Arnold's chest vs Ronnie's chest...FIGHT!!!

[Penile_Dementia]

I read everything you had to say. Ronnie has amazing genetics. And hormones took him to where he needed to be. You questioning how I can know how far a natural body can go is the same thing as me questioning you why you think it can go that far.

I don't "think it can go that far". I don't know how far it can go. I'm not the one making such assertions. So it's a very, very different thing when I ask you that question.

What I do know is that I have good judgment through observing bodybuilding over the years. And in competition, it is a sport known for the use of hormones. It is a sport surrounded by lies because of societal views. Natural bodybuilding is flooded with hormone use. We all know Ronnie went the hormonal root, so given the stats that I've said before, which no other man has reached naturally or on hormones claiming to be for that matter. I will not give Ronnie the benefit of doubt on his word.

Like I said, and your post doesn't deal with - I have no idea how you can deduce what level a human body can reach naturally, especially when we're talking about someone who is a RIDICULOUS level of outlier - surely all the experience with natural bodybuilding in the world offers absolutely no information on that.

Ronnie may have used earlier in his career, but saying he couldn't have been natural because he was 230lbs ripped and that's bigger than all naturals doesn't follow, because he was also bigger than all the users when he used. The argument is baseless, with no precedent to follow from.

Saying he was probably using because of competitiveness is a different argument.

[masssmonster]

Great pics there iceman.

[TrainOfThought]

I don't "think it can go that far". I don't know how far it can go. I'm not the one making such assertions.



Like I said, and your post doesn't deal with - I have no idea how you can deduce what level a human body can reach naturally, especially when we're talking about someone who is a RIDICULOUS level of outlier - surely all the experience with natural bodybuilding in the world offers absolutely no information on that.

Ronnie may have used earlier in his career, but saying he couldn't have been natural because he was 230lbs ripped and that's bigger than all naturals doesn't follow, because he was also bigger than all the users when he used. The argument is baseless, with no precedent to follow from.

Saying he was probably using because of competitiveness is a different argument.

The argument is not baseless. It's based on what goes on in the sport, the lies that go on, the likely hood that he used to reach that level, because he used after all. And no other man has reached that level naturally. All of what goes on in the sport is evidence for good reasoning.

You argument is kind of silly anyways, you said you don't think it can go that far... You saying that should be part of good reasoning to know it can not. Add that judgment with everything else that you have seen and what goes on in the sport. And then maybe you will land to a final conclusion of how far a human body can go.

[Emmortal]

While Arnold had a great chest, it was highlighted even further by his relatively poor shoulders. Coleman's chest, while bigger, denser and more developed doesn't look quite as impressive due to his massive shoulder development.

Hands down it goes to Coleman.

[Emmortal]

u seriously think that??????? eventhough its pretty easy to build your chest up compared to other muscles.

people should read that md interview with ronnie and flex. They actually discussed when and why he started using. yea...true indeed they can say anything to make the story sound good but all you can do is pretty much take their word if they are actually admitting when they used. Man tells you the truth about using then u still make him out to be a liar by saying he started using earlier than what he said did lol give the man a break lol

Some people are just flat out born with the genetics for this sport. Remember when your were in 1st or second grade and you and your friends flexed your biceps and one of them had waaaaay more development than the rest? lol Ronnie was "that" kid lol

Doesn't matter and is irrelevant. People like to bring up how Ronnie "blew up" in the later part of the 90's and early 2000's as some sort of indication that he was now "using" when before he was not. This is about as dumb as it gets and is in no way an indicator of his use early in his career compared to later. The clear indicator here in this case is insulin use, or the correct application of it, that's why he exploded in size + his great genetics. You don't get to 200lbs+ ripped at his height naturally, even with his genetics which are on the top percentile, it's just not possible.

[TrainOfThought]

ahhh, someone with brains enters the thread

[Penile_Dementia]

The argument is not baseless. It's based on what goes on in the sport, the lies that go on, the likely hood that he used to reach that level, because he used after all.

Absolutely none of that provides any basis whatsoever for assuming how far a human body of achievement without precedent can go. This is my main point and you still have not addressed it whatsoever.

And no other man has reached that level naturally. All of what goes on in the sport is evidence for good reasoning.

Like I said, and your post STILL doesn't deal with - I have no idea how you can deduce what level a human body can reach naturally, especially when we're talking about someone who is a RIDICULOUS level of outlier - surely all the experience with natural bodybuilding in the world offers absolutely no information on that.

