Dom

>>35330079
you would too if you stood next to a guy who roids for a living

>>35330079
Its relative. He's being compared to a guy who is on a significant amount of roids. Compared to your average person he looks massive.

Also Bradley Martin is a fag.

>>35330106
>Not liking Bradley Martin

File: sandowfull.jpg (357KB, 904x1277px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 904x1277px

>>35330079
because of the following:

>natty
>shirt on
>poor angle
>no downcast lighting
>beside a much bigger person
>most likely no pump
>its a picture

regardless, if you met him in person you'll probably be taken aback at how much bigger he is. Is this the end? Can a natty never acheive a great physique?


Well it depends what you consider a great physique.

>pic related is an amazing physique that 99.9% of men and women would admire and want to become

stay natty, don't pin like Bradley.
There is ALWAYS a consequence.

what? you have some serious body dysmorphia if you think he looks like he's never touched a weight in his life.

>Left
What you have been led to believe a serious gym goer should look after witnessing shit ton of unatty physiques
>Right
What an actual natty serious gym goer looks like

>>35330121
>stay natty, don't pin like Bradley.
>There is ALWAYS a consequence.
DYEL fag that will never make it

>>35330120
Those stupid hats are enough to not like him.

File: why.png (158KB, 718x525px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 718x525px

>>35330146
>>35330079
OP is this a perfect example of how steroids can impact one's thinking.

>pic related, when a person loses contact with reality

Look at all the people that uses steroids for simply looking better:

>Rich Piano
>Blahahaha
>Bostin Loyd
>Chris Jones

Just watch how they act. Insecure, delusional, or simply retarded.

>>35330079
>dom confirmed for stealing OP's gains

hit the weights dude

>>35330079
he looks like a fucking twink
>that shot when he walks up and he has no ass, hamstrings or quads

just goes to show he only cared about the money

i think I have body dysmorphia

>>35330187
>chris jones
>steroids
that nigga aint even big he's just a manlet

>>35330079
He doesn't? Dude looks pretty big, he's an actor playing a character and part of that is not being super lean because the character is the gym goer who basically lives there but bulks on pizza, drinks on the weekend, and figured out how to fit pop tarts in your macros.

He's basically the natty idea of lifting pretty seriously but not caring too much about diet. The dude is pretty strong as well, pretty sure he's done human flags and some free form standing pushups which isn't nothing especially consider he's not small.

its amazing how unfunny dom is

>>35330227
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d0YlCxlaHk

supposedly this guy disagrees lol

File: dom2.png (1MB, 1274x1023px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1274x1023px

>>35330079

>>35330281
wow what a shitty video
>using FFMI as metric to determine whether or not someone is natty when you haven't even looked at the research behind it
25 is the average found natural limit. What do we know about averages? They are calculated using data that has a value that is higher, lower or the same.

>>35330351
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/fat-free-mass-index-in-users-and-nonusers-of-anabolic-androgen-steroids-research-review.html/

>The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30.

Let me know when you get past 25 bro. I mean youll do better than Mr. America winners, right?

>>35330380
>Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4.
>had a mean FFMI of 25.4.
>presteroid era (1939-1959)