I disagree because they look pretty insane. 95% of the members of this forum will never achieve the same amount of muscle mass and bodyfat percentage irrespective of the efforts. You probably underestimate the extent of recreational and non-recreational usage of PEDs among professional athletes and internet celebrities. Nothing has changed in the physiology of humans and you can’t overcome your genetics with training and nutrition which, by the way, become less wholesome. (Do you really think that whey protein isolate or creatine or some other fancy stuff is the culprit why so many people look so muscled and lean at the same time? Talk to farmers who will tell you what whey makes with pigs. Or better read the book named 'TREN: the tale of Riki Violino" from Nattyornot. He is spot-on in relation to these issues). If you want to look at what is possible without PEDs, for a majority of people, search for photos of bodybuilders and weightlifters from the beginning of 20 century (1920s or so). A lot of food for thought. The human nature doesn’t allow you to be massive and lean at the same time: you are either massive (with a lot of fat) or lean (with a little in terms of muscle mass). When you see both things at once, it’s a good sign of the augmented reality (read, PEDs). Especially, when you see that 3D look, solid shredded muscles and paper-thin skin, and large delts and traps (do you remember, where androgen receptors are located)?
Yes, made me laugh. The headline was something like ‘I never lift weights’ and the photo was him at a chest press machine. The guy has carved a reputation for himself in those same years he has done the same to his physique. It’s difficult to say what impact one has had on the other but his main attributes are sheer pace and strength on the ball. Otherwise, technically he is rough around the edges as his recent goal scoring stats show.
More on Ryan Hall…
Bodybuilders of late 1960s - 1970s competed at 5% bodyfat or so. Except for few individuals, none of them looked so shredded and ripped as Ryan Hall on that photo. He seems to have less than 5% bodyfat. Mind you, he is not a competitive bodybuilder, he is not tanned & oiled, is not dehydrated and doesn’t seem to be at the latest stage of the context preparation starving to death. (Those of you, guys, who competed in bodybuilding shows, please raise your hands and share your personal experience how did you feel last days/a week before a show on a very low calorie regime. And if you were truly natural, not “natural’ as they say now, but truly natural, what did happen to your muscles when dieting).
Some of you may remember Clarence Bass who used to stay around 3-4% of bodyfat year around for many years. Did he look so ripped and shredded to the bone? In some photos yes (but not in all of them), although in some aspects (arms, at least), Ryan Hall looks leaner and vascular. Yes, Clarence Bass was a proponent of HIT style of training (this is why more frequency/volume/density of training adds more “details”/fullness” to muscles), but nevertheless.
Before you tell me that 5-6% of bodyfat makes anyone look like a competitive bodybuilder, let me remind you that Arthur Jones was measured as having a 6.3% bodyfat at the beginning of the Colorado Experiment - however, he didn’t look like a competitive bodybuilder (see below a photo of AJ before).
My point is that low bodyfat percentage doesn’t make a person to look like a competitive bodybuilder. Ryan Hall is/was a marathoner, apparently, with lots of slow-twitch fibers (at least in his lower body). Just starting to lifting weights can’t transform a marathoner to a competitive bodybuilder who could easily be placed in top 5 in any major bb competition in late 60s-70s. So, here we have a solid case for unnatural status of the person. No wonder, since we know that steroids alone (without exercise) build more muscle than exercise alone along with just as much strength. If you combine steroids and exercise, the results are even better. Note " the increasing doses of anabolics were associated with muscle fiber growth in both Type I and Type II fibers and increased myonuclear number…
Basically, the LBM gains in this study was real growth. And it occurred in healthy males doing no training. The same research group also showed that anabolics alone activate satellite cells, a crucial step in muscle growth. Once again, this is with drugs alone and no training). As Lyle mentioned later “Throw in some clen(buterol), thyroid and GH (or go nuts with DNP) and you can get ripped without having to even diet too hard”. The mantra of modern “progressive” lifters is “eat clen, tren hard” and it surely explains their look/results.
Well there’s about as big of a difference between me at 15, after lifting for 3 years Vs me now at 26 with 14 years of lifting. These guys clearly weren’t training for any size back then and now they are, and the marathon runner would no longer have the crushed recovery and hormones of a marathon runner. I’m not saying they are or aren’t natural, but what they’ve accomplished is achievable naturally. Like I said, I’m sure most people here have a shot like this from where they started to where they’re at now. I feel like you have a very low opinion of what can be achieved with it, and even sound a bit disenfranchised with it based on your “eat clen, tren hard” comment. Everybody has to start somewhere and you don’t need steroids to get there unless you’re trying to look like a professional bodybuilder. It’s effort and time.
Not often. Honestly, very few were eager to post photos of themselves at full height.
And, with all my respect, Ryan Hall at that second photo looks much different and better than you, more polished, more shredded, etc. If you insist that slow-twitch fibers are not capable of growth and the training should be focused on fast-twitch fibers only (and any training for slow-twitch fibers is a waste of time, as a conclusion), than that guy with apparently a lot of slow-twitch muscles (he looked skinnier than me when I started) is a genetic freak and is out of this universe.
