Example Physiques Achievable Naturally (without steroids)

| March 28, 2019 by Truth Seeker |

Hello, fellas

Today, I present to you physiques achievable naturally. Obviously, you can never know whether a man or a woman is 100% natural based on looks and muscle mass alone. You can be small and still on PEDs. However, the keyword here is achievable.

1. John Long /rockclimbers/


Rock climbers do not have a huge incentive to inject. They do not benefit from non-lean mass as it slows them down and makes the maneuvers more difficult than necessary. You will be hard pressed to see a rock climber going full GOMAD.

At the same time, some muscle mass, especially on the back, arm flexors and forearms, is needed to climb effectively. Hence why many rock climbers have decent lats, biceps, wrist flexors and extensors.

Another strike against roid use for climbing is that a lot of the physical adaptation is joint focused. A rock climber needs strong wrists, fingers and elbow ligaments. It’s not an option.

That type of strength is developed slowly over a very long period of time and does not require steroids.

Here’s an excerpt from the book Potential: How Big You Can Get Naturally talking on the subject:

Everything good related to tendons and ligaments happens slowly. A research from 2015 concluded that performance climbers with at least 15 years of experience have finger joints and tendons 62-76% thicker than those of nonclimbers. This is why bodyweight movements like the iron cross and the maltese require many years to master. Even steroids can’t speed up the process significantly. No matter the dose, joint based strength movements take ages to master.

On the good side, tendons lose their strength slowly too. This partially explains why some people take extended breaks without losing strength.

Due to the nature of the sport, it is safe to assume that steroids taken with bodybuilding goals in mind are a rarity in the sport of climbing.

Undeveloped Body Parts

Since the pressing musculature and the lower body are not nearly as dominant in climbing from a strength perspective, those muscles are smaller than what a natural can achieve when the areas are subjected to adequate and targeted training.

source: https://gr8erdays.com/2018/05/23/clint-walker-salute-to-a-he-man/

2. Clint Walker /old school actors/

TRT and even trenbolone could be a part of an actor’s regime for a special superhero/action role. In the past, however, the expectations were lower and PEDs were not as common. Hence why the actors were not abusing nearly as much gear. Many were just regular guys who lift and eat healthy.

Clint Walker is an example of what a gifted natty could look like. He owes the majority if not all of his muscular stats to his skeleton. He was 6 ft 6 in (198 cm) and had pretty decent bone thickness.

In his photos, he is not particularly lean. The 3D shoulders common for tren addicts are missing. He is also holding plenty of water. His physique screams natural.

Many steroids users will quit roids forever in exchange for this man’s skeleton. No amount of roids can create the same presence. If he’s put in a room with the Mr. Olympia guys, women will be looking at him rather than the balding shorties with 22-inch arms.

3. UltraRomance /touring cyclists/

UltraRomance also known as “Big Janet”, “Poppi”, “Poopi”, “Benedict”, “Adult JonBenét Ramsey” is a cyclist who spends six months of the year touring on his bicycle. While he is a pro, his professional incentive to go full Lance Armstrong is exceptionally low. He does not compete against anyone.

Riding a bike for prolonged periods of time and on rough terrain is tough. When you add the weight of an average touring bike loaded with camping gear, you will realize the difficulty of the challenge. Yes, the stress is “marathon-like” for the most part, but your legs cannot help it but get stronger.

The physique of UltraRomance is pretty “naturalesque”.

4. Milko Georgiev – The Low Carb King

image source: spidersport.com;

Milko Georgiev owns a chain of fitness studios operating under the name of SpiderSport. He is famous for his lean physique built through strict low carb dieting and basic barbell and bodyweight movements. Milko Georgiev is 6’1″ tall, weighs 170lbs and maintains 5% body fat. {more}

5. Brad Pitt – The Fight Club Physique /some actors/

via: youtube.com

Brad Pitt’s stats in fight club were as follows:

Height: 5’11″/180cm
Weight: about 166lbs/75kg

Many natural bodybuilders have intuitively realized that this look is as good as it gets drug-free unless you have a freaky bone structure and the insane ability to maintain ultra-low body fat. For that reason, natty lifters have been striving to look just like Brad Pitt or should I say Tyler Durden in Fight Club.

