Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Natural Bodybuilding => Topic started by: natural al on March 02, 2006, 02:34:35 PM



Title: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: natural al on March 02, 2006, 02:34:35 PM
I've been dying to ask this question, on this board:

Do you think Skip Lacour is natural or not?

I say yes.  the reason being is he's pretty much paid to be what he is.  Meaning it's his job to train and eat and take the right supplements.  He also has the entire AST team behind him.  I've read his and Willets training journals and it seems like they are always being evaluated by the guys there, getting thier supplements, training and diet tweaked.  The guys doing the evaluations are PHD's so they are getting the best advice possible.  Now i don't think this is what the average natural guy can hope to achieve unless you have no job and are rich enough to have the support staff this guy has.  hell, I wish AST would hire me, I'd love to see what I could achieve with that type of support team behind me.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Acerimmer1 on March 02, 2006, 03:10:49 PM
I've been dying to ask this question, on this board:
Do you think Skip Lacour is natural or not?
I say yes.  the reason being is he's pretty much paid to be what he is.  Meaning it's his job to train and eat and take the right supplements.  He also has the entire AST team behind him.  I've read his and Willets training journals and it seems like they are always being evaluated by the guys there, getting thier supplements, training and diet tweaked.  The guys doing the evaluations are PHD's so they are getting the best advice possible.  Now i don't think this is what the average natural guy can hope to achieve unless you have no job and are rich enough to have the support staff this guy has.  hell, I wish AST would hire me, I'd love to see what I could achieve with that type of support team behind me.

I believe Lacours natural. I also believe his posative attitude is a greater asset than any of those PHD's.

PS: Lacour may work as a bodybuilder but have you seen all the stuff he's written. He's not one of these guys who sleeps all day long and only gets outta bed to train he earns his money. Anybody working from home is in a comparable situation to Skip.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on March 02, 2006, 07:24:40 PM
Yes, he's like 240 or Bust.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: natural al on March 02, 2006, 08:11:13 PM
I believe Lacours natural. I also believe his posative attitude is a greater asset than any of those PHD's.
PS: Lacour may work as a bodybuilder but have you seen all the stuff he's written. He's not one of these guys who sleeps all day long and only gets outta bed to train he earns his money. Anybody working from home is in a comparable situation to Skip.

I've read some of his stuff, I like his attitude and I love that he has listened to some motivational speakers like Zig Zigler and Anthony Robbins-I think that's his name. 

I think the PHD's and people he works with at AST are kinda an x-factor, they obviously know thier shit and Skip and Willet have improved alot since hooking up with them...


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Acerimmer1 on March 04, 2006, 09:44:11 AM
I've read some of his stuff, I like his attitude and I love that he has listened to some motivational speakers like Zig Zigler and Anthony Robbins-I think that's his name. 
I think the PHD's and people he works with at AST are kinda an x-factor, they obviously know thier shit and Skip and Willet have improved alot since hooking up with them...

I thought Skip had got worse. Whos Zig Ziggler?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: analcandy on March 05, 2006, 04:21:38 PM
lacour and willet both natural????


yeah sure fucking tards...



(http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson63dbig.jpg)
(http://www.ast-ss.com/images/skip_10.jpg)


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: robocop on March 06, 2006, 03:23:30 AM
not again :'(


i say it for the last time.




Both are drug users


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Acerimmer1 on March 06, 2006, 03:23:34 PM
not again :'(
i say it for the last time.
Both are drug users
Your posts are becoming exceedingly gay! Is there any bodybuilder alive you are prepared to conceed is natural (other than yourself of course).


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: analcandy on March 06, 2006, 03:44:25 PM
Your posts are becoming exceedingly gay! You can see straight off that these guys have better genetics for upper arm developement than most if not all of the pro's. Why else would they be so much smaller?
fucking tard, they only take smaller dosages, like most models posing for muscle mags...

only a moron like you can think they are natural fucking homo. But they take steroids, just smaller amounts, that's all.


hope this will enlight you moron.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Acerimmer1 on March 06, 2006, 04:16:47 PM
fucking tard, they only take smaller dosages, like most models posing for muscle mags...
only a moron like you can think they are natural fucking homo. But they take steroids, just smaller amounts, that's all.
hope this will enlight you moron.

You believe that if you have to. But it won't change anybody elses opinion and it will only cripple your mindset... Lets just agree to disagree, you believe what you "rationalise" (in absence of any relevant facts), I'll believe whatever gives me a psychological edge... We'll see which one of us reaches his goals first.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: jonno gb on March 07, 2006, 03:02:55 AM
It's very easy to say that someone is not natural just because they look really impressive and a lot better than  many jealous haters who would die to have a physique like La Cour or Willett.These guys have fantastic genetics and have been training for many years with a great work ethic.I really hope that they are natural as it just shows what can be achieved without resorting to drugs and gives us less genetically gifted bodybuilders something to aim for.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on March 07, 2006, 04:03:11 PM
It's not so hard to believe that Skip LaCour or Jeff Willet are natural, they both compete around 200 lbs. Skip, the larger of the two was 205 lbs at 5'10'' at his last contest... hardly mass monster territory.

200 lbs is achieveable for a natural, I'm natural and 220 lbs... granted, only about 180 of that is muscle, but remember I'm only 5'5''. That's only about 30 lbs of muscle away from David Henry/Lee Priest/Lee Labrada territory. Lacour and Willet are similarly about 40 lbs away from being roid-monkey big.

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MCWAY on March 08, 2006, 03:49:41 AM
Skip LaCour has competed as heavy as 230 pounds, during his Team Universe days in the mid-90's. That would have made him a super-heavyweight by today's NPC standards.

However, LaCour has stated that he will no longer compete above 215, as he doesn't feel quite as comfortable or look quite as sharp as a heavier bodyweight.

The bottom line is this. No one will push himself to be the best he can be sans anabolics, with screwed-up mentalities as some which have been displayed here. And, as has been stated before, one's personal lack of achievement DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE to those who have achieved more being drug users.

Ten years ago, I thought I'd never break 200 lbs. without steroids. Yet, I've pushed my bodyweight over the 240-lb mark with nary an anabolic in my system.



Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MAI TAI LORENZ on April 13, 2006, 02:27:51 PM
Sorry to bust your bubble but Jeff Willet is not natural. not sure about Lacour though.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on April 13, 2006, 03:20:40 PM
Sorry to bust your bubble but Jeff Willet is not natural. not sure about Lacour though.

Do you have insider knowledge? If so, please speak on dis.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: myseone on April 14, 2006, 01:55:35 PM
What real difference does it make if they are natural or not? If they are, then they have achieved awesome physiques; if not, then they are liars, cheats and have average physiques for drug users.

Their height to weight ratio is not unreasonable for an advanced natural at all.

That being said, how would this impact you or my training, diet, or progress? If you you focus on your own efforts, aim for your personal best and achieve them, then you have done well.

Lawrence


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: jonno gb on April 14, 2006, 02:35:32 PM
What real difference does it make if they are natural or not? If they are, then they have achieved awesome physiques; if not, then they are liars, cheats and have average physiques for drug users.

Their height to weight ratio is not unreasonable for an advanced natural at all.

That being said, how would this impact you or my training, diet, or progress? If you you focus on your own efforts, aim for your personal best and achieve them, then you have done well.

Lawrence
Great post.The only person's physique that you can change is your own.Be the best that you can be and don't waste negative energy pulling others down.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: robocop on April 17, 2006, 02:16:38 AM
What real difference does it make if they are natural or not? If they are, then they have achieved awesome physiques; if not, then they are liars, cheats and have average physiques for drug users.

Their height to weight ratio is not unreasonable for an advanced natural at all.

That being said, how would this impact you or my training, diet, or progress? If you you focus on your own efforts, aim for your personal best and achieve them, then you have done well.