Otherwise, slow-twitch fibers can grow and it looks like they grow much better than you and me were able to achieve; at least, for Ryan Hall. I still think that he was not able to achieve it drug-free. Too many things which clearly belong to a juiced one. My points are: (a) majority of population has much lower genetic potential for large muscle mass than it is common to think (and what is said in muscle magazines and online); (b) majority of well-developed people we see in the movies, online, in the magazines and in professional sport of any kind use PEDs to some degree and many of them do it year-around (that’s why they maintain their top-looking physique all the time vs competitive bodybuilders of 60s-70s, for instance); apparently, more money is at stake nowadays; (c) your height, your bone structure, length of your muscles will determine your results in terms of muscle mass: being 5’8" with 6.5 inch wrists and with average potential for growth in my arms my arms will never grow beyond 16" at below 10% bodyfat; however, a guy of 6’1" can get 17" arms naturally and without too much efforts comparing to me.
You can google “Measurements of the first 15 Mr. Americas” to understand what is achievable (albeit, not naturally) - mind you, those people were more than the average Joes, and they trained according to your principles (progressive overload, clean eating, calorie and protein surplus, plenty of rest etc.). I doubt they underestimated their measurements; probably, the opposite is true. Almost all of them were very strong (relative to their size), but none of them had 3% bodyfat even before major competitions.
He’s very lean, but he looks small, especially looking at his Instagram. He looks to be about 165. That’s just a flattering angle he’s using. If this is the standard by which someone is on steroids… come on man. Arguing whether he’s on steroids does no good for anyone.
Small in comparison to whom? Ronnie Coleman in his prime? Even if he is small - who cares? How many followers does he have? That’s the only answer needed. If the person makes a living off or has a significant portion of the income coming from their physique (remember Lee Labrada’s “my body is my profit center”) you can guarantee that juice is involved. And no, it’s not just the angle - go take the same shot whatever angle you want to do. Me and you will not be able to come closer: either we will look too fat or too flat. And by the way, his lifts are very impressive for his height, bone structure, bodyfat level: 515lbs deadlift, 330lbs bench press, 475lbs squat. I am not arguing whether he’s on steroids. I am stating the fact that he is.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist… posting a picture of that great natural transformation.
After all, we all just lacking a sheer determination and 5,000 calories a day. How pathetic…
Beast from xmen first class, 
I’d rather look like @davemccright (being a natural), than any of the other aforementioned transformations. I believe Dave is doing a much greater, healthier and rewarding transition, than many even accomplish on PEDs. I wish we lived in a world where honesty and transparency were valued higher.
My interest in professional bodybuilding has declined due to PEDs being more prioritized than training in itself. There was an older article on T-nation describing what a pro took in order to compete professionally. That tells you something about the order of priorities. I’d much rather highlight Dave’s efforts…
Thanks man! I was just hoping to illustrate not all big transformations used steroids and anyone can improve where they were big time through effort and time. No one needs to think about their genetics. I appreciate your words brother
This discussion certainly took a long side track from the question of whether or not the proportion of FT/ST fibers is entirely fixed by genetics. I’ll bring it back to that point via this observation of yours:
I would just ask you to consider this: If there really were a third type of fiber, a hybrid, which can take on FT or ST characteristics depending on training methods, might not that provide an alternative explanation for some of the transformations shown above?
Also, I note that you frequently cite the repetition method of determining whether or not a particular muscle group is predominately FT or ST. As you say, that idea goes back to Arthur Jones, and is thus probably 40 or 50 years old. It is frequently cited as if it were a scientific fact. And yet, as far as I can tell, prior to 2021 there was never a scientific study published to validate the idea by directly comparing repetition results to FT:ST ratios obtained via biopsy. The first such study was just published in 2021. One study, done last year, on a 40+ year old idea. So not exactly strong evidence. Maybe exercise physiology is really the “dismal science”.
Here is the link:
Here is the key line from the abstract:
“Performing resistance exercises at 80% 1RM is suggested as a means of indirectly estimating muscle fiber composition, though this hypothesis has never been validated against a direct method.”
