I’ve got a close friend of mine that’s been training 100% naturally for about 8 years now. He’s 5’10" and 235 lbs. He had his bf done about 3 weeks ago and came in at a touch above 10% (I don’t remember the precise number, I want to say 10.3)
He’s not a genetic mutant, he worked hard and ate smart. According to my math he would weigh in at around 220 for a contest, but he unfortunately does not have any interest in competition.
I was going to post a similar topic, used the search engine and found this thread so I’m bumping it.
Does anyone have any examples of “jacked” guys that you are reasonably sure are natural? Itd be nice to get input from some of the bigger guys here who are natural, maybe a picture or two aswell.
I’ve been wondering for a while where the line seems to be drawn for how big someone can get without assistance, so anyone chiming in with a “yeah im natural” would be good. You can’t assume someone is “clean” these times, but I assume no one would post here for an ego boost if they werent.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
Hi Guys.
I’ve been having a debate elsewhere (ok an argument) about natural and ‘pharmaceutical’ bodybuilding. This guy (who claims to be an ex pro) says it’s impossible for a genetically average guy standing 5ft 10 (@180cm) to weight over 200 lbs at 8% body fat. Would appreciate your thoughts on what he says…
5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp while remaining at 8% no clothes on. (in the morning after 8 hour sleep no food in system with one single glass of water drank before weighin, no clothes/shoes/pump which =3-8lb)
thus you were 5’11 ~198~7% which is parallel and will look very much alike as 5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY as i said before if ones have extra ordinary response to training which i assume you have if you were at those numbers at this body fat. 5’11 198lb 7% bf is SUPERB physiqe and only minority of trainees will be able to achieve it naturally.
guys you need to pay attention to the way i write and to the small details i put in. they are exteremly important. when you see the 5’7 guys in the bronx weighin 220 they are not 8% they are sitting at a good 18-20% bodyfat and in most cases been working out in the past with the intake of supplements and in many cases trial periods with hormones.
[/quote]
Uh… read it again, he doesn’t say impossible without steroids. He says a small percentage of athletes will be able to achieve those numbers naturally without AAS, but with supplementation.
He says no mortal alive could reach that shape without anything whatsoever… supps or protein.
I would have to tend to agree.
listen “5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY”
and “5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp”
Nitpicking, but i tend to think this guy has a clue.
Joe
Truth to tell, I personally know of no one who gets continually stronger without also gaining muscle. Sure, the progress slows somewhat in relation to a beginner’s phenomenal muscle building ability, but still: get stronger and you’ll build muscle. Even after years of lifting. As a rule of thumb, one just needs to find the right balance of injury prevention, load progression and training frequency. That’s my personal opinion, mind you.
I’m aware that getting stronger is but one way of doing it; but it’s the way that has worked best for me over the years.
Of course, the nutrition has to be somehow in order; nutritional demands differ a lot, but after a few years of lifting weights that shouldn’t pose too much of a problem.
As for me: as long as I can lift progressively without any injuries, I gain muscle; even on a hypocaloric diet.
I never could understand people complaining about not being able to add new muscle mass after several years of consistent training.
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
evo2008 wrote:
Hi Guys.
I’ve been having a debate elsewhere (ok an argument) about natural and ‘pharmaceutical’ bodybuilding. This guy (who claims to be an ex pro) says it’s impossible for a genetically average guy standing 5ft 10 (@180cm) to weight over 200 lbs at 8% body fat. Would appreciate your thoughts on what he says…
5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp while remaining at 8% no clothes on. (in the morning after 8 hour sleep no food in system with one single glass of water drank before weighin, no clothes/shoes/pump which =3-8lb)
thus you were 5’11 ~198~7% which is parallel and will look very much alike as 5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY as i said before if ones have extra ordinary response to training which i assume you have if you were at those numbers at this body fat. 5’11 198lb 7% bf is SUPERB physiqe and only minority of trainees will be able to achieve it naturally.
guys you need to pay attention to the way i write and to the small details i put in. they are exteremly important. when you see the 5’7 guys in the bronx weighin 220 they are not 8% they are sitting at a good 18-20% bodyfat and in most cases been working out in the past with the intake of supplements and in many cases trial periods with hormones.
Uh… read it again, he doesn’t say impossible without steroids. He says a small percentage of athletes will be able to achieve those numbers naturally without AAS, but with supplementation.
He says no mortal alive could reach that shape without anything whatsoever… supps or protein.