Lawrence


So your'e a drug user too?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Ursus on April 17, 2006, 02:25:24 PM
people who tend to doubt what natural trainers can achieve are generally genetically not as lucky. also that is why many genetically gifted people such as myself fail to fully realise how people cant progress as quickly as i can tho now i do understand more.

i am quite large for a natural and i can see myself being 250+lbs lean abs etc. it just takes a strong will. at 250 at 6'3 ill hardly be a mass monster but i will look larger than i weigh. same with those fellas


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: myseone on April 17, 2006, 06:17:50 PM

So your'e a drug user too?

Yeah I drink tea containing caffeine in the morning, I eat eggs and meat with hormones in them. I sometimes use medication when I'm sick as well, so I guess you caught me.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: myseone on April 17, 2006, 06:26:29 PM
people who tend to doubt what natural trainers can achieve are generally genetically not as lucky. also that is why many genetically gifted people such as myself fail to fully realise how people cant progress as quickly as i can tho now i do understand more.

i am quite large for a natural and i can see myself being 250+lbs lean abs etc. it just takes a strong will. at 250 at 6'3 ill hardly be a mass monster but i will look larger than i weigh. same with those fellas

Agreed. Many people don't appreciate what they have. The bottom line is people need to accept that their genetics and work with what they have. No amount of sulking, pouting and complaining will change them, and the time could be better used for gaining.

I think just about everyone can build a physique that looks impressive to 99% of the people out there. Top level natural bodybuilders are as rare as world class soccer players or any over top tier athlete for that matter.

Most people will not build a physique with the quality of a State level natural bodybuilder let alone a national or pro natural, no matter how they train, what they eat, etc.

Focus on what you have and maximize it, you will be a lot happier.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Hedgehog on April 18, 2006, 02:33:23 AM
i am quite large for a natural

You are?
 :-X

YIP
Zack


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Ursus on April 18, 2006, 06:08:19 AM
ah come on bro. ok maybe not huge but i look bigger than i wat the scales say i weigh. lol


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: an123 on April 18, 2006, 06:27:35 AM
Willet has an ugly physique period.  Lacour is probably natural now, but lifetime?  Doubt it.  But it is a moot point, bodybuilding is NEVER a natural endeavour, whether you take the drugs or not.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: dseiler on July 13, 2006, 04:50:52 AM
Willet has an ugly physique period.  Lacour is probably natural now, but lifetime?  Doubt it.  But it is a moot point, bodybuilding is NEVER a natural endeavour, whether you take the drugs or not.

Please explain. Pushing your body to limits it isn't supposed to reach?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: an123 on July 13, 2006, 08:31:17 AM
Please explain. Pushing your body to limits it isn't supposed to reach?

Dehydration, low carbs, excessive tanning, etc...

Bodybuilding itself is a very natural thing (in my opinion), that is pushing your body to the true limits.. Competitive bodybuilding isn't.  But to each their own.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bic_staedtler on August 19, 2006, 10:18:22 PM
It's not so hard to believe that Skip LaCour or Jeff Willet are natural, they both compete around 200 lbs. Skip, the larger of the two was 205 lbs at 5'10'' at his last contest... hardly mass monster territory.

200 lbs is achieveable for a natural, I'm natural and 220 lbs... granted, only about 180 of that is muscle, but remember I'm only 5'5''. That's only about 30 lbs of muscle away from David Henry/Lee Priest/Lee Labrada territory. Lacour and Willet are similarly about 40 lbs away from being roid-monkey big.

The Luke

...dude, this is the point we're trying to make....LOTS of natural trainers can be big and hold fat (sorry, but surely you realize 30 pounds of fat on a 5 foot 5 guy is not going to look like Skip LaCour or any other known bb'er).

It's where you can get big and RIPPED where the drugs come in, for cheating naturals.  Skip is simply not natural, neither is that other guy.  How can you look at those photos and not see this?

I'm not knocking em.  They train hard, but they're NOT naturals.  They've used somthing to help the process.  Those with their heads in the sand will simply keep them there....but when you've seen some seriously gifted guys train, train yourself, and see what can and can't be done then you've GOT to question!

Skip and Willett have simply marketed themselves to the small market of 'believers' and taken just enough to look big, but not outrageously big.  They're still far bigger and ripped than MANY, MANY natural trainers out there!

And remember people...200 pounds "not that big"?  Please!  At their heights, recall that many Mr O competitors in the 70's were competing around that weight ...and looking HUGE!  And they were JUICED!

What is it that people just can't accept about this?  It's hardly difficult to comprehend. 

Do you REALLY need some shining idol who lies about his drug use to give you a reason to train naturally?  If so, then that's really SAD.  I'd like to think most of us here train hard, and those that do it naturally certainly know by now what's realistic.   And these two AREN'T....I don't care how much AST pays em to say so!  And by the way, who the fuck uses AST supps anyway?

SAD. 


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Tier on August 20, 2006, 07:33:20 PM
...dude, this is the point we're trying to make....LOTS of natural trainers can be big and hold fat (sorry, but surely you realize 30 pounds of fat on a 5 foot 5 guy is not going to look like Skip LaCour or any other known bb'er).

It's where you can get big and RIPPED where the drugs come in, for cheating naturals.  Skip is simply not natural, neither is that other guy.  How can you look at those photos and not see this?

I'm not knocking em.  They train hard, but they're NOT naturals.  They've used somthing to help the process.  Those with their heads in the sand will simply keep them there....but when you've seen some seriously gifted guys train, train yourself, and see what can and can't be done then you've GOT to question!

Skip and Willett have simply marketed themselves to the small market of 'believers' and taken just enough to look big, but not outrageously big.  They're still far bigger and ripped than MANY, MANY natural trainers out there!

And remember people...200 pounds "not that big"?  Please!  At their heights, recall that many Mr O competitors in the 70's were competing around that weight ...and looking HUGE!  And they were JUICED!

What is it that people just can't accept about this?  It's hardly difficult to comprehend. 

Do you REALLY need some shining idol who lies about his drug use to give you a reason to train naturally?  If so, then that's really SAD.  I'd like to think most of us here train hard, and those that do it naturally certainly know by now what's realistic.   And these two AREN'T....I don't care how much AST pays em to say so!  And by the way, who the f**k uses AST supps anyway?

SAD. 

 ;D I love it!

Anyways yeah who cares whos natural or not , train hard , eat right...if you feel the need to juice...do it...if not then yeah.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Nathan on August 20, 2006, 09:04:33 PM
You have to do and believe what others won't, to achieve what others don't ;)


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bic_staedtler on August 20, 2006, 11:18:46 PM
You have to do and believe what others won't, to achieve what others don't ;)

...alright there, Dr Seuss....

I will not do them in a box!

I will not do them with a fox!

I will not hide them on a train,

I will not shoot them on a plane!

I will not inject them in a glute, I won't inject them in the flute!


....ps, the reason I'm saying this is to get through to those people out there who need to believe in liars to get their asses in the gym.  If you need to believe that Skip's physique was built on Raisin Bran and Milk, then, as Joe Perry can attest, "Don't STOP BELIEVIN!!!!!!!"....

...for those in the real world, get over it, and keep training.  Juice, don't juice, who gives a rat's ass.  And for those who feel they need good role models in the world, well...look no further then these greats...AND they're steroid free!


George W Bush

Bill Gates

...well that's all I can come up with now.  HAVE FUN, believers!  Don't forget to say your prayers, eat your vitamins, and DRINK ----  YOUR  ----- MILK!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Nathan on September 10, 2006, 04:54:44 PM
Wow U can read I'm impressed but you need to work on the wisdom thing :D

BTW I love wieght training thats why i do it! just like I play base ball or football ;)


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: hardest core on September 15, 2006, 05:45:20 PM
Skip is clean......period.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bic_staedtler on September 17, 2006, 03:23:43 PM
Skip is clean......period.

