Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
(253 total votes)
A Forum is, naturally, a Forum where varying ideas are put forward (most being incorrect etc). Discussion of Natty or Not is just one of those speculative questions that should be examined since the use of chemical enhancements in Sports is quite important. It is not the sort of thing that should be swept 'under the carpet' and ignored.
A Forum is, naturally, a Forum where varying ideas are put forward (most being incorrect etc). Discussion of Natty or Not is just one of those speculative questions that should be examined since the use of chemical enhancements in Sports is quite important. It is not the sort of thing that should be swept 'under the carpet' and ignored.
Especially considering that quite a few people here have little understanding on what a muscular physique that is "natty" looks like. I have seen a lot of dudes say things like "I prefer natural muscle!" and proceed to post pictures of women who are clearly anything but.
I think those discussions can also be good because sites like this can warp expectations on what is considered "muscular." It makes me wonder how many times guys who browse sites like this disregard and dismiss women who have actually been lifting hard for years but don't look anything like the women on this site because they don't use PEDs. It also makes me think about guys who have a thing for muscular women but are in a relationship with someone who isn't, and of whom they manage to get into lifting. What will happen when a year or longer passes by and they look nowhere near even the smaller women on this site despite those women claiming that they got their physiques "naturally" in the same time period.
They're interesting as long as the people involved in the discussion actually know what they're talking about. Otherwise the uninformed speculations of whether someone specific is natty is just exhaustive... it's been done to death.
Simply asking if someone is natty is a boring thread to me. Discussing why it would matter to someone whether she's natty or not is a little more interesting, and it gets more interesting when people can be civil and actually educate each other.
They're interesting as long as the people involved in the discussion actually know what they're talking about. Otherwise the uninformed speculations of whether someone specific is natty is just exhaustive... it's been done to death.
Simply asking if someone is natty is a boring thread to me. Discussing why it would matter to someone whether she's natty or not is a little more interesting, and it gets more interesting when people can be civil and actually educate each other.
I agree Cgsweat. Natty or Not as a subject is rife with ill-informed ideas and has been beaten to death. Still, to see the various POV is interesting though: gives a clue as to current thought or non-thought on the question.
They're interesting as long as the people involved in the discussion actually know what they're talking about. Otherwise the uninformed speculations of whether someone specific is natty is just exhaustive... it's been done to death.
Simply asking if someone is natty is a boring thread to me. Discussing why it would matter to someone whether she's natty or not is a little more interesting, and it gets more interesting when people can be civil and actually educate each other.
Most people don’t know what they are talking about that’s the problem. I would be willing to bet a large number of the guys in these threads are seasonal gym goers if they are at so they think a girl with a voice deeper then the joker can be natural
In some sense it annoys me when people express their inner fantasy that is completely detached from reality and when they are faced with something that goes against their fantasy they get very defensive and upset and everything it brings with it. So yes, the natty/or not discussion brings an element of annoyance with it.
However, that doesn't mean that the discussion should be banned, atleast not in my view. How would the world look if everything that anyone thinks is annoying gets banned? Then nothing could be expressed anymore. Lastly, it's up the the service providers to set the forum rules. So, that's that.
The discussion doesn't bother me either way. But I am curious why people get so wrapped around the subject. When I see a muscular lady I find attractive whether or not she's on the sauce makes no difference.
I agree. I wonder what a "natty convinced" guy would say if he actully met a muscle girl of interest and she told him she has been juicing. Would he really lose interest in her if so?
echoing others: While I wouldn't want to ban the discussion on principle, my GOD is it circular and repetitive and the ratio of blustering to actual knowledge makes it annoying.
Perhaps Steroids/Natty or Not needs to be its own Section - That puts it in its own place so the same dumb question isn't all through the forum, and while I'm not interested in the topic, speculating what models are on rather than just trenches of "is she/isn't she" would be refreshing.
The discussion doesn't bother me either way. But I am curious why people get so wrapped around the subject. When I see a muscular lady I find attractive whether or not she's on the sauce makes no difference.
I feel the same way. Whether they use PEDs or not has no bearing on whether I find them attractive or not, but I can speculate on a couple reasons why I think some would:
First, PEDs are generally stigmatized within our culture. While the legal ramifications of possessing and using PEDs vary around the world, they are still pretty universally condemned. Culture usually describes PED users as "cheaters" or "lazy and wanting to take the easy road because they don't want to put in the hard work:" and I think that also trickles down to the fetish world. I think for some, part of their attraction or even their fetish rests on the belief that they were able to build their musculature and strength "naturally," and that if they were to do it otherwise is cheating and means they didn't truly "earn it"
The second reason kind of stems from the first, but it's the misunderstanding of what PEDs do, and the work that an athlete has to put even when they are on them. I think some people have this myth that as soon as a woman injects test, or takes Anavar that they will immediately start growing and/or the body fat melts, and that's simply not the case. You still have to work your ass off and monitor your diet to get the most out of PEDs. I know a few people who are using but look shitty because their training sucks and their diet is shit. I think they believe that taking PEDs bypasses hard work (assuming that that's part of their fetish,) when again, that's not the case. But due to the stigmatization of PEDs along with how prevalent myths are surrounding their use, that belief still persists. A natural lifter CAN'T outwork an enhanced lifter no matter how much they want, and while there are some PED users out there who do indeed use PEDs as a quicker and easier way to essentially get a physique that is natty achievable over the course of years (which I find a complete waste), for the bodies that we see here that is simply not the case.
