Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Determinator on April 29, 2008, 08:01:23 AM
-
On this week's pro bodybuilding weekly, Bob says that drugs are given "way to much credit when it comes to champ being champs."
He says that drugs have less to do with the bodybuilding look than people think.
Given that (we presume) that such drugs helped build Bob's career, is he correct?
Also, Bob also mentions that if anyone could take a pill to look like a pro bodybuilder, they would. Is he being presumptuous?
-
seeing that Bob is an IFBB pro and you haven't even posted a picture i think i'll listen to Bob. :D
-
seeing that Bob is an IFBB pro and you haven't even posted a picture i think i'll listen to Bob. :D
So you agree that drugs are not much to do with the bodybuilding look at all?
-
Lots of people have taken pills (etc.) to try and look like pro bodybuilders
the shit dont work
-
drugs are needed to get to pro size,and are needed to get finished condition ,anything in between is up to the individual.hope this helps....
-
Lots of people have taken pills (etc.) to try and look like pro bodybuilders
the shit dont work
You're right. You have to take injectables.
-
I would say Bob is 100% correct, without extreme hard work and dedication the "supplements" are not near as effective. Although their can be no known exact equation to this as we are all genetically different.
The people that actually say and believe the "all drugs" theory, truly have not went to their full potential and probably never will.
X
-
Genetics are more important than drugs IMO.The gyms are full of guys who take loads of gear but how many look like pro's?
-
You're right. You have to take injectables.
ampules give me indigestion
-
ok, if they are so unimportant, then why does EVERY single IFBB "pro" and every national competitor use them. If they are so unimportant, get them out of the sport. The fact is that they are an integral part of "pro" bodybuilding. without them, would anyone go to a pro show? Bob once again being disingenuous.
-
On this week's pro bodybuilding weekly, Bob says that drugs are given "way to much credit when it comes to champ being champs."
He says that drugs have less to do with the bodybuilding look than people think.
Given that (we presume) that such drugs helped build Bob's career, is he correct?
Also, Bob also mentions that if anyone could take a pill to look like a pro bodybuilder, they would. Is he being presumptuous?
That is the biggest load of bullshit statement I think I've ever heard!
Squadfather, you're being Nieve.
Bob is just trying to further his own agenda.
Look at all former BBers.
-
ok, if they are so unimportant, then why does EVERY single IFBB "pro" and every national competitor use them. If they are so unimportant, get them out of the sport. The fact is that they are an integral part of "pro" bodybuilding. without them, would anyone go to a pro show? Bob once again being disingenuous.
Are you really this nieve or just pretending?
-
Chic is the man when it comes to semantics. A pill or drug by itself will probably not help you in any kind of significant way. It is the lifting and diet combined with the drugs that make it happen. Some people react better than others to the drugs, hence the term "genetics". But, if they didn't work then why take them. And why take so much. Chic is really funny sometimes.
-
ampules give me indigestion
he didn't say they are unimportant, he said they are given too much credit. just because the majority of pro bb's use steroids is different than the majority of steroid users becoming pro's.
-
Modern bodybuilding is ALL DRUGS.
Now don't get me wrong... yes, you need superior genetics, and yes you need to lift weights, no one is disputing that. BUT, don't kid yourselves: the difference between a Steve Reeves and a Jay Cutler (both of whom had superior genetics and both of whom lifted weights) is 100% drugs.
Hope this helps.
-
Are you really this nieve or just pretending?
First, the word is naive. Second, Chic has said himself that without drugs there is no "pro" bodybuilding. For him to now say they play a less important role than the public thinks is simply insulting to our intelligence. It seems to be a standard response that the "pros" use when asked about drugs.
-
First, the word is naive. Second, Chic has said himself that without drugs there is no "pro" bodybuilding. For him to now say they play a less important role than the public thinks is simply insulting to our intelligence. It seems to be a standard response that the "pros" use when asked about drugs.
Is that so? Please explain how you believe the opposite...
-
First, the word is naive. Second, Chic has said himself that without drugs there is no "pro" bodybuilding. For him to now say they play a less important role than the public thinks is simply insulting to our intelligence. It seems to be a standard response that the "pros" use when asked about drugs.
First, whatever. Second, for some people bodybuilding is their profession. Thirdly, I would suggest you attend a seminar sometime, where you may find you will receive more candid responses from bodybuilders.
-
Genetics are more important than drugs IMO.The gyms are full of guys who take loads of gear but how many look like pro's?
so true........
-
Is that so? Please explain how you believe the opposite...
okay, tell me how you would have turned "pro" without drugs?
-
"Its all genetics"
"drugs are only a finishing touch"
okay, tell me how you would have turned "pro" without drugs?
-
okay, tell me how you would have turned "pro" without drugs?
I asked for your explanation....are you going to enlighten us to your pearls of wisdom and back yourself up, or not?
