Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I'm not sure why this all even matters. Shouldn't we assume they're using unless shown otherwise? And aren't we supposed to prefer that as female muscle fans?
This tread is magical. So, massive veiny delts can be natural... right. And on the other end of the spectrum of trust me bro arguments, a physique like Leanbeefpatty's is the absolute and unsurpassable peak for natty FBBs. Okay...
You do realise that your argument is exactly the same "trust me bro" argument? Maybe only half the size is the limit, or maybe thrice the size. Especially that most people here don't seem to realise that mostly "size" is what the girls look like in pictures. There are so many comments saying "HUUUUGE" about girls who are like 160 at most if wearing a top hat, who are ripped, who look superhuman in a photo, but in reality they weigh 62 kg. This entire "what is impossible" discussion is a steaming pile of bullshit.
Lots of assumptions and ignorance here so far. My two cents: if you see the side effects (e.g. voice like Barry White, hairline of a 50yr old man, bulge in the panties, jaw like Fabio, sudden need for braces at 40, etc.), you can safely assume lots of gear. If they compete at the pro level, it’s fair to assume gear at some point in the career. But, just having decent size and/or being super lean tells you very little. One thing I’ve learned from personally knowing natural female CrossFiters (amateurs who definitely don’t use) is that women can build a surprising amount of mass naturally by lifting heavy weights constantly, especially if they have the genetics for it. So, there is NO reason to assume Puccio uses. She looks like avid amateur climbers I know. As for Caruso, my unconfirmed theory is that she has lipodystrophy, which would account for her unusual lower body.
Lots of assumptions and ignorance here so far. My two cents: if you see the side effects (e.g. voice like Barry White, hairline of a 50yr old man, bulge in the panties, jaw like Fabio, sudden need for braces at 40, etc.), you can safely assume lots of gear. If they compete at the pro level, it’s fair to assume gear at some point in the career. But, just having decent size and/or being super lean tells you very little. One thing I’ve learned from personally knowing natural female CrossFiters (amateurs who definitely don’t use) is that women can build a surprising amount of mass naturally by lifting heavy weights constantly, especially if they have the genetics for it. So, there is NO reason to assume Puccio uses. She looks like avid amateur climbers I know. As for Caruso, my unconfirmed theory is that she has lipodystrophy, which would account for her unusual lower body.
How do you know those amateurs don't use? That's what they tell you? Do you do CrossFit yourself?
The thing I always say is to listen to the people who actually have experience in strength sports and in lifting at a higher level. If they tell you that someone is more than likely not natty, and people who don't train think they are natty, who do you think is right?
And myostatin deficiency or not, there is no way that Vicky Caruso is natty.
Lots of assumptions and ignorance here so far. My two cents: if you see the side effects (e.g. voice like Barry White, hairline of a 50yr old man, bulge in the panties, jaw like Fabio, sudden need for braces at 40, etc.), you can safely assume lots of gear. If they compete at the pro level, it’s fair to assume gear at some point in the career. But, just having decent size and/or being super lean tells you very little. One thing I’ve learned from personally knowing natural female CrossFiters (amateurs who definitely don’t use) is that women can build a surprising amount of mass naturally by lifting heavy weights constantly, especially if they have the genetics for it. So, there is NO reason to assume Puccio uses. She looks like avid amateur climbers I know. As for Caruso, my unconfirmed theory is that she has lipodystrophy, which would account for her unusual lower body.
I think you are confusing substance abuse with substance use. Substance abuse will definitely show the side effects more prominently because the dosage for the individual is above their threshold. If you do controlled substance use, then you can mitigate the side effects more depending on the goal of the individual. Some female athletes don't care as much about the side effects as long as they can perform to their best. Alex Puccio is definitely on something because she is an athlete with an incredibly lean and muscular body. Look at her shoulders. Ask any average gym goer how challenging it is to get your shoulders to fill out. Women cannot stay as lean as some of these women are with the level of muscle they have. They can be either buff and thick or lean and small, naturally of course.
Yes some can be naturally muscular, but I have never looked at a naturally muscular girl and say, "Damn I wish I had her physique." I have seen muscular women who, more than likely, use and go, "Man, I would kill for her shoulder!" I'm not saying if she is muscular, then she is using PEDs. I am saying that if she is lean and quite muscular, then she is probably on something. I invite a lot of the people who speculate, whether these women are natural or not, to watch interviews about female athletes that are open about PEDs.
I'm not sure why this all even matters.
Then you're not able to think for yourself much are you
Shouldn't we assume they're using unless shown otherwise?
