What’s Behind the Curtain?

Estimated reading time: 9–11 minutes

TL;DR

In my previous article,  “You Can’t Accidentally Get Too Big,”  I explained why ordinary strength training does not suddenly turn you into a highly muscular person.

But there is another piece of this conversation that needs to be addressed.

What you see isn't always what you get.

Some of the most extreme physiques you see in bodybuilding, physique competitions and social media are the result of a combination of exceptional genetics, years of highly specialized training, highly controlled nutrition, extreme dieting and—sometimes—performance-enhancing drugs and other pharmacological agents.

And then there is another layer:

The photograph itself may not be completely real.

Lighting, posing, dehydration, temporary muscle fullness, camera angles, filters and digital manipulation can dramatically change how a physique appears.

So when you compare your normal, three-dimensional, everyday body to a highly conditioned two-dimensional photograph of an elite physique athlete, you're not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

You're comparing your A to somebody else's carefully constructed Z —and sometimes somebody else's Z has been chemically enhanced, strategically photographed and digitally edited.

That's what's behind the curtain.

The Sequel to “You Can’t Accidentally Get Too Big”

In my previous article, I used the alphabet to explain muscle development.

You start somewhere around:

A → B → C → D → E...

You don't accidentally jump from A to Z.

You don't perform a few strength workouts and wake up looking like a professional bodybuilder.

But that raises an obvious question:

How do some people actually get that big?

The answer is that extreme muscular development is possible.

But it is also extremely difficult.

For some people, exceptional genetics provide a tremendous advantage.

Then add years—or decades—of highly specialized training.

Add meticulous nutrition.

Add exceptional recovery.

Add the willingness to structure much of your life around physique development.

And in some cases, add exogenous hormones and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Now we're talking about a completely different proposition.

Let's Talk About the Elephant in the Gym

Performance-enhancing drug use is not some imaginary phenomenon confined to professional sports.

It exists throughout the physique-development world.

That includes bodybuilding and other physique competitions.

A 2023 study examining male and female physique competitors during contest preparation reported that approximately 48% of the men and 38% of the women* in its sample reported using performance-enhancing drugs, including testosterone derivatives, selective androgen receptor modulators and human growth hormone.

Let that sink in.

I'm not saying that 38% of all women who lift weights use drugs.

I'm not saying every female physique athlete uses drugs.

I'm saying that in a study specifically examining physique competitors, PED use was common enough to be reported by more than one-third of the women studied.

That's a very different population from your average woman taking a strength-training class at a local gym.

And the distinction matters.

Even the “Smaller” Physique Divisions Aren't Necessarily Drug-Free

There's a misconception that performance-enhancing drugs are primarily a male bodybuilding phenomenon.

That's outdated.

Women's physique sports have different divisions and different aesthetic standards.

Some emphasize extreme muscularity.

Others emphasize a lean, athletic appearance with less muscular development.

But less muscular doesn't mean drug-free.

The 2024 systematic review What is the prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use among women? found an estimated lifetime AAS prevalence of approximately 16.8% among women in bodybuilding studies , compared with approximately 1.4% in general-population/other samples. The authors emphasized the substantial difference between bodybuilding populations and the general female population.

So if you look at an extraordinarily lean, muscular female physique competitor and think:

Maybe.

But you don't actually know.

And that's the point.

You don't know what's behind the curtain. * ( NOTE: I'm confident that the numbers reported are actually lower than reality)

What Exactly Are We Talking About?

When people hear “steroids,” they often imagine only anabolic-androgenic steroids such as testosterone and its derivatives.

The modern performance-enhancement landscape is considerably more complicated.

Depending on the athlete and the sport, people may use or experiment with substances including:

• Anabolic-androgenic steroids
• Testosterone derivatives
• Human growth hormone
• Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs)
• Peptide-based compounds
• Thyroid-related drugs
• Stimulants
• Diuretics
• Other prescription or research chemicals

I'm deliberately not providing a shopping list, dosing protocol or “how-to.”

That's not the purpose of this article.

The point is simply to understand that some extreme physiques are produced within an environment that goes far beyond resistance training and chicken breasts.