Of course, steroids were widely available at the time, but the movie itself was against “self-improvement” and unnatural tendencies imposed by modern society. A huge roided guy playing the role of Tyler Durden would have been out of place.

Jung Ji-Hoon a.k.a. Rain 

via: youtube.com

Jung Ji-Hoon (born June 25, 1982), better known by his stage name Rain, is a South Korean singer-songwriter, actor, and music producer. He played the leading character in the movie Ninja Assassin.

Jung Ji-Hoon’s look can be achieved naturally. I don’t know how heavy he was in the movie, but his main website says that he is 6’2″ and weighs 176 pounds.

Obviously, on the Internet, there are many people who are 6’2″ @ 240lbs and shredded, but we all know how natural they are.

I would rather look like Rain and be called names than attempt to be a wannabe bodybuilder and become a permabulker instead.

No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

123 comments

  1. Brick

    This shows that face and money are the actual attraction.
    The muscle will be bonus but the above factors are major.

    Even though, personality can be accounted for long-term relationship with woman.
    It can be overlooked because people are similar but no one accepts.

      1. Brick

        To show that the article focuses on muscle which is about attraction.
        Everything in it seems to related together.

        All pictures represent factors. Naturals can look like one but not be one.
        It might make them understand but can also hurt them.

        You can focus the muscle but in the end, just finishing.

  2. twp

    I would say that most of the street workout guys like Daniel Laizans, Viktor Kamenov, Eryc Ortiz are example of what is achievable natty.
    But there are some like Vadym Oleynik who are obviously juicing or juiced at one point. He even have super obvious gyno on his chest, despite his low body fat.

  3. Hoyos

    There’s that famous photo of Hugh Jackman Wolverine in one of the early X men movies and then ultra mega jacked Wolverine from a later role.

    In the first picture, that’s what an athletic man actually looks like. You see old movies of the La Sierra High program, or modern day American Ninja Warrior style competitions and these are guys that have tremendous real world upper body strength and endurance. They don’t look like cartoon ape men.

    1. Marked Wolf

      I saw that as well. Back during the early xmen movies I thought wolverine was jackes. Then after seeing the latest Wolverine movoes, thanos and Mr. OLYMPIA, I went back to see Hugh Jackman on the first film and boy he look like an average dude.

      Btw you should have included Fortress (Pave) and the Luimarco

  4. David

    Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones would have been a good example. What do you think about the guys in 300? And Henry Cavill in Man of Steel?

  5. E

    Huge Jackman has unquestionably used. There is one scene in one of the Wolverine movies where he is chopping wood, and he has one of the most disturbingly bizarre collection of veins bulging out of his delt that I’ve ever seen. It was a level of vascularity that screamed chemical enhancement.

    Also, I don’t believe Brad Pitt was natural. His skin was just tissue paper thin in that film. It just didn’t look natural. I believe Brad Pitt also used in the film “Fury”, where he shows up in his 50s and all of a suddenhas rather large traps and appeaers to have an extra 30 pound of lean muscle.

  6. E

    If you want to see a good example of a natural looking realistic physique, go to YouTube and search for ‘The Slave” starring Steeve Reeves. While I think Reeves did use, I don’t think he was using in this film. Go to 1 Hour, 36 minutes, 45 seconds.

  7. Glove

    John Long seems to have a really muscular upper body. As you mentioned: no need for anything unnatural. At least what muscle building concerns. Gaining extra muscles would be absolutely contraproductive for his sport. Thumbs up. Would be interesting to know whether he lifts or not.

    Clint Walker has a typical physique of somebody who is lifting and isn´t dieting. He has a big frame. Good muscular look. I think he never had a lack og women…

    UltraRomance has a very low bodyfat level. No lifter. What for? Respect! I admire these guys for their endurance!

    Milko could be clean. But I don´t know whether he is. I say: achievable. If you achieve this shape as a natural: thumbs up! In opposite to the other guys he is somebody I would call him a good natural lifter.