-
so true........
hey, Toma!! congrats on the pro card. hey bro, i don't know if you remember me but we were in the same class at the western Canadians in 95.. we both got beat by that guy with hips wider than his shoulders.
rik
-
I asked for your explanation....are you going to enlighten us to your pearls of wisdom and back yourself up, or not?
you won't answer my question becuase to do so would be to prove my point. no drugs=no pro bodybuilding. so how is it that they don't play an important role?
-
On this week's pro bodybuilding weekly, Bob says that drugs are given "way to much credit when it comes to champ being champs."
He says that drugs have less to do with the bodybuilding look than people think.
Given that (we presume) that such drugs helped build Bob's career, is he correct?
Also, Bob also mentions that if anyone could take a pill to look like a pro bodybuilder, they would. Is he being presumptuous?
He's right...
just look at those same champs after they go off the sauce, you coudn't tell if theyre on or not, because they keep their "bodybuilding look" .
Now Whey protein are given too much credit when it comes to champ being champ."
So from now on if you want to get the "ULTIMATE bodybuilding look", just eat 6 pounds of red meat per day and train with determination.
-
Genetics are more important than drugs IMO.The gyms are full of guys who take loads of gear but how many look like pro's?
1- If Genetics are so important, how many Pro bb you know drug free?
2- Gyms are not full of guys trying to become pro BB.
-
okay, tell me how you would have turned "pro" without drugs?
sucking dick?
-
Btw I like the response from those folks with "Blue Stars" so pathetically predictable.
Wait for "Drugs are just the icing on the cake".
and ' You can't turn a chihuaua in to a Pitbull by using drungs".
LOL
-
Btw I like the response from those folks with "Blue Stars" so pathetically predictable.
Wait for "Drugs are just the icing on the cake".
and ' You can't turn a chihuaua in to a Pitbull by using drungs".
LOL
oh yeah? check out my pomeranian!!
-
Bob is a myostatin mutant.
-
Can we see a before and after pic of this genetic freak?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=212605.0;attach=248854;image)
-
Can we see a before and after pic of this genetic freak?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=212605.0;attach=248854;image)
How old is Bob there?
-
Can we see a before and after pic of this genetic freak?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=212605.0;attach=248854;image)
before
-
sucking dick?
hahahahaha...bingo
-
-
2- Gyms are not full of guys trying to become pro BB.
gh15 said that 95% of ppl in amerikan gyms are on AAS ....and thats just the ladies...who are all fat slobs ::) ::)
-
Everything brother GH15 professes is gospel so any other things, thought,written,dreamed, scientifically proven or conceived should be thrown out if corrected by GH15. The bodybuilding scripture is being written but the gospel takes time.
P.S. I suggest any conflicting thoughts on what Bob has written be put on pause and reread what he wrote
X
-
Btw I like the response from those folks with "Blue Stars" so pathetically predictable.
Wait for "Drugs are just the icing on the cake".
and ' You can't turn a chihuaua in to a Pitbull by using drungs".
LOL
I think I've heard those exact phrases somewhere before, yet I can't quite place them. Hmmmmmmm....
-
I agree with Bob, nutrition , workout intensity, and rest are keys to bodybuilding, the drugs are just added tool to recuperate faster.
-
before
All Pedigree Complete
-
You can't deny that the freakish look is what fans of this "sport" like and you can't achieve that kind of size without drugs. The look is drug dependent so one is ultimately tied to the other.
Drugs however have very little to do with shape and conditioning. Shape being a genetic thing and conditioning being achieved by meticulous nutritional planning. The reason bodybuilder get so upset is that they dislike the perception that they are lazy drug dependent idiots who do very little personal work on their own and that everything they have achieved is a result of drug use. I guess it's like saying to a NASCAR driver, well its all the car which doesn't take into account the type of mental and physical skills it takes to be an expert driver or in the case of a bodybuilder the hours of crazy and the strenuous dieting.
-
On this week's pro bodybuilding weekly, Bob says that drugs are given "way to much credit when it comes to champ being champs."
He says that drugs have less to do with the bodybuilding look than people think.
Given that (we presume) that such drugs helped build Bob's career, is he correct?
Also, Bob also mentions that if anyone could take a pill to look like a pro bodybuilder, they would. Is he being presumptuous?
notice how some guys consistently place higher than others?
could it be that they have better shape, structure, symmetry, balance, proportions and overall genetics?
E
-
alex23 dont need drugs and he is ALL NATURAL and bigger than 95% of getbiggers in general you guys who are whinning are a bunch of idiots who are pissed that you cant even compete at the NPC level let alone the IFBB so you come on these boards and talks a whole bunch of shiet cause you have nothing better to do....YOU COMPLAIN BECAUSE YOU CANT DO.....
-
Genetics are more important than drugs IMO.The gyms are full of guys who take loads of gear but how many look like pro's?
So true. Pro's are genetic freaks. You can't really appreceiate how big and thick they are until you see them in person. I know tons of guys that take tons of drugs, yet they are not close to pros. A friend of mine shocked me at the amount of shit he takes (he's a national competitor) and he can't crack the top 7 at the USA and Nationals. He trains hard as hell and is a freak when it comes to dieting, but he does not have the shape to win that pro card
-
I agree with Bob, nutrition , workout intensity, and rest are keys to bodybuilding, the drugs are just added tool to recuperate faster.
the thing that cracks me up is you juicers say this and always put the drugs at the end of the list, which in reality, they are the first
tool to be pro....
