What is a realistic but impressive goal weight for someone who is natty and 5'8
Not shredded but decently lean
185?
pic unrelated
>>36278129
your picrel
but only if you go vegan and full natty, don't even think of creatine
(height in cm) - x = maximum natural bodyweight at contest level bodyfat%
where x = 96-102 depending on your genetics
t. lyle mcdonald
>>36278129
Impressive to normies? Around 155 10% bf
Impressive to /fit/ about 175 10% bf
>>36278129
5'8 and 170 seems good. 185 would be difficult unless you have really good genetics.
>>36278550
180cm 80kg CONTEST LEVEL bodyfat% kek yeah m8
try 180cm 70kg. and even that won't be the bodyfat% you see on juiced guys, not even close
that's why natty bodybuilding literally doesn't exist
>>36278762
yeah, that would just put him at an FFMI of 24, anyone can do that. DYEL pic related is 21-22. He could easily get up to 24 natty.
>>36278550
>166 - 102 = 64 kg
nah i reckon 55-60kg more like it
>>36278129
why would anyone take steroids? Jesus how horrible
>>36278961
It's just because he is a manlet, some test on a 6'3 guy looks balanced
>>36279191
...autism
>>36278129
Pic attatched is Ron Walker - an English olympic weightlifter from the 30s. He has one of the freakiest bodies of anyone pre clinical trials beginning in 1937 of oral doses of methyltestosterone and injections of testosterone propionate.
He was 5'11 and around 200lbs, but is used as an example because he is an impressive natty. Of course he was an exceptional athlete and an adult starting bodybuilding is unlikely to get near to him without anabolics.
putting on a thong and smiling while showing of your thighs
the fuck
>>36278762
Can confirm. I'm 5'8 and 158, around 11%. People are impressed but I feel small, so i'm bulking to 170
What about for somebody at 6'7"? Everyone at my height is on juice.
>>36278550
This actually seems pretty legit.
Large frame, 178 cm, this calc predicts 82kg, last time I was a few percent over "contest" bf% I was 85kg.
Lyle McDonald seems to really know his crap. I should read his work.
>>36278129
shoot for 155-165 lbs 10-12% bodyfat. depends on genes and frame but somewhere around there is achievable natty with some years under your belt
>>36280233
178cm 85kg few percent over contest bf% lol k post pics
>>36280302
5'10 ~175 lbs lean is achievable natty desu
so him being 10lbs heavier and a few percent over contest shape isn't unbelievable
>>36278550
So mine would be 118 lbs? Lmao I was a skinny twig at 180lbs am I doing this wrong?
>>36279622
We, as a population are Way bigger than they were. That's pretty average for 4-5 years of training friend
I'm 5'8 150 but I have a decent amount of fat. I'm doing stronglifts now and just started taking creatine and noticing decent results. My weights went up a little but I'm not any fatter.
>>36280324
numbers like 175 and words like lean that you read on /fit/ don't mean anything you still-on-noobgains-skeletron. lean can be 8 or 15 %
but 'few percent above contest level bodyfat' means sub 10%. and a 178cm 85kg natty guy with <10% bf simply can't be natty. not even remotely close. I can't prove that I've been here since 2010 and been lifting for 8 years so I have some clue but sooner or later everybody realizes that being natty and LEAN also mean being a skinny faggot. try doing a real cut and see how the precious muscle mass disappears as you get below 12%
>>36280418
Kg not pounds you silly nerd.