....WOW.  At least I can sleep at night, as thou has spoketh!...SO it was SAID, and SO it SHALL BE TRUE!

...but in all reality your opinion that he's clean and my stance that he's done steroids, GH and other things are opposites of the spectrum.  But what proof do you need?  Dude, LOOK at the guy.

The only way you could be so sure was if he was 180 with some body fat.

He's on something.  Sorry to ruin your day!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: pobrecito on September 17, 2006, 03:44:02 PM
haha...use your eyes people and come to your conclusion. This is question is laughable


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: patrinos2003 on September 22, 2006, 04:48:45 AM
I know 2 guys with similar physiques like La Cour, extra defined, dry and sharp muscled, very good bodies and def not the average Joe, they weigh only 88-90kgs and they could easily be at fitness mags covers...they BOTH train for years,eat right, take some supplements religiously and last but not least THEY USE SOME AAS! just smaller doses than pros! their last cycle consisted of Boldenone,Test,Winny,IGF etc ..go figure!!!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: dedicated bb on November 05, 2006, 02:37:38 AM
Does skip compete in drug tested events if so how does he get past the system? My only concern with these coments is i feel bad for natural bodybuilders who are accused of drug use, i heard a comment that was interesting to me bodybuilding is the only sport where being to good is a bad thing >:(. How can we as naturals better ourselves when anyone with a half way decent physique 'has' to be taking steroids. Supplements are better, routines are better i dont think seing someone skips size is anywhere near impossible unless you believe that. Lets support each other and untill someone fails a test give them the benifit of the doubt. Think about how much supplements skip takes they gota be helping his cause alot. Also to some of the comments that where on here yes it is nice to believe he's natural because it helps motivate us using him as a role model because lets face it who else we got. Everyone here sooks when there considered a steroid user but there ready to jump on the first guy bigger then them and accuse them of use. We all need to do some thinking if natural bodybuilding is ever going to make it and at the moment it seems like it wont.....


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MikeThaMachine on November 10, 2006, 02:28:19 AM
Does skip compete in drug tested events if so how does he get past the system? My only concern with these coments is i feel bad for natural bodybuilders who are accused of drug use, i heard a comment that was interesting to me bodybuilding is the only sport where being to good is a bad thing >:(. How can we as naturals better ourselves when anyone with a half way decent physique 'has' to be taking steroids. Supplements are better, routines are better i dont think seing someone skips size is anywhere near impossible unless you believe that. Lets support each other and untill someone fails a test give them the benifit of the doubt. Think about how much supplements skip takes they gota be helping his cause alot. Also to some of the comments that where on here yes it is nice to believe he's natural because it helps motivate us using him as a role model because lets face it who else we got. Everyone here sooks when there considered a steroid user but there ready to jump on the first guy bigger then them and accuse them of use. We all need to do some thinking if natural bodybuilding is ever going to make it and at the moment it seems like it wont.....

Amen brother :)


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on November 21, 2006, 12:04:15 PM
Skip Lacour -10 years of training apart

1994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXFjDSNt3Fk

2003

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=839407926383735932&q=skip+la+cour


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bigbalddaddy on November 21, 2006, 06:11:06 PM
So genetically this clown only grew to a certain weight without going over a higher dose than he feels necessary to warrant him being "natural" so that makes him "natural" because he has only maintained in the last 10 years that he's been "natural".  Money says when he retires he looses 20-30lbs and softens up quickly!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Frauhorn on November 23, 2006, 02:58:58 AM
it is defamatory to say lacour is a juicer unless you can prove it is true & in the public interest.
I cannot prove it is true as I have never seen him juice.

however I do "think" he's done a lot of juice. its just my opinion


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Super Natural on November 23, 2006, 06:43:55 AM
I know it's possible to get that ripped naturally (without drugs) cause I've done it. I don't weigh as much as them but I do think it's possible to be their weight if you're a big guy to begin with. Hell I know guys who play rugby here in South Africa who are massive with just 3 meals a day and don't even go to gym (and don't even know what steroids are.)

I know it's bitter pill for some people to swallow but there's always someone out there with a bigger cigar ;) ..best to dry your eyes , build a bridge and get over it  ;D


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Moen on November 24, 2006, 04:45:35 AM
The problem lies in the definition of natural ofcourse.
Skip and most natural bodybuilders define 'natural' as passing a drug test so generally speaking that would only include steroids

However I know 'natural' competitors here in belgium and they use hgh, clenbuterol, igf-1, basically any non-steroid drug

I dont know what skip uses or does not use but I doubt he's completely natural as in no hgh, no clen for contests and no igf-1, all these things cannot be traced at all or at least not when you stop soon enough before the contest so in his eyes he probably IS natural


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Hedgehog on November 24, 2006, 06:52:58 AM
It has to be possible.

I believe he has very good, but not great, genetics for packing on muscle mass, not unique by any means.

I've seen at least three or four guys that have better genetics, guys that didn't have the heart or the interest for it.

Not a knock on LaCour. It's a mental game as well.

And I cannot think of a BB other than Arnold that could match LaCour's will power.

YIP
Zack


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 15, 2006, 06:57:24 AM
Throughout LaCour's career he's competed with a fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 27.5 up to 30. A FFMI over 26 is a practical guarantee of anabolic drug-use. Most people cannot even reach a FFMI of 25 without drug-use. In fact, at a FFMI of 30, LaCour's physique was quite dependent on a fairly heavy level of drug-use.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bigbalddaddy on December 15, 2006, 12:15:50 PM
Throughout LaCour's career he's competed with a fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 27.5 up to 30. A FFMI over 26 is a practical guarantee of anabolic drug-use. Most people cannot even reach a FFMI of 25 without drug-use. In fact, at a FFMI of 30, LaCour's physique was quite dependent on a fairly heavy level of drug-use.

Yep, I knew it...















ALL DRUGS!!!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 15, 2006, 06:40:47 PM
Throughout LaCour's career he's competed with a fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 27.5 up to 30. A FFMI over 26 is a practical guarantee of anabolic drug-use. Most people cannot even reach a FFMI of 25 without drug-use. In fact, at a FFMI of 30, LaCour's physique was quite dependent on a fairly heavy level of drug-use.

How do detrmine all of this? What do the numbers mean and how did you get them?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Hedgehog on December 15, 2006, 09:17:45 PM
What kind of index is FFI?

Care to explain, mon ami?

-Hedge


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 16, 2006, 06:57:15 AM
Several years ago researchers (primarily Dr. Harrison Pope) began doing some research with drug-using and drug-free bodybuilders and lifters. They did a regression based on lean body mass and height. The equation they fit calculates a number called the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Essentially, the FFMI is similar to the BMI, but lean body mass is used instead of body weight.

In that research, and since then, it has been determined that most genetically average people cannot surpass a FFMI of about 24-25 without drugs. A FFMI of 25-26 is a typical "natural" physique champion. It's thought that no champion bodybuilder in history has surpassed a FFMI of 27 without the use of drugs.

LaCour has competed with a FFMI of over 30. Not only is that impossible without drugs, fairly "heavy" drug-use would be necessary. For example, Schwarzenegger competed at a FFMI of about 28.

I'd estimate that LaCour's drug-use was similar to bodybuilders of the early 1980s ...but compared to bodybuilder's of his era he could claim to be "relatively natural". He also mastered how to beat drug tests -- as did Ronnie Coleman, who also claimed to be drug-free for years during his early pro career.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MCWAY on December 16, 2006, 06:24:05 PM
Several years ago researchers (primarily Dr. Harrison Pope) began doing some research with drug-using and drug-free bodybuilders and lifters. They did a regression based on lean body mass and height. The equation they fit calculates a number called the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Essentially, the FFMI is similar to the BMI, but lean body mass is used instead of body weight.

