It-t's all natural bro, I-I swear!

>it-t's all natural bro, I-I swear!

Other urls found in this thread:

aretheyonsteroids.com/did-chris-hemsworth-take-steroids-for-thor/
watchotc.com/chris-hemsworth-steroids/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

damn, what do marvel studios give him? New synthetic roids?

jesus christ his arms are fucking huge, he literally looks better than most bodybuilders

he's small

10 million per movie, unlimited fangirl pussy, and nothing but free time add up to some fucking gains.

It's because he has every incentive bbers have and more to look like that.

And still people will claim he's natty and his physiqur is achievable for 6'+ individuals "with somr years of training" because obviously gains continue to happen linearly.

that's from a while back
His physique from thor1 was within natty realms (although considering he's an actor, highly unlikely to be natty) but his physique from thor3 is beyond natty limits, and he obviously juiced up again for the role
that + perfectly monitored steronz cycle

Damn that bicep is fucking unreal even if he roided. Does Hollywood develop their own higly-classified roids?

aretheyonsteroids.com/did-chris-hemsworth-take-steroids-for-thor/

watchotc.com/chris-hemsworth-steroids/

Stop being a jealous faggot

it's pushed up against his body to make it look bigger, so you're overestimating his actual size. Still, I agree that he is roiding, I'd do the same thing as an actor. Probably has some specialized doctor that keeps shut and checks blood levels for everything etc. - same as e.g. the rock or other huge hollywood guys

sure buddy. you can get those arms as well with just diet and dedication :)

>aretheyonsteroids.com
same site claims mike o'hearn is natty lmao, supplement shill site

>those delts
never gonna get 2 massive delt heads with striations like that by being natty

Nigga even if he 100% roided, his bicep is fucking massive. Did he get bicep implants? Or did he take roids + creatine?

Did you even read any of those links? Hemsworth obviously is an unique individual, but that's a given, he's one of the world's best known actors and well, just look at the guy. The difference is that he has a team that helps him design meal and workout plans and fines tunes every aspect of his life so that he can achieve that physique by dedication and consistency. I'm sorry you're butthurt about that, but that's life, blame your parents or the universe or whatever for not being him.
You should also notice that he really dislikes taking his shirt off in movies, which is not compatible with someone who would take roids to half ass his way towards a great body, which denotes a strong sense of vanity and need for validation.

Clearly full pump right there.

Read the actual article on him, they make very strong points. Roids? Maybe. Genetic freak? Most likely

yeah okay buddy.
Arnold was clean as well right?

Weak bait.

>what is a pump

>maybe
kys newfag

Being this butthurt because of having o accept the fact that genetic diversity is a thing. Don't worry, you're still mommy's special boy

Do forearms really grow like that or is this shopped?

haha got him xD

you'd have to be a special kind of retarded to think that is natty

>mommy, he's bigger than me!!!!111!! :(((((((
>don't worry, sweetie, he takes steroids like that powdered nasty stuff they sell everywhere nowadays. Now be a good good boy and go back to doing your homework

try harder kid, please

You totally showed me
>what is ad hominem

Even if you think that’s small, you are fucking crazy.

>Pshhhh nothing personnel, kid

Not really. Maybe if he gained 100lbs or so.

ITT: newfags feel bad because they haven't grown much in a whole month (!!!!1!1!!) of lifting and so take it on a guy every girl fantasises about and they secretly wish they were

ALSO in this thread
people spouting troll memes to try and trigger people.

every Hollywood actor with even a tiny bit of muscle is using steroids. the directors will force it on them.

Of course they will, big boy. Would you care to show me a single trustworthy source, though? You know, just to show all the mean boys who is right

case and point.

>give me a public access source to a secret Hollywood won't release to anyone

Case IN point, you mean? Hemsworth? How does a single pic with favorable lighting and a pump prove anything?

I think your tinfoil hat is slipping, friendo, better watch out for that

>what is a dyel newfag
You

What are you talking about? Hollywood won't admit that their actors are taking steroids so why would they go on record saying their actors are taking steroids? Everyone knows this, there's nothing "tinfoil hat" about it.

