T Nation

What Naturals are Truly Capable of...

OMG @ deltoid veins

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

That puts a lot of stuff in perspective. I’m 5’10 and cutting at the moment hoping to come in at soemwhere between 165-180, think i would be tiny, but looking at those guys they look damn impressive as hell. [/quote]

This is why when people like Walkway throw out out numbers like 165 to you, there’s no need to get defensive, as it’s not negative or anything against you. Glad you’re coming around :slight_smile:

Also, I’m 5’10, low 180’s, for a height comparison at a ‘relatively’ low body fat. I’m obviously not single digit body fat, but I think I’m close.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Also, I’m 5’10, low 180’s, for a height comparison at a ‘relatively’ low body fat. I’m obviously not single digit body fat, but I think I’m close.[/quote]

you look like you’d be heavier than that

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
I really like the scientific side of bodybuilding just as much as the actual training. Now i know these thread normally turn to shit really quick, but im hopping to have a decent discussion with minimal flaming.

this is a collection of charts/information taken from some of the most knowledgeable and respected people in the scientific side of bodybuilding. two of these people based their finding on numbers taken from top pro natural bodybuilders, the genetic elite.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lyle%20mcdonald%20genetic%20muscular%20potential&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bodyrecomposition.com%2Fmuscle-gain%2Fwhats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html&ei=an2YUZ_0CMaiigevnYDYDg&usg=AFQjCNG5pbGMiygvVmI0hdIhjKNfNR8aDQ

when these debates come up, the side that is against these findings usually has no solid argument. all they do is make up hypothetical situations or use extreme examples to try and prove their point. yet no one has been able to post a picture of 1 natural bodybuilder who has largely exceeded these charts. so until someone does your arguing nothing but semantics.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbywbIcEnDJyP3iQCrJs2IJpgVlRGlYxF5UiHd83OFQtjPLVlbpw

above is frank zane 3 times mr O.
stats

  • height 5’9
  • contest weight 185lb
  • off season weight 205lb

now this is someone with elite genetics and access to just about any drug he wanted of that era. yet we have people on here who claim to have natural powerlifting friends who are 5’7, 225lb and walk around at 6% bodyfat. FUCKING PLEASE…[/quote]

The correct way to debate something is to keep an open mind, and to correct your world view when something out of the ordinary presents itself. Deciding what the answer is first and simply searching for information and opinions that merely conform to your world view is closed minded thinking and will limit you more than anything else in life.

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

That puts a lot of stuff in perspective. I’m 5’10 and cutting at the moment hoping to come in at soemwhere between 165-180, think i would be tiny, but looking at those guys they look damn impressive as hell. [/quote]

This is why when people like Walkway throw out out numbers like 165 to you, there’s no need to get defensive, as it’s not negative or anything against you. Glad you’re coming around :slight_smile:

Also, I’m 5’10, low 180’s, for a height comparison at a ‘relatively’ low body fat. I’m obviously not single digit body fat, but I think I’m close.[/quote]

Please post a picture holding a shoe. Therefore we can correcty assess your bf.

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

is slin even worth taking if not on AAS?

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

ps: I think I have to alter my statement slightly regarding natties and legs in the other thread.[/quote]
x2

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

is slin even worth taking if not on AAS?[/quote]

From my understanding you won’t get the full effects of either without test.

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]

i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
I really like the scientific side of bodybuilding just as much as the actual training. Now i know these thread normally turn to shit really quick, but im hopping to have a decent discussion with minimal flaming.

this is a collection of charts/information taken from some of the most knowledgeable and respected people in the scientific side of bodybuilding. two of these people based their finding on numbers taken from top pro natural bodybuilders, the genetic elite.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lyle%20mcdonald%20genetic%20muscular%20potential&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bodyrecomposition.com%2Fmuscle-gain%2Fwhats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html&ei=an2YUZ_0CMaiigevnYDYDg&usg=AFQjCNG5pbGMiygvVmI0hdIhjKNfNR8aDQ

when these debates come up, the side that is against these findings usually has no solid argument. all they do is make up hypothetical situations or use extreme examples to try and prove their point. yet no one has been able to post a picture of 1 natural bodybuilder who has largely exceeded these charts. so until someone does your arguing nothing but semantics.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbywbIcEnDJyP3iQCrJs2IJpgVlRGlYxF5UiHd83OFQtjPLVlbpw

above is frank zane 3 times mr O.
stats

  • height 5’9
  • contest weight 185lb
  • off season weight 205lb

now this is someone with elite genetics and access to just about any drug he wanted of that era. yet we have people on here who claim to have natural powerlifting friends who are 5’7, 225lb and walk around at 6% bodyfat. FUCKING PLEASE…[/quote]

