhere, and rounded shoulders, those are clear signs of PED use
She's clearly natural, the giveaway is she's not single digit body fat, and her delts aren't bowling balls. Look at most figure women, with veins everywhere, and rounded shoulders, those are clear signs of PED use
Agreed - she's also a strength athlete, not a bodybuilder. They train for function, not looks.
You are in denial. 99.999 % of female (and male) pros in wellness, physique, figure, BB are on steroids, a large number of bikini girls are using too. And no lab is needed to decide that, just basic knowledge of physiology and possession of full eyesight. If there are women close in size to these women they are also using. Huge muscle on women is not possible.
I have no problem with that, IFBB has no problem with that, in fact this is what everyone prefers.