Sure, because no one that left the industry would talk or publish a book about it and inevitably have millions of dollars of profit. Just go to the gym and lift some heavy weights, newfriend

He said looks better, not is bigger. Post-70s bodybuilding is a disgusting scam.

Hahaha I sure showed him, mommy :D
You don't even deserve an answer, but who's the dyel newfag? The guy that thinks that body is attainable if you win the genetic lottery and are dedicated to your work, having a multidisciplinary team helping you, or the guy that thinks hurrr durrrr he is bigger than me, he's roiding

>t.genovia aka the spaniard

Google ad populum, friend

I'm not using ad populum because I'm not using it to make an argument. I'm saying there's no sauce, but also, to address the tinfoil hat thing, that everyone already knows that Hollywood uses roids but won't admit it.

>Post-70s bodybuilding is a disgusting scam.
Thankfully the body I aspire to is the shredded 70s era of bodybuilding when everyone wasn't trying to wear an extra person's worth of muscle.

Correct. Better>bigger.

Agreed. Aesthetics isn't about bulk alone, it's about bringing your body's best attributes out. Just trying to be the biggest won't make you look the best, something that has been lost to modern bodybuilders.

Well that and the art of being tan without looking like you're trying to cover yourself in shoe polish.

You gonna post snopes too you dumb faggot

Bigger IS better.

The tanning is mind blowing to me. Guys in the 70s looked like the height of humanity, godlike. Today they look like balloon animals doing black face. It's fucking weird.

Keep coping

being natty is a meme and only natties lifting under 2 years will disagree

if you want to look aesthetic then roids are nescessary

No.

>I'm not using ad populum
>I don't have a tinfoil hat because uhh... everybody knows it?
At least proofread your babbling

It's not an argument. What you're saying is that everyone must have a tinfoil hat crazy since everyone has the same idea.

>everyone must have a tinfoil hat crazy
Meant to say "everyone must *be tinfoil hat crazy"

Agreed. A tan brings out your cut, hides your stretch marks (if you're roiding and blew up too fast or used to be fat) and generally makes you look better. These days bodybuilders seem to be shooting for one of two colors: blackface or fucking carrot orange.

Go out and get some natural sun you fucking faggots. You're built like a brick house so it's not like anyone is going to fuck with you for going to the beach in a speedo for a day or two out of the week. Hell use some tanning oil and you'll reach your ideal darkness pretty fast.

A natural tan looks FAR better than a spray tan, or whatever the fuck they rub on themselves these days to darken up.

Nope

I can incline bench 30 kg dumbbells, why can't I have arms and chest like him?

But yes.

I'm going to argue with you just a tiny bit here: you're half right. Aesthetics require low body fat and good definition of the muscles. This can be done at low size, but is easier the bigger the muscles get (the larger muscles let you have definition even at bf% above 5%). That said, if you want to compete professionally in a sport that compares aesthetics, then you're probably going to need steroids because you can't just be aesthetics up close, you need to be big enough they can clearly see every cut and striation from thirty or so feet away (or however far the judges are sitting since they don't check bodybuilders out like one would a prize hog at the fair: up close and personally).

So in normal life you can be aesthetic at any size, but to compete you'll need mass as well.

>that squint
I didn't know Jay was Chinese.

cutting whilst being natty will eat through your glycogen before it really makes a dent in your bf, to say nothing of the muscle loss
so if you're cut natty you'll be flat

roids inhibit cortisol and prioritise rebuilding muscle and packing it with glycogen - meaning you can keep your size while being cut

honestly natties lifting for aesthetics are better shooting for maximum mass and around 15-16% bodyfat so they look more hulking than shredded

m8e you gotta do at least 40kg for reps to approach arms like that

You can build muscle back up after a cut without going on a crazy bulk to do it. It won't built up as quickly as you would on roids, but with hard work and a well maintained diet it's possible.

Additionally you can mix a cheat day into your week to allow yourself to top up your glycogen early on in the week (say the day before you do squats or heavy diddlies) which keeps your body from thinking it's being starved.