I would have to tend to agree.
listen “5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY”
and “5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp”
Nitpicking, but i tend to think this guy has a clue.
Joe[/quote]
Yeah, but now he’s making up categories. Since when did supplementation (other than AAS) make one anything other than “natural”? What supplements are we talking about exactly? If I take a multivitamin, does that make me no longer “completely natural”?
If I add soy sauce to my rice, does that make me no longer “completely natural” (since soy sauce is not a “naturally” occurring food)? Can I eat processed foods and still be “completely natural”?
“Natural” has always meant “not using AAS”, nothing else. If you wanted to group prohormones into that I might not disagree with that. But, other than those two things, use of no other supplements makes you “unnatural” in any way shape or form.
I’m also not saying that the guy is clueless. Just that I don’t agree with his placing limiting factors on muscle mass through the use of statistics.
For argument’s sake, I’ve attached a picture of Michael Lockett, lifetime 100% natural (no steroids). According to the article, this should be impossible (weighed in at 244 lbs at 5’9" on stage in 2007). But there it is, plain as day.
All it is Fatty… is that even they train absolutely perfectly, with the most efficient program known to man, but they simply do not increase calories by enough, for long enough, they will not create a bodyweight change…
People really struggle to eat more or less - it is one of the most basic instincts and to do anything than what feels natural is difficult. You know, you are dieting!!
Joe
Sento, i agree with you… i dnt think ANYONE can really say - within reason - that NO-ONE can do this or that… within reason!
But - for the sake of argument…
This guy did say (loophole) that there are the odd genetic freaks that can do such things without AAS, but with supplementation (i agree with you again sento, this would be considered natural by me too) - and the bodybuilder you presented is definitely one of those.
The point i was making was simply while this guy is not absolutely correct in most of the clams he has made, the one that the OP presented as the topic, is actually mis-understood. The OP did not read the post fully IMO. Thats all…
Joe
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
Sento, i agree with you… i dnt think ANYONE can really say - within reason - that NO-ONE can do this or that… within reason!
But - for the sake of argument…
This guy did say (loophole) that there are the odd genetic freaks that can do such things without AAS, but with supplementation (i agree with you again sento, this would be considered natural by me too) - and the bodybuilder you presented is definitely one of those.
The point i was making was simply while this guy is not absolutely correct in most of the clams he has made, the one that the OP presented as the topic, is actually mis-understood. The OP did not read the post fully IMO. Thats all…
Joe[/quote]
These limits only exist to make those who feel less than feel better about it. If it has taken some guy 15 years to build 17" arms, chances are, he is more likely to accuse every guy bigger than him of drug use as if it just isn’t possible. It is scientific sour grapes…and not much more.
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
Sento, i agree with you… i dnt think ANYONE can really say - within reason - that NO-ONE can do this or that… within reason!
But - for the sake of argument…
This guy did say (loophole) that there are the odd genetic freaks that can do such things without AAS, but with supplementation (i agree with you again sento, this would be considered natural by me too) - and the bodybuilder you presented is definitely one of those.
The point i was making was simply while this guy is not absolutely correct in most of the clams he has made, the one that the OP presented as the topic, is actually mis-understood. The OP did not read the post fully IMO. Thats all…
Joe[/quote]
Gotcha.
A large body of statistcal evidence supports that I am absolutely correct in everything that was written in that article.
On the other hand, aside from the claims, simplistic (often childish) arguments and hopes of people who have failed to reach the predictions presented in that article, I have yet to receive legitimate statistics, photos or even the real names of people who “refute” my so-called “claims”.
I hope at least some of the people who visit this forum have the maturity to accept reality for what it is, and can see through the “issues” that some people have which prevent them from doing the same.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Yeah, but now he’s making up categories. Since when did supplementation (other than AAS) make one anything other than “natural”? What supplements are we talking about exactly? If I take a multivitamin, does that make me no longer “completely natural”? If I add soy sauce to my rice, does that make me no longer “completely natural” (since soy sauce is not a “naturally” occurring food)? Can I eat processed foods and still be “completely natural”?
“Natural” has always meant “not using AAS”, nothing else. If you wanted to group prohormones into that I might not disagree with that. But, other than those two things, use of no other supplements makes you “unnatural” in any way shape or form.
I’m also not saying that the guy is clueless. Just that I don’t agree with his placing limiting factors on muscle mass through the use of statistics.
For argument’s sake, I’ve attached a picture of Michael Lockett, lifetime 100% natural (no steroids). According to the article, this should be impossible (weighed in at 244 lbs at 5’9" on stage in 2007). But there it is, plain as day.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Joe Joseph wrote:
evo2008 wrote:
Hi Guys.
