Log in | Register
Forum > General / Nonfiction > Thread

How big can a steroid free fbb be?

« first < prev Page 11 of 11 next > last »
Jan 09, 2022 - edited Jan 09, 2022 - permalink

I return to this thread for but one reason. There is a lot of "absolutism" about a woman's inability to be muscular in the absence of PEDs, while ignoring a point I've made repeatedly. I'll restate it again...

Probably 90+% of women won't achieve a double-take amount of muscle without drugs. However to say "no" woman can do it is to say "no woman can be over 6'2" simply because that percentile would also be in the high 90 range.

Where you especially won't see that kind of muscle is within the ranks of what a lot of guys fantasize about; Jennifer Aniston's head on 5'3" petite bone-structured waif version of Lou Ferigno's body.

So thus I do agree that a lot of the women's names tossed about here are not natural. But if you take the 1% of women who've found their way into a gym from the 5% of women with enough natural testosterone to gain muscle, you're still talking about relative thousands of women. By seeking them out, I've probably managed to be intimate enough with less than a dozen over 20-years to know they were both natural and 100% woman.

I submit to you most of the circus-strong women from the days before both Photoshop and PEDs, along with a couple more recent examples...

Karla Nelsen, who probably has this condition:

https://www.livestrong.com/article/386159-rap...

And hasn't trained in at least a decade and still looks like the photo below.

As well as one of the strength athletes I dated who (likely) had an even rarer spin-off condition which produces the same hyper muscularity without the low percentages of bodyfat.

Now you can go back to fighting.

I don’t think anyone’s fighting, as much as we’re (some with more exasperation than others) trying to dispel the fantasy that women can achieve anything close to the results seen on this site naturally. This is like debating that the sun actually rises in the West.

Karla Nelsen could have myostatin-related hypertrophy, be in the 99th percentile of female testosterone levels, have the best diet known to science, train every day, and still would not look like that.

When it comes to this, there are no outliers. There are no exceptions. There is an absolute, physical limit to what people can achieve naturally. To use your analogy, yes, some people are born taller; but nobody will ever be 20 feet tall. Similarly, no woman will ever be able to build the physique seen in the photo above naturally.

Look at bodybuilders/strongmen who were around before the advent of PEDs if you’re interested in what that our natural limits look like - and those were men at the extreme ranges of their genetic potential.

At the end of the day, people can entertain all the muscle fantasies they want, and that’s fine - but we need to put the steroid conversation to rest. In reality, human beings, especially women, need PEDs to attain anything close to even the average results seen on this site. And that’s fine! Their choice, their lives, they still work incredibly hard at it and not everyone can do it, etc. They’re just being disingenuous if they say they achieved their results naturally.

fp909
Jan 09, 2022 - permalink

And with that I think that's a good summation of the attitude we should have.

Thread locked by fp909.
« first < prev Page 11 of 11 next > last »