So, guys, Derek, more place smart dates.com.

Today we're going to be checking out this question

on the subreddit, how much can decent gear genetics

push a natty with average genetics ahead

compared to the inverse lifter?

Interesting question proposed by 7307

techie with the anabolic flare with two fucking injection

emojis.

Let's say we have two natural guys that have trained,

both trained to a reasonably advanced degree. Okay, number one has an average genetics,

while number two is in the top 10%. Now, we have both guys do a couple of strongish cycles.

Number one has a top 10% response to gear. Well, number two has

average response. How much has number one caught up to number two with physique strength after a

couple of cycles? Will the answer change much if we add more cycles time? Okay, so I think the

perfect example of this is guys in men's physique versus guys at the Open Olympia. You know,

like how many guys in men's physique versus guys at the open olympia you know like how many guys in men's physique had extremely good natural physiques a lot of them you know guys like fucking logan franklin

guys like um i can't think of another good example off the top of my head but there are a lot of

guys who are in the men's physique olymp, who had phenomenal looking physiques before they

touch gear. Like fucking insane. Some of them, you know, may have even turned pro naturally.

Would they have been competitive at the Olympia naturally? No, obviously not with the way,

you know, the kind of category has trended upwards in terms of size. But these guys had fucking

insane top 0.1% genetics as naturals in most

...