Forum Saradas

Female BodyBuilding & Fitness & Figure - Members Area => Sports nutrition and medication => Discussion and Q & A about Sports Nutrition and Foods / Snacks => Topic started by: schillster1 on September 11, 2017, 03:22:35 pm

Title: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: schillster1 on September 11, 2017, 03:22:35 pm
Growing up, I used to go to a book store that sold everthing, including body building magazines (other than what mags we see today).  The was a magazine called Natural Bodybuilders, both men and women, no steroid or muscle enhancers and for the ladies, breast enhancement, just ways to build.  Now I would like to know is if today there are still such things as "Natural" bodybuilders.   :thanks:
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: pumpfiction on September 11, 2017, 03:30:54 pm
Check feds like WNBF, OCB or the rising DFAC.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: asapferg on September 11, 2017, 04:38:56 pm
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 11, 2017, 04:51:09 pm
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
The only reason is there is no real market for natural bodybuilding. Women cannot get the mass and cuts we all love without drugs. You guys who cry over these girls downsizing to physique class would really have a fit if every contest went drug free.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 12, 2017, 01:17:21 am
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
Natural BB's use supplements. Pretty much everything sold in a nutrition store is allowable with perhaps the exception of something like DHEA. Why wouldn't they use protein powder and aminos? They don't get attention because they're small and not as conditioned as people using PEDs. Right or wrong, you aren't going to sell your supplements using the picture of somebody you'd see at your local gym, who's not even one of the bigger people in the room.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: 87fg on September 12, 2017, 01:38:21 am
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
The only reason is there is no real market for natural bodybuilding. Women cannot get the mass and cuts we all love without drugs. You guys who cry over these girls downsizing to physique class would really have a fit if every contest went drug free.

Not true, I present Christy Resendes. She is a natural competitor and has a wonderful physique. She's pretty big to me.

(http://img197.imagevenue.com/loc201/th_180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img197.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc166/th_180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg)
     
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 12, 2017, 03:00:37 am
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
The only reason is there is no real market for natural bodybuilding. Women cannot get the mass and cuts we all love without drugs. You guys who cry over these girls downsizing to physique class would really have a fit if every contest went drug free.

Not true, I present Christy Resendes. She is a natural competitor and has a wonderful physique. She's pretty big to me.

(http://img197.imagevenue.com/loc201/th_180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img197.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc166/th_180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg)
   
She's always claimed to be drug free and I'm not one to question her. I will say she's an exception, if she's really drug free. Very few women can look like her without drugs.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 12, 2017, 03:08:02 am
(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/ff/ef/e9/22d54d597043253.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/22d54d597043253)
She looks pretty small to me with this tape measure around her arm. And that is big for a natural - if she's natural.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: 87fg on September 12, 2017, 03:21:36 am
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
The only reason is there is no real market for natural bodybuilding. Women cannot get the mass and cuts we all love without drugs. You guys who cry over these girls downsizing to physique class would really have a fit if every contest went drug free.

Not true, I present Christy Resendes. She is a natural competitor and has a wonderful physique. She's pretty big to me.

(http://img197.imagevenue.com/loc201/th_180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img197.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc166/th_180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg)
   
She's always claimed to be drug free and I'm not one to question her. I will say she's an exception, if she's really drug free. Very few women can look like her without drugs.


This is Jenny Arthur Olympic weightlifting athlete. She is muscular and she competes in the most drug tested athletic event. Yes, women can gain muscle with out drugs.

 
  (http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc127/th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg) (http://img172.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg)
     
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 12, 2017, 03:31:34 am
agevenue.com/img.php?image=th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg](http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc127/th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg)[/URL]
     

Do you really believe Jenny Arthur could win an NPC bodybuilding/physique event without drugs?
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 12, 2017, 03:47:25 am
This is Jenny Arthur Olympic weightlifting athlete. She is muscular and she competes in the most drug tested athletic event. Yes, women can gain muscle with out drugs.
Ignore the point and change the subject. Nobody said women can't gain any muscle without drugs, though that would be limiting. The context of the conversation is bodybuilding, which implies size and leanness. I think if Jenny Arthur had the same BF% as Christy Resendes who's the same height, she'd be even smaller. Certainly in the upper body. Care to return to the topic subject?
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: phy911 on September 12, 2017, 03:59:27 am
(https://i.imgur.com/sP5fuof.jpg)
Christy at 15.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: asapferg on September 12, 2017, 08:17:13 am
The reason why natural bodybuilding don't get much attention, cause pro bodybulding has deeper pockets. Many get sponsorship from the supplement companies. Cause natural means no supplements or enhancement drugs there are few companies sponsoring it.
The only reason is there is no real market for natural bodybuilding. Women cannot get the mass and cuts we all love without drugs. You guys who cry over these girls downsizing to physique class would really have a fit if every contest went drug free.