    Brad Pitt: slim. It´s o.k. Personally I think for a lifter he would be too slim.

    Rain: from nature a skinny guy. But with a small amount of muscles you can get an attractive body. On the upper photo left his shoulder looks very good. Too good? I don´t know. But alltogether this muscle size is possible. If he is natural he is born to be shredded. Not born to build big muscles.

    Thanks for these examples, Truthseeker!

        1. CJ

          As a natural, training is training. “Training like a bodybuilder” has little to no meaning. Training like a bodybuilder and looking like a bodybuilder are two different things, and unfortunately drug-free lifters do not find success in the latter. Ultimately, you dont necessarily have to “bodybuild” to reach a certain level of fitness, aesthetics, etc as a natural. While it arguably may not be ideal, other forms of excercise/athletics could get the same or similar results within the natty threshold.

          1. Sam

            Sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy

            “A recent meta-analysis by Schoenfeld et al looking at the effects of training load on hypertrophy, dynamic strength, and isometric strength helps counter one of the main arguments people use to contend that light, high rep training causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. People claim that since strength gains are larger with heavier training, heavy training must be adding more contractile proteins (myofibrillar hypertrophy), while lighter training must be expanding muscle size without adding as many contractile proteins (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy). Earlier in this article I discussed why that’s not an entirely logical argument, but this meta-analysis provides us with some direct evidence to refute it.“

            Bron: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/

          2. TheFinisher

            Little to no meaning? The reason naturals don’t look like bodybuilders is what I just said, They do not train like them. Are people training 20 sets per body part twice per week? no, because they believe in overtraining or being a ‘hardgainer’ and are scared of hard work. I’ve never had trouble getting big as a natural using high volume training, HIT and low volume is another story….Everyone trained high volume in the 70’s and 80’s, now it’s abbreviated full body nonsense and people are not growing. Screaming steroids at everyone and making excuses is pathetic.

          3. TheFinisher

            MB, yes overtraining exists, however, doing high volume won’t cause it. training heavy and to failure will fry you for sure. Volume is simply that, lower intensity, multiple sets. I am NOT saying do 50 sets per body part, but you can do a lot more than what is spouted on the internet.

          4. Fatman

            “now it’s abbreviated full body nonsense and people are not growing”

            There is something to this. The rise of “functional training” nonsense in the early 2000s with the likes of Rippetoe and Pavel Tsatsouline, spelled the death of common-sense, productive bodybuilding routines. Instead of using a sensible total-body routine, newbs were encouraged to lift heavy and keep volume limited. None of them got muscular and some did see the size gains promised by Rip, but only in the gut and buttock area.

            This was a backlash against the high-volume “bomb and blitz” routines in the past, which were, admittedly, equally silly garbage promoted by heavy drug users which saw natural trainees gain zero to very little muscle. As it often happens with exercise and nutrition, the pendulum swung all the way to the other end of the bullshit spectrum. Enter 3×5, kettlebell fraud and GOMAD.

            Interestingly, both sides engage in pathetic whining about steroids, claiming the “other way” only works for drug users.

          5. TheFinisher

            ‘Silly garbage’ that worked for everyone lol 4-6 sets per body part is for people who don’t want maximum size, those are the people who come onto the internet and shout steroids at everyone or ‘here is the natural limit’ and my favourite ‘less is more’ because they don’t have the balls to do high volume.

    1. Ed

      “I’ve never had trouble getting big as a natural using high volume training”

      L.O.L. Uncle’s story on the umpteenth birthday, I was …. 😉

        1. JohnChronic

          Get real finisher, if volume training worked then construction workers would all look like mr. olympia. They lift moderate weights repetitively all day long after all.

          1. TheFinisher

            Lol then please tell us all what actually works? tell all the guys from the 40’s onwards they were wrong. That analogy is dumb. Back to your low volume training and wonder why you are small.

  8. Ed

    The Finisher: “I am NOT saying do 50 sets per body part…”

    Okay, so you don’t recommend this, but what do you recommend …?