And with enough mass 15% bf looks pretty good. Klokov (yes I know he's likely roiding, or on other non-banned medical substances) is aroun 12-15%bf and thanks to his size he looks more aesthetic than most do.

But he's too flat to compete with that sort of mild definition. He looks good, but if he were to try to be Mister Universe or something he'd need to get down below 5% or so while keeping his mass which really only works on roids or supplements that aren't available to the common lifter.

Nice, 6 months worth of gains with filter and angle.

>he had to lose muscle for the first Thor movie becasue he was too big

Did they enlarge his costume for Infinity war?

Literally just a guy with a blog postulating. If you think the gains Chris Hemsworth has made since signing as Thor are feasible natty, you're going to be disappointed. I don't expect actors to come out and say, yeah I used steroids to get big, but don't get unrealistic expectations from it.

Do retards honestly think he's natty?
LMAO as natty as Cavill

A-are those his rear delts?

>6 months
Post your body and how long you've been lifting

Thats a cute girl on the right.

post your "big" body, fatass

>filter

This is Steve Reeves faggot. This is from before color film

Why are they all so ugly?

Lmao ask me how I know you look like shit.

Hemsworth in the first Thor is my goal physique. I believe he was natural in that like he claimed. Someone with proper diet, training, rest, and noob gains could definitely end with the before and afters he did. Dude is totally on some shit now and also roided for 2, no doubt about it.

oh my naive autumn child, if he'd roid for the second you can be sure he'd roid for the first

he probably roided for the first, but that doesn't mean his body in the first (minus editing) isn't attainable natty with some more time

>all those dyels being more impressed by the bicep than that humongous rear delt

His arms were like 16-17 inches when he first became Thor. Now they're like 19-20.

That sort of growth isn't even possible.

>hurr durr I'm retarded

Ok

you need to look at the time span between weight gain and weight loss and the amount of fat free mass acquired/lost during that time. it's not possible to do it that quick naturally.

the middle 2 are jews and there's a nig

can't wait to see your body pic

He's playing a God in the movie. He needs to be out of control swol

This picture is obv shopped. I just saw Thor 3 and his arms were not even closer to being this big

stand next to that group and you'd look like a subhuman inbred ratboy.

>what is as hominem

You clearly don't know

You have no idea about what an argument ad populum is, do you? He is not stating that people are roofing because everyone knows it--he is not using the popularity to claim an objective logical conclusion that follows. He is simply making a statement about a phenomenon, and making the statement that everyone knows this. Logical fallacies are only to be applied when someone is trying to construct a sound logical argument. For example, of you said something wrong, and I ridicule you and call you a retard, that wouldn't be an argument ad hominem.

Maybe because he's holding fucking weights

What the fuck why do they look uglier than usual in this pic

That's not ad hominem you brainlet. It's just name calling.

What if I'm extremely pale? I immediately sunburn and peel.

God you're pathetic, you're trying to sound smart and yet you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, I am deliberately commiting an ad hominem (or not, according to you??). You can't just apply the rules of logic whenever you see fit. That guy (probably you) said that people on hollywood all roid, and then proceeded to say that everyone knows that to be true, as a means to support his argument, i.e. make it supposedly stronger. That's a classic ad populum right there, using what is seen as common knowledge as beingc correct because it is so. You can't make an argument and then say 'btw everyone knows this lol' and claim that you weren't commiting an ad populum. That last premise is absolutely unnecessary and should be discarded from the arguing, as tries to make the argument stronger, and not so subtly too, by implying that it is already a settled matter, when it isn't, and even if it was that's irrelevant for the current discussion

Meaning that's something even less meaningful. I don't see your point, should I be offended?

Why wouldn't you take pharma-grade steroid if it was your job to look the best?

He makes like 15 million a movie and all he has to do is look buff. Everyone in hollywood is getting nosejobs, hair/butt/boob-transplants, like 90% of them use coke, why would steroid be the ONE thing they didn't do?

I i can't remember who said it (think it was arnold or stallone) but "Steroids in hollywood is as common as nosejobs."

Besides, that was an ad hominem, because he questioned my authority on the matter by saying I was retarded and therefore could not argue on the subject