I’ve been having a debate elsewhere (ok an argument) about natural and ‘pharmaceutical’ bodybuilding. This guy (who claims to be an ex pro) says it’s impossible for a genetically average guy standing 5ft 10 (@180cm) to weight over 200 lbs at 8% body fat. Would appreciate your thoughts on what he says…
5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp while remaining at 8% no clothes on. (in the morning after 8 hour sleep no food in system with one single glass of water drank before weighin, no clothes/shoes/pump which =3-8lb)
thus you were 5’11 ~198~7% which is parallel and will look very much alike as 5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY as i said before if ones have extra ordinary response to training which i assume you have if you were at those numbers at this body fat. 5’11 198lb 7% bf is SUPERB physiqe and only minority of trainees will be able to achieve it naturally.
guys you need to pay attention to the way i write and to the small details i put in. they are exteremly important. when you see the 5’7 guys in the bronx weighin 220 they are not 8% they are sitting at a good 18-20% bodyfat and in most cases been working out in the past with the intake of supplements and in many cases trial periods with hormones.
Uh… read it again, he doesn’t say impossible without steroids. He says a small percentage of athletes will be able to achieve those numbers naturally without AAS, but with supplementation.
He says no mortal alive could reach that shape without anything whatsoever… supps or protein.
I would have to tend to agree.
listen “5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY”
and “5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp”
Nitpicking, but i tend to think this guy has a clue.
Joe
Yeah, but now he’s making up categories. Since when did supplementation (other than AAS) make one anything other than “natural”? What supplements are we talking about exactly? If I take a multivitamin, does that make me no longer “completely natural”? If I add soy sauce to my rice, does that make me no longer “completely natural” (since soy sauce is not a “naturally” occurring food)? Can I eat processed foods and still be “completely natural”?
“Natural” has always meant “not using AAS”, nothing else. If you wanted to group prohormones into that I might not disagree with that. But, other than those two things, use of no other supplements makes you “unnatural” in any way shape or form.
I’m also not saying that the guy is clueless. Just that I don’t agree with his placing limiting factors on muscle mass through the use of statistics.
For argument’s sake, I’ve attached a picture of Michael Lockett, lifetime 100% natural (no steroids). According to the article, this should be impossible (weighed in at 244 lbs at 5’9" on stage in 2007). But there it is, plain as day.[/quote]
Good post, thats what I’m looking for. Genetic freaks, who cares. Why not hope you are one yourself? Any more pictures of guys with awesome genetics would be cool. Some of us may have hit the lottery and not even know it.
Some good stuff here. I think it was Mike Mentzer who said that you’ll never know your genetic limits until you reach them. X hit the nail on the head with the sour grapes theory. That’s what gives any sort of credence to the whole “I’m a Hardgainer” B.S. which is nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy.
S
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Joe Joseph wrote:
evo2008 wrote:
Hi Guys.
I’ve been having a debate elsewhere (ok an argument) about natural and ‘pharmaceutical’ bodybuilding. This guy (who claims to be an ex pro) says it’s impossible for a genetically average guy standing 5ft 10 (@180cm) to weight over 200 lbs at 8% body fat. Would appreciate your thoughts on what he says…
5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp while remaining at 8% no clothes on. (in the morning after 8 hour sleep no food in system with one single glass of water drank before weighin, no clothes/shoes/pump which =3-8lb)
thus you were 5’11 ~198~7% which is parallel and will look very much alike as 5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY as i said before if ones have extra ordinary response to training which i assume you have if you were at those numbers at this body fat. 5’11 198lb 7% bf is SUPERB physiqe and only minority of trainees will be able to achieve it naturally.
guys you need to pay attention to the way i write and to the small details i put in. they are exteremly important. when you see the 5’7 guys in the bronx weighin 220 they are not 8% they are sitting at a good 18-20% bodyfat and in most cases been working out in the past with the intake of supplements and in many cases trial periods with hormones.
Uh… read it again, he doesn’t say impossible without steroids. He says a small percentage of athletes will be able to achieve those numbers naturally without AAS, but with supplementation.
He says no mortal alive could reach that shape without anything whatsoever… supps or protein.
I would have to tend to agree.
listen “5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY”
and “5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp”
Nitpicking, but i tend to think this guy has a clue.