-
To say that drugs has little to do with pro bodybuilding is tremendously rediculous....Yes, genetics play a huge roll...Ive heard that genetically, some people "pros" react better to steroids then your typical person in the gym....Ive also heard the pros say it takes hard work, not just drugs....Are they implying they work harder then a nattie?
I think the steroids allow a user to work hard without consequence....If a nattie worked as hard, he would be overtrained....Ofcourse all over the world there are natties working hard as hell, sets after sets, reps after reps...You see for instance people training the same bodypart two days in a row....They work very hard but see little results....
Ofcourse working hard means working hard on your diet....Steroids from what ive read makes it more applicable to eat a tremendous amount of food...Ofcourse the more food you eat in the right break down can aid the steroids in building a tremendous amount of muscle....
My point is, that everything the pros and amateur bodybuilders say is true, but at the same time, they are not acknowledging the obvious benefits the steroids give them in building muscle through hard work whether that work is in the gym, or in recovering, or in diet....
Think for just a minute of every pro in the circuit today, working as hard as they do, with steroids out of the picture...Imagine their same dedication with intensity, eating large amounts of protein and adequete rest....What would be the result? ....Really there is no way of knowing of any of these bodybuilders how they would react naturally....Flex Wheeler claims to be natural, but many know he has lied about that in the past....Also what is his definition of natural....Also he is the only case of that instance in all of pro bodybuilding that I know of....Is natural for him, meaning he does not do anything illegal? Is he getting assistance from the medical establishment? If HGH is allowed in competition, is it natural? Is boosting your body by hormones to reach natural levels, natural? What does that persons doctor consider natural?
Lots of questions to ponder that im sure Dave Palumbo would have answers too....
I do not make these points, showing disrespect to any of the pros in the business....I respect their accomplishments and im a huge fan....This is a vain sport, and maybe thats why i like it so much....Comic book sized bodybuilders just rocks....I have no knowledge of the sport in respect to guys like Chick or Palumbo, but common sense aided by observation of the sport over the last fiveteen years leads me to the conclusion that STEROIDS, has everything to do with how these guys look.....Please do not expect us to believe that the steroids play a small part and its mainly just hard work.....What i do realize is that either two aspects, the steroids or hard work, cannot yield the same results without both those components...Both compliment each other and give us today, these walking superhumans....
Tell me if im right Bob, the reason you make the statement that steroids are not so important is to relay to the young people that just popping a pill will not result in a huge physique on its own....I cannot relate to that thinking, that steroids is the only cause of the achievements you reach....For someone to think that, they are superbly ignorant.....
-
Leep Priest has claimed to being natural....Again i would ask, what does he consider natural?
-
Bob will go around and around always flying the IFBB Anti Drug Flag he is a Fukin lier and knows how much shit he has injected into his body esp before the Over 40s world this is my event comp.He is worried Basile has gone to the DEA and mentioned his name so I guess the more he says about Drugs not being needed works in his favour.GH15 tells it like it is Chick is a MUPPET. ::)
-
Bob will go around and around always flying the IFBB Anti Drug Flag he is a Fukin lier and knows how much shit he has injected into his body esp before the Over 40s world this is my event comp.He is worried Basile has gone to the DEA and mentioned his name so I guess the more he says about Drugs not being needed works in his favour.GH15 tells it like it is Chick is a MUPPET. ::)
Are you saying that Chick has Manion's hand up his ass?
-
Have good genetics, take drugs, eat alot and train an hour a day.
Number 1: BE CONSISTENT
-
Bob Chic lies a lot for no reason. Just like he claims he doesn't remember turning red and flush face when interviewing Jamie Eason. Guy is over 40 and still lying for no apparent reason.
-
ok, if they are so unimportant, then why does EVERY single IFBB "pro" and every national competitor use them. If they are so unimportant, get them out of the sport. The fact is that they are an integral part of "pro" bodybuilding. without them, would anyone go to a pro show? Bob once again being disingenuous.
Evey single pro and national competitor also eats numerous meals each day, trains hard and consistently and has taken many many years to get their physique to that level.
But drugs clearly make a difference which is why Bob Chick looks so unimpressive off them.
-
Evey single pro and national competitor also eats numerous meals each day, trains hard and consistently and has taken many many years to get their physique to that level.
But drugs clearly make a difference which is why Bob Chick looks so unimpressive off them.
CHIC still holds his own off,but it is what it is,if your comparing him in peak form to a less on look then yes.but to get pro level muscle whether its in form of thickness,extreme conditioning,mass,then yes drugs are a main ingrediant with the total equation.as most people said u can have a amateur taking same or even more amounts than a pro,and still not turn pro.whether your a lighweight or superheavy u have to be the best of your class that day to turn pro,then you have to bring your best and thensome to be a good pro.just like boxing it is a big mans sport ,the bigger the more money potential in endorsements,posings,ect...
