If these guys were alive today and had Youtube fitness channels,

>>35181662
So taking amphetamines is still natty?

>>35181670
You're a loser and you know it.

>>35181662
>Natty limit is much higher than most people think.

Of course it is. It is just so damn easy to say everyone is on steroids for making yourself feel better when you look like shit.

File: NattySwoleBlackGuy.png (3MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1200px

>>35181662
Agreed. Most people just aren't willing to put the work in.

>>35181662
One thing all these old time body builders share is relatively small chest.
So is a big chest a sure sign of steroids or was it just not very popular muscle back then?

File: xp8avxa9ydzz4elqsgwl.png (547KB, 393x500px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 393x500px

I think without the use of amphetamines and cocaine to cut, maintaining the leaness with that amount of muscle as a natty isn't realistic. You could however have the same size at say 12%-15% bodyfat or the same leaness for less muscle mass as a modern natty.

>>35181756
Just wasn't considered aesthetic

>>35181756
I think big deltoids are a better tell, and zits on the back, both combined is almost a 100% tell

Chest is mostly geneticaly defined

>>35181756

Not considered aesthetic and hard to build with just the floor press.

File: photo[1].jpg (96KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x900px

Having some size and getting lean is HARD AS HELL.

Some people never make it and stay hating those who've what it requires.

File: crying-waterfalls.gif (278KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 450x338px

>>35181662
>you'll never live in an age where a well groomed moustache was considered aesthetic

>>35181766
>maintaining the leaness with that amount of muscle as a natty isn't realistic

Because you haven't made it?

(Obviously).

>>35181800
Natty as fuck

File: Noob-lifter-meme-beginner-6.jpg (93KB, 595x447px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 595x447px

Stop watching Youtube (unless for humor). Read a book, ask the veteran in your gym, take a nutrition course, experiment, tweak and learn. Every two bit douchebag has become an "expert".

>>35181800
semon demon etc

>>35181662
I've been accused (even by my own family) since I was 16 of being on gear. In high school I was tested twice for a plg meet & after a football game where the parents of the other team complained. Genetics is the biggest factor in surpassing the "limit"... My dad had huge calves and 21" arms = thanks dad.

>>35181814

Indeed. That's my opinion. Feel free to disagree and retort. I would like to be wrong.

>>35181865
Your theory just makes no sense -> Having a too hard cut and taking drugs for -> Somehow prevents your muscle loss

Is this what you mean?

>>35181801
Move to Portland, my man.

>>35181662
If they were on roids they'd have bigger chests. androgen receptor hotspot and all. I'm sure a few fedoras will chime in about testosterone being synthesized in 1902 though lol.

>>35181997
>If they wanted to have huge chests they'd have bigger chests.

90% of bros can't get lean and stay big because they don't track their macros at the autistic level required. The goal when cutting is to reduce calories to AT MOST 15% below maintenance whilst not dropping in strength on any of your lifts. If you can do that, you're not losing muscle. It requires a very tightly controlled diet counting calories and partitioning them exactly right. I've done it on my current cut and it does work. You only lose 0.5kgs a week. You have to lean bulk so you only cut for about 6 weeks max. That means if you need to drop more than 3kgs on a cut, you over bulked.

At this rate it will take about 5 years of lean bulk and cut cycles to reach "natty limit". This agrees well with what just about everyone including Scoober says.

>>35182059
>90% of bros can't get lean and stay big because they don't track their macros at the autistic level required

This is true.

This doesn't make something impossible though. It's just priorities in life.

>>35181931

Pretty much. Do correct me.

File: ifuc6btuarc4i7kr7fwh.jpg (47KB, 636x781px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 636x781px

From a HEALTH & FITNESS perspective what are the advantages of being this lean and big year round vs being 15% bf husbando mode?

>>35182151
Nothing. You get shredded for vanity. That's why anyone does it.

>>35182176

If there's no actual health benefits to being sub 10% bf I'mma aim for husbando no homo 15% bf mode then.

>>35182128
Already did.

>>35182212

So if you cut that hard without drugs you wouldn't experience too much muscle loss?

(Not trolling I genuinely don't know)

>>35182228
If you cut too hard, you'll experience muscle loss whether or not you're taking amphetamines/cocaine, that's why they are not a factor in any way.

