What Do You Think of 'Natty or Not'?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
41

[quote]dagill2 wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]shadowbobo8028 wrote:
The whole site is a f**king joke. Please don’t bother going there and giving it more views.[/quote]

I agree as that site still makes me rage soo am glad i am not the only one.[/quote]

If this is the case, what was the purpose of this thread?[/quote]

Hmm its called a debate, i wanted to know your opinions, why do you care why i made this thread, are you the forum police?

42

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
…my uncle could carry two washing machines, ()he said they not even heavy) and he is not on anything.[/quote]

Dude, NO ONE can do 2x washing machine naturally. [/quote]

Yh well my uncle could pal and he was only 5’8 but 17 stone…just because you cant do it naturally, dos not mean anyone else can, guys like you allways blame steroids for peoples successes.[/quote]

whatever pal, your uncle was on more juice than the man from del monte[/quote]

Oh yeah because you soo know my uncle dont you? its people like you who encourage steroid use because that comment tells people ‘what is the point working out naturally if you cant get very big and strong the natural way’

My uncle could also do push ups with one arm, he onced lifted up a 3 wheel car off the ground with his finger, he once deadlift a car out of the way to save sone woman as she crashed in a tree, it was in the papers too, dunno when probably the 1970s.

[/quote]

43

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
…my uncle could carry two washing machines, ()he said they not even heavy) and he is not on anything.[/quote]

Dude, NO ONE can do 2x washing machine naturally. [/quote]

Yh well my uncle could pal and he was only 5’8 but 17 stone…just because you cant do it naturally, dos not mean anyone else can, guys like you allways blame steroids for peoples successes.[/quote]

whatever pal, your uncle was on more juice than the man from del monte[/quote]

Oh yeah because you soo know my uncle dont you? its people like you who encourage steroid use because that comment tells people ‘what is the point working out naturally if you cant get very big and strong the natural way’

My uncle could also do push ups with one arm, he onced lifted up a 3 wheel car off the ground with his finger, he once deadlift a car out of the way to save sone woman as she crashed in a tree, it was in the papers too, dunno when probably the 1970s.

[/quote]

LMAO dead

44

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]dagill2 wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]shadowbobo8028 wrote:
The whole site is a f**king joke. Please don’t bother going there and giving it more views.[/quote]

I agree as that site still makes me rage soo am glad i am not the only one.[/quote]

If this is the case, what was the purpose of this thread?[/quote]

Hmm its called a debate, i wanted to know your opinions, why do you care why i made this thread, are you the forum police?[/quote]

Roid Rage!

Verdict: NOT NATTY

45

For shits and giggles I went to the site, and in the first article I started reading, the guy said he has never seen anyone bench 315 without being on roids. What a crock of elephant dung. Then he says that no 170 lb guy is benching 300 without juice. Guess my creatine and grassfed protein is tainted.

46

I see you posted these questions in Shadow Pro’s thread. I felt like giving my opinion but don’t want to clutter up his thread as there are many people seeking advice this is irrelevant to it’s purpose, so I’ve transplanted it here.

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
Hi Shadow Pro,.according to this guy, he says steroids are for pussies who cant be bothered putting in the hard work and that its cheating because the steroid user will allways be bigger or fuller then the natty he is competing with or standing next too on the streets in competion.

He says to others, you would just be insecure little boy that needed steroids to get big, he also says people on steroids can bild muscle without working out.

I disagree with him but what do you think.[/quote]

A steroid user would generally appear fuller due to the ability to retain more glycogen in the muscle and increased vascularity. HOWEVER, the ability gain size, the shape of muscles and body proportions are genetic.

In regards to hard work, the idiot who wrote this actually thinks it’s a breeze cutting to an even lower level of bodyfat than a natty with the use of anabolics? Do you know there have been competitors going into shock from whole body cramping due to dehydration from diuretic use and excessively low amounts of bodyfat? Have you had your sex drive completely tanked and experienced insomnia among many other fucked up things during the weeks prior to a competition because of the necessary adjustments in the drug protocol?

