Yeah but if some people only saw the second picture they'd argue until they're blue that she is or could be natural. You see a chick with biceps like that that doesn't look like your uncle, she's juicing

ahhh I see, so it's lack of a pump that confirms it for ya. Well you're a pro level skeptic for sure. I've personally trained/dated plenty of females at least that size, but perhaps they were all juicing on the sly in prvt...hey, I suppose anything's possible.

ahhh I see, so it's lack of a pump that confirms it for ya. Well you're a pro level skeptic for sure. I've personally trained/dated plenty of females at least that size, but perhaps they were all juicing on the sly in prvt...hey, I suppose anything's possible.

Yeah guy focus on the one point and ignore all the others. Don't see you rushing to post any competition pics, but hey you've done bicep curls with women before so you have me beat. Clearly

I know you have your dreamworld and that's great, but too many guys get away with fake  natty claims, we don't need to throw women into the fake natty group as well and muddy the waters further

Right but you're trying to base whether someone is using or not based on size, which is pure speculation. Tons of lifetime natural guys and girls can build significant physiques, and started out as skinny kids. The same science of building muscle (hypertrophy) applies whether using or not. Of course the amount of development of those using may be a nominal % greater than if they were natty, but it's not astronomical. 

BTW in-contest shape pics aren't any kind of accurate indicator. Bodybuilding is all about illusions. Women who may look huge in a pic since she's pumped ripped tanned n oiled up actually look tiny (comparably) in person.   

Right but you're trying to base whether someone is using or not based on size

I'm not, but you seem to feel measurements being roughly similar bolsters your position when it undermines it. Size is a really good indicator, but it's not the be all end all. In fact, you seem to be using a crossfit woman's lack of (relative to bodybuilding)size as proof she's clean

which is pure speculation. Tons of lifetime natural guys and girls can build significant physiques, and started out as skinny kids.

"Significant" is as nebulous as "crossfit jacked"

You wanna see skinny to jacked,  check out the body of Darth Vader himself, David Prowse. And other than his height, he's not that big. But a perfectly attainable size

The same science of building muscle (hypertrophy) applies whether using or not. Of course the amount of development of those using may be a nominal % greater than if they were natty, but it's not astronomical.

That is absolutely ridiculous. You're right about hypertrophy being a thing and just about nothing else.

Ronnie Coleman wouldn't be Ronnie Coleman without a shitload of steroids. There would be some natural bodybuilding contest somewhere where a guy looks even something remotely approaching him. Same goes for women and Iris Kyle. But there aren't either of those things. Not even close. And if you're not even close, you're not talking a "nominal %"

Here is a perfect example of how "stuff"  makes it possible for some to become fbb's  . Clearly she did not have amazing genetics before

As for my post just wanted to clarify i don't think it's impossible for "some" woman to have a gift for building muscle . But as for the above pic it's obvious and with so many on insta**** showing progress pics , going from thin to Huge in 2-3 years . It's crazy to think they are gifted or something . Still makes me appreciate woman like Tina L. , because they are super rare

Tina may have started out natural, but by the time these pics were taken, she was juicing. She had no problems getting and staying big naturally, but in order to get in ripped contest shape, she needed help.

Oh i have no doubt she went on to take stuff yes . Just mean she had a crazy gift for building muscles , most fbb's taking never looked quite like her

Their is a clip of Tina at a show , and Raye Hollitt was hosting , even Raye was shocked at her size lol

Oh i have no doubt she went on to take stuff yes . Just mean she had a crazy gift for building muscles , most fbb's taking never looked quite like her

You have to see her in person. I met her in 1991 at the Olympia in Los Angeles. She stole the show at the Expo. I'll never forget her in that blue dress. She had monster size, but she was very nice and approachable. I followed the sport religiously back then, but I never heard of her before. She got featured in the next issue of WPW magazine and the rest is history. I don't mean to aid and abet in taking this thread off topic. It's just that when you guys start talking in depth about the old school bodybuilders, i get very sentimental. 

 That's cool you got to meet Tina !  she's a true Legend ..

To bring things back on-topic. I believe "natty Tina" still had plenty of size and could have been *very* popular within the mainstream market...or, choosing to push the boundaries became hugely popular within the extreme fbb market. That's another important misconception many here are still missing. The problem has been limited thinking within a small box. In order to really get the full picture it's important to step back from your libido driven impulses. The solution to the dilemma is not an either/or proposition. I'll reveal part of the formula...

Consider 2 major World Championship WBB shows:

1) geared specifically for the mainstream market

1) geared specifically for the hardcore niche

This way BOTH markets will positively represented and optimize the overall growth potential 

Right but you're trying to base whether someone is using or not based on size, which is pure speculation. Tons of lifetime natural guys and girls can build significant physiques, and started out as skinny kids. The same science of building muscle (hypertrophy) applies whether using or not. Of course the amount of development of those using may be a nominal % greater than if they were natty, but it's not astronomical.

The difference is astronomical. Take a look at the article below which is based on a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The truth is that you can train naturally with everything optimized and eventually you'll limit out your potential and stop growing. If you add PEDs at that point, you'll experience significant gains again. You'll again stop growing at some point, but you'll be much larger than if you stayed natural.

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/steroids-vs-natural/

The trouble with citing specific individuals is that if you're making the point that some woman, somewhere, at some point achieved a moderate amount of lean muscle similar to that person naturally, you're doubtless right. But that doesn't mean the woman in the picture did it that way. Most don't. And the least reliable indicator is if they say they don't use. Steroids are illegal. People tend not to admit they're committing a crime.

Right but you're trying to base whether someone is using or not based on size, which is pure speculation. Tons of lifetime natural guys and girls can build significant physiques, and started out as skinny kids. The same science of building muscle (hypertrophy) applies whether using or not. Of course the amount of development of those using may be a nominal % greater than if they were natty, but it's not astronomical.

The difference is astronomical. Take a look at the article below which is based on a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The truth is that you can train naturally with everything optimized and eventually you'll limit out your potential and stop growing. If you add PEDs at that point, you'll experience significant gains again. You'll again stop growing at some point, but you'll be much larger than if you stayed natural.

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/steroids-vs-natural/

The trouble with citing specific individuals is that if you're making the point that some woman, somewhere, at some point achieved a moderate amount of lean muscle similar to that person naturally, you're doubtless right. But that doesn't mean the woman in the picture did it that way. Most don't. And the least reliable indicator is if they say they don't use. Steroids are illegal. People tend not to admit they're committing a crime.

Yeah there's nothing really surprising about that study. I stated above that AAS accelerate the process and recovery. They absolutely 100% work and I'm actually a huge proponent, just don't support the negative or reckless aspects. Gains made natty generally take twice as long as on the gear, and the first cycle gains would typically be even a bit more. But with regard to the "stop growing points" that doesn't mean you'd end up gaining twice as much LBM just that you'll get there twice as fast. It's not all about the drugs by any means. Genetics, training and diet play much bigger roles. If you're doing the right hardcore training and dieting consistently you'll make the gains (male or female)...gear will just get you to that next level much quicker.