Not true, I present Christy Resendes. She is a natural competitor and has a wonderful physique. She's pretty big to me.

(http://img197.imagevenue.com/loc201/th_180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img197.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631904_IMG_7766_122_201lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/loc166/th_180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg) (http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=180631144_Christy_122_166lo.jpg)
   
She's always claimed to be drug free and I'm not one to question her. I will say she's an exception, if she's really drug free. Very few women can look like her without drugs.
I would have to agree. With her conditioning she's at fitness or figure level. I won't say she's not taking something or either she has great genetics. :o
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 13, 2017, 01:21:56 am
I wouldn't be surprised if Christy R . is natural . But certainly very few fbb's are natural . But that being said Tina Lockwood is the one exception with or without stuff , had the ability to build of any woman . Tina age 19

(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/e7/80/ca/0d04a9597666543.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/0d04a9597666543)
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: 87fg on September 13, 2017, 01:26:33 am
agevenue.com/img.php?image=th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg](http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc127/th_186842679_JennyArthur_122_127lo.jpg)[/URL]
     

Do you really believe Jenny Arthur could win an NPC bodybuilding/physique event without drugs?

Well, that cannot be determined  by just looking at her. She is lifting for strength not building a physique. Jenny Arthur may have the potential, but she trains for strength not muscular hypertrophy. She seems to have a good base. This is just pure speculation. I would not say its impossible, but extremely difficult.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 13, 2017, 01:33:33 am
I wouldn't be surprised if Christy R . is natural . But certainly very few fbb's are natural . But that being said Tina Lockwood is the one exception with or without stuff , had the ability to build of any woman . Tina age 19

(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/e7/80/ca/0d04a9597666543.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/0d04a9597666543)
When she decided to compete, she had to start taking drugs. No one is saying that a woman can't build acceptable muscle with training, diet and genetics. It's just a longshot for one to be able to compete in an NPC sanctioned bodybuilding or physique level show drug free and win. In fact, there are drug free girls who used to enter these shows. They didn't place well.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 13, 2017, 02:16:31 am
The reason supplement companies don't want to or rarely sponsor natural athletes isn't because natural athletes don't take supplements. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard

The reason supplement companies don't do that is because if they slap some juiced up whoever onto their ad and have the athlete say, or imply through advertisement, that they look that way because of the supplement, that supplement will sell.

The whole thing is a smoke and mirrors show, just like whenever someone who clearly isn't natural claims to be natural. Like Christy Resendes. Or Dana Lynn Bailey. Or Mike O'Hearn

PS you can't be a successful Olympic athlete (or athlete of any kind tbh) without taking some form of PED

Just because you've never failed a test doesn't mean you've never taken anything. That's ridiculous that people still believe that. Just like it's ridiculous when people think people in supplement ads are natural. A natual person in a supplement ad wouldn't sell shit cause natural people don't look insane the way someone on PEDs does
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 13, 2017, 02:19:01 am
I don't care if someone juices, obviously. I just think it's ridiculous when people claim otherwise, and just furthers the ignorance of the layman on the subject. The Rock claims he tried steroids once when he was 18 but they DIDN'T WORK so stopped taking them. Who believes that? And don't let your disbelief begin and end there
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 13, 2017, 03:37:51 am
This subject has come up before. Pumpfiction had the correct response. Rather than speculate about who might be natural and what others might have achieved without PEDs, just take a look at the competitors in the natural, 100% tested federations. They're in great shape, but they're scrawny. Particularly the female divisions, since they don't have much testosterone to work with. If they didn't label it bodybuilding, you'd think you were looking at figure or less muscular fitness women. You might find an exception, but nobody who looks like they'd be competitive in what we'd classify bodybuilding or physique, which is why we don't talk about them.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: gte on September 13, 2017, 05:25:40 pm
I like how Barry Bonds denined he didn't take PEDs at first but that guy ballooned in a few years and cranking homeruns.
I knew he lied about it.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: FBBMW on September 13, 2017, 11:52:54 pm
I used to buy the Natural BB Mags, but they have not been out for a few years now. 
The girls are not as big as FBB, but they were just as ripped. 
 