An umbrella review of the evidence on performance-enhancing drugs found that anabolic-androgenic steroids can increase strength and lean body mass—but also identified significant adverse effects, including lipid abnormalities. The authors concluded that anabolic steroids and growth hormone carry meaningful health risks.

This isn't harmless bodybuilding magic.

Drugs Don't Replace Genetics

Here's another important distinction.

Drugs aren't a substitute for genetics.

They're an augmentation of an already highly demanding process.

Imagine two people with very different genetic potential.

Give both exceptional training, nutrition and recovery.

They're still likely to produce different results.

Now add pharmacological enhancement to the equation.

You haven't eliminated genetics.

You've changed the physiological environment in which adaptation occurs.

That's why comparing yourself to an enhanced elite physique athlete is such a terrible way to judge your own progress.

You're potentially comparing:

Different genetics + different training + different nutrition + different recovery + different drugs + different lifestyle

against:

you.

That's not a fair comparison.

Then There's the Photograph

Here's where things get even more interesting.

Even if the athlete in the photograph is completely drug-free, the photograph itself may not represent what that person normally looks like.

Physique competitors know how to present a physique.

They manipulate:

• Lighting.
• Pose.
• Camera angle.
• Muscle fullness.
• Skin tone.
• Body position.
• Leanness.

And sometimes:

Water and carbohydrate intake.

A competitor on stage at the precise moment of competition can look dramatically different from the same person on an ordinary Tuesday afternoon.

That isn't necessarily deception.

It's part of physique competition.

But it is important context.

And Now We Have Digital Manipulation

We also live in the age of Photoshop, filters, AI-assisted editing and sophisticated smartphone applications.

You can alter:

• Waist circumference
• Muscle definition
• Skin texture
• Proportions
• Facial features
• Lighting
• Shadows
• Backgrounds
• Body symmetry

And you don't need to be a professional photographer to do it.

Research on digitally modified social-media images has demonstrated that exposure to idealized and digitally altered imagery can negatively affect body image, and researchers have questioned whether disclosure labels alone are sufficient to protect viewers from those effects.

In other words:

The photograph you are looking at may not represent the person standing in front of you.

It may represent the person standing in front of a camera, under specific lighting, in a specific pose, at a specific point in their diet, after a specific preparation—and after somebody has opened an editing application.

That's a very different thing.

The “Before and After” Problem

This is particularly important with social media.

Someone posts:

“12 weeks of hard work!”

And shows an extraordinary transformation.

What you don't see may include:

• Years of previous training
• Prior athletic experience
• Different starting photographs
• Different lighting
• Different poses
• A temporary peak condition
• Genetic advantages
• Pharmacological enhancement
• Professional photography
• Digital editing

Again, I'm not saying every transformation is fake.

Many are legitimate.

Some are genuinely remarkable.

But a photograph doesn't tell you the entire story.

Extreme Development Is Supposed to Be Extreme

This is perhaps the most important point I want you to take away.

If you see a physique that looks almost impossibly muscular, lean and defined, your reaction shouldn't necessarily be:

A better question is:

And the answer may be:

• Years of specialized training.
• Exceptional genetics.
• Extreme dietary discipline.
• A lifestyle organized around physique development.
• Pharmacological enhancement.
• Competition preparation.
• Strategic posing and presentation.
• Professional photography.
• Digital manipulation.

Sometimes it's several—or all—of those things.

That is not a normal fitness goal.

It is an extreme pursuit.

The Bikini Athlete Example

Let's return to the bikini division because this is where I think the public perception can be particularly misleading.

A bikini competitor isn't necessarily trying to look like a female bodybuilder.

The aesthetic target is different.

But the athlete may still be extraordinarily lean, muscular and conditioned.

And, as the research demonstrates, women competing in physique sports do report using performance-enhancing drugs.

So if you're a 45-, 55-, 65- or 75-year-old woman who wants to become stronger, improve your body composition and maintain your independence, please don't look at a bikini competitor's Instagram photograph and conclude:

“That's what strength training is going to do to me.”

No.

That's like looking at a Formula 1 car and deciding your Honda is going to turn into one because you changed the oil.

They're both vehicles.

