Is this achievable natty?

File: Chris-Evans-Body.jpg (67KB, 524x640px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 524x640px

no

>>41340281
yea. achievable within about 2 years.

>>41340281
Given the fact that he is a tall mofo
I'd say nah, you can get pretty close, but nah.

File: 6'0 - 6'3.jpg (125KB, 684x821px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 684x821px

>>41340357
He is 6'0.

>>41340317

Not agreeing or disagreeing but what can you see that makes you think "not natty"?

He's not exactly huge, or super ripped, or vascular.

>>41340414
It was sarcasm. You can achieve that in 18 months from hungry skeleton. You just have to be on point.

>>41340281

What kind of program/lifts would build a body like this?

File: Evans Mode.png (1MB, 1746x836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1746x836px

>>41340281
You can see the exact year he started juicing.

Depending on your genetics it is.

If you're >1.90 or so probably not possible, ever.If you're <1.70 easily in a couple of years from being entirely untrained.

In between, it depends on your specific luck of the draw. I'm a bit over 1.80, trained for years and years (although not with great focus at times) and I still don't look like that.

File: guysabighe.jpg (127KB, 610x371px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 610x371px

>>41340584

hold on.... that's 13 years of solid gym time.... you figure he has $$$ for decent fish, organic beef, proper veggies,,,, and probably a chef...

with good food around him, he's not tempted to get a Papa John's 60 piece chicken poppers because they're 1/2 price thanks to NBA playoff night.... (just a random example)

plus... he is *paid* to get in shape ?

know what I get paid for ? wearing a golly darn nametag and being a freaking doormat to a dying industry.

>'Noid Rage

>lifting for longer as a natty means you get more gains

found the novice

>>41340725
Yeah, people on /fit/ seem to think that anything that remotely resembles a solid physique is unnatural, it's really pathetic. Successful/famous people tend to be way WAY more conscientious than the average /fit/izen, so it's definitely possible, and even likely in my opinion, that this guy is natty.

>>41340725
Google has the rock listed at 6'5" and Barkley at 6'6"... what is this blasphemy?

>>41341794
The rock is a frauding 6'2" manlet

>>41340393
manlets when will they learn

Sure but why bother? You could do it in 4 months with a cycle

>>41341794
>>WWE measurements
>Costanza.jpg

>>41340445
Is this true? I'm currently a hungry skeleton struggling to gain wait and force myself to eat and at sometimes I just feel like there's no point.

>>41340281
He is natty.