Fact check: BIGGEST NATTY LIFTERS AT THE ARNOLD (anabolic)

1. What the original claim actually says — and why it’s ambiguous

The original phrase mixes contradictory terms: “natty” (natural) implies absence of anabolic steroid use, while the parenthetical “(anabolic)” suggests anabolic steroids. This contradiction makes the statement logically unclear and unverified by athletic results. Official Arnold Classic results list winners and placings across divisions but do not include drug-testing status or doping admissions, so they cannot substantiate who is or is not natural ^{[1] [2]}. The ambiguity means fact-checking must separate contest outcomes from medical or behavioral claims about steroid use.

2. What the event records actually confirm — placements, not physiology

Publicly available Arnold Sports Festival result pages for the 2025 events list winners—such as Mike Sommerfeld in Physique and Derek Lunsford in Men’s Open—but these pages contain no information about anabolic use or natural status of competitors, so they cannot corroborate any claim about the “biggest natty lifters” ^{[2] [1]}. Results are objective on contest rankings, but the absence of drug-status data is an important omission for anyone attempting to label competitors as natural or enhanced ^[1].

3. What scientific literature says about prevalence and implications of AAS use

Systematic reviews and studies show anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) use is detectable and relatively prevalent in some athletic populations; a December 2025 review reported global prevalence ranging from 6.4% to 29.3% depending on sample and method, with motivations including performance and body-image enhancement ^[3]. Clinical and forensic studies also link AAS history to cardiovascular and structural heart changes observed in some premature deaths of bodybuilders, indicating significant health risks associated with nonmedical AAS use ^[4]. These findings frame why declaring someone “natty” without evidence is consequential.

4. Why event results plus prevalence data still don’t identify naturals

Even with robust prevalence estimates and medical case series, population-level statistics cannot be applied to identify individuals at a single event. Studies on supplement and hormone use among bodybuilders show varied patterns—some athletes use supplements or hormones, some do not—and self-reporting is often incomplete or biased ^[5]. Therefore, asserting specific athletes at the Arnold Classic are the “biggest natty lifters” requires individual-level evidence (drug tests, admissions, or verified natural-competition records) that the available sources do not provide ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Competing narratives and possible agendas in the available material

Media coverage and official event pages serve different agendas: event sites aim to publish results and promote the festival, not police drug use, so their silence on anabolic use can be interpreted as either neutrality or deliberate omission ^{[1] [6]}. Conversely, scientific publications highlight public-health concerns about AAS to inform clinicians and policymakers, which can color interpretations of event-level claims. Treating both types of sources as biased is necessary; promotional materials omit drug-status details, while academic studies emphasize risks and prevalence, each influencing how readers draw conclusions ^{[3] [4]}.

6. What evidence would be needed to substantiate the claim

To verify “biggest natty lifters,” one would need transparent, contemporaneous drug-test results certified by independent anti-doping authorities or documented athlete admissions that specifically cover the Arnold competitors in question. Absent such data in event listings or news coverage, responsible reporting must avoid naming individuals as “natty” or “anabolic” based on physique alone. The current sources show contest winners and prevalence studies but do not meet the evidentiary standard required to assign drug-status labels to specific athletes ^{[1] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for readers and researchers trying to verify similar claims

Event outcome pages confirm who placed where at the Arnold Classic but do not verify drug status, and epidemiological studies confirm AAS use is a real and measurable factor in bodybuilding populations. Therefore, any claim labeling individual competitors as “natty” or “anabolic” at the Arnold must be treated as unverified until corroborated by direct evidence such as drug tests, admissions, or anti-doping sanctions; absent that, the claim remains speculative and potentially defamatory ^{[1] [4]}.