In that research, and since then, it has been determined that most genetically average people cannot surpass a FFMI of about 24-25 without drugs. A FFMI of 25-26 is a typical "natural" physique champion. It's thought that no champion bodybuilder in history has surpassed a FFMI of 27 without the use of drugs.

LaCour has competed with a FFMI of over 30. Not only is that impossible without drugs, fairly "heavy" drug-use would be necessary. For example, Schwarzenegger competed at a FFMI of about 28.

I'd estimate that LaCour's drug-use was similar to bodybuilders of the early 1980s ...but compared to bodybuilder's of his era he could claim to be "relatively natural". He also mastered how to beat drug tests -- as did Ronnie Coleman, who also claimed to be drug-free for years during his early pro career.

I read the study you referenced in FLEX over 10 years ago. The drug-free bodybuilders being used were Mr. America winners from 1939 to 1959. They estimated what their bodyfat levels were and compared them with some modern bodybuilders believed to be drug-free as well.

My thing is, why in the world would you be motivated to push yourself drug-free, if you believe you can't get any bigger than Mr. Americas from the 1940s? What's the point?

Remember that "experts" said that nobody could run a mile in under 4 minutes. We know how that went.

That's what it's all about: Doing your best and just going for it. Maybe if certain people spend half as much time putting LaCour's advice to work as they do trying to "prove" that he's using anabolics, they'd have a great physiques in their own right.



Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 16, 2006, 07:21:41 PM
I read the study you referenced in FLEX over 10 years ago. The drug-free bodybuilders being used were Mr. America winners from 1939 to 1959. They estimated what their bodyfat levels were and compared them with some modern bodybuilders believed to be drug-free as well.

My thing is, why in the world would you be motivated to push yourself drug-free, if you believe you can't get any bigger than Mr. Americas from the 1940s? What's the point?

Remember that "experts" said that nobody could run a mile in under 4 minutes. We know how that went.

There have been several peer-reviewed studies published, all concluding essentially the same thing. I haven't read a FLEX since the early 1990s, so I'm not familiar with what they referenced. Park, Eiferman and Delinger, in particular, carried massive amounts of muscle. Unrealistic expectations are what often lead people to steroid use. I don't think that what anybody has accomplished should be viewed as a "limitation" to anybody, but reality is what it is. If someone is determined to build more balanced muscle without drugs, then more power to them.

Bannister broke the 4-minute mile a week after he received his newly designed lightweight (and spiked) racing flats. Several people broke the 4-minute mile shortly after because they also got such racing shoes. If people today had to run in the pre-Bannister era heavy track shoes of the 1950s, believe me, there'd be a lot less 4-minute miles being run. The motivational speakers always seem to leave that tidbit out when they use the 4-minute mile example. Comparing sports across the eras is not always apples to apples.

Quote
Maybe if certain people spend half as much time putting LaCour's advice to work as they do trying to "prove" that he's using anabolics...

LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.

Quote
That's what it's all about: Doing your best and just going for it.

I agree 100%. That's probably the truest thing ever written on this board.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 16, 2006, 07:27:56 PM
Just gotta chime in here guys...

La Cour has an FFMI of more than 30?

But Arnold had an FFMI of only 28?


That simply can't be right.

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 16, 2006, 08:04:47 PM
It's right.

LaCour competed at 232 lbs at a height of 5'10"

Arnold competed between 224 to 235 lbs at a height of 6'2"

LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MCWAY on December 16, 2006, 09:29:04 PM
There have been several peer-reviewed studies published, all concluding essentially the same thing. I haven't read a FLEX since the early 1990s, so I'm not familiar with what they referenced. Park, Eiferman and Delinger, in particular, carried massive amounts of muscle. Unrealistic expectations are what often lead people to steroid use. I don't think that what anybody has accomplished should be viewed as a "limitation" to anybody, but reality is what it is. If someone is determined to build more balanced muscle without drugs, then more power to them.

Bannister broke the 4-minute mile a week after he received his newly designed lightweight (and spiked) racing flats. Several people broke the 4-minute mile shortly after because they also got such racing shoes. If people today had to run in the pre-Bannister era heavy track shoes of the 1950s, believe me, there'd be a lot less 4-minute miles being run. The motivational speakers always seem to leave that tidbit out when they use the 4-minute mile example. Comparing sports across the eras is not always apples to apples.

LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.

I agree 100%. That's probably the truest thing ever written on this board.

How is LaCour's advice that of a drug user? As I've said before, if I had a dime for everyone who supposedly had the goods to "expose" LaCour, I could retire.



Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bigbalddaddy on December 17, 2006, 11:35:18 AM
I'll put it to you fellas this way!  If this clown was natural he would do a blood test and post his results for everyone to see!  He's probably one of the most high profile natural guys in the world as far as drug use and speculation goes.  All he can say is that he passed the shows testing criteria!  Which is what a piss test and polygraph?  F*ck, Ronnie, Jay, Ruhl, and anyone else you care to name could pass the natural shows bullsh*t criteria if they REALLY wanted to.  Trust me this guy is no where close to natty or he would prove it and shut the world up!  So you people living in la la land with this false hope that you can look like him need to hit the crack pipe one more time and go in to rehab!  The only time he would take a test is after he's way done competing and down 30-40 lean lbs! 


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 12:31:26 AM
It's right.

LaCour competed at 232 lbs at a height of 5'10"

Arnold competed between 224 to 235 lbs at a height of 6'2"

LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition.

First of all, La Cour competed at 205 at 5'11 in 2002 and 2003...when he was most ripped.

It's funny how you use big words and try to sound so scientific--but then you simply say "La Cour carried more muscle in learner condition."

Says who? You? Show us the body fat test taken on Las Cour the day of his shows and Arnold's test too while you're at it.

Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions.

At least you are impressing yourself.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 18, 2006, 05:13:39 AM
mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Hedgehog on December 18, 2006, 07:33:01 AM


LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.



LaCour recommends Max-OT, which has training volume that could be tolerated by a natural athlete.

I do believe that for it to be 100% effective for a natural athlete, perhaps it would need to be cut down to three training days a week and also further, not having the athlete going all out on all sets all the time, having both medium and heavy workouts.

Another thing I disagree with is the short rest between sets, doesn't allow for all the muscle fibers to recover.

But still, Max-OT is eons better than any traditional bodybuilding layout IMO.

-Hedge


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 10:48:14 AM
mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.

Nice deflection.

Now how about answering the question.

What facts do you have that La Cour competed with more muscle muscle than Arnold?

How was La Cour tested to support your science?

You said he competed at a ripped 232. When was that? What was his body fat percentage when he competed at 232?

How do you address the fact that he at 205 at 5'11 when he won the Team Universe in 2002 and 2003?

What was Arnold's body fat percentage when he competed at 235?

Obviously, you need those acts and figures to plug into your scientic calculations, don't you?

You are an educated man,as you say. Please educated my "insecure" mind in your "well constructed" sentences why you, such a brilliant man, don't need those FACTS to plug into your science?

What? Could it be the you are just "eye balling" photos?

What kind of "science" is that?

One thing I do know about science, Einstein, is that when you plug in faulty data, your findings will be faulty as well.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 18, 2006, 10:52:37 AM
Okay... okay... let's keep it civil children.


The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 10:55:21 AM
LaCour recommends Max-OT, which has training volume that could be tolerated by a natural athlete.

I do believe that for it to be 100% effective for a natural athlete, perhaps it would need to be cut down to three training days a week and also further, not having the athlete going all out on all sets all the time, having both medium and heavy workouts.

Another thing I disagree with is the short rest between sets, doesn't allow for all the muscle fibers to recover.

But still, Max-OT is eons better than any traditional bodybuilding layout IMO.

-Hedge

Hedge. You consider three minute rest in between sets to be short? Just asking.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 01:29:12 PM
Several years ago researchers (primarily Dr. Harrison Pope) began doing some research with drug-using and drug-free bodybuilders and lifters. They did a regression based on lean body mass and height. The equation they fit calculates a number called the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Essentially, the FFMI is similar to the BMI, but lean body mass is used instead of body weight.