The correct way to debate something is to keep an open mind, and to correct your world view when something out of the ordinary presents itself. Deciding what the answer is first and simply searching for information and opinions that merely conform to your world view is closed minded thinking and will limit you more than anything else in life.
[/quote]

i do not have a close mind i have a realistic one…

i presented my argument and if people would like to agree or argue against it i would love to here their view on things. problem is there just seems to be almost zero proof that naturals are actually doing what alot of people on here say they can.

(quote from link)
At the same time, a failure to recognize that there are genetic limitations can lead people to do some very silly things in terms of their training or diet. Folks nearing their genetic limits, in an attempt to gain muscle at a rate that simply not achievable will put on enormous amounts of fat in hopes that it will net them a ton of muscle gain. And that just doesn?t ever end up being the case.

In before “a certain someone who doesn’t like this statement” posts!

What a fantastic AVI.

Yes personally I think stu and mnay other natty s that have been in the game do it right. Got a bit heavier when it actually benefited them early on. Now stays pretty damn lean and adds a small reasonable amount of mass or comes in just a bit tighter each year at the same weight again showing some mass was added but they are not delusional going 50lbs overweight thinking it will yield more gains

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

is slin even worth taking if not on AAS?[/quote]

yes

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]

i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]

His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.

This is shane raymond, a british natural bodybuilder. Steps on stage just below 180 i think, all natural.

Training video of his:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]

i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]

His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]

maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.

Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
naturals can use insulin without it being detected… im sure they can get away with peptides and maybe even GH as well…

also, Frank Zane did not have “elite genetics”… unless you are talking about muscle shape in which case I agree…[/quote]

I agree with this. Frank Zane was someone who was known to have poor genetics (very small bone structure). I think he got enough out of his conditioning, small waist and posing to win.[/quote]

i was referring to muscle shape, but also anyone who was a 3 mr O has certainly has well above average genetics.
[/quote]

His shape was good but I still don’t think he had good genetics as a whole. There are bodybuilders today who couldn’t crack the top 10 at the Arnold Classic who would easily overshadow Zane. His bone structure just didn’t allow for thickness.[/quote]

maybe not mass monster genetics, but damn the guy had good symmetry, lines and shape.

Zane’s physique is probably my all time fave.[/quote]

Very true and lets not forget the time he was in. He was pretty damn big and thick relatively. Maybe not by today’s standards, but to the time he wasn’t scrawny haha.

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Hey Stu, how much confidence do you have in those top dogs actually being natty? How stringent are the WNBF’s testing methods? I have no clue, but can’t image that they have enough funding to do extensive testing. Out-of-competition testing?

ps: I think I have to alter my statement slightly regarding natties and legs in the other thread.[/quote]

Well, the WNBF has the most stringent of all the natty feds, hence the credibility is has (and also a certain degree of animosity at having what most consider the truly top level pros). Many other feds allow OTC stuff that can be argued as to just how close they are to true PEDs. Yes, all feds has to deal with the fact that when the prohormones first came out, people took them with no real understanding (hence the old 2 year abstinance from a separate list of OTC stuff), but by this point, the list of banned substances in the WNBF is fairly longer than any other fed.

As to the testing methods, I’ve been subjected many times to polygraphs before they even let you onstage for prejudging, and urinalysis tests in the evenings. Obviously I can only speak with 100% certainty for myself, but like I mentioned earlier, while some of these guys may look to be quite juiced out of their minds and humongous in stage photos (tanned up, oiled, and under multiple stage lights), having trained, and hung out with many of them, I can tell you that there is a great deal of misperception among both the general public, and the not quite as knowledgeable as they think internet forum expert.

Is testing expensive? Sure, that’s why I imagine most of the smaller organizations don’t really send their ‘samples’ into labs. Doing well in a contest that has a degree of credibility is what makes it worthwhile. That’s why there are so many smaller federations and contests out there with very few competitors, no testing, no sponsors… you see where I’m heading. Yes, there’s not much money in the sport, but when a guy like Hayzer wins the Worlds, he pockets a nice $6000 to take home. Not a bad little bonus for doing something he loves, and would probably do anyway out of pride and just a sense of competition.

S