  9. TheFinisher

    20 sets for big body parts, 15 sets each for small body parts. Each body part twice per week. Short rest between sets, moderate weight, DO NOT train to Failure, stop 1-2 reps short. Hope this helps.

  10. Ed

    With so many sets & consistency you will get a lot of muscle mass gain, but with much fewer sets to failure you will achieve – especially as a natty – better results in general (7-9 worksets / 5-7 worksets, once a week).

  11. E

    What works? OK, how about the following:

    Trap bar Deadlift – 500 x12
    Trap bar shrug – 300 x 17
    Dip – Bodyweight + 120 x 10
    Pulldown – 230 x 7, 230 x 5
    BB Curl – 132 x 6
    Calf Raise – 700 x 18

    Whole workout done in 30 minutes or so. Won’t train for another 4-5 days, bigger than I have ever been. If people want to do high volume training go ahead. If it works for you do it. I don’t like showing up for work and not getting paid. If I can get better results training less I’ll do it every time.

    1. TheFinisher

      If it is working for you then keep doing it. I will not tell people to stop doing something that is working, I am just trying to advise people that you CAN do ‘bodybuilder routines’ and get GREAT results. I will go as far to say that high volume routines produce MAXIMUM results – I don’t want ‘some’ results, I want the most possible. Dude, keep doing what works, judge for yourself.

      1. Wheretheproofat?

        You got a before and after pic for proof? If not, do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut.

          1. Wheretheproofat?

            Why are you avoiding to show proof? Guess high volume isn’t as hyped up as you put it. “Big guy”

          2. TheFinisher

            Weird fantasy mate, Girls don’t like small men. Try to put some muscle on, in the meantime you carry on fantasising about my big muscles.

          3. Adrian

            The Finisher: It’s reality, you cuck. Your GF’s nickname for you is Cuckblossom. At least that’s what she told me. 😉

        1. TheFinisher

          Dude if i post here my exact routine i’ll get even more backlash. Here’s an outline, a common mass routine in the golden era:
          Mon and Thurs – chest and back 20 sets each
          Tues and Fri – shoulders and arms 15 sets each
          weds and sat – legs 20 sets for quads and 10 sets for hamstrings
          sun – off
          anymore questions?

          1. MB

            I was just wondering. Always interested to learn something new.
            Currently I don’t have other questions.
            And thank you 🙂

          2. Michaelx

            Could you tell me more about your routine? I am curious because currently I am doing similar split with great results. What exercices are you using and what repscemes?

          3. TheFinisher

            Michael, first off if you are getting great results don’t change anything. Exercises are to suit my needs, example – decline DB press as flat bench does NOTHING for my chest, So giving you my exercise selection would not really benefit you. However reps are between 10-20. What is your split like?

  12. Ed

    @Finisher. Do you really think that high volume before failure is harder work than low volume to failure? L.O.L.

    1. TheFinisher

      Yes, after you’ve done 20 sets for quads with 1 minute rest between sets you won’t be asking that stupid question lol

  13. Ed

    That’s great for muscle condition and cardio, a marathon is also tough. Have you looked well at the legs of marathon runners ?!

    1. TheFinisher

      So you are basically saying Arnold and his training partners had marathon looking legs? BODYBUILDING IS ABOUT MUSCLE FATIGUE.PERIOD. You know nothing about bodybuilding or bodybuilders, you keep doing your 5-7 sets and scream steroids at people bigger than you. I am done.

      1. Lee

        Man, you are just dumb. Arnold has the best genetics but also on steroids. Come on man, high volume is good for conditioning but for mass gains, you have to lift heavy one way or another. Personally, I like to have one top heavy set follow by 2 back off sets with optimal weight to have the best of both worlds.

        1. TheFinisher

          I’m “Dumb” with 18.5 inch arms. Lifting heavy drains the CNS not the muscles, the muscles can handle more work at lower intensities. If steroids didnt exist EVERYONE would have to do more work, otherwise they’d be like all you lot on here, low volume and barely any results. The people with the WORST genetics need to do the MOST. I could explain about muscle fiber recruitment, rep ranges and protein degradation but i’m too “Dumb” right. Now back to your lazy ass low volume routine.