-
Take ALL drugs out of female bodybuilding and what do you have:
It would look like 14 year old boys posing with oil. A Jr. High School physique contest.
That is the impact of drugs. We simply suspend disbelief that Ronnie Coleman can get that big on his own.
-
One thing people tend to overlook, is that when a bb is "off", they may be off of everything...including, cardio, dieting, training with any consistancy, heavy weights...
-
One thing people tend to overlook, is that when a bb is "off", they may be off of everything...including, cardio, dieting, training with any consistancy, heavy weights...
true,due to amount of training,volume,weights done,and amount of food to feed all the muscle needed,a 'cleaner' bber would need less of all the above .a good seasoned pro probably knows when and how to it and make it less obvious on down time,a retired pro either is done or still does stuff to a degree to keep the image of pro size example don long.
-
Quote Bob from one of his articles on BB.COM.. this is a jem
**
Everyone wants to know why the pro bodybuilders of today are 40-50 lbs. heavier than our pro brothers of the past era's. Is it the drugs? No. Is it the training? No. It's the knowledge of the importance of recovery. It's commonplace in this day to train body parts ONCE a week, not twice
**
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bobchic2.htm
-
Quote Bob from one of his articles on BB.COM.. this is a jem
**
Everyone wants to know why the pro bodybuilders of today are 40-50 lbs. heavier than our pro brothers of the past era's. Is it the drugs? No. Is it the training? No. It's the knowledge of the importance of recovery. It's commonplace in this day to train body parts ONCE a week, not twice
**
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/bobchic2.htm
Are you saying you doubt that?
-
Are you saying you doubt that?
50lbs of solid muscle just by not training bodyparts twice a week? :o
-
50lbs of solid muscle just by not training bodyparts twice a week? :o
It's a combination of a lot of things collectively....but recovery is what leads to building muscle.
By all means...explain what you think it is.
-
bottom line is if there was no drugs
the same guys would be the biggest
just not as big as they are now or as ripped
-
Are you saying you doubt that?
Apparently, i forgot by whose words i learned this, but Dorian Yates was one of the first pros to train each muscle once a week....He or someone else said that is the reason he was able to jump in weight so fast...Then everyone caught on and started training that way and everyone gained lots of weight seemingly over night...
Makes perfect sense to me
-
Are you saying you doubt that?
I think the training philosophy is one factor. The other factors are increased knowledge of nutrition and the now pervasive use of gh and insulin in addition to aas.
-
Apparently, i forgot by whose words i learned this, but Dorian Yates was one of the first pros to train each muscle once a week....He or someone else said that is the reason he was able to jump in weight so fast...Then everyone caught on and started training that way and everyone gained lots of weight seemingly over night...
Makes perfect sense to me
It was also the same time slin & Gh were being used
makes sense to me
-
Apparently, i forgot by whose words i learned this, but Dorian Yates was one of the first pros to train each muscle once a week take massive amounts of insulin....He or someone else said that is the reason he was able to jump in weight so fast...Then everyone caught on and everyone gained lots of weight seemingly over night...
Makes perfect sense to me
fixed
-
It was also the same time slin & Gh were being used
makes sense to me
Are you saying Dorian Yates was the first to use slin and GH?
-
Sorry, but saying Dorian was the first to use slin and GH and the rest of the pros were not and followed suit after Dorians transformation does not make sense to me....How was it that Dorian, living in England was the only one that used it?
If there is some proof of this, i would not mind being wrong, but it's a little to much to digest...
-
Are you saying Dorian Yates was the first to use slin and GH?
No..but he was the first who made success from it.
as meaning winning consecutive Mr O titles with the help of these ingredients
-
No..but he was the first who made success from it.
as meaning winning consecutive Mr O titles with the help of these ingredients
Coming full circle, probably from working out each bodypart once a week....
-
How come ive read information saying you should train lagging bodyparts twice a week, i even heard Ruhl in one of his videos saying he tried to train his triceps twice a week at one point to bring them up... why would people do this if once a week is known to be so much better.
-
How come ive read information saying you should train lagging bodyparts twice a week, i even heard Ruhl in one of his videos saying he tried to train his triceps twice a week at one point to bring them up... why would people do this if once a week is known to be so much better.
Ive heard Ruhl and other state that too, even Ronnie Coleman on his calves....From our powers of observation, has it worked?
-
It's a combination of a lot of things collectively....but recovery is what leads to building muscle.
By all means...explain what you think it is.
and of course you are talking about recovery via, insulin and gh abuse....so yes bob, it is because of more drugs
-
Bob, we concede, your smarter then us :P
-
and of course you are talking about recovery via, insulin and gh abuse....so yes bob, it is because of more drugs
true, gh and slin does allow for more effective recovery
-
On this week's pro bodybuilding weekly, Bob says that drugs are given "way to much credit when it comes to champ being champs."
He says that drugs have less to do with the bodybuilding look than people think.
