Natural vs. Whatever

I have been reading a lot of posts and debates lately about genetics and being a natural athlete vs being "unnatural". I have yet to see anyone define what makes one vs the other.

I know a lot of people I talk to think that the definition of "natural" is someone who has never used AAS. I find this laughable. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as a "natural" athlete anymore. With all of the supplements available these days how can there be? I feel the only way to be "natural" is to never have taken any sythentic products like creatine, ephedra, protein powder, AAS, etc.

This leads me to my point. It seems that the definition is based on the legality of the substance being used. Since AAS is illegal does that then mean that the athlete that uses them is "unnatural" and the athlete that uses legal substances "natural"? I find this to be incredibly stupid. That we would allow lawmakers and politicians to define who we are as athletes by drawing a line between what they find to be acceptable or not. Especially considering there aren't many of them (aside from Jesse Ventura and Arnold) that looks like they've ever worked out.

Just an after thought...if you used ephedra while it was legal are you still a natural athlete even though it is now illegal?? Maybe I've opened pandora's box here? haha :scratch:

JMHO

MT

lol guess im natural as long as i have a script for steroids. cool, i rule.


its crap though. people twist reality to feel better about themselves.

You are 100percent correct monkeytown. I have been thinking the same thing. People who are natural hate people who are using steroids . Why ? Because they are growing faster than they could natural ( they are using a shortcut ). But if for example there would exist a magic pill for fat men en women that would decrease there weight quickly and still be very healthy AND be legal, everone would think thats cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaTyR

You are 100percent correct monkeytown. I have been thinking the same thing. People who are natural hate people who are using steroids . Why ? Because they are growing faster than they could natural ( they are using a shortcut ). But if for example there would exist a magic pill for fat men en women that would decrease there weight quickly and still be very healthy AND be legal, everone would think thats cool.

---

On "natural" boards they don't consider you natural if you use prohormones.

I think "natural" vs. "unnatural" comes from the fact that with steroids you are going above your genetic limit. If you stop taking steroids you will shrink until you are at your genetic limit or lower. Prohormones are legal and if you take them you are basically not a natural athlete any longer. They have been proven to raise someone above their natural limit. I don't think things like creatine would make someone "unnatural", it works well but only to a certain point. I haven't heard of creatine taking someone above their genetic limit.

So, you legal vs. illegal argument is thrown out the window. If there was a natural drug that did the exact same thing as juice, you would no longer be a natural athlete. I guess this is why things like t3 and clen aren't considered in the same light as juice. They are illegal but don't do anything that someone couldn't do naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaTyR

You are 100percent correct monkeytown. I have been thinking the same thing. People who are natural hate people who are using steroids . Why ? Because they are growing faster than they could natural ( they are using a shortcut ). But if for example there would exist a magic pill for fat men en women that would decrease there weight quickly and still be very healthy AND be legal, everone would think thats cool.

---

I totally agree. A shortcut to getting thinner is ok. Whether it be a magic pill or surgery. But a shortcut for getting bigger and stronger is frowned upon. :unsure:

Go figure.

I could go on and on about obesity and how easy it could be fixed/avoided, but I digress!! haha

MT

Good thread. I just started posting here and have found some arguments already about what is natural and what isn't. I consider myself a natural, even though I did a useless vial of cypianate 2 years ago. I saw absolutely no gains, more than likely because I didn't use it properly. Therefore, my size and strength remained the same. I feel justified in saying that I'm still a natural, especially if you consider the pro guys and today's top powerlifters. Men are now benching around 900lb??? I don't feel any regret at all about considering myself a natural (by today's standards).

It's true, though, that if you are completely natural, then you might as well say that you've never taken any ingestible or injectible substance that would cause your body to change for the better. This would include creatine, ephedrine, etc. So, are any of us really natural? Like I said earlier, compared to the Ronnie Colemans and Jay Cutlers and Lee Priests of the world, hell yeah, I'm a natural.

Good point Monkey. I couldn't give a f*ck about it though. I am in charge of myself and no one else can change my view of me. I will be a natural on roids.....lol. Really, don't let others affect your views everyone. The "natural" debate will go on forever. I look at it like this...if you don't get caught..you didn't do it (just don't try to bull loz those who know, like people here...lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

If you stop taking steroids you will shrink until you are at your genetic limit or lower.

