Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   Muscle Building and Bodybuilding (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Natural Limits versus Steroids (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149)

BendtheBar 07-05-2009 04:46 PM

Natural Limits versus Steroids
 
I am having a conversation on several different forums about natural limits. Read the following article for more info.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/2009/01/de...ing-potential/

Basically, when presented with natural limits, naturals LOVE to claim that they can exceed these limits with hard work. Here is my statement on this "belief."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone says it's possible, but no one can find proof. And the guys that do say their "legs are bigger' then predicted have 20% bodyfat and/or are not using the formula correctly.

My arms are bigger then the prediction at the moment, but I also have 25%+ bodyfat as well.

I know this has been beaten do death but Arnold was 6'2", 235, and his bodyfat wasn't 4-6% like the current competitors, or whatever crazy amount they have.

Arnold 6'2" 235 ...8% bodyfat
Franco 5'5" 185 ...8% bodyfat

If you split that difference between these 2 muscular steroid users, you get (about)...

Average Joe...5'10" 210 ...8% bodyfat.

Here is a comparison between my natural predictions (roughly) and the stats of an uber bodybuilder somewhere between Arnold and Franco...

Steve Shaw
5'10"
178 Pounds Lean Muscle
Weight: 240
Maximum natural potential is around 180-181, so I could still gain a few pounds.

Average Steroid Joe
5'10"
210 pounds
8% bodyfat
193.2 Pounds Lean Muscle

------------------------------------------------------------
What does this tell us?
------------------------------------------------------------

That a steroid user from the Arnold/Franco era only had about 15 pounds of lean muscle on a natural champion. IF it is possible to surpass natural limits, then it is being stated that...

It's possible to become Arnold/Franco-esque WITHOUT steroids.

I can't believe people buy into this this.

tim 07-05-2009 04:47 PM

Its extremely hard to get to a crazy size without the use of some help. But overall the attitude and achievement is less in my book if you ask me!

Casey Butt 09-23-2009 02:39 PM

On a related subject - the rate of drug-free muscle gains...

The WeighTrainer Blog: Rate of Drug-Free Muscle Gain

Also here...

The WeighTrainer - Rate of Drug-Free Muscle Gain

BendtheBar 09-23-2009 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casey Butt (Post 5678)
On a related subject - the rate of drug-free muscle gains...

The WeighTrainer Blog: Rate of Drug-Free Muscle Gain

Also here...

The WeighTrainer - Rate of Drug-Free Muscle Gain

Thanks Casey. Great read as always.

Quote:

Interesting, on the subject of an experienced drug-free bodybuilder putting on just 6 pounds of muscle in a year, two of today's top natural bodybuilding champions, who both had almost 20 years of training experience, had this to say,

"Six pounds in a year? That's not natural!" and "I haven't put on 6 pounds of muscle in the last 10 years, let alone a year."
I haven't put on 2 pounds of muscle in 10 years :) Almost all my gains were in the first 2.5 years.

chess315 10-09-2009 12:05 AM

proably an avreage 6ft man could have around 16 inch arms at 10% bf which is a lot bigger then people would beleive. and bench around 330 0r 340 at a lean build I was in prison so I have pretty good knowlege of what attinable naturaly because I knew life long lifters that wouldnt even know how to take steroid I've seen many guys build a bulky type build and bench around 400 or even more naturally.

chess315 10-09-2009 12:07 AM

I use steroids one of the main things I think they do is allow you to hold onto more muscle at lower bodyfat if you want to be around 15 or 16% bf you can get pretty strong and bigg naturally but you cant be big and lean there are genetic freaks though

chess315 10-09-2009 12:08 AM

I love even tough I juice looking at 1950s bodybuilders just to see what is possible naturally you also have to realise we have the a lot of benifets they didnt like nutrition knowledge and supplement which dont help much.

BendtheBar 10-09-2009 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chess315 (Post 6966)
looking at 1950s bodybuilders just to see what is possible naturally you also have to realise we have the a lot of benifets they didnt like nutrition knowledge and supplement which dont help much.

Very good points. They also trained heavy, and with full body routines...for the most part.

We rarely see pics of modern naturals with around 8-12% bodyfat, which is a shame. Naturals look very big and healthy at that range.

chess315 10-09-2009 02:33 PM

yeah the full body routines are the shit even arnold the one who f***ed everything up got his size from them yates to he use more of a dc type split but still low volume. Look at john gremik he never had abs you dont need to be rock hard to look good. reg parks I dont belive was natural his whole career like he claims but his early pics are still a good build.

chess315 10-09-2009 02:36 PM

look at natural power lifters in the 200 or 220 weight class that will give you and idea another way watch prison shows and look at the people lifting in the yard. I was in the joint and can assure you I seen some big guys that didnt take roids. But more of a stocky prowrestler or powerlifter build. being lean kills a naturals mass


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.