Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
The answer is complicated whereas too many GWM members think it is obvious. Simply put, the natural testosterone levels of trained female athletes may at times exceed the natural levels of much older sedentary males. So, women athletes or those who train with weights significantly can build muscle naturally. Also there is the genetic component where some women have metabolisms and baseline androgen levels that promote more efficient muscle hypertrophy. To make matters more complicated, there are more ways to stimulate muscle hypertrophy than just the androgen route. During heavy training with weights, there are at least 4 muscle adaptations that promote muscle hypertrophy in both women and men. The GWM members who so confidently proclaim that all athletic and buff women (including 16 yo Olympic gymnasts for example) are on steroids should take the time to educate themselves in muscle physiology and androgen pharmacology before accusing steroid use. If one is not anti science, this information is available based on research over many years on the web.
I’m not stating that most women on this site are not taking something to help them build muscle. I’m stating that women can build muscle naturally with training and that ALL buff, athletic women are not on steroids.
The only way to solve this question or debate is to dig into the science. Female athletes in their 20s or 30s who really push themselves can start naturally producing more testosterone and a flabby sedentary male in his 40s has decreasing testosterone levels for example and this is well documented. Being fat and sedentary causes one to loose muscle, bone density and lowers testosterone.
Also, there are other ways muscle can be stimulated to hypertrophy in athletes. Yes, androgen steroids are a fast and efficient way to build muscles in people who train with relatively less intensity than athletes. Many women on this site appear to be taking anabolic steroids but not all. I don’t think all Olympic women athletes are on steroids, that’s ludicrous. The testing for any PEDs is very sensitive and you can look this up as well.
It is more interesting to discuss why this topic is so prevalent and sensitive in the GWM community. For example the physique at the higher end of a natural trained woman can resemble the physique of a woman who takes steroids and trains with medium intensity, that would not be unusual. The overlap in physiques is to be expected.
I think a better question will be "is this image manipulated by AI?" because that most certainly will be cropping up. In a way, few of these photos are "real," in that most are carefully posed and lighted, the women prepping for it. Certain models will never post a photo that shows them in less than peak condition (or close to it) because that's what they choose to depict. As to whether they use PEDs, who really cares? Almost everyone who comes to this site does so for sexual self-gratification. In your imagination you may assume what you wish. Holding your fantasy objects to a standard seems pretty dumb to me.
The answer is complicated whereas too many GWM members think it is obvious. Simply put, the natural testosterone levels of trained female athletes exceed the natural levels of sedentary males. So, women athletes or those who train with weights significantly can build muscle naturally. Also there is the genetic component where some women have metabolisms and baseline androgen levels that promote more efficient muscle hypertrophy. To make matters more complicated, there are more ways to stimulate muscle hypertrophy than just the androgen route. During heavy training with weights, there are at least 4 muscle adaptations that promote muscle hypertrophy in both women and men. The GWM members who so confidently proclaim that all athletic and buff women (including 16 yo Olympic gymnasts for example) are on steroids should take the time to educate themselves in muscle physiology and androgen pharmacology before accusing steroid use. If one is not anti science, this information is available based on research over many years on the web.
I’m not stating that most women on this site are not taking something to help them build muscle. I’m stating that women can build muscle naturally with training and that ALL buff, athletic women are not on steroids.
You are so far off it isn’t even funny. Even the most peak female athlete has a testosterone level well below 100 ng/dl, with most extreme cases where a women is hyperandrogenic topping out at 140 ng/dl. Even a sedentary, mildly overweight male in their 40’s has a level over 200. Again, comparing natural to natural. To suggest a trained natural female athlete exceeds a middle-aged male is just living in lala land.
Pro athletes have to take PEDs, in order to have a chance in competitions. I had a pro cyclist friend (now a coach), who was open about his PED usage in private conversations. I asked him if it's hard to avoid detection in tests before competitions. He said: "If you're careful, you're safe.". And then I asked him how many of the athletes are on PEDs in big competitions like Tour de France. He said without any hesitation or doubt: "Every single one of them.". Considering cyclists are relatively small people compared to other athletes, I don't have any doubt that athletes in strength/endurance sports are on PEDs.
Ok, to clarify my point about testosterone levels in women and men. Some elite female athletes may have testosterone levels that approach the levels of much older sedentary men. Generally women have significantly lower testosterone levels than men of all ages. Interestingly, many women drawn to athletics also have hyper androgynous syndromes (just read this) and unusually high testosterone levels for females.
My other point is that testosterone or anabolic steroids is not the only way to build muscle. Training causes muscle to adapt to the stress and hypertrophy occurs through a few different pathways.
Whereas there are notable characteristics of a woman on steroids, you can’t always tell. So many variables come into play regarding building muscle.
Just also read that competitive athletes can get an exemption and take steroids legally if they have a legitimate medical reason. This loophole is being abused.
The original poster asked: "is there a solution to this dilemma?"
I will say no; there is no solution. The "drug lords," who assume every muscular woman is on something, will continue to weigh in. I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion on this topic although I commend Scythian, yotv, and untergr8 for trying.
I wonder how many of the people weighing in actually have personal experience with drugs (whether it's using it themselves, or having close acquaintances who are using).
I admit to having no experience at all with roids, and I go by only what I read online. That said, I also don't usually comment on "natty or not".
