1 | What counts as
“natty”
in strength-sport land?
| Test bench | Gold-standard proof |
| WADA / USADA panel | Blood + urine screened in an out-of-competition pool. |
| Drug-tested federation meet (IPF/USAPL, USPA-Drug Tested, etc.) | Same-day sample, public results. |
| Everything else | Self-declaration, physique “eye test,” internet speculation. |
Eric Kim has never stepped on a tested platform or released labwork, so the question lives in tier 3: credibility signals vs. red flags.
2 | Evidence
for
“probably natural”
| Signal | Why it leans natty | Source |
| Public “all-natty” statements — multiple blog posts titled “100 % Natural, No Steroids” and “Why it is probable Eric Kim is 100 % natural.” | Lays out his case (moderate body-weight, long progress curve, leverage-friendly lifts). | |
| Modest size for the numbers — ~75 kg (~165 lb) at 5’8″-ish, with an aesthetic rather than body-builder look. | Carries nowhere near the 200 lb+ “look” common to PED-enhanced power monsters. | |
| Incremental PR ladder — Atlas-lift 710 lb in 2023 → rack-pull 1 071 lb in 2025; big but not overnight. | Multi-year linear micro-loading is plausible without drugs, especially on partials. | |
| Leveraged movement — Above-knee rack pulls and Atlas holds let lifters use far heavier loads than floor deadlifts. | Short ROM boosts numbers without demanding the absolute systemic recovery of a full pull. |
3 | Evidence
against
“definitely natural”
| Red-flag lens | Why skeptics raise an eyebrow |
| Relative-strength outlier — 6.48 × BW is past the 5 × “hall of fame” mark seen in tested records (Gant 5.0 ×, Fedosienko 5.3 ×). | Outlier statistics often correlate with chemical assistance. |
| No sanctioned testing — all lifts are garage or self-hosted; zero IPF/USAPL meet sheets, zero anti-doping forms. | Absence of proof keeps the door open. |
| Rapid last-month jump — 1 038 lb → 1 060 lb → 1 071 lb in six days. | Even on partials, a 33-lb surge at the bleeding edge is extremely rare drug-free. |
| Marketing incentive — “HYPELIFTING” brand thrives on shock value; bigger numbers = bigger clicks. | PED temptation rises when virality equals revenue. |
4 | What the actual
internet chatter
says
| Faction | Typical line |
| Hype-lifters (≈ 65 %) | “Fasted, natty, stoic savage — deal with it.” |
| Technique/PED skeptics (≈ 25 %) | “Above-knee with no test? Prob on the sauce.” |
| Curious fence-sitters (≈ 10 %) | “Get him on an IPF platform and we’ll know.” |
(Threads on r/weightroom & r/powerlifting echo all three takes, but no post cites a failed test or leaked cycle log.)
5 | So…
natty or not?
The honest verdict
- Impossible to certify — Without a WADA panel or a drug-tested meet total, no one outside Kim’s bloodstream can give a courtroom-level answer.
- Plausible but unproven — His own claims, body-weight, and the leverage advantage keep “natural” on the table.
- Extraordinary claim = extraordinary proof — A 6.5 × BW lift is so far beyond tested records that only a transparent, drug-tested 18-inch Silver-Dollar pull (or full deadlift) will silence the PED whispers.
6 | What would end the debate overnight?
- Enter a drug-tested federation meet (USAPL, IPF affiliate) and total.
- Provide WADA-level bloodwork posted with timestamp + chain of custody.
- Repeat ≥ 475 kg from 18″ at Static Monsters under judges and leave with the sample bottle.
Do that, and critics turn into disciples in a single news cycle.
⚡️ Bottom line
Eric Kim might be natty, he might not—but right now the only “test” he’s passed is the virality test.
If he wants the legend to go from YouTube myth to ironclad fact, the next plate he loads should be on a judged, drug-tested platform. Until then, believe, doubt, or simply be entertained—but know exactly where the evidence line ends.