will you test positive while on trt?

[tury694]

While I agree that he does indeed look far to bulked to be natty, even bodybuilding.com comments on the "possibility" of a FFMI of 27 (and possibly even as high as 28)

Bodybuilding.com - The Science Of Natural Bodybuilding: The Blazquez Report!

16-17 = Well below average (< / - 20th percentile)

18-19 = Average (25-50th percentile)

20 = Above Average (50-75th percentile)

21 = Well above average (75-90th percentile)

22 = Excellent (95th percentile)

23-25 = Superior [Off the charts for normal adult men (Schutz et al., 2002), but in the top 85-95th percentile for Natural bodybuilders (Kouri et al., 1995)]

26-27 = Some Natural bodybuilders could get to this level (Genetics play a large role in attaining this level).

28-29 = It is possible but very unlikely to reach this level Naturally as research and science have clearly shown NO non-users have ever gotten higher than 28.

30 or above = We know this person is not a Natural bodybuilder through common-sense, but now science too (Kouri et al., 1995).

I am not saying that he is or isn't juicing: I'm saying that while it is at the extreme end of the potential scale, it IS possible. He looks awesome! If he IS natty, my hat's off to him! Can you imagine him with a few cycles under his belt!?

Dude give it up. That physique is not attainable naturally. BB.com is a bro science supplement pimping website. That place is full of morons btw. Some fucking kid posted a creation cycle log the other day. All of the featured articles are bad or just complete bullshit. I don't care that miller uses he still looks amazing, but he should not bash real bodybuilders.

 

[halfwit]

As a coach to natties, and having competed myself, I know exactly what can and cant be achieved without drugs.
I don't need a supplement house like bb.com to explain it to me

Let's take Brian Whitacre - one of the greatest REAL natural physiques of recent memory.
He's 5'9, 165lbs at 5% and has won countless titles.
So do you REALLY believe that Doug's genetics are so AWESOME that he can eclipse a fellow elite nattie by 25 fucking pounds of lean muscle?!

I'm sticking to my original opinion - anyone who thinks Doug is natty is an idiot.

Yup, there's just a slight difference haha. Nothing against Brian, he's in phenomenal shape, but... Yeah.

 

[weavy88]

While I agree that he does indeed look far to bulked to be natty, even bodybuilding.com comments on the "possibility" of a FFMI of 27 (and possibly even as high as 28)

Bodybuilding.com - The Science Of Natural Bodybuilding: The Blazquez Report!

16-17 = Well below average (< / - 20th percentile)

18-19 = Average (25-50th percentile)

20 = Above Average (50-75th percentile)

21 = Well above average (75-90th percentile)

22 = Excellent (95th percentile)

23-25 = Superior [Off the charts for normal adult men (Schutz et al., 2002), but in the top 85-95th percentile for Natural bodybuilders (Kouri et al., 1995)]

26-27 = Some Natural bodybuilders could get to this level (Genetics play a large role in attaining this level).

28-29 = It is possible but very unlikely to reach this level Naturally as research and science have clearly shown NO non-users have ever gotten higher than 28.

30 or above = We know this person is not a Natural bodybuilder through common-sense, but now science too (Kouri et al., 1995).

I am not saying that he is or isn't juicing: I'm saying that while it is at the extreme end of the potential scale, it IS possible. He looks awesome! If he IS natty, my hat's off to him! Can you imagine him with a few cycles under his belt!?

dude this shit can't be right, i scored a 26.5 with a height of 5 foot 10, bw of 205 and bf% of 15. I feel like those stats could be resched by most natural bodybuilders and would not be isolated to "beyond superior"