There is no comparison. If he can’t show respect for assisted bodybuilders because they look bigger than him “on the streets” and outlift him if the gym, maybe he’s the “insecure little boy”.

Edit.

Written with the understanding that the last sentence was a strawman. No one is saying that an assisted bodybuilder should compete in a tested competition.

I was an insecure little boy when I started traininig naturally. I was a confident young man by the time I decided to start using steroids.

This is misconstrued nonsense from a single study that did not account for increased water and glycogen, which can amount to 5-15lbs depending on the individual. This was classified as LBM.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101

There are studies that can’t even establish if steroids have anabolic properties(of course they do). The point is, don’t listen to the idiots interpreting these studies if 1)they have no experience with steroids, and 2)have an obvious bias towards users.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(76)90001-5/abstract

[quote]Abstract

After failure to confirm an anabolic action of testosterone and its derivatives in rats, methandienone (‘Dianabol’, an “anabolic steroid” used by athletes) has been given to 11 athletic men during a course of weight-training, in a double-blind, crossover experiment. The dose of methandienone was 100 mg/day for 6 wk. Body weight and composition, muscular strength and performance, and indices of endocrine function were studied. Compared with the placebo period, on methandienone the subjects gained weight (mean 3·3 kg ± 0·6 kg) and accumulated a disproportionately large amount of potassium (420±68 mmol); the increase in weight was confined to the lean part of the body, and the muscles increased in size. Strength and performance improved over each training period, but not significantly differently on drug and placebo. On the drug, plasma-cortisol concentration and urinary cortisol excretion increased, and plasma-testosterone decreased. Although the weight and body-composition changes may demonstrate an anabolic action of methandienone in man, they may alternatively have been caused by an increase in intracellular fluid, and the question of anabolic action therefore remains open.[/quote]

47

Is your uncle chuck Norris?

48

Effects of methandienone on the performance and body composition of men undergoing athletic training.
Hervey GR, Knibbs AV, Burkinshaw L, Morgan DB, Jones PR, Chettle DR, Vartsky D.
Abstract

  1. In a previous study of the effects of methandienone (Dianabol) on men undergoing athletic training, strength and performance increased, but not significantly more when the subjects were taking the drug than when they were taking placebo. The subjects did, however, gain more weight on the drug, with increases in total body potassium and muscle dimensions. It remained an open question whether the muscles had gained normal tissue or intracellular fluid. 2. In an attempt to distinguish between these possibilities the trial has been repeated, using as subjects seven male weight-lifters in regular training, and including measurements of total body nitrogen. As before, a dose of 100 mg of methandienone/day was given alternately with the placebo in a double-blind crossover experiment. The treatment periods lasted 6 weeks and were separated by an interval of 6 weeks. Body weight, potassium and nitrogen, muscle size, and leg performance and strength increased significantly during training on the drug, but not during the placebo period. 3. The finding of increased body nitrogen suggested that the weight gain was not only intracellular fluid. The increases in body potassium (436 +/- SEM 41 mmol) and nitrogen (255 +/- 69 g) were too large in proportion to the weight gain (2.3 +/- 0.4 kg) for this to be attributed to gain of normal muscle or other lean tissue, and imply gain of nitrogen-rich, phosphate-poor substance. Although this action of methandienone might be described as anabolic, the weight gain produced is not normal muscle.
49

Nice guy nighthawkz coming in and ruining the fun…although it’s miraculous how some people can be slapped in the face by sarcasm multiple times and still not twig.

I feel inclined to check out this website now, hope I’m not disappointed. Also on a side note, from personal experience the stronger/bigger I’ve got the more I’ve believed other people can be natural, because logically there is going to be a lot of people out there far more genetically gifted who no doubt train harder/better as well.

Maybe this guy just hates that when it comes to strength he’s at the shallow end of the gene pool?