Given that (we presume) that such drugs helped build Bob's career, is he correct?
Also, Bob also mentions that if anyone could take a pill to look like a pro bodybuilder, they would. Is he being presumptuous?
Drugs are 100% key to look like a Pro.
Without steroids you don't have high enough protein synthesis, cant eat enough food, have a preferred nutrition partitioning, train heavy and hard enough, recover fast enough, all in order to maintain enough lean mass.
Eat as much as Jay Cutler natural and you will get fat and even if you train as hard as you possibly can it will just make you sick and wear you down.
-
How come ive read information saying you should train lagging bodyparts twice a week, i even heard Ruhl in one of his videos saying he tried to train his triceps twice a week at one point to bring them up... why would people do this if once a week is known to be so much better.
When someone can show me how breaking down a muscle twice as much will lead to building it up twice as fast....I'll listen.
Until then, I'll stick with what I know....
-
Banned and Illegal Substances is what you know.
-
In my opinion, drugs play a very important part.
Example... take the drugs away from a 280 pound pro bodybuilder, what do you get? A bodybuilder who wouldnt be under 8 percent bodyfat and wouldnt be over 200-210 pounds....not only that...they wouldnt be as strong as they were when they were on....
What does the word "anabolic" mean? Hence why they are known as anabolic steriods.... steriods "enhance" what you have.... if you already have great genetics....they make you even bigger and better...
Ive seen Jumbo Palumbo one year at the Olympia expo smaller than what he once was...so I knew he was pretty much almost off...the following year when I saw him...he was freakin huge!
What I think why some pros say that drugs dont really play an important part like people think they do is because if someone has shitty genetics (ugly structure ie Palumbo) that person will never be a pro regardless how huge that person is or how much muscles that person has.... it has to take someone with great genetics, a great work ethic, a passion for the sport and a never give up attitude...
There have been many ametuers competing that never make pro status..some have taken years upon years to do that....
-
When someone can show me how breaking down a muscle twice as much will lead to building it up twice as fast....I'll listen.
Until then, I'll stick with what I know....
Arnold didn't seem to have much problem with training twice....& even sometimes 3 times a bodypart a week
-
Arnold didn't seem to have much problem with training twice....& even sometimes 3 times a bodypart a week
Yeah....and he was 228 lbs. at the height of his career....hence the point of guys being 40-50 lbs heavier now.
-
drugs=big factor in a guy being a pro bb.
not the only factor but a big factor, if you don't believe it then you're an idiot.
the best "real" natty guys today are about 35 years behind pro BB in terms of development.
you still have to know your shit and diet hard and train hard but drugs are a big factor.
-
Yeah....and he was 228 lbs. at the height of his career....hence the point of guys being 40-50 lbs heavier now.
I thought that Arnold, at his peak in 1974, competed at 240 lbs.
From what I've read, Arnold dropped to 210 to film a movie (Stay Hungry, I think). When he decided to compete in the 1975 Olympia (to be in Pumping Iron), he only regained 20 of his 30 lost lbs. back, putting him at 230, which was still good enough to win.
-
Modern bodybuilding is ALL DRUGS.
Now don't get me wrong... yes, you need superior genetics, and yes you need to lift weights, no one is disputing that. BUT, don't kid yourselves: the difference between a Steve Reeves and a Jay Cutler (both of whom had superior genetics and both of whom lifted weights) is 100% drugs.
Hope this helps.
You can't compare the 2. These days we know much more about training and nutrition as well as legal supps. Of course there's still a huge drug induced difference, but you can't compare guys from a bygone era to todays people. You'd have to look at the seventies, eighties etc etc. Even then you can still make the point that we know more these days.
-
Yeah....and he was 228 lbs. at the height of his career....hence the point of guys being 40-50 lbs heavier now.
Well, there's alot of reasons for that.
Hell, back then leg training wasn't overly emphasized for one
2...the drugs today are leagues above what they were using back then
then you add to the fact Arnold still trained 2-3 times a week per body part.
-
Modern bodybuilding is ALL DRUGS.
Now don't get me wrong... yes, you need superior genetics, and yes you need to lift weights, no one is disputing that. BUT, don't kid yourselves: the difference between a Steve Reeves and a Jay Cutler (both of whom had superior genetics and both of whom lifted weights) is 100% drugs.
Hope this helps.
that would work if steve reeves hadn't taken testosterone through the 1940s.
quick histrory lesson for the naive
1920s - athletes were already using a crude form of testosterone from monkey testicles.
1930s - steroids were invented and immediately used by athletes and soldiers along with underweight males and as a health tonic for sexual prowess among other things. in fact, hitler ordered them to be administered to himself and his troops.
1940s - you can bet your ass that elite athletes and bbers were using them. they weren't even considered a risk back then. they were a health tonic that WORKED.