---

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viking_warrior_2k

It's true, though, that if you are completely natural, then you might as well say that you've never taken any ingestible or injectible substance that would cause your body to change for the better.

---

Good point. I take One-A-Day multivitamins, and I'm sure they benefit my body... so d@mn it I guess I'm not natural anymore... lol

hey test happens naturally in the body...test is natural...

this is it: you juice, you are not natural. you dont juice, you're natural. i dont care if test is natural. so? not when you put more in your body, thats not natural. we are talking hormonally here. you can take creatine, ephedrine, but any pro-hormones, or gear is considered unnatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starkraven

this is it: you juice, you are not natural. you dont juice, you're natural. i dont care if test is natural. so? not when you put more in your body, thats not natural. we are talking hormonally here. you can take creatine, ephedrine, but any pro-hormones, or gear is considered unnatural.

---

Do you have any explanation of your logic here? Let's compare testosterone and creatine. Both are naturally occuring in the body, but if you add more creatine you're natural, and if you add more testosterone you're unnatural? :unsure:

And if we're strictly talking hormones here, you can make your body produce more testosterone by taking tribulus... or doing squats and deadlift..

It all has to do with the legalities IMO. Bull$hit laws.

What about that JERKOFF SKip La Cour the "bodybuilder" now hes advertising natural products and natural bodybuilding. I had when assholes like that mislead the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AandF6969

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here...



Good point. I take One-A-Day multivitamins, and I'm sure they benefit my body... so d@mn it I guess I'm not natural anymore... lol

---

****, so all this chicken i eat is making me no longer natural?

The general definition of natural: have never taken aas or prohormones, IGF, GH, insulin, any groth factors or antibodies. "natural" supplements are considered ok, such as creatine and protein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AandF6969

Do you have any explanation of your logic here? Let's compare testosterone and creatine. Both are naturally occuring in the body, but if you add more creatine you're natural, and if you add more testosterone you're unnatural? :unsure:

And if we're strictly talking hormones here, you can make your body produce more testosterone by taking tribulus... or doing squats and deadlift..

---

creatine is not a steroid or prosteroid. You can get it from eating red meat. 32 oz of lean steak has the same amount of creatine as a typical 5 g serving of monohydrate. Same thing goes for tribulus. You can eat a plant. These are things that you can get from food. Find me something that grows in nature that you can eat that will increase your nandrolone or oxymetholone levels.

Are you trying to make yourself feel better about not being natural?

dude man is correct.
AandF6969, taking hormones is unnatural. training is natural, dieting is too. whatever will take you past your genetical limit is unnatural. creatine will not do that. dude-man is spot on.

I consider it "unnatural" if the body stays big only because of the amount of gear that is in the body. I don't care if you got big with steroids two years ago; if your body can keep/supply the new amount of muscles on itself I don't think your body is unnatural. Muscles are muscles either way.

If steroids are holding you up, it's not natural.

Test is natural.. but other compounds like deca is not natural. It's modified testosterone, and that's not natural. Who cares? Cilicon is not natural. No one cares...well..some do..

Fat people are not natural either if you think deep enough!

AAS change the composition of muscles. "Natural" muscles have fibers angled at a low angle (somewhere around 15 degrees). Once you cycle, the new muscle fibers become more inclined (around 60 degrees). That is one of the reason why your muscles look bigger.

So taking roids makes you "unnatural" becomes it changes the composition of muscles, creatine doesn't, hence making "natural".

Hmm, interesting stuff so far. I like this thread! Keep it up, fellas, I'm learning a lot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpoera3

AAS change the composition of muscles. "Natural" muscles have fibers angled at a low angle (somewhere around 15 degrees). Once you cycle, the new muscle fibers become more inclined (around 60 degrees). That is one of the reason why your muscles look bigger.

So taking roids makes you "unnatural" becomes it changes the composition of muscles, creatine doesn't, hence making "natural".