Joe
Yeah, but now he’s making up categories. Since when did supplementation (other than AAS) make one anything other than “natural”? What supplements are we talking about exactly? If I take a multivitamin, does that make me no longer “completely natural”?
If I add soy sauce to my rice, does that make me no longer “completely natural” (since soy sauce is not a “naturally” occurring food)? Can I eat processed foods and still be “completely natural”?
“Natural” has always meant “not using AAS”, nothing else. If you wanted to group prohormones into that I might not disagree with that. But, other than those two things, use of no other supplements makes you “unnatural” in any way shape or form.
I’m also not saying that the guy is clueless. Just that I don’t agree with his placing limiting factors on muscle mass through the use of statistics.
For argument’s sake, I’ve attached a picture of Michael Lockett, lifetime 100% natural (no steroids). According to the article, this should be impossible (weighed in at 244 lbs at 5’9" on stage in 2007). But there it is, plain as day.[/quote]
Sentoguy, that is a good post. But, I refuse to believer Lockett is natural. He also claims to eat once or twice a day and drink soda and eat licorice while maintaining that size and degree of leanness. Riiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttt…
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Sentoguy, that is a good post. But, I refuse to believer Lockett is natural. He also claims to eat once or twice a day and drink soda and eat licorice while maintaining that size and degree of leanness. Riiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttt…[/quote]
Well, believe what you will. But, Lockett has passed several drug tests (all of which he tested negative for steroids) and several polygraphs (in which he stated that he never did steroids).
I agree with you that he was most likely exaggerating about eating once or twice a day and drinking soda. But I believe him that he hasn’t put nearly as much effort into attaining his size than most others. He is most definitely a freak.
Lets just be clear - hes saying its statistically improbable for someone to surpass his calculations.
If a newb came on here and used it as an excuse for not gaining/bulking/doing what he needs to, then the issue is with that person. He is not ready for the dedication and mental fortitude necessary to achieve the statistical average cap stated, if he cant even handle this information.
So whilst im not thrilled about the idea of a pre determined ‘cap’, I think people are going a bit over the top on the negative consequences of the article.
The people latching onto this as justification would merely choose another rationalisation if this article wasnt found.
personally I would think that someone undeveloped and just starting out could read this sort of article and use it to build their target weight.
now, the only point at which it becomes an issue is when they reach their supposed ‘cap’. once at this weight (pretty impressive to start with) do you not think said person would have a good idea of what they are actually capable?
obviously there will be people who will hit a road block and then not try and break it because ‘science said it wont happen’, but they are idiots and dont deserve to get bigger.
ill enjoy the point at which i break my ‘cap’ of 201.5 lbm because ill know im statistically superior to the vast majority.
The end game is this-
For someone interested in the science of human development, the study/thesis is a valuable one that should be studied further, subjected to peer review and scrutiny, but at the same time given credit for presenting an interesting hypothesis and supporting it with some interestign data and analysis.
For someone who wants to bodybuild, the GLARING take home point can be summarized, imho, with one word: LIMITATIONS. I say fuck that, ignore this guy’s study and bust your ass. If you do everything with intensity, eat like a beast and stay consistent and find yourself hittin a plateua for a while, then you MAY have hit your genetic limit, but who cares?
More on the point of the study- Here, the scientist has created a loophole so that anyone who exceeds the limitations he has espoused can be summarily tossed in the 1% category. Okay, well we can’t have much of a discussion then.
Otoh, it does seem reasonable to conclude that there is SOME correlation between joint size and the size of the rest of your body–okay, we knew that intuitively.
But, think about this, the illusion of muscle on someone with smaller joints may even things out when they are on stage with someone 20 lbs heavier but with 2 more inches in wrist circumference. Just some thoughts…
google Skip La Cour
solid
I’m going to say that I’m siding with Casey, if for no other reason than the fact that 99% of the arguments against him are complete crap.
I’m also going to say that the article is a VERY GOOD THING. For the following reasons.
With steroids being illegal it has forced the people that use them to hide that fact and completely blur the line between a natural build one aided by steroids. Now we have at least an idea of where the line really is.
It shows how freakishly huge and strong natural bodybuilders can get.
For Example, Mad Titan and Reg Park
I really can’t see the problem if looking like Mad titan or Reg park was as good as I was going to get without roids.
Hell, if Reg Park hadn’t had a camera in the room recording him I still wouldn’t believe a 215 pound guy could do a 500 pound raw bench with a thumbless grip, all while drug free.
its too late for me to ever find out! 
All i know is, it wasnt going to be big enough! 