1950s - oral dianabol was created and kaboom, every man and his dog was popping dbols...
from there it's pretty obvious what happened.
reeves is somehow painted as the patron saint of bbing (now there's an oxymoron) but in reality, he was a self obsessed thespian and champion bber. why the hell wouldn't he take a health tonic that will keep him at the top of his game and physical peak? simple common dog fuck really.
people like to say, 'where's your proof that reeves used testosterone?' my simple answer is, 'where's your proof that cutler or coleman do?
-
that would work if steve reeves hadn't taken testosterone through the 1940s.
quick histrory lesson for the naive
1920s - athletes were already using a crude form of testosterone from monkey testicles.
1930s - steroids were invented and immediately used by athletes and soldiers along with underweight males and as a health tonic for sexual prowess among other things. in fact, hitler ordered them to be administered to himself and his troops.
1940s - you can bet your ass that elite athletes and bbers were using them. they weren't even considered a risk back then. they were a health tonic that WORKED.
1950s - oral dianabol was created and kaboom, every man and his dog was popping dbols...
from there it's pretty obvious what happened.
reeves is somehow painted as the patron saint of bbing (now there's an oxymoron) but in reality, he was a self obsessed thespian and champion bber. why the hell wouldn't he take a health tonic that will keep him at the top of his game and physical peak? simple common dog fuck really.
people like to say, 'where's your proof that reeves used testosterone?' my simple answer is, 'where's your proof that cutler or coleman do?
You are quite the historian.....
-
The premise of this thread is BS, with all due respect.
How important is food?
How important is water?
How important is training?
How important is sleep?
How important is drugs?
The answer is all are necessary. The point is, Arnold's contention was that drugs were 15% of the deal.
No, there is no % you can put on it. Without the drugs, you don't even place in the top 10. So we can put a % of importance on sleep, eating, etc. It don't mean nothing!
-
that would work if steve reeves hadn't taken testosterone through the 1940s.
quick histrory lesson for the naive
1920s - athletes were already using a crude form of testosterone from monkey testicles.
1930s - steroids were invented and immediately used by athletes and soldiers along with underweight males and as a health tonic for sexual prowess among other things. in fact, hitler ordered them to be administered to himself and his troops.
1940s - you can bet your ass that elite athletes and bbers were using them. they weren't even considered a risk back then. they were a health tonic that WORKED.
1950s - oral dianabol was created and kaboom, every man and his dog was popping dbols...
from there it's pretty obvious what happened.
reeves is somehow painted as the patron saint of bbing (now there's an oxymoron) but in reality, he was a self obsessed thespian and champion bber. why the hell wouldn't he take a health tonic that will keep him at the top of his game and physical peak? simple common dog fuck really.
people like to say, 'where's your proof that reeves used testosterone?' my simple answer is, 'where's your proof that cutler or coleman do?
Got documented proof? this will be graded
-
When someone can show me how breaking down a muscle twice as much will lead to building it up twice as fast....I'll listen.
Until then, I'll stick with what I know....
Most of the growth from training comes in the first few hours after the session. Mentzer thought that you recovered first, which he thought took many days, followed by growth. That's not correct. Protein synthesis is highest immediately after. Protein synthesis is back to baseline after 48 hours in a steroid free athlete = after 48 hours you are not growing anymore. When using steroids you will have an artificially heightened protein synthesis for longer but it still makes sense that you'd want to stimulate growth as frequently as possible.
Soreness doesn't mean "muscle breakdown" either in case you think that. It's simply a sign of adaptation according to the latest research. It has something to do with the connective tissue surrounding the muscle, not damage to the muscle fibers.
Pros are bigger today due to the drugs, period. Not because they rest more.
-
Most of the growth from training comes in the first few hours after the session. Mentzer thought that you recovered first, which he thought took many days, followed by growth. That's not correct. Protein synthesis is highest immediately after. Protein synthesis is back to baseline after 48 hours in a steroid free athlete = after 48 hours you are not growing anymore. When using steroids you will have an artificially heightened protein synthesis for longer but it still makes sense that you'd want to stimulate growth as frequently as possible.
Soreness doesn't mean "muscle breakdown" either in case you think that. It's simply a sign of adaptation according to the latest research. It has something to do with the connective tissue surrounding the muscle, not damage to the muscle fibers.
Pros are bigger today due to the drugs, period. Not because they rest more.
YOU THINK ITS BEST TO TRAIN EVERY 48 HOURS THEN ?
-
Fro those of you who don't believe steroids are a big part of pro bodybuilding, I present you the 1990 Mr.Olympia, which was drug tested. "The Awesome One" was 20 lbs lighter than the previous year, and to make it even worse, softer.
-
YOU THINK ITS BEST TO TRAIN EVERY 48 HOURS THEN ?
You still have to consider overlapping stress to some bodyparts and just general stress to the whole system. But if I wanted to bring up a particular bodypart I think training it twice a week or even say mon/wed/fri would be superior to just once a week. Training everything as hard as possible every 48 hours would be too much I think.
-
You still have to consider overlapping stress to some bodyparts and just general stress to the whole system. But if I wanted to bring up a particular bodypart I think training it twice a week or even say mon/wed/fri would be superior to just once a week. Training everything as hard as possible every 48 hours would be too much I think.
