Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Austin Dunham
(10-02-2019, 09:49 AM)khrazz Wrote: Pronounced delts/chest, presence of transient storage factors (extra vascularity, extra muscle glycogen ) and a very small time frame of such progress = not natural. If you have to ask whether he is natty or not, 90% he is not. Period. While he has good genetics for bone insertions, that does not translate to such a big muscle transformation.  I could possibly believe he is natty if he did powerlifitng/bbing type workouts, or if he was competing in mma/american football, but not from calisthenics. Calisthenics alone are garbage for muscle growth if you are natty and if you do not combine them with more difficult activities (say rock climbing)

Btw, if he uses photoshop as you claim, he is not only a fake natty, but a fake altogether.

Why do you say he can be natural if he competed in mma? Most mma fighters look skinny especially no after USADA. Only those on the higher weight division are the one who have roid out look. It doesn't mean they are natty though. Most if not all mma fighters have used at least once.

For the record there are Calisthenics atheletes who look great like Fortress and Christian Nielsen but 100% full natty brah
There is huge disparity between the advice he gives and his physique.
Mostly his advises are generic random mumbling, bro science and nothing specific. Meanwhile he have the body of someone who figured it all, which is not the case with him, therefore most like he cruises or has done multiple cycles of 12 weeks.

Here is Daniel Laizans who is about the same height/weight/bf% and his muscles doesn't look like a fucking baloons. Also he is stronger than Austin Dunham.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)