That's about where the similarity ends.

Don't Confuse Exceptional With Normal

This is a lesson that applies far beyond fitness.

We tend to notice the extremes.

• The strongest person.
• The leanest person.
• The biggest person.
• The fastest person.
• The most muscular person.
• The most photogenic person.

And then social media's algorithms feed us more of them.

Pretty soon, the exceptional begins to look normal.

It isn't.

If you spend enough time on Instagram or TikTok looking at physique athletes, you can develop a completely distorted perception of what an ordinary human body should look like.

A 2022 review of social-media and body-image research found that visual platforms can be particularly problematic for body image, while exposure to idealized content and image editing can contribute to negative body-image outcomes.

The algorithm doesn't care what's normal.

It cares what keeps you looking.

The Curtain Is Getting Thinner

Modern social media has created an interesting paradox.

We have more access to information than ever before.

But we also have more opportunities to manipulate what people see.

And the more sophisticated the technology becomes, the harder it can be to distinguish:

Real life

from

presented life.

This isn't an argument against social media.

It's an argument for media literacy.

When you see an extraordinary physique, ask:

What am I actually looking at?

• Who is this person?
• What sport are they competing in?
• How long have they trained?
• What are their genetics?
• What does their off-season physique look like?
• Are they using performance-enhancing drugs?
• Was the image professionally produced?
• Has it been digitally manipulated?

You may not be able to answer all of those questions.

That's okay.

You don't have to.

You simply need to understand that the photograph doesn't necessarily contain all of the information.

This Brings Us Back to the Alphabet

Remember the alphabet?

A → B → C → D → E...

That's normal adaptation.

But elite physique development may involve a completely different set of circumstances.

Someone may start with extraordinary genetics.

They may train for 10, 15 or 20 years.

They may structure their entire lifestyle around development.

They may compete.

They may manipulate nutrition and body composition to extraordinary degrees.

They may use pharmacological assistance.

And then they may step under professional lighting, hit a practiced pose and have the resulting photograph professionally edited.

And you're sitting on your couch thinking:

Because you're not doing all of that.

And that's probably a good thing.

You Don't Need to Pull Back the Curtain to Become Strong

At TNT Strength, we're not in the business of producing extreme physiques.

We're interested in something considerably more useful for most people:

• Strength.
• Useful muscle.
• Better physical capacity.
• Improved body composition.
• Confidence.
• Function.
• Independence.

And the ability to keep doing the things you enjoy.

• You don't need anabolic steroids.
• You don't need human growth hormone.
• You don't need exotic research chemicals.
• You don't need to dehydrate yourself for a photograph.
• You don't need a professional photographer.

And you certainly don't need to look like a competitive physique athlete to benefit from strength training.

You simply need to train intelligently and consistently.

Don't Compare Your Reality to Someone Else's Highlight Reel

This is ultimately what I want you to remember.

You can't accidentally get too big.

And you shouldn't assume that the extreme physiques you see represent what ordinary resistance training produces.

• Some are the result of extraordinary genetics.
• Some are the result of pharmacological enhancement.
• Some are the result of years of obsessive specialization.
• Some are carefully posed and photographed.
• Some are digitally manipulated.

And some are a combination of all of the above.

So the next time you see an extraordinary physique online, don't automatically assume:

“That's what lifting weights does.”

Ask instead:

“What's behind the curtain?”

Because what you see isn't always what you get.

And when it comes to your own training, I'd much rather help you pursue your best realistic outcome than chase somebody else's carefully manufactured image.

Vintage Iron. Modern Science.

Decades of experience helping you build strength.

Everything Becomes Easier The Stronger You Are.

F. A. Q.

Q: Are most bodybuilders using steroids?

A: We cannot accurately say that “most” bodybuilders use anabolic steroids because prevalence varies substantially by population, competition level and study methodology. However, PED use is clearly documented and relatively common in physique-sport populations. One study of male and female physique competitors reported PED use among approximately 48% of men and 38% of women.

Q: Are women really using anabolic steroids?

A: Yes. A 2024 systematic review found an estimated lifetime AAS prevalence of 16.8% among women in bodybuilding studies, substantially higher than estimates for women in general-population/other samples.

