Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
One in a million genetics, debatable whether they are really natty.
Olympic gold medalists.
Besides the point, but I thought it was funny that 3 out of 4 here aren't Olympic Gold medalists. So the quiz question here is: which one of these 4 has actually been Olympic Champion.
And they don't even lift for hypertrophy
I'm glad you brought this up. I want you guys to process how - overall - tiny many of these women are.
We're used to seeing most women at over 30% bodyfat. A strong looking, non-natty off-season FBB might be 20%. These girls are in the high teens.
Because of that, they look ripped and strong. Their muscles aren't huge, but they're healthy and defined. And this is extremely hard to achieve and maintain natty. However... one way to do it is MASSIVE amounts of high intensity cardio and a totally dialed in meal plan. Which would both be the case for an Olympic athlete. I can't say that these women aren't doping in any way (remember Lance Armstrong?), but sure, these physiques are likely achievable without anabolic steroids.
One of my favorite examples of lean looking huge is Brad Pitt in Fight Club...
This is famous in Bodybuilding circles. He looks powerful and strong, but the guy is 5'11 and 155lb. His muscles are smaller than an amateur men's physique competitor - they're smaller than lots of teenage lifters at my gym - but he's absolutely shredded and he has wide shoulders, so he looks huge.
Lots of good arguments, but I'll just re-iterate this: PED's are cheaper, easier, more consistent, and safer than ever before.
No. Less dangerous, yes. They're not actually safe. There's a reason they're largely illegal.
Whenever or if ever they're developed to the point where it's proven - or at least the day comes when there's overwhelming evidence - that they won't shorten lifespans by more than alcohol does - at that point the governments should consider legalisation.
No. Less dangerous, yes. They're not actually safe. There's a reason they're largely illegal.
Whenever or if ever they're developed to the point where it's proven - or at least the day comes when there's overwhelming evidence - that they won't shorten lifespans by more than alcohol does - at that point the governments should consider legalisation.
Roids are very safe, much safer than many prescription drugs. Not safe are the illegal drugs people had to substitute when pharma quality was banned.
Million of men are on TRT. Governments banned them for other reasons, not safety.
And they don't even lift for hypertrophy
Sorry man but this is peak female muscle.
Only a little more can be achieved naturally. 1st and 4th are tall big women, with decades of training and top tier genetics.
As Muscle_Toez wrote, no 19 year old can beat a seasond pro athlete in muscular development.
To get more muscular you have to get them much much fatter. Like the land whales that many oly weightlifters or shot putters are. This beats the purpose of aesthetic physique.
Lots of good arguments, but I'll just re-iterate this: PED's are cheaper, easier, more consistent, and safer than ever before. There's way more knowledge than ever before. There's more peer pressure and encouragement than ever before. There's more reward for an exceptional physique than ever before.
So yes, in the realm of human possibility that a teenage girl (she say 19 at the time of posting) has one-in-a-million genetics and maybe a higher test baseline and she has been unbelievably locked in with lifting and diet since puberty started and she chooses to take this incredibly hard and disciplined route despite her peers all using the cheap/easy/effective/plentiful PED's...
But let's just say - it's not very likely.
What's a lot more likely is that she's on some stuff just like all the other girls and all the other guys and me.