You argument is kind of silly anyways, you said you don't think it can go that far... You saying that should be part of good reasoning to know it can not.

You say my argument is silly, and then state this, which is absolutely absurd and makes no sense whatsoever.

I very, very clearly said I don't "think it can go that far", because I don't know either way.

Not knowing how far it can go, therefore refraining from assuming how far it can go, is utterly terrible reasoning towards a conclusion on how far it can go. It doesn't get any more illogical and contradictory than that. Or silly. Having no idea about something =/= good reasoning to know that something

Add that judgment with everything else that you have seen and what goes on in the sport. And then maybe you will land to a final conclusion of how far a human body can go.

And are still left with absolutely no evidence whatsoever on how far a human body of achievement without precedent can go. This is my main point and you have left it completely unaddressed.

You call my argument silly and yet what is written in your posts offer no evidence you have even read it past the first sentence. (Though I believe you did, it is not reflected in what you wrote in response).

[TrainOfThought]

You are something else, really something else.

You are not getting my picture. And cleary you state im not getting yours. You are way over thinking things and not using common sense and knowledge of what goes on in the sport.

peace

[Penile_Dementia]

You are something else, really something else.

Yup. Absolutely something else; not assuming I know things that I don't.

You are not getting my picture.

That's because as clearly demonstrated, your picture has very weak foundation for its assertions.

And cleary you state im not getting yours.

"You argument is kind of silly anyways, you said you don't think it can go that far... You saying that should be part of good reasoning to know it can not."

Pretty irrefutable that you aren't. And when I respond to all your points, and you still haven't even acknowledged to existence of mine, it's even clearer.

You are way over thinking things and not using common sense and knowledge of what goes on in the sport.

peace

I am using common sense. No evidence ---> No conclusion. Common sense.

Knowledge of what goes in in the sport offers what answer to my main point (how do you know how far a human body of achievement without precedent can go)?

Absolutely none, as the point itself clearly implies. And your responses have clearly demonstrated. Not "overthinking", just common sense that may have had me resort to overexplaining every time it was ignored (and still remains so, after several replies. )

Peace.

[BaGeL23]

Doesn't matter and is irrelevant. People like to bring up how Ronnie "blew up" in the later part of the 90's and early 2000's as some sort of indication that he was now "using" when before he was not. This is about as dumb as it gets and is in no way an indicator of his use early in his career compared to later. The clear indicator here in this case is insulin use, or the correct application of it, that's why he exploded in size + his great genetics. You don't get to 200lbs+ ripped at his height naturally, even with his genetics which are on the top percentile, it's just not possible.

lololololollool

lol

























lol that was a good one

[Penile_Dementia]

lololololollool

lol

lol that was a good one

It's probably true for most. 200 lean is one thing but 200lbs at 5% and dehydrated is pretty fuking huge, another animal entirely.

Still, without direct evidence - not assumptions piled onto assumptions (for example, if you had proof that all the people you ever observed at 200lbs lean used drugs, it would absolutely not be proof that someone with unprecedented genetics in the sport could not reach that size - that's terrible logic) - I don't see how reaching that conclusion is possible.

If we go by the arguments made so far, there is far more 'evidence' that reaching 8 foot tall is even more impossible than being 200 or 230 shredded naturally.

Of course luckily we have direct and unambiguous evidence to the contrary from barely a dozen people out of billions.

No such luck when it comes to assessing natural bodybuilding limitations out of a tiny sample group.

[TrainOfThought]

Picture plain and simple my friend. No one gets to that level without hormones. It's not possible.

[TrainOfThought]

It's probably true for most. 200 lean is one thing but 200lbs at 5% and dehydrated is pretty fuking huge, another animal entirely.

Now add 30 POUNDS on top of that "another animal entirely." What does that make Ronnie??? Genetics sprinkled down from the gods above? lol

again use common sense

[Emmortal]

lololololollool

lol

lol that was a good one

Age 18: Teen Misc is that way --->

[Penile_Dementia]

Picture plain and simple my friend. No one gets to that level without hormones. It's not possible.

Yes, you've asserted this already. But until you or somebody else proves the assertion; I will accept that I simply don't have the information to assume that to be true.

Now add 30 POUNDS on top of that "another animal entirely." What does that make Ronnie??? Genetics sprinkled down from the gods above? lol

I don't know. I have no evidence, and have been given none, either way on whether he could have been 200, 210, 220 or 230 naturally if he chose instead of the route he took.

Although that is probably how I'd describe his genetics, especially by the time the 2004 GP's rolled around, competing as he did about 50lbs heavier then the other absolute freaks who were also on major drug regimens...

again use common sense

I am. No evidence ---> No conclusion. Common sense.

You making bare assertions, being unable or refusing to respond/acknowledge existence of my point whatsoever while continually replying to me, saying "You argument is kind of silly anyways, you said you don't think it can go that far... You saying that should be part of good reasoning to know it can not." ---> taking what you say with a big pinch of salt.

Common sense.

[Penile_Dementia]

I just noticed eerie parallels with agnostic vs theist debates in the R & P section.

[TrainOfThought]

excellent, you should head that way

[Penile_Dementia]

excellent, you should head that way

Nah, I've had my fill of one sided conversations tonight.

[TrainOfThought]

lol, one sided. My facts are all of my claims he wasn't natural. Because you want to get cute with words does not dismiss what I have said. You can reply as you wish, but i'm done.

[Penile_Dementia]

lol, one sided. My facts are all of my claims he wasn't natural.

Yes, you've asserted this already. But until you or somebody else proves the assertion; I will accept that I simply don't have the information to assume that to be true. And neither you, or somebody else, has done so yet.

Because you want to get cute with words does not dismiss what I have said. You can reply as you wish, but i'm done.

Correct. That doesn't dismiss what you have said; instead showing what you have said to be baseless and presumptuous and filled with misunderstandings did.

Contrast that with the of tactic of not even responding to the main parts of what I have said.

[MaxPower69]

a lifetime natural ronnie coleman would compete around 200 pounds, its pretty obvious if you look at top natural bodybuilders

[TrainOfThought]

a lifetime natural ronnie coleman would compete around 200 pounds, its pretty obvious if you look at top natural bodybuilders

part of common sense you would think one would have who is heavily involved in bodybuilding..

[BartPimpson]

Nah, I've had my fill of one sided conversations tonight.

I haven't followed the discussion but I think he's fundamentally correct in what a drug-free bodybuilder can do. I mean, if you look at bodybuilders from the pre-steroid era (Sandow, Grimek, Atlas, even Steve who is a rumored dbol user) they mostly fall into the 180lb-210lb weight range.

Now, I admit they didn't have access to modern training techniques, but where were the genetic freaks of those days? Weren't there people back then just as genetically gifted as Ronnie Coleman? It's only when anabolic steroids appear on the scene that the freaks appear. Bam, 250lb Reg Park, 240lb Sergio Oliva, 250lb Arnold Schwarzenegger, all appearing within a couple years of steroids being made legal by the FDA in 1958.

Nobody knows how much muscle you can add naturally, or exactly how exceptional Ronnie Coleman was. But I can certainly understand the mistrust that Ronnie Coleman was natural or on a low dose during his early years.

[MaximusPlatypus]

You don't get SHREDDED at 5'10" 230 with 20 inch biceps naturally, it's just not possible. Sure 5'10" 230, 240..250 with 20 inch biceps, but not in that CONDITION. That person would still hold quite a bit of fat. If you want to believe Ronnie was natural go ahead. This is bodybuilding, hormones are involved in bodybuilding, there is no way around it. You think Ronnie one day said, hmmm, ill try this to get bigger? If he did them later in his career, why wouldn't he have done them earlier to get edge on his competition as well. Just because he wasn't 300 pounds shredded out of the blue, doesn't mean he didn't played around with hormones a bit when he was younger.

Picture plain and simple my friend. No one gets to that level without hormones. It's not possible.

The fact is, you don't really know what is possible.

Imagine if EVERY male in the world right now (3 billion+) worked out for 10 years with Ronnie's intensity, dedication, and diet.

Are you telling me you KNOW that NONE of these 3 billion people could get to ~220lbs in contest shape?

You simply don't know the limits of human potential... what's to say that there aren't a small percentage of people with naturally very high testosterone, or that have the myostatin inhibiting gene (or w/e that is).

You don't know so don't sound off like a broken record pretending to be confident in what you say. It may be unlikely that Ronnie was 230 shredded natural... but to be so arrogant in your opinion is foolish.



It's like you saying "No man can ever be taller than 7 feet.... I have met thousands of ppl and seen thousands of ppl on TV... NONE of them were 7 feet tall. I am right."

But wait, there have been genetic freaks that were over 7 feet tall... it isn't normal, but it does happen.

Try not to be so close minded.

[Emmortal]

The fact is, you don't really know what is possible.

Imagine if EVERY male in the world right now (3 billion+) worked out for 10 years with Ronnie's intensity, dedication, and diet.

Are you telling me you KNOW that NONE of these 3 billion people could get to ~220lbs in contest shape?

You simply don't know the limits of human potential... what's to say that there aren't a small percentage of people with naturally very high testosterone, or that have the myostatin inhibiting gene (or w/e that is).

You don't know so don't sound off like a broken record pretending to be confident in what you say. It may be unlikely that Ronnie was 230 shredded natural... but to be so arrogant in your opinion is foolish.



It's like you saying "No man can ever be taller than 7 feet.... I have met thousands of ppl and seen thousands of ppl on TV... NONE of them were 7 feet tall. I am right."

But wait, there have been genetic freaks that were over 7 feet tall... it isn't normal, but it does happen.

Try not to be so close minded.

He's not being close minded, just realistic. Sure there *might* be someone out there with the genetics capable of doing that, but the probability of it is so far fetched it leaves little room for persuasion. Bodybuilding has been around in some form or another for hundreds of years, and only seriously started taking off in the late 1800's early 1900's with the strong men at carnivals etc. The only major differences between now and then are two things: drugs and nutrition knowledge. Nutrition alone isn't enough to justify the discrepancy between how those guys looked 60-70 years ago to how they looked in the 60's and even more so in the 70's. So that leaves us with one factor, drugs.

[MaximusPlatypus]

He's not being close minded, just realistic. Sure there *might* be someone out there with the genetics capable of doing that, but the probability of it is so far fetched it leaves little room for persuasion.

No, it doesn't. It's possible that ronnie is that someone. The amount of people exposed to bodybuilding is tiny. And to make that number exponentially smaller, let's exclude all the people that don't take up bodybuilding and make it their life.

There are likely thousands, possibly MILLIONS of people out there with muscle building genetics on par with Ronnie Coleman... it is very likely there are thousands of people with better genes than coleman.

The chances that some of these ppl are capable of getting bigger than you think possible without drugs is very high.



and to address your post about the golden age BB'ers... there was only a VERY SMALL amount of people that even lifted weights, let alone that did it properly and with good nutrition.

If you took 1,000 random men from the 1950s and had them lifting with Ronnie's intensity and knowledge, and with a tight bulking diet, I guarantee at least 1 of those 1,000 people would make Steve Reeves, Bill Pearl, etc look like children.

The fact that they even lifted intensely at all was what made them unique... not their 1 in a million genetics (although I think many of them had pretty good genetics).

[tsiparlanaeht]

Ronnie.

[BaGeL23]

It's probably true for most. 200 lean is one thing but 200lbs at 5% and dehydrated is pretty fuking huge, another animal entirely.

Still, without direct evidence - not assumptions piled onto assumptions (for example, if you had proof that all the people you ever observed at 200lbs lean used drugs, it would absolutely not be proof that someone with unprecedented genetics in the sport could not reach that size - that's terrible logic) - I don't see how reaching that conclusion is possible.

If we go by the arguments made so far, there is far more 'evidence' that reaching 8 foot tall is even more impossible than being 200 or 230 shredded naturally.

Of course luckily we have direct and unambiguous evidence to the contrary from barely a dozen people out of billions.

No such luck when it comes to assessing natural bodybuilding limitations out of a tiny sample group.

200lbs in perfect contest shape would be an incredible accomplishment for any natural competitor, far from impossible though. "200lbs ripped" implies anywhere from 5-8%, the thought that someone whose been training naturally for 10+ years to be 200+lbs and in that range "is impossible" is funny to me.

Age 18: Teen Misc is that way --->

Feels good too, bet you miss the best days of your life

[valiantmiller16]

200lbs in perfect contest shape would be an incredible accomplishment for any natural competitor, far from impossible though. "200lbs ripped" implies anywhere from 5-8%, the thought that someone whose been training naturally for 10+ years to be 200+lbs and in that range "is impossible" is funny to me.



Feels good too, bet you miss the best days of your life

show one natural bodybuilder that is 5 foot 10 and 200 pounds at 5% bodyfat thats better than stage level bodyfat for most natty's.

[BartPimpson]

200lbs in perfect contest shape would be an incredible accomplishment for any natural competitor, far from impossible though. "200lbs ripped" implies anywhere from 5-8%, the thought that someone whose been training naturally for 10+ years to be 200+lbs and in that range "is impossible" is funny to me.



Feels good too, bet you miss the best days of your life

Haha, if the best days of your life are when you're a teenager then I quit.