Pardon me, have you read the study which you cited? When citing any study which is supposedly aimed to validate any hypothesis, one should clearly review the objective, method, results and conclusions (sometimes stated as discussions). More often than is expected from a truly scientific study, one of the elements or all of them are skewed. The major problems with that study are: (a) using back squat as the tool to determine fiber type of vastus lateralis muscles. I could stop even here because that’s enough. These “scientists” should know that you can’t determine anything related to strength and muscle fiber type with a compound exercise involving several muscles at once. They can easily use squat in attempt to determine the composition of gastroc or trap muscles, with the same results. Only isolation exercise and only a proper tool (which are MedX medical line of machines (lumbar, cervical, knee)) is the only way to go. Next, the paper doesn’t show the data of the load/weights used by participants in the study. Guys, do you know what is 1RM in back squat? They had 10 females and 20 males, all of them being RECREATIONALLY ACTIVE participants. BTW, their mean (average) 1RM in squat was 70.5kg (155lbs) for women and 155kg (340lbs) for men. Are you impressed? I am not. I seriously doubt that all of them went balls to the wall attempting a 1RM in back squat exercise. I would not do it myself, even if paid a lot, being in a good shape now and having 30+ training experience, for a multiple of reasons. After that they performed the same exercise with 80% of 1RM, but it is not stated whether they did it to failure or stopped arbitrarily. Again, do you know what it means squatting with 80% of your 1RM to failure? A failure in squat will actually mean inability to come up above the point where your thighs are parallel to the floor and probably you will collapse on the floor with barbell across you. So, here we have a study which used (a) an inappropriate tool - a tool incapable to determine fiber type of VL muscles (back squat exercise); (b) an inappropriate method (exercise not to failure) - we don’t now how many reps were possible with that load. Jones refused to answer questions regarding fiber type before he was able to design a proper tool isolating and measuring the strength of quads which was in late 1980s. Later, in his books and articles published in late 1980s and 1990s he clearly demonstrated the training implications for various types of muscle fibers. On a side note, if muscle fibers are so plastic and interchangeable (subject to training), why have this distinctive classification of type I and II in the first place? Why not saying from the very beginning that all types are hybrids? This is apparently not the case: the nature made type I and type II which have completely different characteristics: type I with lots of endurance, but a small capacity for strength; they don’t fatigue fast, but recover fast; and type II which are more powerful, but have less endurance; they fatigue fast and require more time to recover. It’s either or situation, and this is determined by genetics and can’t be altered by training. Again, read the story of AJ testing quad fibers of Fred Hatfield. However, it seems like a lot of guys are saying you can change your genetics with training - this is wrong. A meter is a meter (100 cm, not more, but not less), but they apparently as saying that a meter can be anything between 39cm and 189cm or whatever you like. I know that our Ministry of Truth even changing the definition of vaccine, but what we are seeing here is not a science.
If you ever trained to failure and made a second set of the same exercise with the same weight after completing a first set to failure of an isolated exercise with 8-12 reps and resting 2 mins, you could clearly see which muscles of yours possess fast-twitch, slow-twitch or mixed characteristics. If you were able to make only 3-4 reps in a 2nd set, clearly you have predominantly fast-twitch fibers in that muscle group. If you failed after 6-8 reps (making about 20% inroad or so), you have mixed. If you managed to get 12 or more reps, this is an indication of slow-twitch muscles.
On a completely side note, I think it makes sense to start a new thread named “Where Arthur Jones was wrong?” or something similar. It would be good to hear people saying what aspects they think Arthur Jones was wrong. I suspect there was something similar on the old forum, but it looks like we have a lot of new guys here.
I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make.
The fast twitch/slow twitch dichotomy came from doing microscopic examinations of muscle tissue. It was noted that there were fibers of different colors, and it was concluded that these corresponded to fibers with different kinds of performance characteristics - oxidative fibers which were good for endurance vs glycolic fibers good for strength and power. Since then, the classification of fibers has gotten a more elaborate, but the basic idea remains the same: muscles are composed of fibers that have different performance characteristics. So it is logical to hypothesize that one might be able to estimate the fiber type composition of a muscle by how well it performs in endurance and strength oriented tasks.
Now that is a reasonable hypothesis. So you would think that, sometime in the last 30 or 40 years, several people might have thought to run a performance test on a muscle group and compare the estimated fiber composition to actual fiber compositions obtained by biopsy. After all, isn’t that how you test and validate an hypothesis?
And yet, this paper published in 2020 claims to be the first time that kind of validation has ever been tried? I don’t give a flying F*** about the specifics of the paper, whether the study was done well or badly. What I find remarkable is their claim that this is THE FIRST TIME that kind of validation has ever been attempted.
Doesn’t it bother you that you are designing your training around a test/hypothesis that has only been tested one time (and apparently tested very badly, according to you)?
To each his own… I understand that not everyone on this forum is interested in muscle hypertrophy, improving and optimization of one’s physique. I do. The problem with standard approach is obvious - beyond certain level / time period it does not work.
The nature of my profession and my hobbies does not allow me to trust anything. I do examine very carefully and test in practice. Not everything which is written in the science journal is science. Not everything which is created by the so called “artists” is art.
I never really found rep ranges to make a difference in my case…32 years of steady training. I usually stay in the 8-10 or sometimes up to 12 range.
I can’t speak for your body, but out of about a dozen of the bodies that dared to try this approach, each of which I assisted in starting and trained for the first month, they all now SWEAR by this method and are creatively showing me new ways to “inroad” by this Darden Method.
I would say, try it, then give an opinion.
I’ve been training since 1983.
Tried not all the published workouts, but many.
This “inroading” approach is by far the superior way to train, in my limited experience.
I’m sure there are always exceptions and that’s for each to figure out, but at least try it. See what happens.
Richard Balwin looks better.
I did brother! I shared every single session on my log here on the site. I even followed the Surge and Mag-10 Protocol as written.