In that research, and since then, it has been determined that most genetically average people cannot surpass a FFMI of about 24-25 without drugs. A FFMI of 25-26 is a typical "natural" physique champion. It's thought that no champion bodybuilder in history has surpassed a FFMI of 27 without the use of drugs.

LaCour has competed with a FFMI of over 30. Not only is that impossible without drugs, fairly "heavy" drug-use would be necessary. For example, Schwarzenegger competed at a FFMI of about 28.

I'd estimate that LaCour's drug-use was similar to bodybuilders of the early 1980s ...but compared to bodybuilder's of his era he could claim to be "relatively natural". He also mastered how to beat drug tests -- as did Ronnie Coleman, who also claimed to be drug-free for years during his early pro career.

(http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVol14N1/pope.gif)

(http://www.nida.nih.gov/nida_notes/NNVol11N3/popejr.gif)

Dr. Harrison Pope, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital

He did research on marijuana and the Adonis Complex in men

Body fat mass index doesn't seem to be his area of expertise

I didn't see his studies about drug free bodybuilding champions anywhere.

Can to point them out to me?

I call BULLSHIT


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 18, 2006, 02:17:49 PM
My posts were sufficiently clear. Re-explaining things to someone incapable of understanding is a waste of time. LaCour's stats over the course of his career are readily available. Harrison Pope's papers on the "fat free mass index" were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- they are not difficult for even a person with your Google "skills" to find.

Researchers very often publish in several different fields at once. In fact, over the course of a career, research focus tends to change many times. I've been publishing for the past 6 years and my reseach field has changed, albeit not too dramatically, three times. That's part of the academic profession, of which you clearly have no understanding.

Why would you post a photo of Harrison Pope??? Why don't you post a photo of yourself along with your real name?

You are making a fool of yourself ...but the anonymity of your username allows that.

To any moderators reading this:

I joined this board a short time ago because I was looking for a place to maturely discuss drug-free lifting with like-minded people. As well, I joined to help less experienced people with my many years of lifting experience, publishing history with several bodybuilding magazines (both under my name and a pen name), and familiarity with many accomplished people in this area.

Quite obviously, this place has more than it's share of juvenile behaviour, immaturity and hostility. I managed a web board several years ago (at around the same time as "getbig" was just starting, BTW) and I can offer these suggestions:

My first suggestion is that you not allow members to join this board unless they post under their real names ...that will give some degree of accountability to the members. I strongly suspect that many of the more hostile members here are teenagers with very little lifting experience and very little perspective on the many aspects of bodybuilding. It appears that I am being badgered by such a character at the moment ...and I have no desire to correspond with or assist such people.

My second suggestion is that you strictly enforce the rules of this board. Disrepectful, hostile posters do nothing to help this board and only serve to reduce it to another childish internet forum that people with a legitimate interest in, and knowledge of, bodybuilding would not want to be a part of. There are enough such boards around, you don't need to be another one.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 02:56:50 PM
Quit crying, baby.

All I asked you to do was tell me is how La Cour and Arnold muscle mass, total body weight, and body fat levels were tested to support your claims.

You would need to know that information to plug into any mathemtical equation, wouldn't you? Even you and Dr. Comb-over would need them to figure out a FFMI, wouldn't you?

You don't have them, do you?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 18, 2006, 03:59:37 PM
I've taken the time to go back and reread this thread from the start.

mwbuilder has raised some interesting points, and has yet to see them properly addressed. Hedgehog has also made some good points.

Casey Butt seems like the kind of poster/member we need more of; thoughtful, knowledgable, experienced and articulate. However the following post of his seems to be the juncture at which the discussion diverged from heated debate into the trading of insults: 

mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.

...there is nothing nwbuilder posted previous to that point that could be read as unambiguously hostile or accusatory.

However, Mr Butt has raised some very interesting points regarding the tone of some these debates. It is true that several of these discussions degrade into name calling... and teenage rhetoric often labels the instigators for what they are. His suggestions regarding naming/identifying members are definately on point as anyone who has witnessed the damage done to the G&O boards by the slew of gimmick accounts generated by Sarcasm and True Adonis can attest.

My gut feeling in this instance is that Mr Butt's point of view would be best served by his taking a more patient Socratic approach: he could give a brief history of his experience in the iron game and/or any relevent educational qualifications he possess and then EXPLAIN how he arrived at his conclusion rather than dictate his opinion. In doing so he has the opportunity to not only persuade mwbuilder, but everyone of similar belief.

I myself, have been very interested in the idea of a maximum natural muscle mass (FFMI) and as a physicist I'd be very interested in a (brief) outlining of the protocols utilised in devising such.

Now, play nice children (or I'll moderate your asses),
The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 04:25:54 PM
Luke

I disaggree that we "need" people like Mr. Butt. He is one of those people whose opinions are really based on EMOTION and BELEIFS--yet he bullshits us all trying to use big words and science he makes up as he goes along.

There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions" like Mr. Butts says. None. Zero.

Who would they be? And who decalres them to be natural? I don't care who you put in some natural bodybuilding champion study group, some if not most will be questioned on if they are truly drug free or not; if they are lifetime drug free or not.

Who was in this study? Dave Goodin? John Hansen? Jeff Willet? Tito Raymond? Jose Raymond? Derik Farnsworth? Layne Norton? Who? They are natural bodybuilding champions. Surely at lest one of them would be in this study, wouldn't they? Please tell us who these champion were that he mentioned as he stated his case.

There were no studies on natural bodybuilding champions like he posted.

He is full of bullshit--using opinions, make believe facts (or at least inaccurate) and emotions to support his beliefs. It's no different when a supplement company manipulates "science" to bullshit us that their products will help us gain 287% more muscle. "More" muslce? More than what? You notice they never tell you that. Why? Because no one even questions that statement.

We want people like him here?



Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 18, 2006, 04:58:07 PM
There was such a study done.

It was flawed,but it was done...

Take some time, he gave you all the details necessary to look it up. I recommend you do so BEFORE you attack.


Your posts in this thread remind me of a public lecture I attended.

It was given by the Nobel Prize winner who first made significant quantities of Bose-Einstein Condensates.... anyway, during the questions from the audience section I asked whether a B-E-Condensate diffracts around an atom isolated from the body of the condensate either through high energy proton transmutation or by means of laser induced excitation, or whether the transmutation/excitation would be spread over all the atoms comprising the condensate due to the non-localisation of the atoms caused by the overlap of their DeBroglie wavelengths.

The audience was split into physicists mumbling "hmmmm" and Joe Public mumbling "ehhhhh".

The lecturer said that it was a very interesting question, that investigation of this aspect of B-E-Condensate behaviour comprised the bulk of his current research and that he would explain it to me after the lecture.

The next guy who asked a question wanted to know how physics could contend that a weight dropped in an aeroplane would drop straight down even when the plane was moving.

The audience was split into physicists sighing and some members of the public sighing very loudly.

The lecturer said that it was a very interesting question... but he was cut off by a guy with a very flimsy grasp of basic physics shouting "Prove it! Prove it!"

And the moral of the story is......

Most of us who are interested are well aware of the conclusions of Dr Pope, he's an acknowledged expert in the field... although I feel pschiatrists should avoid venturing into anatomy; physiology; biology or other such HARD sciences as it exposes the weaknesses in their own methodologies.

...if you haven't heard of Pope's conclusions: www.googlescholar.com

No offence intended,
The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 05:33:18 PM
Ok Luke.

Answer this question.

To make a statement that La Cour has more muscle and was leaner than Arnold AND base that statement on science.

Would La Cour have to be weighed with his body fat tested on contest day?

Looking at a picture and making those conclusion would NOT be science.

So, if he doesn't know the stats, he has no scientic argument--especially state that La Cour numbers are "out of range."