[Edit]
Okay I’ve quickly concluded this website is retarded, my FFMI is already 1.9kg higher than the apparent max 5% bf weight naturally, and then there’s this:
‘If you can bench press something like 250-300 lbs. naturally, you are very very GIFTED in the lift. There are people who can do that thanks to favorable levers and heavy bodyweight (obesity), but you will never find an average natty person at low body fat that can bench that. NEVER.’
What a dumbass, even I can bench more than that and I have THE worst levers for it and consider it my weakest of the big 3. (I’m not obese either, although almost with BMI=29.5, I can’t wait to actually be ‘obese’ tbf)

So all in all I’m not sure why the OP even had to ask people’s opinions on this??

50

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
For shits and giggles I went to the site, and in the first article I started reading, the guy said he has never seen anyone bench 315 without being on roids. What a crock of elephant dung. Then he says that no 170 lb guy is benching 300 without juice. Guess my creatine and grassfed protein is tainted. [/quote]

Errr, creatine is a steroid?? Guess you’re just another one of those lying fake nattys

51

[quote]rusty92 wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
For shits and giggles I went to the site, and in the first article I started reading, the guy said he has never seen anyone bench 315 without being on roids. What a crock of elephant dung. Then he says that no 170 lb guy is benching 300 without juice. Guess my creatine and grassfed protein is tainted. [/quote]

Errr, creatine is a steroid?? Guess you’re just another one of those lying fake nattys[/quote]
Must be because I also surpass the maximum weight numbers for my height on the chart as well.

52

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
but this is the internet, and everyone is 5-8% bodyfat, with stats falling between Arnold and Lou in their primes (6’0 and 240 - 6’5 ~285).
[/quote]
This. Especially cracks me up when semi-soft but thin women say they’re 11 or 12%. Hello? I’m a bit over 20%.

53

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]rusty92 wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
For shits and giggles I went to the site, and in the first article I started reading, the guy said he has never seen anyone bench 315 without being on roids. What a crock of elephant dung. Then he says that no 170 lb guy is benching 300 without juice. Guess my creatine and grassfed protein is tainted. [/quote]

Errr, creatine is a steroid?? Guess you’re just another one of those lying fake nattys[/quote]
Must be because I also surpass the maximum weight numbers for my height on the chart as well. [/quote]

See how many poor natties you’ve mislead with your profile pic and badass bench? Shame…

54

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
…my uncle could carry two washing machines, ()he said they not even heavy) and he is not on anything.[/quote]

Dude, NO ONE can do 2x washing machine naturally. [/quote]

Yh well my uncle could pal and he was only 5’8 but 17 stone…just because you cant do it naturally, dos not mean anyone else can, guys like you allways blame steroids for peoples successes.[/quote]

whatever pal, your uncle was on more juice than the man from del monte[/quote]

Oh yeah because you soo know my uncle dont you? its people like you who encourage steroid use because that comment tells people ‘what is the point working out naturally if you cant get very big and strong the natural way’

My uncle could also do push ups with one arm, he onced lifted up a 3 wheel car off the ground with his finger, he once deadlift a car out of the way to save sone woman as she crashed in a tree, it was in the papers too, dunno when probably the 1970s.

[/quote]

Your uncle couldn’t do any of these things. You’re confusing a 3 wheel car with a tricycle. Easy mistake, I’ll forgive you on that.

There’s no way he deadlifted the car AS she crashed into the tree. It is almost physically impossible to deadlift a moving car, because you have to be running at the same time. Very few humans, steroids or not, have been able to pull off the running-deadlift.

I think the real questions is… could your uncle do a cock pushup? You only need to be able to do 1.

55

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
…my uncle could carry two washing machines, ()he said they not even heavy) and he is not on anything.[/quote]

Dude, NO ONE can do 2x washing machine naturally. [/quote]

Yh well my uncle could pal and he was only 5’8 but 17 stone…just because you cant do it naturally, dos not mean anyone else can, guys like you allways blame steroids for peoples successes.[/quote]

whatever pal, your uncle was on more juice than the man from del monte[/quote]

Oh yeah because you soo know my uncle dont you? its people like you who encourage steroid use because that comment tells people ‘what is the point working out naturally if you cant get very big and strong the natural way’

My uncle could also do push ups with one arm, he onced lifted up a 3 wheel car off the ground with his finger, he once deadlift a car out of the way to save sone woman as she crashed in a tree, it was in the papers too, dunno when probably the 1970s.