No, not necessarily...
And aren't we supposed to prefer that as female muscle fans?
Why would anyone on Gods green Earth prefer someone whose claim to fame is directly from chemicals and drugs which have far more negative effects than positive ones, especially if there was a natural alternative?
Why would anyone on Gods green Earth prefer someone whose claim to fame is directly from chemicals and drugs which have far more negative effects than positive ones, especially if there was a natural alternative?
Because while there are plenty of women out there who are natty and lift and have muscular physiques by natty standards, they would be easily overshadowed by all the women here, if they are even deemed muscular enough to be on this site in the first place.
I feel like there is still a misunderstanding behind the nature of PED use and effective training. People seem to think that taking PEDs is a magic bullet and that it's for those who are lazy and/or want to cheat, because they don't want to put the effort to get muscular naturally. The truth is that the women here who use PEDs also train hard, have proper nutrition and know how to properly recover. I personally know quite a few people who are on PEDs but still look like shit because they don't have their training and diet in order. A natural lifter can train as hard as they want to and have perfect nutrition and maybe even above average genetics, but they're not going to "beat" a lifter who is on PED who also trains effectively, pays attention to diet and has good genetics.
PEDs are as much of a staple in the fitness industry as alcohol is in Las Vegas. It's the most prominent open secret among influencers, websites and publications that they won't openly admit to, but is otherwise accepted as part of its culture. If you are attracted to muscular women, you have to accept that drug use is a part of that culture, and if only want to see drug-free lifters, you'll have to accept that they're going to look much different compared to what you see on sites like this.
Also, in regards to your point about why we would prefer someone who does drugs that can have negative effects: let's be completely honest about one thing. At the end of the day, we don't care about fitness as it pertains to health. No one here has ever said "wow, her normal blood pressure and healthy cholesterol levels make her so sexy!" We are attracted to muscular physiques. There's nothing wrong with that, but to pretend that our attraction is based on a health thing is silly. Bodybuilding at a competitive level is extremely unhealthy, and elite CrossFitters are chronically injured, so when we are looking at women who are built like this, it's definitely not in the way of "health."
Because while there are plenty of women out there who are natty and lift and have muscular physiques by natty standards, they would be easily overshadowed by all the women here, if they are even deemed muscular enough to be on this site in the first place.
Again, the issue is if two women are the same size, wouldn't we prefer someone on PED's as opposed to being natural? The answer is absolutely not given all the negative side effects that come with drug use...
PED's are the only way to achieve freakeshly huge physiques, but the entire thread is based on one in a million women who might be putting on enough size naturally that it might make someone think they're on PED's. Does that make sense?
Again, the issue is if two women are the same size, wouldn't we prefer someone on PED's as opposed to being natural? The answer is absolutely not given all the negative side effects that come with drug use...
The problem with this thought process is the assumption that a natural lifter does it for aesthetics. Chances are the reason why an athlete uses PEDs is because of the positive effects on recovery. PEDs are not normally used for size. They are used so you can perform better and longer in your workouts which is what people on this forum are confusing.
PED's are the only way to achieve freakeshly huge physiques, but the entire thread is based on one in a million women who might be putting on enough size naturally that it might make someone think they're on PED's. Does that make sense?
A naturally muscular girl is not exciting at least not in photos. I have met a few girls with muscular legs in person and followed them on IG and funnily enough, they don't look as impressive in the pictures. The bodybuilders on here are bigger in person, but typically shorter than you think. Naturally buff girls will not be lean unless they are runners. Why? For women, being too lean(low body fat percentage) for too long can negatively affect their periods and hormones. So it's not just size. It is a mixture of size, conditioning, and symmetry. That is impossible for anyone to have naturally. Man or Woman.
Again, the issue is if two women are the same size, wouldn't we prefer someone on PED's as opposed to being natural? The answer is absolutely not given all the negative side effects that come with drug use...
PED's are the only way to achieve freakeshly huge physiques, but the entire thread is based on one in a million women who might be putting on enough size naturally that it might make someone think they're on PED's. Does that make sense?
It honestly sounds like a "you want to have your cake and eat it too" kind of thing where you want to find two physiques that are completely identical, but one was achieved naturally and the other wasn't. Building muscle as a woman is very, very, very hard (much harder than it is for men.) I know truly natty lifters who have been training consistently for decades and don't look like the ladies here who have gotten their gains in only a couple years.