Q: Does that mean every bikini competitor uses drugs?

A: Absolutely not.

It would be scientifically irresponsible to make that claim. The evidence tells us that PED use exists in women's physique sports and can be substantial in some populations. It does not tell us that every individual competitor is using drugs.

Q: What drugs are physique athletes using?

A: Reported substances can include anabolic-androgenic steroids, testosterone derivatives, growth hormone and SARMs, among others. Some competitors also use other pharmacological agents during preparation. The purpose of this article is to provide context—not instructions for drug use.

Q: Do steroids really make a difference?

A: Yes. Anabolic-androgenic steroids can substantially affect muscle mass and strength. But their use also carries significant potential health risks. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses found meaningful effects on strength and lean body mass while also identifying adverse effects, including lipid abnormalities.

Q: Can you tell if someone is using steroids by looking at them?

A: No.

You may see characteristics that raise questions, but appearance alone cannot reliably establish drug use.

Q: Are social-media fitness photographs edited?

A: Some are and some aren't. Digital modification of photographs is widespread enough that viewers should not automatically assume that a social-media image is an untouched representation of reality. Research has demonstrated that exposure to idealized and digitally altered imagery can affect body image.

Q: Why do people look so much more muscular in some photographs?

A: Lighting, posing, camera angle, muscle fullness, leanness and other presentation techniques can dramatically alter the appearance of a physique.

Q: Does dehydration make someone look more muscular?

A: Temporary manipulation of body water can change appearance, which is one reason competition-day photographs should not necessarily be considered representative of an athlete's everyday appearance. However, deliberate dehydration can also carry health risks.

Q: Can natural training produce an impressive physique?

A: Absolutely.

Genetics, years of consistent training, nutrition and recovery can produce remarkable results without pharmacological enhancement.

But there's an important distinction between impressive and extreme .

Q: Should I compare my physique to a professional physique athlete?

A: I wouldn't.

You don't know the athlete's genetics, training history, nutrition, pharmacological status, preparation methods or photographic conditions.

You're comparing your complete reality to a carefully presented snapshot of somebody else's reality.

That's rarely a fair comparison.

1. Escalante G, Barakat C, Tinsley GM, Schoenfeld BJ. Nutrition, Training, Supplementation, and Performance-Enhancing Drug Practices of Male and Female Physique Athletes Peaking for Competition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2023;37(8). This study reported PED use among approximately 48% of male and 38% of female physique competitors in its sample.
2. Piatkowski T, Whiteside B, Robertson J, et al. What is the prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use among women? A systematic review. Addiction. 2024;119(12):2088-2100. Particularly useful for understanding AAS use among women and the markedly higher prevalence reported in bodybuilding populations.
3. Warrier AA, Azua EN, Kasson LB, et al. Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Healthy Athletes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Sports Health. 2024;16(5):695-705. Provides an evidence-based overview of several performance-enhancing pharmacological interventions and associated risks.
4. Liu M, Yan Y. Adverse Effects of Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Abuse in Athletes and Physically Active Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Substance Use & Misuse. 2025;60(6):873-887. Reviews cardiovascular, hepatic and endocrine adverse effects associated with AAS abuse.
5. Tiggemann M. Digital modification and body image on social media: Disclaimer labels, captions, hashtags, and comments. Body Image. 2022;41:172-180. Reviews research on digitally modified social-media imagery and its effects on body image.
6. Vandenbosch L, Fardouly J, Tiggemann M. Social media and body image: Recent trends and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022;45:101289. Reviews evidence concerning idealized imagery, image editing and body-image effects on social media.
7. Ganson KT, Testa A, Rodgers RF, Nagata JM. Associations between muscularity-oriented social media content and muscle dysmorphia among boys and men. Body Image. 2025;53:101903. Recent research highlighting the relationship between exposure to muscularity-oriented content and body-image concerns.
8. Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2026. This recent systematic review provides broader context regarding the prevalence of doping across competitive and recreational sporting populations, while also illustrating why prevalence estimates vary according to population and methodology.

Important note: I am not a physician, and this article is intended as educational information—not medical advice or an endorsement of performance-enhancing drug use.