You can never be 100% sure if someone is natty but I think you can definitely have a conversation about an athlete and discuss if the physique is natty attainable or not.
There have been dozens of "is she natty?" threads that have popped up, but they always go the same route. No one really knows who is truly natural while others who have no idea what they're talking about assume massive women like Natalia Trukhina are natural.
Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can anyone truly just look at someone and assume they are natty or not?
To me it doesn't matter. I mean we're all voyeurs anyway, at least on this website. We don't know these women, we've never met them. If she looks a way you like then I'd encourage people to just enjoy the photo or video. If she doesn't then move on. Now I'm not a competitor, I come at it from the military side. If a guy gets high PT scores because he's on gear I wouldn't cry about it but I would think "mmmm that's kinda bullshit." But as far as women on the internet, it doesn't bother me either way.
The reason these threads come up is because there are quite a few users who will claim with great confidence that any woman who has muscles must be taking steroids. Another claim is that all female Olympic athletes are taking steroids. This is simply not true. Women can build muscle naturally with the right training, diet, genetics.
The reason these threads come up is because there are quite a few users who will claim with great confidence that any woman who has muscles must be taking steroids. Another claim is that every knows all female Olympic athletes are taking steroids. This is simply not true. Women can build muscle naturally with the right training, diet, genetics.
Nobody is saying that women can’t build muscle naturally. We’re saying that they can’t get the level of size and conditioning that we see from the women on sites like this.
There are a few of us here who actually train and lift, and have been around natural and enhanced athletes.
I recently came across a youtube channel relevant to this conversation. The author has a series of videos focusing on individual bodybuilders and strength athletes from before the 1950s when steroids first became available, the idea being these are the only people we can be sure are 100% natural. These profiles include a few women, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oclvVLEgge4
While it doesn't answer the question for any modern women, it at least gives an idea of what's possible for a natural athlete.
The solution is to be more educational, in my opinion. Don't just go "no you idiot, of course she can't be natural, just look at her".
For someone who doesn't know how muscle building genetics works, that doesn't tell them anything.
The best way to guess? Use a benchmark. Find a woman who's natural and compare her to women who aren't. LeanBeefPatty is the best current example I can think of regarding a woman who seems to be reaching her genetic potential naturally.
maybe part of the answer is exposure?
check out this link with women from the early 1900s, predating steroids.
women weren't really lifting weights back then. men either. some of these women were daughters or family of circus acts and got involved themselves. I think there are more than a few women on this site that would fit the mold of some of them, maybe a little more defined and balanced thanks to a hundred yeras now of weight training research. sure, you're more likely to find them in the 18-21 range, though that's not promise, but also a lot of those posts get pushed down in favor of the more popular women. so they're around the site, you have to look.
i've said this before but women's athletics in general, and also women in weightlifting is finally reaching saturation and we're getting a much, much larger sample size of what women are capable of in terms of building mass and strength. and I don't think we're done yet, either. right now i'm in my 30s so women my age are really kind of at the start of the curve, but it's mostly ex athletes or people getting into shape. the ones in ild shape are likely bodybuilders or something like that.
pretty frequently i am running into (or encountering online) women somewhere between 24-29, really the kind of start of women who were athletes in high school where they were not on more legit weighttraining programs or, because of the propogation of info on the internet, able to seek things out themselves.
this isn't even counting women who are 22 and under, and I've seen tons of them in and around crossfit. young women taht started training at 11 or 12, or were gymnasts that made a switch to a strength sport without a gap in between. now you have girls like Emma Lawson or Sophie Shaft popping up. Now, do I think they are natural? no. but if you told me 15 or 16 years ago that there would be 18 year old girls squatting 350 and clean and jerking 220lbs at all, i wouldn't believe you aside from obviously elite athletes. but, in general there are WAY more girls involved in this now and we really are just seeing the results of young women (and also kids now) having access to: good, scientific info on the internet, cheap gym access, and now social media attention.
one thing i find interesting is the differences between strength in men and women. take a look at Wilks or Dots scores and how women compare there. In the top 25 all time rankings only 9 of the top 25 are men. I think this might even out as you get out of the elite levels, but the scoring is definitely different.
i compared myself, a man at around 215 with a 285b, 410s, 515dl to a 135lb woman with a 165b, 295d, and a 250s. Her 342 dots vs my 344. you would not at all maybe call those numbers elite or even advanced for a woman, late 30s but i'm seeing better numbers pop up frequently. heck, i just saw a 17 year old girl on tiktok squat 415 just yesterday like that is WILD.
I get it. If you are an aspiring FBB registered with the IFBB then very likely you are taking steroids because you need to be competitive. But GWM doesn’t just include the IFBB aspirants. All women with muscle are represented. The vast majority of women with at least some muscle IRL are not aspiring FBBs. I think we can agree that many women on this site do not have the obvious characteristics of steroid use. Yet even these are claimed to be users. They may be or not. The issue is the phony certainty and confidence that some users have about all women with muscle that spurs the dialogue to continue.
There have been dozens of "is she natty?" threads that have popped up, but they always go the same route. No one really knows who is truly natural while others who have no idea what they're talking about assume massive women like Natalia Trukhina are natural.
Is there a solution to this dilemma? Can anyone truly just look at someone and assume they are natty or not?