I am admittedly and simply going with my confidence that there aren’t people who can do better than the cream of the crop of the WNBF. Some can do as good, but not better. I am not a well traveled man but I have seen, met, and observed who knows how many people in life, just like the rest of us, including freaks I’ve seen up close.
I’m not 100% certain but it’s a strong hunch.
All one has to do is take a look at the stage weighs of IFBB pros.
Over the course of a training career, it seems like steroids allow you to build about twice as much muscle as you’d be able to build drug-free
OK, so I misunderstood OP’s original assertion above but still stand by my claim that it would be exceptionally rare to ever achieve double.
If you can agree with our hypothetical dude starting at 175 with 40 lbs skeletal muscle, and agree that he could build an additional 40 naturally, this would put him at a solid 215.
To say that with drugs, he could have build twice that amount of muscle (80 additional pounds vice 40) would put him at a ripped 255, assuming he gains no body fat.
How many people on the planet, AAS users included, are a LEAN 255? Arnold wasn’t even this big. NONSENSE!
Sure the top champions of today on insane amounts of gear are there, but they are 1% of all AAS users, at most.
This construct is a little funky. You’re assuming that because he has 40 lbs. of skeletal muscle to start with that he will double it training naturally, then once again with steroids.
Where does the idea that one could double their skeletal muscle mass from training come from?
The only discussion I’m aware of so far is that one could double the amount gained, not the amount started with.
Am I following what you’re putting down correctly?
Ha ha ha man we’re all confusing each other.
OK, OK. I’ll try to go through it step by step.
I’m supposed to be working right now and don’t have time to hunt down all the studies, so you’ll have to either take my word for it or go look them up on your own.
The mean adult male is about 5’9”, about 170 pounds, with about 40 pounds of useable, skeletal muscle.
Studies, anecdotal evidence of a gazillion gym-goers, etc. show that, with proper training and diet for many years a bodybuilder can expect to about double their skeletal muscle (gain 40 lbs of lean tissue). This would have our average male, turned super dedicated bodybuilder, end up a solid, not ripped 210, or a ripped 195-200.
OP claim is that AAS allow you to gain twice as much as you could naturally. If we can gain 40 naturally, but can gain 80 on AAS, that means our hypothetical dude would end up a LEAN 250+.
Possible, yes! So the technically the OP assertion would be right. But my point is that it is extremely rare and I’m willing to bet that less than 1% of all AAS users under 6’ tall are a lean 250+.
Yeah, ok.
My interpretation is that if somebody were 175 lbs. and for the sake of arbitrary numbers may gain 20 lbs. of muscle through training this puts him at 195. Very typical.
Therefore with steroids would be 175 + 40 = 215.
Also very typical.
Once again, my incredulity is unperturbed.
Hell of a discussion here! Glad I read through this.
My first thought when I read the opening post was ‘Man, I wish steroids would double my lifting numbers’. Given my sport, size is never the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to performance/lifting, it’s lifting numbers, WITHOUT adding significant size.
Honestly, we may never get a definite end all answer (too many variables imo), but it’s at least entertaining listening to actual well considered opinions.
S
How many naturals do you know who reach this?
@The_Mighty_Stu is legit one of the best natty guys and was 178 on stage.
Consider Eric Helms (who took superdrol and prohormones in 05-06) who’s like peak natty is 175 on stage.
There are very very little people who could be this big naturally.
People have a distorted view of what’s possible
I think my and your disagreement begins with body fat. I’m a fat strong guy. When I say solid, I mean 12-15%. When I say ripped, I mean 10%. Your definition of ripped is dudes stepping on stage as dry as a steak from Waffle House and a diced 6-8%.
210 at 15% is within the reach of most guys under 6’ who train correctly for many years. If they know how to get lean, they’ll be 195 at 10%. I’ll agree that it is the upper limit of what’s achievable naturally, and rare, but it’s achievable. I’m discussing what’s possible, not what’s common.
On gear, that same guy that was 195 @ 10% could achieve 250+ at 10% or less. Again, this is the upper limit of what’s achievable, in my opinion, for 99% of the population, outliers aside.
I think it best to just set aside the top Olympians at 275+ in contest condition.
My southern brother! Please don’t be mean to those juicy 3oz T-bones!
I think good rule for powerlifting might be 20% for AAS’s and 20% for support gear. I would say those numbers would work for a large percentage of powerlifters.
That is if you had a 1000 lb total natural and raw, you could easily expect to get a 1400 total on Gear and wearing gear in a reasonable length of time.
Oh cool, now we’re talking strength. Love it!
So many years ago, when I was in my mid- 20s and obsessed with training for a solid 5 years or so, I believe I reached my max natural strength. Lucky for me, I trained intelligently right from the start, did not waste years on bro spilts, and was able to reach max natural potential pretty quickly.
Fast forward to today, after a couple of mild cycles, I’m about 25% stronger than my peak strength back then.
So if we listen to you we ignore all of the actual competitors.
You don’t have to listen to me. I’m just testing the OP’s theory against the majority of the population.
There will be outliers at either end of the bell curve. Include them if you want.
At one end, there are guys with such terrible genetics for building muscle that, after a decade on 1000mgs of gear and 5,000 calories per day, will not get over 225.
At the other end, there are all the giant Olympians with freak genetics, perfect diet, perfect training, and running enough gear to kill a Clydesdale, who will achieve a shredded 275+.
I’m talking about the 98 percent in the middle.
Middle of what? A pre-selected field.
Eliminate this, add that…
The original proposition is very simple. It’s a rule of thumb.
(also, just to be clear-I’m just kicking around the idea. no harm, no foul)
Agreed. And after @EyeDentist corrected my understanding of the OP’s stance, I said, “ah hah, yup that’s pretty legit, double is possible. Rare, but possible.” and have now spent 10 posts agreeing with him
I just wanna conjure an image of what that looks like.
Arnold’s heaviest stage weight was about 235, so maybe 250 lbs at 10% or less
Dexter Jackson competed at a stage weight of about 220, so he’s not even 250 lbs at 10% or less.
Arash competes at 210 (competed clean at about 190 - 195 with the most insane genetics I’ve ever seen) and looks ridiculous at his 235 offseason yet still about 10%.
S
It’s all still unfair because of genetics. He’s obviously a neurotype 1A. I propose mandatory neurotype testing at bodybuilding competitions. Neurotype 2As and 2Bs should be banned.
Seriously, I recently watched Jackie Chan: My Stunts on YouTube lol. The amount of training and physical abuse his old stunt team went through is eye opening, to say the least.