Bottom line is that PEDs are to the fitness world like what a lack of hygiene is to the Magic the Gathering world. They're always going to be a reality ranging from mass monster to smaller bikini competitors to gym rats who don't care about stepping on stage. And as long as they're stigmatized in the manner that I mentioned above, those myths will continue to prevail.
A lot of people think steroids will just make you grow muscle while sitting all day so they think it's not as honorable. but they are wrong and they just enhance the results of the workout
It depends. There are scientifically studied steroids that will make muscles grow 3-4 times as fast in someone who is sitting on the couch watching Netflix compared to someone who is lifting naturally (during 6 weeks). But those studies are solely on men, and I don't think they will ever test it on women, unless if it's on women who are already juicing (which makes for a less controlled study).
It depends. There are scientifically studied steroids that will make muscles grow 3-4 times as fast in someone who is sitting on the couch watching Netflix compared to someone who is lifting naturally (during 6 weeks). But those studies are solely on men, and I don't think they will ever test it on women, unless if it's on women who are already juicing (which makes for a less controlled study).
This is nonsense.
I find the premise to be a little off when the arguments break out. Not that it's that big a deal either way, but I mean... are you judging a fitness competition or are you here to jerk off? I'm willing to bet that the majority are in the latter camp with or without a comments section. In that case, do you really need to argue about it? If you want to educate your fellow wanker then that's fine but I don't really see the point of getting too worked up over that technicality around here to have an interwebz fight over it ('cuz that's really what a lot of them devolve into and that's the annoying part).
I don't really care about these arguments since I'm convinced +90% of the women here use (or have used at some point) gear.
But sometimes I find entertaining to guess if the "Is she natty?" question comes from honest ignorance or simple trolling.
But sometimes I find entertaining to guess if the "Is she natty?" question comes from honest ignorance or simple trolling.
That's easy. Honest people learn when you tell them.
This is nonsense.
Why don't you just ask about it? I've yet to see anyone with that particular number in their username who seems to be a pleasant human being.
Anyways, here are some charts:
The first chart shows the mean change of the cross section of the triceps of four different groups. One group with placebo and no exercise (placNE), one group with testosterone and no exercise (testNE), one group with placebo and exercise (placEX), and one group with testosterone and exercise (testEX). It shows a mean change of 7.5 times the increase of the triceps in the testNE group compared to the placEX group.
Lastly there are strength benefits from testosterone but exercise seems to outdo testosterone here.
From The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men
I recall there is a another similar study where the total muscle mass was measured and the average effect was somewhere in the range of 3x muscle mass increase for "non exercising testosterone users" compared to natty lifters, but I can't find it right now.
Fascinating to see the effects of exercise on males taking placebo --- much better than I had assumed. And I would have expected to see a much greater increase in size / strength for the testosterone cohort than the placebo group. This just goes to show that what I have 'presumed to be the case' must often be adjusted when faced with empirical results and that what I once held as true is, more often than not, wrong. Thank-you for the data Bentley.
And that is the beauty of Science: always changing and never quite perfect. Very different from Dogma, which never changes.
Maybe it comes from my natural reaction to be skeptical on anything someone tells me without my own investigation on the subject, but it's actually really fascinating to listen to the commenters who are convinced their favorite model is natty because she said so. A lot of people will take a stranger's word on a subject just because the presentation of the topic is well packaged. It makes me wonder what other material they are willing to accept at face value.
Maybe it comes from my natural reaction to be skeptical on anything someone tells me without my own investigation on the subject, but it's actually really fascinating to listen to the commenters who are convinced their favorite model is natty because she said so. A lot of people will take a stranger's word on a subject just because the presentation of the topic is well packaged. It makes me wonder what other material they are willing to accept at face value.
Oh that’s easy to see why, especially in the case of a site like this: the dudes are attracted to, maybe even infatuated by, the women who claim that they are natural, so because of that attraction they are more apt to outright believe them solely on their word. Even if the woman’s argument isn’t well-structured or even convincing, the cognitive bias someone can have over their appearance can and does cloud their judgement and also convince them of relationships that don’t exist (I remember someone here being adamant that they are a close friend of an IFBB Pro and that she denied using steroids and would NEVER lie to him.) Hell, I even fell for that cognitive bias back when I was single and gave too much emotional effort into a powerlifter who was not a very good person because I found her physically attractive.
They're interesting as long as the people involved in the discussion actually know what they're talking about. Otherwise the uninformed speculations of whether someone specific is natty is just exhaustive... it's been done to death.
Simply asking if someone is natty is a boring thread to me. Discussing why it would matter to someone whether she's natty or not is a little more interesting, and it gets more interesting when people can be civil and actually educate each other.
This. I like those threads, if the question actually can be discussed. Someone post a photo of idk, Iris Kyle with "is it attainable natty?", now these are annoyng ass hell, but in some girl case, it can be a nice thread where sometimess you can actually learn something
Simple question: are you irritated when you see these posts, or do you actually enjoy them?
I want to see if I'm in the minority on this.