          1. Ed

            My middle-aged neighbor also has arms of 18.5 inches so that doesn’t say much… 😉

            And for your information, it is precisely because of the rise of steroids that people have started training at a high volume. Because steroids seriously speed up recovery.

          2. TheFinisher

            Oh yeah sure, I bet he’s my height, my weight and my leanness too…Zzzzzz here come the excuses from all the lazy low volume crowd, steroids. then carry on with your 4 sets, whatever.
            Don’t hate high volume, participate in high volume.

          3. Ed

            German Volume Training is known as a tough routine and is called ‘Volume Training’ for good reason. You know that with this routine the large muscle groups are tackled with a total of 10 sets (10 reps) and the small muscle groups with 3 sets (10-20 reps). Do you not wonder if 20 sets per muscle group (especially for the natural athlete) is actually that beneficial?

            For the few athletes with good genes for rapid recovery and users of PED it will cause muscle growth, but for the average athlete a different routine is really more

            Happy lifting…! 😉

          4. TheFinisher

            German volume training works great, unless you’re lazy or can’t take the pain.Check out Michaelx’s comment a few posts up – he’s doing a similar routine to me with “Great results”. I guess me and him both have ‘great genes’ lol. Steroids, genetics, what’s the next excuse. High volume is painful, suck it up. Don’t hate high volume, participate in high volume.

          5. Ed

            Yes, cake maker, but German Volume Training are “only” 10 sets for the large muscle groups and 3 for the small ones. No 20 sets as you promote…😉

          6. TheFinisher

            I didn’t ‘promote it’. It was standard back in the 70’s, infact Vince Gironda who was NATURAL gave high volume to many of his trainers/clients in the 50’s. Don Howarth and Larry Scott did 15-20 sets before they even touched steroids. The Golden era pushed it further. Anyway this argument has died, just like HIT and low volume garbage. Happy Undertraining.

          7. MB

            20 sets don’t have to be that bad. If you do legs with deadlift, squats, leg press and calf raises with 5 sets each, you already have 20 sets.

          8. Ed

            @MB, Only squat and leg press are specific for the thighs (quads) so in fact 10 sets. I assume that you mean work sets and do not include the warm-up set (s).

            @Finisher, Larry Scott & Dan Howarth are gifted with very good genes…😄😉

          9. Ed

            @MB, that’s exactly what i mean. You write 20 (work) sets for the legs, but in fact they are 10 sets for the quads (quadriceps) namely squat and leg press. 5 sets for the hamstrings and glutes, namely the deadlift and 5 sets for the calves with calf raises. So that is absolutely no 20 sets per muscle group.

            Otherwise you can also say that you do 20 sets for your arms with 5 sets of dips, 5 sets of curls, 5 sets of narrow grip bench press and 5 sets of wrist curls… 😉

          10. MB

            @Ed
            Oh.. I thought we were talking about 20 sets for total. My mistake. So then you mean actually 60 sets for the legs.

          11. Ed

            Well 20 sets per muscle group is not my idea, but The Finisher seems to have achieved good results with this way of training. I prefer to stick with “Less is more” so 7-9 (work) sets for large and 5-7 (work) sets for small muscle groups to failure with 6-10 reps per set is more than sufficient for the average athlete. So you have enough incentive for muscle growth, sufficient capacity for recovery (recovery is growth), a workout lasts no longer than 60 minutes including warm-up (cortisol!) And the training remains fun (consistency is key).

          12. Ed

            @MB, for your information. The Finisher has previously indicated to do the following as a workout routine.

            “Mon and Thurs – chest and back 20 sets each
            Tues and Fri – shoulders and arms 15 sets each
            weds and sat – legs 20 sets for quads and 10 sets for hamstrings
            sun off“

            Frankly, I think he wants to copy Arnold Schwarzenegger with confusing others…😉

          13. MB

            I did a 3 day full body workout so far, but thought to give a split schedule a try.
            But maybe 6 days is overkill…

          14. Ed

            My opinion is that if you train to failure, training every muscle group once a week is sufficient for optimal muscle growth. for example in a three-day split. Trying it out and then maintaining it consistently for 3 months is the motto.