WITH 600+ GRAMS OF PROTEIN, SUFFICIENT CARBS, TONS OF HORMONES ?
-
WITH 600+ GRAMS OF PROTEIN, SUFFICIENT CARBS, TONS OF HORMONES ?
Yeah still too much. Try doing all-out deadlifts and squats 3 times a week. Actually that might work in blocks of a few weeks but not year round IMO.
-
MENTALLY OR PHYSIOLOGICALLY?
YOU THINK THAAT THE CNS REALLY HAS TO "RECOVER" .. ?? ALA H.I.T. MIKE MENTZER... ?? CUZ FOR THE FIRST COUPL YEARS I WAS TRAINING I NEVER STOPPED GAINING AND I TRAINED 7 DAYS PER WEEK..NEVER MISSED A DAY...
-
Fro those of you who don't believe steroids are a big part of pro bodybuilding, I present you the 1990 Mr.Olympia, which was drug tested. "The Awesome One" was 20 lbs lighter than the previous year, and to make it even worse, softer.
Haney didn't look that bad. Now, if you really want to make your point, use the 1992 WBF Championship.
-
Bob you are correct that the drugs can't make you ripped without a rigid diet or give you the ideal pro shape and overall tie-ins for the muscle groups, etc..The drugs can't lift the wts for you , do your cardio or eat your meals.But, as you pointed out the best pros TODAY are a LOT bigger than Arnold in his prime.
1.What the extreme modern drug use did do, was take the genetic freaks and expand what they can build above/beyond "normal means". The best guys would still look great, just smaller and less freaky.
I bet without drugs, Dexter would still be ripped, Jay would be wide and Bob Chic would have that freaky thigh sweep, etc.
2. Since the expected norm in pro bodybuilding has been established with drugs, it would be hard to accept a drop in mass and freaky cuts by many fans and judges. However, as the pros get bigger and more freaky looking , the number who prefer the "golden era" look of Arnold , Sergio , and Zane ,is growing.
3. In my humble opinion, the most practical solution is a combination of the following:
a) Tighter adherence by the IFBB judges of the Jim Manion "belly ban" edict. Judge the OVERALL asspects of based on an EQUAL combination of mass, cuts, shape and balance.
(b)High quality show production complete with a digital surrond sound and modern stage lighting.
(c) The pros need to concentate on doing a professional looking routine and act with some level of sportsmanship when getting awards.
hahahahaha.....Bob has to have some of the worst legs in the biz while juiced to the gills, without the "help", his legs would be comical
-
Haney didn't look that bad. Now, if you really want to make your point, use the 1992 WBF Championship.
he didn't,but everybody raved about the smaller bbers that yr,like it was due to being drug free.labrada,benfatto,hillebrand,all got in shape and looked good,but it wasn't like a miracle due to 1 yr drug free olympia.these guys know what and when to do,and most were well prepared to adjust accordingly.
-
Haney didn't look that bad. Now, if you really want to make your point, use the 1992 WBF Championship.
He didn't look that bad compared to the average gym rat, but he was a shell of his former self. He had 30 lbs of muscle less and 10 lbs more fat compared to the previous year. This probably explains why he was 20 lbs lighter and yet at the same time softer.
-
He didn't look that bad compared to the average gym rat, but he was a shell of his former self. He had 30 lbs of muscle less and 10 lbs more fat compared to the previous year. This probably explains why he was 20 lbs lighter and yet at the same time softer.
Haney didn't lose that much weight.
Again, if you REALLY want to see a drastic difference, check out some of the guys at the 1992 WBF Championship, especially one "Iron Warrior", Mike Christian.
Keep in mind that, at the time of the competition, the WBF had only applied its drug-testing protocols for three months.
-
Haney didn't lose that much weight.
Again, if you REALLY want to see a drastic difference, check out some of the guys at the 1992 WBF Championship, especially one "Iron Warrior", Mike Christian.
Keep in mind that, at the time of the competition, the WBF had only applied its drug-testing protocols for three months.
This is not true...they were tested all year, as I was training w Padilla and remember the frequent testing he had to go to.
-
he didn't,but everybody raved about the smaller bbers that yr,like it was due to being drug free.labrada,benfatto,hillebrand,all got in shape and looked good,but it wasn't like a miracle due to 1 yr drug free olympia.these guys know what and when to do,and most were well prepared to adjust accordingly.
Compare the guys who competed at the 89 Olympia with their pics at the 90 Olympia. There aint that much of a dropoff.
NOW, compare the pics of the WBF guys from the 91 and 92 shows.
Or, look at the guys who competed in the 89 and/or 90 Olympias AND both WBF Championships (i.e. Mike Quinn, Eddie Robinson, Mike Christian).
This is not true...they were tested all year, as I was training w Padilla and remember the frequent testing he had to go to.
When was the start date? From reading WBF/Bodybuilding Lifestyles Magazine (didn't you do a few pics for them, back in the day?), the drug-testing started in March of 1992 (or, at least, that's when it was announced at the press conference).