>>35182228
You lose muscle on a cut if you're in a catabolic state (your body is breaking down muscle for fuel). if you keep your strength I.e lifting the same reps at the same weight as before the cut while being in a caloric deficit then the weight loss is fat. You can do this for about 6 to 8 weeks before it becomes a problem. (See Lyle McDonalds work for why). That's why you need to calculate your bulk so you're only gaining about 1kg per month. You want to bulk 3 months, cut 4 to 6 weeks. Repeat.

There is really no other way to do this naturally.

>>35181756
Common push exercise was not bench press but overhead press. Bench press simply was not a thing back then.

File: 1449377509103.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>35181800
Please squeeze me between your thighs.

>>35182269
>>35182315

Thanks. But I thought the reason things like Clen and Ephederine (and cocaine in the case of old timey lifters) work is because they slash the bodyfat without the catabolic effects?

File: trønder.jpg (18KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x180px

>>35181801
Central Norway. Go there.

>>35181801
Were you not alive from 2011-2013?

>>35182352
I know ephedrine causes the release of a hormone which speeds up fat loss. It also raises blood pressure. So there's that.

>>35181766

Wouldn't DNP or an EC stack be comparable to amphetamines?

>>35181800

where are the traps

>>35182446
>>35182746

Yeah that's my point. How realistic is it that someone could cut to this level without cutting agents like EC, DNP, Clen for modern bbers or cocaine and amphetamines for old timey bbers like Sandow etc?

File: gymnastfag.jpg (32KB, 468x307px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 468x307px

My personal theory theory is this:

> Myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy (or myotonic hypertrophy) is a rare genetic condition characterized by reduced body fat and increased skeletal muscle size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin-related_muscle_hypertrophy

File: Myostatin.jpg (13KB, 181x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 181x320px

>>35182886
There have always been people like this.

/thread

>>35182882

I dont know, try it and find out

>>35182059
>90% of bros can't get lean and stay big because they don't track their macros at the autistic level required.

the real problem is that bodyweight (measured correctly) fluctuates like crazy from day to day for no good reason

I mean, you need like a 5-day average or a fitted like on your measurements to even be able to tell what the fuck is happening

our biology sucks ass

So what was the outcome, can you be as shredded but have as much as old timey bbers as a modern natty without cocaine, amphetamines, DNP, clen, EC, etc?

>>35181756
big chests were considered feminine back then.

huge chests didn't become popular 'till arnie

>>35184115
Literally no cutting agents are necessary.

Only steroids will do something that is not naturally possible.

>>35181662
How did they get so lean?

>>35184276
vegan diet ;)

>>35184328
shoo pedo vegan!

>>35184276
Carb cycling

And yes, they knew what are macros so much better back then.

>>35184276
DNP

As a natty how do you get this shredded and lean while maintaining that size?

>>35181662
bottom left? great arms

>>35181662
They at more wild meat which has naturally high amounts of creatine. This is way they had much better gains naturally.

Most people are total faggots who don't believe in human potential at all. They want excuses for why they are doomed to mediocrity.

>>35184754
>They ate more wild meat
No
>wild meat which has naturally high amounts of creatine.
This is interesting. Do you have a source on this?

>>35184754
no actually they ate atleast younger part in their life more rye products that now are almost compleatly gone

>>35184827
Idiot

>>35184840
k.

File: 19thcenturynaturals.jpg (709KB, 1948x1280px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1948x1280px

>>35181662

>>35181662
Yeah steroids were being used quite a lot when all of those pictures were taken

File: teenage-mustache.jpg (30KB, 639x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 639x500px

>>35181801
Yeah, a well groomed full bodied mustache, not pic related

File: Dont k me.jpg (17KB, 381x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 381x400px

>>35184909

>>35181662
>Natty limit is much higher than most people think.

Agreed, but it takes like a decade or more natty to reach it, and after the first two years you get such hugely diminishing returns on gains that most people can't see the difference between a guy who has been training three years ands a guy who's been training over a decade.

Plus with all the steroids available now, even the actual natty limit looks unimpressive in comparison to many people. It's a shame.

File: 1900sbodyedited.jpg (43KB, 361x673px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 361x673px

>>35181662
am i 1900 mode yet?