            With a three-day split I gained 25 lbs of lean muscle mass (a long time ago).

            Good luck!

          15. MB

            Is a 3-day split something like following:

            Mon – chest and back 20 sets each
            Tues- shoulders and arms 15 sets each
            weds – legs 20 sets for quads and 10 sets for hamstrings

          16. MB

            I meant actually
            Mon – chest and back 20 sets each
            weds – shoulders and arms 15 sets each
            Friday – legs 20 sets for quads and 10 sets for hamstrings

            Rest days betwaen training days

          17. MB

            Maybe something like this then:
            Mon – chest and back 5 sets each
            weds – shoulders and arms 5 sets each
            Friday – legs 5 sets for quads and 5 sets for hamstrings

          18. TheFinisher

            Yeah 6 days is too much, even though athletes can train 5 days a week sometimes twice per day. It is only in bodybuilding you see so many weak minded people with their excuses. You know what, instead of doing 5 sets, do 1, I mean if ‘less is more’ right? Infact just don’t even bother training, keep spouting out steroids, then genetics, then whatever other excuse you can make up. Women bodybuilders do more than 5 sets lol What other sport do you see people doing less to be the best, you don’t. So go ahead and find a new hobby, maybe try knitting, the only thing you have to worry about then is making pretty patterns and not ‘Overtraining’.

          19. MB

            I never said to stop training. But you need rest too to recover. With 6 trainingsdays you don’t have much recover time. But if that works for you. Great. Go for it.

          20. Ed

            It is now clear that The Finisher has little knowledge of the facts. He compares an athlete who trains for a specific sport with a bodybuilder who trains for gaining muscle mass.

            @MB, try mon: chest 9 worksets, back 9 worksets
            Tue: rest
            Wed: shoulders, triceps, biceps, all 5 worksets
            Thu: rest
            Fri: quadriceps, hamstrings, calfs, all 5 worksets.
            Sat & sun: rest

            All worksets to failure 6-10 reps
            2-3 min rest between sets
            Slow concentric en eccentric
            Progressive overload
            Enough nutrition

          21. TheFinisher

            Do not insult my knowledge of bodybuilding, here’s a ‘fact’ sprinters (athletes) train for muscle mass, why can they train muscles mutliple times per week? BECAUSE THEY DONT TRAIN TO FAILURE. Do some damn reading. Slow reps? LOL Mike Mentzer conned you. You know nothing about bodybuilding. Now my 19 inch arms need to be trained, Goodbye.

          22. Ed

            And again you are wrong. Of course, sprinters do not train for muscle mass, that is extra weight they have to take with them. An additional feature of their type of training is that they get more muscle mass on their thighs. In the first place this is not the most possible muscle mass and in the second place sprinters are born mesomorphs with a genetic predisposition for the fast muscle fibers so more muscle growth. You clearly still have a lot to learn.. 😉

          23. Ed

            quote TheFinisher: “why can they train muscles mutliple times a week? BECAUSE THEY DONT TRAIN TO FAILURE. ”

            I assume that if you do 20 sets for example for your chest you have to squeeze out the last reps of the last sets?

            No doubt, because after all you are not a pussie.

            The last 2 to 3 sets out of 20 are therefore your actual work sets and you do that to failure. All those other 17 sets are in fact no more or less warm-up and a waste of energy.

          24. TheFinisher

            You just said their training isnt for muscle gain then you said ‘fast muscle fibers for more muscle growth’ you mean ‘fast twitch’ and no they are not mesomorphic and they have a combination of ST fibers and FT fibers. Explain Usain Bolt who is an ectomorph lol Why do you train to failure? Also, i hate to break it to you but the ‘steroid bodybuilders’ were natural in the first years of training, and how did they train? Oh high volume. You’re running out of excuses. If you’re training worked then why are you not happy with your results? I mean Gironda is bigger than you because you accused him of steroids lol If you are that small then change your training.