What might be hurting natural BB is the Physique divisons, which allow the girls to be muscular, but not need as
much roids.        IMO a ripped/shredded Natural or Physique female is hotter than a big off season FBB.   
I don't wrestle.     
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 02:16:31 am
Tons of females are AAS-free, and at all levels of muscular development. Of course there is also plenty of usage across the board and with the greater (hardcore) usage as you move more towards the extreme end of the spectrum..meaning, the percentage using at bikini level will be much lower, along with a much higher % mild or non-androgenics at those levels where there's a stronger emphasis of female aesthetics.

Women's natural bodybuilding (which is primarily what it was pre-early 90's) was already getting tremendously popular even way back then, and with loads of mainstream contest coverage on the top sports networks ESPN & NBC. Then as the usage (sides) increased the coverage and popularity dropped WBB off map. NOT because the usage is bad or wrong necessarily, but because at that time there was no blueprint being implemented from an organizational/PR standpoint. Pretty much since Cory Everson's reign ended you've had hardcore usage thru natty all mixed up together instead of properly compartmentalized, which is precisely what created the entire judging (with placings all over the map) dilemma. And with this being the case for the last 20 yrs there's been virtually ZERO competitiveness in the "sport/art"...and it's still a pretty big cluster f*ck. This whole let's keep inching things towards more usage/sides methodology has never worked. Why? Because whenever the standard being represented goes down (for that given market) then the switch for the mainstream power grid gets pulled. Again, this does not mean that there's no place for usage or pushing the boundaries, just that until it gets properly promoted within the right structure and format then it will continue to consume itself.

Women's Natural Bodybuilding is in fact gaining popularity again...but it's called "Crossfit" The rise of Crossfit is also a primary reason why females are empowered and getting into going heavy n hard again.  Crossfit has filled the void that WBB and the political mess in the other divisions still have. The other big difference now is that real UASDA level testing will be coming into the picture, so that "tested and non-tested" shows will actually be legit.   

This notion that females cannot develop size and quality without gear is one of the common misconceptions. The basic hypertrophy process is still the same with or without. The AAS just accelerates the process and aids in recovery. Just like with men, women have different genetics for muscle growth...some naturally grow like weeds..ala a Christy Resendes, Holland Canter, Shawna Walker, etc. While it's true that women only have trace amounts of test compared to men they have 3 times the amount of natural GH. This is why there are women who can get major gains while still maintaining their fem aesthetics, and often those genetic attributes go together.


Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 03:45:28 am
You think Shawna Walker is or was natural? It's not even a discussion if you believe that, it's you being insane. There's also nothing natural about crossfit athletes, male or female. Jesus

Women can "put on muscle", but like kristifigure on © Saradas s.com. Not like Christy Resendes. Not like Shawna Walker.

If there is a genuinely natural woman that actually has really great, across the board development, and doesn't have one area where you think "wow she has pretty big ________" she would probably look a lot like a dude out the gate.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 04:11:01 am
Hey some will always believe anyone with development is  "on"....but that's simply not the reality. Even plenty of old time strong women (pre-steroids) were crossfit sized and nowadays training methods and nutrition/supplementation methods have evolved and become far more efficient. Plenty of fem bodybuilders of the 80's were also crossfit size. That's simply what a hardcore trained female can attain naturally. Like I said, as the real testing comes into the picture it will reveal even more about what the truth is. All I can say is that if you think all Xfit women are "on" then you're sadly mistaken.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 04:14:30 am
Every single high level one is. Full stop. No question

And those old school FBBs you're talking about also had about two or three times the bodyfat, and so were the same "size" like if you took their measurements, but were living in a completely different way.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 04:24:42 am
Well that's your opinion, but it's way off. Of course some natty females will get more of a Kristifigure/ McLish physique based on their geneticts and training methods, others are genetically thicker and/or train more specifically for size. Also keep in mind that many women bikini/fit/fig have also been training 'down' for fear of getting "too big" ...but, since that entire mindset is changing less and less fear that and so are training for size.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 04:30:28 am
Nah guy you're just living in a lot more reasonable dreamworld than some of the fullblown mental cases on here that think an FBB eclipses a male BB when standing next to them.