And as has been said over and over before, it's a myth to only have the "PEDs are the only way to achieve freakishly huge physiques" argument, because while that is correct, it de-emphasizes the reality that the smaller physiques also require PEDs. For example, from a reddit poster this is what a three month anavar cycle with heavy lifting and a high protein diet looks like https://imgur.com/aOazirF and that is from someone who has already had a long background with lifting. I guarantee you that there are people in this forum who would insist that this is a natty physique if they weren't told otherwise.
I am passionate about this topic because I also have been lifting for many years, and when I started I believed the influencers who claimed to be natty, and while I looked pretty good after awhile found myself discouraged that I didn't look close to their physiques. And as an admirer of muscular women, I think it's important to know what is truly natty achievable so we can set realistic expectations if we decide to search out buff women to be with, or if we talk our significant others into getting into a lifting program. And most importantly, it's to not have a warped sense of perspective so that when we do see women who are "natty muscular," we don't act unimpressed or think that they barely lift because they don't look like the models here.
If you are attracted to buff women, you have to accept that PEDs, whether anabolic, SARMs or others, are a fact of life. And you also have to know that while it is possible for women to get muscular without them, they are not going to have the physiques of the women you see here.
Sorry, but she is actually using. She is lean while maintaining a decent amount of size which is not really achievable without a little help...
I knew this vid would lead to further interesting discussion, and it has... Thank you for your replies and thoughts.
I find it stupid for an athlete to say no to a thing that will enhance his/her performance and get the competitive edge.
It is just a fear of side effects, getting caught and shamed, banned, etc that prevents them. If you have means to address all of the above, then there is no reason why someone won't take PED.
For competitive Jane, this is true all the more since she DOES NOT have even as much natural testosterone in their blood as an average Joe.
It honestly sounds like a "you want to have your cake and eat it too" kind of thing where you want to find two physiques that are completely identical, but one was achieved naturally and the other wasn't.
Then, go take up the issue with the gentleman that started this thread since he's the one with said issue...
And as has been said over and over before, it's a myth to only have the "PEDs are the only way to achieve freakishly huge physiques" argument, because while that is correct, it de-emphasizes the reality that the smaller physiques also require PEDs. For example, from a reddit poster this is what a three month anavar cycle with heavy lifting and a high protein diet looks like https://imgur.com/aOazirF and that is from someone who has already had a long background with lifting. I guarantee you that there are people in this forum who would insist that this is a natty physique if they weren't told otherwise.
That's precisely the point of this thread. Does that make sense to you?
I am passionate about this topic because I also have been lifting for many years, and when I started I believed the influencers who claimed to be natty, and while I looked pretty good after awhile found myself discouraged that I didn't look close to their physiques. And as an admirer of muscular women, I think it's important to know what is truly natty achievable so we can set realistic expectations if we decide to search out buff women to be with, or if we talk our significant others into getting into a lifting program. And most importantly, it's to not have a warped sense of perspective so that when we do see women who are "natty muscular," we don't act unimpressed or think that they barely lift because they don't look like the models here.
Please don't lecture me about being a natty lifter who has been attracted to PED users. Chances are I've been in this genre longer than you, LOL
If you are attracted to buff women, you have to accept that PEDs, whether anabolic, SARMs or others, are a fact of life. And you also have to know that while it is possible for women to get muscular without them, they are not going to have the physiques of the women you see here.
Again, you're preaching to the choir. My goal is to find these women less and less attractive over time (so far it's working) as attraction shouldn't be limited to physical traits (i.e. beauty, strength, muscles, money, boobs, etc., etc.), but moreso for the type of person they are and let's be honest: Anyone taking PED's can't be too wise. That's a fact of life whether you like it or not.
Agata Sitko is one of the strongest female powerlifters in the world and competes in tested federations.
Super important word here: TESTED.
Tested does not equal natural.
With the exception of athletes at the highest level of PL, testing happens before the meet, which means that the athletes can and do blast the PEDS that they need between meets. They cycle off on a schedule so that they're clean for the meet.
In terms of health and "fairness," this is an improvement over untested, because in those, people can blast anything up until the last moment.
Ancedotally, lots of males in the lower rungs of tested powerlifting are indeed natural. It's a hobby for them, they usually have jobs and full time lives outside of it, and there's no real money in it. The guys do have kind of a natty culture and unofficial agreement around that. This goes away as things get more elite and prestigious of course.
But for women: lets face it.. they simply need gear to be really strong. This girl is 1000% using PED's, even if she's not testing positive on the day of the meet. Women straight up do not get this large and this strong naturally.
She's as natural as Amazonka.