Tell me where I'm off.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 18, 2006, 05:42:55 PM
mwbbuilder, people like you amaze me. Your posts demonstrate ignorance, childishness and hostility; you haven't posted one fact in any of your posts, merely opinions (i.e. "There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions"') ...yet you accuse me of not backing my statements and posting from emotion. I gave you numbers for everything I presented and the name of who did some of the research. You are not even familiar with any of this research and yet you feel qualified to dispute it???

The fact that you are unable to properly research a reference is not my problem. And I won't waste my time responding to you any longer.

However, for the other, more mature, people reading this...

Skip LaCour's heaviest competition weight was at the NPC Team Nationals in 1996. He weighed 234 lbs at a height of 5'10" (according to LaCour's own website).

At an estimated bodyfat of 6% that gives him a corrected fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 31.6.
Even if he came in at a very smooth 10% bodyfat (which he did not), his FFMI would be 30.3.
Hence my statement that LaCour had a "FFMI of more than 30". For him to achieve this without drugs is a practical impossibility.

Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed 235 at a height of 6'2" at the 1973 Mr. Olympia. By his own estimation he was 9% bodyfat. That gives him a corrected FFMI of 28.1. Even if he was a ripped 6% bodyfat (which he was not), his FFMI would still only be 29.

Hence my statement "LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition."

I suspect that LaCour's contest weight began to drop as drug-testing methods became more sophisticated ...and yes, that is merely an opinion, but it is a quite justifiable one.

As far as I am aware, the fat-free mass index was first presented in the following reference, though this is not the only paper which has presented such research:

Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L., Oliva P., "Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids", Clinincal Journal of Sport Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 223-8, Oct. 1995.

The Luke, you may consider my post as the first confrontational post made, however, I did, and do, take exception to this statement made initially by "mwbbuilder":  "Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions. At least you are impressing yourself."

I don't take the FFMI as "gospel" either, and practically all studies and papers are flawed to some extent, but it does serve as a starting point, and it has been a useful reference for me in the formulation of my own regressions of lean body mass vs. structure. Five years ago I made my first attempt at such a fit and it's been an ongoing process since then ...that's how I told a poster in a different thread what his maximum muscular potential without drugs would approximately be.

Since you asked for my credentials:  I have degrees in Physics (minor in biochemistry), Mathematics and Statistics and Engineering (including a PhD). I have published in several international peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I currently teach undergraduate students at an accredited University. I held the largest national scholarship available for a graduate PhD student. ...but I do admit, my physics degree was quite a few years ago and DeBroglie is a little "wavy" to me now, pardon the pun ;).

I have been bodybuilding, powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting for over 18 years. I haved trained with beginners up to national level athletes. When I began training I weighed over 320 pounds and my best ever "bodybuilding" weight was 175 at 8% bodyfat (roughly the condition of my avatar). I have written on numerous occasions for several bodybuilding/strength training/fitness magazines (which will remain nameless as I have no desire to drag them into this sort of conversation - people who know my writing can verify this, and references are not hard to find). I have published under my own name and a pen-name. In fact, I have had articles published as far as Russia and Italy (these can also be found on the 'net).


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MCWAY on December 18, 2006, 05:51:20 PM
I'll put it to you fellas this way!  If this clown was natural he would do a blood test and post his results for everyone to see!  He's probably one of the most high profile natural guys in the world as far as drug use and speculation goes.  All he can say is that he passed the shows testing criteria!  Which is what a piss test and polygraph?  F*ck, Ronnie, Jay, Ruhl, and anyone else you care to name could pass the natural shows bullsh*t criteria if they REALLY wanted to.  Trust me this guy is no where close to natty or he would prove it and shut the world up!  So you people living in la la land with this false hope that you can look like him need to hit the crack pipe one more time and go in to rehab!  The only time he would take a test is after he's way done competing and down 30-40 lean lbs! 

No, he wouldn't "shut the world up". LaCour could pass every type of drug test from here to the heavens and back, and there'd STILL be somebody who'd claim that their uncle's cousin's baby mama's best friend (twice removed) sold him anabolics.




Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: MCWAY on December 18, 2006, 05:56:12 PM
Luke

I disaggree that we "need" people like Mr. Butt. He is one of those people whose opinions are really based on EMOTION and BELEIFS--yet he bullshits us all trying to use big words and science he makes up as he goes along.

There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions" like Mr. Butts says. None. Zero.

Who would they be? And who decalres them to be natural? I don't care who you put in some natural bodybuilding champion study group, some if not most will be questioned on if they are truly drug free or not; if they are lifetime drug free or not.

Who was in this study? Dave Goodin? John Hansen? Jeff Willet? Tito Raymond? Jose Raymond? Derik Farnsworth? Layne Norton? Who? They are natural bodybuilding champions. Surely at lest one of them would be in this study, wouldn't they? Please tell us who these champion were that he mentioned as he stated his case.

There were no studies on natural bodybuilding champions like he posted.

He is full of bullshit--using opinions, make believe facts (or at least inaccurate) and emotions to support his beliefs. It's no different when a supplement company manipulates "science" to bullshit us that their products will help us gain 287% more muscle. "More" muslce? More than what? You notice they never tell you that. Why? Because no one even questions that statement.

We want people like him here?



The study (or at least, one of the studies) I saw was in the October 1995 issue of FLEX magazine. Again, they used Mr. America champions between the 1930s and 1960s, presumed to be drug-free. They also compared with some current drug-free champions (though the guys were not named).

As I asked before, where's the motivation to train and do your best drug-free, if the best you can do is look like Mr. America winners from the 1940s. No disrespect to the old school, but that doesn't get most people fired up to hit the iron.

Plus, lost in that aspect is that, back in the day, bodybuilders actually got MARKED DOWN for appearing too ripped in contests. For that reason, I don't think you can put too much stock in bodyfat levels being higher then than now.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 18, 2006, 06:06:18 PM
No disrespect to the old school, but that doesn't get most people fired up to hit the iron.

Plus, lost in that aspect is that, back in the day, bodybuilders actually got MARKED DOWN for appearing too ripped in contests.

I think that's part of the reason that Park lost to Reeves in 1950.

On the other hand, Park displayed some serious muscle. As did Delinger and Eiferman ...even Farbotnik at times. When they got ripped they truly were impressive. I think the magazines actually shyed away from publishing such pics because even the "bodybuilding" fans, in general, did not accept it.

I'll see if I can get some "rare" photos linked.

On a modern note: Brit natural bodybuilder Jon Harris has an "inspiring" physique. He's the current WNBF Pro Champ. But, incidently, he's no larger than the drug-free bodybuilders of the 1950s ...just much more ripped. Fittingly, at 5'7" and 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat his FFMI is less than 25.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 18, 2006, 06:46:25 PM
what would be the index for someone 5'10" and 205? At what you would consider "normal" natural bodybuilder body fat level?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 18, 2006, 07:15:07 PM
Casey,

I'd be interested in your opinions regarding the failings of the FFMI...

I personally feel that it is as woefully misleading as the BMI; being that it doesn't allow for differences in bone structure, frame size, pelvis depth, clavicle width. Although, it does at least begin an effort to quantise scientifically the mishmash of art, pseudoscience and quackery that passes for bodybuilding these days.

Regarding the first verbal punch thrown; if you look carefully you will see that:
"Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions. At least you are impressing yourself"
...is not quite that personal; or at least it could be construed as little more than superfluous expletives. Your post was decidedly more personal, and NOT in any way ambiguous... we have to allow for the fact that no one has a bravado font; a sarcasm font or a tongue-in-cheek font.