---

huh? That doesnt make since, "look bigger?" What about steroids such as halo that dont make you bigger, only stronger?

yeah. i iddn't know that "juiced" muscles grow at a different angle. is there any reason/evidence for this? that's a real new one to me (i am natural, at only 19)

MY DEFENITION OF NOT BEING NATURAL:

Anything altering the natural hormonal levels of a human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dude-Man

Are you trying to make yourself feel better about not being natural?

---

lol no I could give a rat's ass what people think... I'm just trying to bump the conversation along so we can come to a conclusion as to what is the distinction between natural/unnatural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AandF6969

lol no I could give a rat's ass what people think... I'm just trying to bump the conversation along so we can come to a conclusion as to what is the distinction between natural/unnatural.

---

i'm just messing with you, but it seems like you tend to lean towards the "vegan bodybuilding is the only natural bodybuilding" side of the argument... but we've all seen those guys. They look like women without tits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpoera3

AAS change the composition of muscles. "Natural" muscles have fibers angled at a low angle (somewhere around 15 degrees). Once you cycle, the new muscle fibers become more inclined (around 60 degrees). That is one of the reason why your muscles look bigger.

So taking roids makes you "unnatural" becomes it changes the composition of muscles, creatine doesn't, hence making "natural".

---

I'd like to see that statement supported with some evidence...can you provide any?

have u seen many "natural" guys with awesome bodies??? Because i haven't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by judge_dread

have u seen many "natural" guys with awesome bodies??? Because i haven't!

---

I wouldn't say my body is "awesome" but i would say that i look better than a lot of the guys here that use. That'll all be moot soon when i start my first cycle.

Big ol legs, and older member who doesn't come around this board much definitely has a body that i would say borders on the awesome level, and he definitely puts up awesome weight.. like a 2000+ plus leg press and squatting 700 for reps..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dude-Man

I wouldn't say my body is "awesome" but i would say that i look better than a lot of the guys here that use. That'll all be moot soon when i start my first cycle.

Big ol legs, and older member who doesn't come around this board much definitely has a body that i would say borders on the awesome level, and he definitely puts up awesome weight.. like a 2000+ plus leg press and squatting 700 for reps..

---

Yeah, I know an older guy the next town over who is 45 and twice as swole as me. He's been powerlifting for over 20 years. The guy is a **** ROCK!!! He's all natural, too. His best squat is 800, not sure what his other stats are. Most powerlifters look like slobs, but this guy is the shiznit! I only hope to look like that guy when I'm that old. He's probably 5'9 or 5'10 and 245 at around 11-12% bodyfat. He's my hero. Day in, day out... he's there getting it on. He won't win any bodybuilding contests, but if he lost some fat, he'd have a hell of a running. Long live the hardcores...

Godfather, do a google search on steroids and variation muscle fiber angle.
I read an article in MD about it some time ago.
Here's what i've found on the internet:

www.topbodybuilding.com/muscle-fiber.html

Hope this helps.

fuk all the "natural" people who hate people who are "unnatural", who gives a $hit. Ill do whatever i want and they can do whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mule1983

fuk all the "natural" people who hate people who are "unnatural", who gives a $hit. Ill do whatever i want and they can do whatever they want.

---

absolutely right bro!

Genetics have a lot to do with "NATURAL" vs AAS, One thing I can say about myself is I can get as big without AAS naturally. And I mean diet only no supplements. Before you start flaming the difference is I am not as strong, my measurments are the same though. Then it turns into a whole other argument "well if your stronger you will get bigger" in my case no. I am the same size on or off which is not typical. I think there are a few guys out there that are in the same situation I am. I can change my bodyweight up 20 lbs or down 20 lbs in a short period of time.

I dont think it really matters AAS or Natural. It is a competitive world and people hate what they envy. Meaning the all "Natural" guy at the gym vs. the guy thats 5'10 260 lbs solid as a rock. There might be a just a little envy there.

It's basically discharging a psyshological need (compulsion) to explain mediocrity.

-For Example-

When someone says "xxx", it means "yyy"...

"Im Natural" = "I'm morally superior to you"

"I use steroids" = "I don't give a SH!T about your morality."

"I use low doses and get good results" = "I must have a better diet, work ethic, etc...than you"