More reasonable. Still a dreamworld.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 04:48:19 am
Now with that I completely agree. No a trained female (gear or not) will absolutely not be at a trained male's development level, but you should also use that same rational thinking re: this other issue.

Here's the top Xfit female along side a fit tv host, do you suspect she's "on" as well? She's clearly at least close in development and doesn't even train specifically for size. I realize it may be hard for some guys to believe females can get Xfit+ jacked all natty, but they most definitely can...

(http://tryimg.com/5/1kik.png)



Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 04:58:37 am
Yes that crossfitter juices when she trains, if she's, and I quote "the top Xfit female". You can see her traps and HGH gut pretty clearly even when she's 100% relaxed, in what is almost definitely her offseason, and not with any kind of pump. How about show her comp or workout pics? Margie Martin not all puffed up doesn't look that big, but when she hits a pose...

It's also not a guarantee that a TV show host isn't on anything (HGH is literally everywhere now) cause her shoulders look pretty suspect.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 05:02:49 am
"Crossfit jacked" is pretty nebulous. Do I think a woman can look the way they do at competitions, or do what they do in training, completely natural? Of course not that's ridiculous

Do I think a natural woman can have similar measurements as someone who is crossfit jacked? Sure, probably in some cases
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 14, 2017, 05:07:39 am
 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


(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/7d/5f/e6/d17ba8598493563.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/d17ba8598493563)
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 05:11:15 am
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
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 05:12:23 am
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.



(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shocked/shocked-smiley-emoticon.gif)



Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 05:15:36 am
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.



(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shocked/shocked-smiley-emoticon.gif)
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
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 05:25:33 am
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. 
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 05:33:34 am
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.   
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: JoshHornby on September 14, 2017, 05:35:19 am
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
Quote
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
Quote
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 %"
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 14, 2017, 05:44:45 am
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


(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/7d/5f/e6/d17ba8598493563.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/d17ba8598493563)

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 inst@gram 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

(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/97/61/f4/42c7e8598505163.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/42c7e8598505163)
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 14, 2017, 05:53:08 am
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.
(http://thumbs.imagebam.com/76/84/86/f62d70598514073.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/f62d70598514073) (http://thumbs.imagebam.com/45/9c/88/d98d47598514143.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/d98d47598514143)
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 14, 2017, 05:59:40 am
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
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 14, 2017, 06:04:12 am
Their is a clip of Tina at a show , and Raye Hollitt was hosting , even Raye was shocked at her size lol
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: Old Surehand on September 14, 2017, 06:10:58 am
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.  :-* :'(
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: sa2009 on September 14, 2017, 06:15:47 am
 That's cool you got to meet Tina !  she's a true Legend ..
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 07:12:54 am
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 
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 14, 2017, 08:22:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 10:45:02 am
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. 
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 14, 2017, 11:02:31 am
As far as admitting usage and legalities, yeah to a degree but that was more of an issue in the past. At this point we've already gone thru the enhancement era with more and more bbs coming out about their usage and talking openly about it. The cat's out of the bag and most everything that was once a big secret is pretty much common knowledge now. If it's not on YT or Inst@gram by now it likely will be by next week..
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 15, 2017, 07:28:24 pm
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.
So you're saying that an Aleesha Young could have gotten close enough to her current physique as a natural that there wouldn't be much of a difference? It would have just taken her a lot longer? I don't think anyone believes that. It might not be twice the muscle mass, but it's substantial. If something close to an NPC national level physique was possible without PEDs, we'd see something like that in the natural federations. Again, they look good, but they just aren't anywhere near that level.

This article is from an accomplished power lifter and strength coach who attempted to answer the question of how much more muscle mass can be gained, steroids vs natural, based on available research. Link below plus the text of conclusions reached.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/much-steroids-increase-hypertrophy/

4) How much of an advantage do drugs provide for hypertrophy?

The advantage is pretty massive.

The average untrained male has an FFMI of about 18.9.

Without drugs, the typical trained male winds up with an FFMI around 22.3, for a gain of 3.4 FFMI points.  That’s about 9-13kg (~20-30lbs) of muscle, depending on height, gained over a training career.

With a reasonable degree of drug usage, the typical trained person winds up with an FFMI around 25.5, for a gain of 6.6 FFMI points.  That’s about 20-24kg (~45-55lbs) of muscle, depending on height, gained over a training career.

In other words, there’re a roughly two-fold difference.  That doesn’t mean that a user winds up with twice as much muscle; it means that users will typically wind up around twice as far from their starting point than nonusers.

With extreme usage, the gap gets dramatically larger.  The top IFBB pros have FFMIs around 40, which is 21.1 points better than the average person.  Of course, not everyone who does that amount of drugs will compete in the Mr. Olympia, but the top IFBB pros are about 6x further from the average person than the typical drug-free lifter is.

Naturally, the magnitude of that advantage that drugs provide will be larger or smaller based on the amount of drugs someone takes, their genetics, and how well they respond to drugs.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 15, 2017, 10:45:18 pm
Right I get what you're saying. It is a significant amount, but not really in terms of the point of the issue...re: natural female bodybuilding physiques being far more popular with the masses. Also, there are huge differences between males and females. Males in general have a much bigger and carry far more mass even over females who've used significantly. So let's say a female using may end up with even 20 lbs more lean body mass than the females who are natty, it's not that significant in terms of presenting a package on stage (for the mainstream market) which will still be far more popular. Also, females at that extreme level of usage are attaining many additional factors (sides) which add "that look" of hardness, etc. that many extreme fbb admirers dig and consider better, but that the masses have zero interest in. So yes an Aleesha Young may  have a significant edge in mass on a Christy Resendes or Shawna Walker....but, that amount has no real significance with regard to the popularity potential. This is why I intentionally always refer to the 2 specific markets. Bottom line is that the interest potential for enhanced fbbing is infinitesimal compared to interest potential for women's natural fbbing, which essentially = the rest of the world.

Now again, this does not mean it's an either/or situation, just that one market is needed to assist the other in terms of improving the 'overall' popularity and growth.

Whereas on the men's it's a completely different situation since men's extreme level bodybuilding still has a pretty high degree of mainstream interest and support....simply because, they don't have the same AAS sides issue to contend with. Does a Dexter Jackson or Kai Greene carry a  (significantly) greater amount of mass compared to a Mike O'Hearn or Ulisses? Absolutely. But is it so astronomical that it somehow impacts the on-stage look or popularity potentials with the masses? Not in the least.

Like I mentioned earlier, women's natural bodybuilding already was becoming hugely popular (pre-enhancement era) and will be again once the right structuring is back in place...in addition, that increase in popularity and exposure will in turn benefit ALL levels.     
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 16, 2017, 12:20:43 am
One other side-note to keep in mind is that training/diet methods have evolved and become a lot more efficient. So that's part of what's making it possible to make greater gains and recover faster naturally in a shorter period of time. No not steroid-like gains but it's still very substantial. A big part of what AAS do is psychological in that they induce training with a greater intensity. So the methods which force you to train at or closer to that level are yielding better, faster result. With females in particular the mindset has been one of the biggest factors. For yrs they where being negatively influenced to specifically train for downsizing, so had much more of a "pink dumbell mindset"...whereas, now especially with the Xfit influence women are getting emancipated/indoctrinated back into the "strong is the new beautiful" mindset and hardcore training again. 
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 16, 2017, 03:35:58 am
And one other about studies like that..

They aren't really all that accurate of a true barometer. One of the biggest factors being left out are the genetics. For example, with only 10 ppl in a given category the chances of someone having the highest % outlier level genetics is pretty low. Plus, the gains # is being averaged over the entire group...meaning, if group 1's gains average was 4 lbs there may well have been some who gained 5, 6, 7+ lbs....while in group 2 if the average was 13 lbs some would most likely be at the lower end maybe 8, 9 or 10 lbs. So with genetics factored in the difference in actual gains may only be 1 lb between two given individuals. Someone with sh*t genetics can take boatloads of gear and won't get anywhere near someone with top 5% genes. Then even beyond that there are the 1% anomalies (male and female)...which is why you can't always just presume someone is "on" based solely on size.     
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 16, 2017, 04:49:56 am
And as far as the "about 6x further"...


(with or without the gear) IFBB Pros also have about 6x the genetics over the average person working out in the gym, 6x the diet/training knowledge, 6x the experience, 6x the dedication, and 6x the efficiency...
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: 87fg on September 17, 2017, 03:36:08 am
And as far as the "about 6x further"...


(with or without the gear) IFBB Pros also have about 6x the genetics over the average person working out in the gym, 6x the diet/training knowledge, 6x the experience, 6x the dedication, and 6x the efficiency...

That is true, drugs will not turn a  regular person into an athletic star.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bkrugby on September 21, 2017, 12:15:11 am
I don't get why women even bother with the drugs.  I get that it's to get an edge, but it seems like there is such little reward in female bodybuilding as it is.  I mean, obvious they know a lot about proper diet, lifting techniques etc.  Why not just go natural and see what happens?
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 21, 2017, 09:02:34 am
I don't get why women even bother with the drugs.  I get that it's to get an edge, but it seems like there is such little reward in female bodybuilding as it is.  I mean, obvious they know a lot about proper diet, lifting techniques etc.  Why not just go natural and see what happens?

Tons do, but many choose not to compete (yet) since there's no proper tested and non-tested divisions in place yet. Things are improving gradually but also consider that this is all still pre-real testing and/or fully not utilizing judging guideline modifications. This has only been hurting both markets. but like I mentioned, the meantime Xfit has filled the void and become the "see what happens" example. Also keep in mind that with Xfit the goal isn't even getting as big and ripped as possible...so the true naturally attainable benchmark will be a % higher in terms of development. If you recall the 86'-89' NPC Nationals standard that's pretty much where that same level is right now.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: bruce321 on September 21, 2017, 01:52:00 pm
I don't get why women even bother with the drugs.  I get that it's to get an edge, but it seems like there is such little reward in female bodybuilding as it is.  I mean, obvious they know a lot about proper diet, lifting techniques etc.  Why not just go natural and see what happens?
Why does everyone reduce this to an economic equation? It isn't and never has been. You don't engage in bodybuilding to compete. You do it because you like to look that way and you enjoy the lifestyle. Competing is another aspect, but it's not the driving motivation.

Most people do start out natural. Conventional wisdom on usage is that you learn proper lifting and diet first, train until you're closing in on maxing out as a natural, and then introduce steroids.

As shown scientifically in the article I posted, easily confirmed by observation, steroids do much more than give you and edge. It's another level not achievable naturally.

But there's another reason people turn to steroids that's almost never addressed. It's easier. Being a ripped, natural bodybuilder is very difficult. You've got to be supremely disciplined about everything - diet, exercise, cardio. Not a lot of partying going on there. It's an extreme, Spartan lifestyle. And don't let anyone fool you, there are health consequences anytime you take something to extremes.

Now take that same ripped, natural bodybuilder, and introduce steroids into their life. They get bigger, and stay leaner without going to the extremes they did before. While there might be additional risks even with reasonable steroid use, that's balanced out by not having to push your body to the ragged edge for lessor results. It's still a difficult lifestyle, but it's a lot more doable.
Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 22, 2017, 12:08:30 am
Well yes and no. At this point even Inst@gram has become a much better exposure and marketing vehicle than competing. Nowadays women can  just easily create a fitness vlog and attract a couple million followers without having to deal with all the industry headaches and political bs...followers = major league sponsorship.

Sure if the goal is pushing the boundaries gear will help get you there easier but on the female side there are now fewer and fewer incentives. The negative image of extreme fbbing that's been pushed out there over the last 2 decades has detracted all but about .00001 % of the female population, and of those few most have had to be coerced or paid thousands of dollars to do it...whereas, getting big and ripped (by natural standards) is FAR easier and yields much greater long-term benefits and $ opportunities. Another big attraction to Xfit is the efficiency factor. The average WOD only takes less than 15 min yet creates a top level naturally attainable physique with even greater aesthetics and one that's built for optimal performance.   

Title: Re: Natural Bodybuilding
Post by: the_arbitrage on September 22, 2017, 02:45:28 am
...and no this is not a bad thing for extreme fbbing. In fact, female aesthetics is actually the greatest (unrealized/un-utilized) asset to the Xfbbing cause. Why? Because it is the key element that sells the entire idea of women having more muscle to the masses, particularly at hypermuscular levels. The good news is that all those false negative stigmas are now rapidly diminishing, and this is only the tip of the aesthetics movement iceberg..


(http://tryimg.com/5/2ewe.gif)