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 18, 2006, 08:51:48 PM
I agree. The biggest fault of the FFMI is that is does not take into account the skeletal structure. However, all they really attempted to do was say, "This is how much lean mass a person of a given height can develop without drug-use". Naturally, that upper limit would be the more heavily built mesomorphs. Ectomorphs would never reach the higher FFMIs (24 up to the mid-25s), that they identified as the maximum without drugs. However, that means that drug-using ectomorphs could still be under the FFMI maximum, and therefore not seem "suspect" with regards to drug-use.

Over the past 6 years or so I've attempted to include bone structure based on wrist and ankle measurements into a regression. The fit is a surprisingly linear function of height and joint circumferences (it's actually not quite linear, but close enough for a decent approximation), with ectomorphs being able to achieve roughly 97% of what an ideal mesomorph would achieve if they had the same joint circumferences (but that's misleading because a mesomorph would, implied by definition, have a heavier bone structure). What it seems to come down to is that the "average Joe" can achieve 97% of the lean body mass that a genetically gifted person could - if they both had the same height and joint circumferences. Very large endomorphs seen to be able to build about 3% more lean body mass than an ideal mesomorph if they had the same joint circumferences. And overall, maximum potential lean body mass is fairly predictably correlated with height and joint circumferences. Of course, such estimations are merely that -- estimations based on population statistics. But I've found that they're rarely off by more than a few pounds.

For example, according to the fit, I should be able to achieve a maximum lean body mass of about 160 without drugs. In reality, after 15 years of very serious training, I'm about 97% of that (155 lbs lean body mass) and I would consider myself to have a less than average natural ability to build muscle. But I also believe that with the right training and nutrition "dedication" I can get pretty close to that 160. Maybe, maybe not, but I will nonetheless. :) An experienced "ectomorph" on the board came it at the same percentage in a thread yesterday (or the day before).

Another example, I just checked Jon Harris tonight (the current WNBF Champ). Given his height of 5'7" and assuming he has a wrist between 7" and 7.25" in circumference (which would be average for his height) he should have a lean body mass of about 160-164 lbs. That would put him at about 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat and 180 lbs at ~10% bodyfat. That agrees perfectly with his contest and off-season weights that he lists on his website.

The fit really isn't meant to be a limitation, or a dictation as to how much muscle a person can build. But it does give you an idea of how much muscle you should expect to be able to develop without drugs. I think that is extremely valuable information for a drug-free bodybuilder. How many people at 5'7" would think that 180 pounds would be a "bodybuilder's" ideal weight for them? Most beginners would probably have the unrealistic expectation that they should be over 200 lbs. However, show them a picture of Jon Harris (at "only" 170 even) and they'd probably think they'd never get that big without drugs. So it does put things into the proper perspective.

When I'm a little more confident with the fit I'll write it up for one of the magazines or a book or something.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 18, 2006, 11:48:06 PM
Very interesting...

let's not forget to consider the other option: la Cour adds 20 lbs to his bodyweight the way I add 20 lbs to my top lifts.


Work it out for me:
5'5'' tall
7.25'' wrist
Very robust bone structure
214 lbs this morning
22-24% bf (could that be right?)


Thanks,
The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: jonno gb on December 19, 2006, 02:41:02 AM
Here's a pic of WNBF Pro Champ Jon Harris-a true natural and great role model.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 19, 2006, 04:56:55 AM
The Luke, if your upper and lower body structure is "balanced", then at your height and bone structure you should have a maximum lean body mass of about 163 lbs. That would put you at about 180 lbs at ~10% bodyfat (a healthy natural bodybuilder's off-season weight). In contest shape you should be roughly the same weight as Jon Harris. But for a more accurate estimate I'll also need your ankle measurement (the difference can be several pounds if you're lower body is proportionately larger).

Your lean body mass is very close to that now, but its common for lifters to register higher lean body masses when they're heavier. I'm not sure of the reason for that, but you'd lose a significant amount getting down to 10%.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: bigbalddaddy on December 19, 2006, 05:22:17 AM
Here's a pic of WNBF Pro Champ Jon Harris-a true natural and great role model.

Now this guy is in great great shape and looks natural!  Props!!!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 19, 2006, 05:41:34 AM
My ankle measurement is 9.75'' which is actually 0.75'' bigger than the toe-to-heel length of my foot: resulting in a cold calf measurement of 17.5'', which with training (I don't train calves) I can get up to 18.8'' cold.

The reason I doubt the FFMI is because I've been as heavy as 205 lbs at (a conservatively caliper measured) 17% bf (and measured as low as 15% with upper abs visible). That would put my LBM at 160-170 lbs... which is approx 178 lbs in contest shape.

That's Lee Labrada big!

At that bodyweight I could squat 315 lbs (ass-to-grass) for 15 and deadlift 405 lbs for 10 reps.

I firmly believe that a year of uninterupted training (something that I've never had due to financial constraints) with a good consistent diet (something else I've never had) would get me to 200 lbs @ 8-10% bf.

The only time I had the money to experiment with a proper, consistent training regimen I went from 220 lbs at 25% bf to 200 ish lbs at 17% in six weeks (before getting laid off yet again).

That's:
220 lbs bw = 165 lbs LBM + 55 lbs fat
to
200 lbs bw = 170 lbs LBM + 30 lbs fat
...in 42 days.

Am I the only natural guy who is managing these kind of results?

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 19, 2006, 06:03:19 AM
The Luke, your weight is coming from your huge lower body structure. An average ankle measurement for a man with 7.25" wrists would be about 9". Using your 9.75" ankle, the regression gives your lean body mass as a maximum of 170.8 lbs.

That means that you are at or very near the lean body mass that top natural bodybuilders carry.  A "normal" drug-free bodybuilder of your height would carry about 155 lbs lean body mass in contest shape.

However, the math isn't quite as straight-forward as it seems. The regression was done on athletes carrying single digit percentages of bodyfat. Comparing lean body mass at over 15% and lean body mass in the single digits is a completely different ball game and can be quiite misleading. For example, the last time I went down below 8% bodyfat I actually started my diet with about 162 lbs lean mass (at 16-18% b.f.). By the time I reached 7-8% I was down to 155 lbs lean body mass. And that was a properly conducted "pre-contest" diet and routine. I believe I lost the minimum amount of muscle. Most drug-free bodybuilders lose over 10 pounds lean body mass when dieting down. I've seen some lose 20 in the process of becoming super ripped. Hydration, even things such as liver glycogen, can significantly alter lean body mass readings. For that reason "off-season" lean body mass readings are considerably higher than "contest".

That's why there are no drug-free bodybuilders that are ripped and "Lee Labrada big". :)

Still, you are within striking distance of your theoretically maximum weight. How long have you been training?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 19, 2006, 06:53:26 AM
Seventeen years... (currently 29)

However I feel I'm now able to get better results than before, I wasted years gaining a pound a year doing volume training before I discovered HIT. I don't think 200 lbs at 8-10% would be impossible... reckon I could get there within a year, I also feel 18'' arms and calves are possibilities for me despite my current measurements of 16'' (arm) and 17.5'' (calf). I have a good thick torso with a genuine 44'' chest (48'' inflated and closer to 50'' with my lats flexed), and my thighs are around 27'' (remember I'm only 5'5'').

The opportunity to train and diet consistently is the problem, my career of unending menial jobs... lay-offs (and walk-offs) coupled with my hobby of traveling internationally in search of adventure often conspire to thwart my best intentions. I'm currently hoping against hope to get a job at the new Google headquarters here in Dublin.

My brother has recommended that I simply call in some favours (I know people in the Irish film industry) and begin filming one workout a month starting in the new year. A sort of Bob Chick "War of the Worlds" thingy except more along the lines of Luke Molloy "A Blobby-builders Journey".

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 19, 2006, 08:50:19 AM
Ahhh, a stumpy Dubliner. ;) I'm from Newfoundland, Canada, so I'm quite familiar with things Irish.

Really thick people are outliers on the upper end of the regression because the regression is based on lean competitive bodybuiders who tend to be very mesomorphic. But even then they seem to be a relatively fixed percentage above a more mesomorphic lifter.