          25. Ed

            Apparently you are quite self-righteous and you like to be right. You have my blessing!

          26. TheFinisher

            MB, how long have you been training? Hitting body parts once per week is only for advanced bodybuilders. You need more frequency. If you are a beginner then full body 3x per week should be your routine. However if you are past that stage then you need to train each body part 2x per week with more volume. 10 sets per muscle would be a good start. If you have any more questions i’ll be happy to help.

          27. TheFinisher

            You should be a lot of volume by now, what has been your routine recently? include how much weight for the big exercises if you could? If you are very strong, then 1x per week would work well

          28. TheFinisher

            If he is very strong example – squatting 400-500lbs plus etc he wont recover on a 2x per week routine with multiple exercises, due to ‘damage’ and protein degradation/protein remapping. If not, then he would do better on a 2x per week routine with volume and multiple exercises for faster results. There is literally no point in talking to you. this is for MB.

          29. Ed

            Like I wrote, strenght is relative. What feels like 500 lbs for one person may feel like 300 lbs for another. Recovery will be the same for both.

          30. Ed

            100% max for one person is the same as 100% max for the other person. regardless of how much weight, this will differ per person… 😉

          31. TheFinisher

            Lol I can’t even be bothered with this crap. Muscles recover in 48-72 hours depending on how advanced a person is. Your gains are so shit because you train muscles once per week, they are literally not growing after 2-3 days, they are actually shrinking, you are undertraining, like i said in previous posts. Training to failure is screwing your CNS AND YOUR RECOVERY, NOT HIGH VOLUME.

          32. Ed

            From your writing style you can see that you are still in puberty or have just finished, so I will not take you seriously. For MB, I hope you will try various routines and finally choose the one that best fits your lifestyle. Finally, it is about doing something that you can commit to for a long time.

      2. Ed

        Okay, my last reaction especially for The Finisher.

        “Originally, Gironda used the 10 x 10 system for the whole body, but quickly found out that for most trainees that was too much work to handle. So decided to use it as a specialization course: he’d use the 10 x 10 scheme for the targeted muscle and cut training volume for the other muscle groups in half ”.
        https://www.t-nation.com/training/gironda-system

        10 sets was too much work for the average athlete and that is 50% of what you recommend.

          1. Adrian

            The Finisher: Your username reminds me of the fact that I “finished” in your girlfriend last night. 😉

  14. Ed

    However, if you have achieved satisfactory results with that, it is nice, but I would not recommend it to others, there is so much better to do.

    1. Ed

      Are you so ignorant or just stupid?

      Arnold and all the BBs from the Golden Era used steroids. Steroids were even legal at the time.

      And you know what steroids do (among other things): they greatly support recovery!

  15. gay boy

    Frequency is better for natties than volume. Volume is more for roiders. I am 5’8″ over 230 lbs been working out for 7 years, about 5 years consistently. I work out pretty much everyday. My body fat is relatively low (around 15-17%). I still have a 4-pack but the downside is I have so much muscle that it makes me look fatter (I do a lot of ab work). Also my FFMI is almost 30 which means the FFMI calculation is faulty and does not apply to a higher bodyfat. I think if you work hard enough you can get really big even naturally. Everyone has their own body and own idea of physical perfection. I used to like super jacked roid physiques but now I don’t, I have grown out of it. Even roided shredded physiques look gross now.

  16. Ivan

    Where’s any of the pre roid era bodybuilders? How about Steve Reeves or John Grimek? Why do you set the bar so low and say people with good genetics like Bugenhagen, Omar Isfuf and Eric Bugenhagen are possibly not natty? Why don’t you actually research exercise so you don’t spread misinformation about how dexa is an 100% accurate prediction of body fat?

  17. A Novelist

    The jab at bodybuilders and their presumed height and hair status was quite unnecessary. If women will be looking at Clint Walker in a line-up filled with bodybuilders in their prime, that’s not necessarily because he looks better but because he looks different and would not really have any place being in the line-up unless he does the hard work first. A skinny guy of average height would draw looks in that situation too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *