Forum Saradas
shop.dutchpharma.ru
gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
anabolicmenu
 
gfx gfx
ugfreak steroidify
clearskypharmacy amazonias
parapharma
gfxgfx
 
Welcome to Forum Saradas! Female Bodybuilding, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
 
gfx gfx
gfx
463982 Posts in 60749 Topics by 26787 Members - Latest Member: musclefrommars3 November 25, 2020, 07:26:14 am
*
gfx* Home | Help | Login | Register | gfx
gfx
Forum Saradas  |  Female BodyBuilding & Fitness & Figure - Members Area  |  Sports nutrition and medication  |  Discussion and Q & A about Sports Nutrition and Foods / Snacks  |  Natural Bodybuilding
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: Natural Bodybuilding  (Read 7279 times)

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #45 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. 

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #46 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..

Offline bruce321

  • Gold Member VIP
  • Newbie
  • *******
  • Posts: 292
  • Activity:
    6.67%
  • KARMA: 420
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #47 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.

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #48 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.     

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #49 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. 

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #50 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.     

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #51 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...

87fg

  • Guest
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #52 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.

Offline bkrugby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 130
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #53 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?

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #54 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.

Offline bruce321

  • Gold Member VIP
  • Newbie
  • *******
  • Posts: 292
  • Activity:
    6.67%
  • KARMA: 420
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #55 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.

Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #56 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.   


Offline the_arbitrage

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: -110
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Natural Bodybuilding
« Reply #57 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..




Forum Saradas  |  Female BodyBuilding & Fitness & Figure - Members Area  |  Sports nutrition and medication  |  Discussion and Q & A about Sports Nutrition and Foods / Snacks  |  Natural Bodybuilding
 

gfxgfx
Forum Saradas does not host any files on its own servers.
gfx
It only points to various links on the Internet that already exist.
It is recommended to buy Original Video, CD, DVD's and pictures only.
gfx
Mobile View