Just as an example of how much lean body mass (LBM) can differ when bodybuilders drop down into the single-digit bodyfat levels for contests, here's U.K. bodybuilder John Berry's stats as he got ready for the BNBF Central Championships (I'm using these stats because they're readily available on the 'net)...

Assuming he has an average skeletal structure for his height of 5'5.5", John Berry's lean body mass should be 153.3 to 157.5 lbs, depending on his exact joint circumferences.

On 1/04/06 Berry weighed 176 lbs at 11% b.f. --> LBM = 156.6 lbs

On 2/05/06 Berry weighed 167 lbs at 9% b.f. --> LBM = 152.0 lbs

On 3/06/06 Berry weighed 158.4 lbs at 6.9% b.f. --> LBM = 147.5 lbs

On 1/07/06 Berry weighed 151.8 lbs at 6.4% b.f. --> LBM = 142.1 lbs

His anticipated weight and body fat at the contest on 30/07/06 (assuming after carb loading and proper hydration) = 147.4 - 151.8 lbs at 5-5.5% --> LBM = 140.0 - 144.2 lbs

So Berry lost over 12 lbs of LBM in going from 11% to 5-6.5% b.f. At 11% he carried the LBM that would be predicted for his structure, but in "contest" shape he carried 12 lbs less LBM. Jon Harris, however, held his LBM right at the predicted maximum when he won the 2006 WNBF World Championship. So, in the off-season, Berry seems to have the raw muscle mass to compete at the world level, but he lost it in pre-contest phase. That ability to retain muscle when dropping bodyfat is probably the difference between regional champions and world champions. Of course, his muscle loss was also probably due to either an overly restrictive diet or a poorly designed pre-contest training program, or both. But it does illustrate that many drug-free bodybuilders seem to exceed the predicted LBM maximums during the "off-season" -- they may carry that LBM when they're "fatter" but they don't carry it as the contest approaches.

Using myself as an example. Right now, at ~16% bodyfat (as of this morning), I have about 1.5 lbs more LBM than my equation predicts as my maximum (after 15 years of very serious training). I'm in the process of going down to 6-8% bodyfat. When I get there it's a practical guarantee that I won't have that much LBM, and I don't have the long muscle bellies throughout every muscle group as do the more gifted mesomorphs. The last time I dieted down I was 3-7 lbs shy of that maximum (depending on hydration, time of day, etc.).

When I first formulated these equations I was a little disappointed that I was already very close to my maximums. But, realistically, after 18 total years of training, there isn't much muscle left to be gained by this drug-free body. Now it comes down to impoving weak points and overall symmetry.

I think you should definitely make the films. And diet down to the single-digits and track your lean body mass while you're doing it ...I need more data on heavy-set endomorphs. :)


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: GET_BIGGER on December 20, 2006, 10:43:33 AM
Thats a big trophy.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: jonno gb on December 20, 2006, 11:18:56 AM
Lol-I think Jon would need to book another seat on the plane to get it home! The shot does not really do Jon justice though-see his gallery at www.jonharris.net for some better quality shots.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 20, 2006, 12:54:55 PM
He looks good...and he's only 31.

I only hope he doesn't grow anymore. Then he's going to out of Casey Butt's range and be considered a drug user.

That's what sucks about natural bodybuilding. If you get too good, there's alway someone there to question your credibility.

Don't grow any more, Jon! Don't do it!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 20, 2006, 03:51:14 PM
Don't grow any more, Jon! Don't do it!

Don't worry ...he won't.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 20, 2006, 11:13:50 PM
Don't worry ...he won't.

Because it's "impossible" right?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 21, 2006, 01:44:26 AM
Because it's "impossible" right?

mwbuilder.... contribute to this thread or desist from posting in this thread.

You've been warned.


The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 21, 2006, 09:29:58 AM
Challenging a statement is not contributing? He said that natural BB won't grow. Shouldn't that be questioned? Doesn't that provide value?


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 21, 2006, 10:35:08 AM
He said that natural BB won't grow.

I said no such thing.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: The Luke on December 21, 2006, 10:59:58 AM
Challenging a statement is not contributing? He said that natural BB won't grow. Shouldn't that be questioned? Doesn't that provide value?


...we already have an asshole posting nothing but sarcasm on this site. Casey has made his point explicitly and articulately, please try doing the same.

The Luke


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 21, 2006, 02:42:30 PM
Don't worry ...he won't.

????


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: jonno gb on December 22, 2006, 03:54:05 AM
I would not be suprised if Jon competes a few pounds heavier and in similar or better condition next year as it was very close for the overall between him and Ben Tennison so Jon will be looking to widen the gap.I think it is quite possible to make muscular gains at age 30+ and,if it wasn't,would there be much point in training just to maintain.I will let you know for sure next year though ;D


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 22, 2006, 05:37:28 AM
I would not be suprised if Jon competes a few pounds heavier and in similar or better condition next year as it was very close for the overall between him and Ben Tennison so Jon will be looking to widen the gap.I think it is quite possible to make muscular gains at age 30+ and,if it wasn't,would there be much point in training just to maintain.I will let you know for sure next year though ;D


Of course he will...and good for him!

The only problem with a natural bodybuilder who gets "too good" is that he becomes "unbelieveable" to others.

Casey Butt said he was within a certain statistical range that "proved" his natural status. What if grows beyond those statisitics and averages? Casey stated that will not grow any more from where he is.

This is a big planet. Your boy looks awesome but there are many more genetically gifted BBs than him


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 22, 2006, 07:16:48 AM
After 18 years of training, and several years at the top of the natural bodybuilding world, it's very unlikely that Jon's going to make significant further lean body mass gains. Depending on the exact size of Jon's skeletal structure, he may have, at most, a few pounds left in him. If Jon makes significant improvements now it will have to be in the form of perfecting his physique and addressing weaknesses (not that he appears to have any). Those improvements might make a difference visually, but they won't register much on the weight scale. Time will verify this. It's not his age that limits him, it's how close he is to his maximum potential. Jon is already there ...and it shows. Now it's about the fractions of a percent that separate the champion from the runner-up.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: Casey Butt on December 22, 2006, 11:45:13 AM
I only started posting on this site recently ...as you can see, I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. :)

You sent me an email about a week or two ago right?? God, I'm sorry about that ...I was in the middle of giving an exam when I read that email (now you know what the prof does when he leaves the exam room ;)) and forgot about it after. I meant to get back to you, but it got "lost" in the inbox after that.

I just didn't have the time to maintain the site anymore ...that and I underestimated the influence that it was having. Even 3 or 4 years later I still get email every week or so about that site (or Hardgainer or something).

I tell you something weird ...at least half of the people who contact me are Engineers!


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on December 22, 2006, 12:23:44 PM
After 18 years of training, and several years at the top of the natural bodybuilding world, it's very unlikely that Jon's going to make significant further lean body mass gains. Depending on the exact size of Jon's skeletal structure, he may have, at most, a few pounds left in him. If Jon makes significant improvements now it will have to be in the form of perfecting his physique and addressing weaknesses (not that he appears to have any). Those improvements might make a difference visually, but they won't register much on the weight scale. Time will verify this. It's not his age that limits him, it's how close he is to his maximum potential. Jon is already there ...and it shows. Now it's about the fractions of a percent that separate the champion from the runner-up.


Who are the top natual bodybuilders that you've worked with? Names please.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: BigDave81 on February 15, 2007, 09:44:06 PM
I have a friend who is an all time natural who has competed in the universe many times, doesn't even take in whey, and he told me that Lacour is known to have taken Growth. Don't know if it's true, hie lifts are pretty weak.


Title: Re: Lacour-narural or not?
Post by: mwbbuilder on February 16, 2007, 04:30:03 PM
I wish I was that weak

http://skiplacour.com/lacour_dvd_pom.wmv