[/quote]

Your uncle couldn’t do any of these things. You’re confusing a 3 wheel car with a tricycle. Easy mistake, I’ll forgive you on that.

There’s no way he deadlifted the car AS she crashed into the tree. It is almost physically impossible to deadlift a moving car, because you have to be running at the same time. Very few humans, steroids or not, have been able to pull off the running-deadlift.

I think the real questions is… could your uncle do a cock pushup? You only need to be able to do 1.[/quote]

Ha ha ha its wasnt a tricycle but thanks for making laugh and i asked me dad about the car and tree, the woman was stuck in between two cars and so he powerlifted it and dragged out of the way.

He was in the papers as the woman branded him the real life ‘superman’.

56

[quote]rusty92 wrote:
Nice guy nighthawkz coming in and ruining the fun…although it’s miraculous how some people can be slapped in the face by sarcasm multiple times and still not twig.

I feel inclined to check out this website now, hope I’m not disappointed. Also on a side note, from personal experience the stronger/bigger I’ve got the more I’ve believed other people can be natural, because logically there is going to be a lot of people out there far more genetically gifted who no doubt train harder/better as well.

Maybe this guy just hates that when it comes to strength he’s at the shallow end of the gene pool?

[Edit]
Okay I’ve quickly concluded this website is retarded, my FFMI is already 1.9kg higher than the apparent max 5% bf weight naturally, and then there’s this:
‘If you can bench press something like 250-300 lbs. naturally, you are very very GIFTED in the lift. There are people who can do that thanks to favorable levers and heavy bodyweight (obesity), but you will never find an average natty person at low body fat that can bench that. NEVER.’
What a dumbass, even I can bench more than that and I have THE worst levers for it and consider it my weakest of the big 3. (I’m not obese either, although almost with BMI=29.5, I can’t wait to actually be ‘obese’ tbf)

So all in all I’m not sure why the OP even had to ask people’s opinions on this??[/quote]

I made this thread as a debate, i made debate type threads on other sites and no one asked me ‘how come you made this thread’ hmm ‘how come you had a shit?’

Anyways that site has extremely low expectations and underestinates what you can do naturally, he says the most realistic natural body is someone like bruce lee and if your a lot bigger then him lean wise then you are not natural.

The guy reminds me of Scooby who says you can only gain 5lb a year and that is with great diet, 6 days of solid workouts and great genetics.

57

Lolololol

58

[quote]theiceman13 wrote:
I made this thread as a debate, i made debate type threads on other sites and no one asked me ‘how come you made this thread’ hmm ‘how come you had a shit?’

Anyways that site has extremely low expectations and underestinates what you can do naturally, he says the most realistic natural body is someone like bruce lee and if your a lot bigger then him lean wise then you are not natural.

The guy reminds me of Scooby who says you can only gain 5lb a year and that is with great diet, 6 days of solid workouts and great genetics.[/quote]

For starters you didn’t actually make it as a debate because all you posted originally was a few statements about what the site says.

Regardless, my point about why you had to ask peoples opinions on this (not that you actually asked I suppose) was more meaning that the guy who writes these articles is clearly wrong and as such it’s not really a matter of opinion, I can quite happily say he is wrong because even myself at only 23 has overcome his perceptions of what is capable and I am far from a genetic freak.

59

I do not believe you know what a debate actually is, and I believe this is due to some sort of language barrier. What country are you writing from?

60

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I do not believe you know what a debate actually is, and I believe this is due to some sort of language barrier. What country are you writing from?[/quote]

A debate is a discussion asking people wherever they think such a thing is good or bad…i think the site is bullshit but i like reading others therories so that is why i made this thread also its my buisness why i made this thread.

Not being funny but all this ‘why did you make this thread’ is pissing me off, i thought scoobys old forum was bad with people talking down to me or making assumptions.