-
This is not true...they were tested all year, as I was training w Padilla and remember the frequent testing he had to go to.
what weight do you think the current crop of guys would step on stage clean
the tall guys about 230
the little guys bout 180 to 200 would be my guess
-
If you notice it is the guys who rely on the drugs the most and are the biggest who always say that drugs don't matter much. If they didn't matter so much then why do they look so different when they are off them. I gained a ton of strength when I was on them and I kept that strength when I was off them 10 years later cause I always lifted heavy. I would take months off at a time because I would be too busy to lift like I wanted and start back and get most of my strength back in about a month. Pro BB's rely on drugs when the are getting ready for a show. When they are off of them they are also not lifting like they do when they are on. I believe in at least the strength part of it that if you continue to lift heavy you won't lose much.
-
Compare the guys who competed at the 89 Olympia with their pics at the 90 Olympia. There aint that much of a dropoff.
NOW, compare the pics of the WBF guys from the 91 and 92 shows.
Or, look at the guys who competed in the 89 and/or 90 Olympias AND the 91 and 92 WBF Championships (i.e. Mike Quinn, Eddie Robinson, Mike Christian).
When was the start date? From reading WBF/Bodybuilding Lifestyles Magazine (didn't you do a few pics for them, back in the day?), the drug-testing started in March of 1992 (or, at least, that's when it was announced at the press conference).
LOL...yeah...I did one of the first shoots for them. We actually shot the training pics in McMahons own personal gym at his house in Conneticut. They were considering signing me and Paul DeMayo just before the WBF went south...
Remember, what you read in a magazine isn't exactly "up to the minute" info....by the time it was mentioned in an article, they had already been tested for months.
-
what weight do you think the current crop of guys would step on stage clean
the tall guys about 230
the little guys bout 180 to 200 would be my guess
They'd all be down about 20 lbs....give or take.
-
They'd all be down about 20 lbs....give or take.
i agree
they would still be big
people dont realise the importance of genetics
way more important than drugs
-
Kim Chivesky on drugs would have beaten the NABBA Mr. U's from the 1950's.
Kim Chivesky off drugs would not be noticed if she were wearing a bikini in the checkout line at Wal Mart.
The women PROVE the extreme effectiveness of steroids. We are willing to believe tripe from the male b/bers that it only adds 15% or so.
Bullshit.
-
Kim Chivesky on drugs would have beaten the NABBA Mr. U's from the 1950's.
Kim Chivesky off drugs would not be noticed if she were wearing a bikini in the checkout line at Wal Mart.
The women PROVE the extreme effectiveness of steroids. We are willing to believe tripe from the male b/bers that it only adds 15% or so.
Bullshit.
women dont have the same natural hormones for building muscle as men
dick weed
-
women dont have the same natural hormones for building muscle as men
dick weed
I meant to add to my post:
And then they will tell you how much more effective steroids are for women than men.
Hope that helps. they don't really work on the men.......
Kevin Levrone standing in line at Wal Mart doesn't get noticed either......
-
Haney didn't lose that much weight.
He was 250 lbs in 1989 and 239 lbs in 1990. When you add into the equaton the fact that he was softer too, then the actualy loss of muscle was greater than the one indicated by the scae weight. I would guess 30 lbs, with a gain of 10 lbs of fat, which explains why he was less ripped.
-
LOL...yeah...I did one of the first shoots for them. We actually shot the training pics in McMahons own personal gym at his house in Conneticut. They were considering signing me and Paul DeMayo just before the WBF went south...
Remember, what you read in a magazine isn't exactly "up to the minute" info....by the time it was mentioned in an article, they had already been tested for months.
I wonder what nickname McMahon would have developed for you.
Pre-films (before your routines), custom-made music (during your routines), and a smorgasbord of ICOPRO supplements: Imagine what could have been. ;D
-
I wonder what nickname McMahon would have developed for you.
Pre-films (before your routines), custom-made music (during your routines), and a smorgasbord of ICOPRO supplements: Imagine what could have been. ;D
Just imagine....
-
Just imagine....
Bob-O.....the clown?
;D
-
Bob-O.....the clown?
;D
-
Haney didn't look that bad. Now, if you really want to make your point, use the 1992 WBF Championship.
this is very true...
the 1992 wbf show is the only professional bbing show in history where a decent argument can be made for most of the competitors being totally off testosterone, and this was only for a few months prior to the show where each competitor was supposedly weaned off with pct.
it is obvious, however, that guys like strydom where still on something because he didn't look any different to the first show and before anyone says that strydom was a natural freak i remember seeing a couple of shots in lonnie teper's column in musclemag post wbf collapse where strydom decided to 'take a break'. gary looked like another person, a person that had never trained weights in his whole life.
he obviously had a sense of humour because it was his first day back in golds or something and there he is doing concentration curls with a 10lb dumbell...i shit you not, if his skinny fat upper arms were more than 13" i would be very surprised.
don't underestimate the dark side...
-
this is very true...
the 1992 wbf show is the only professional bbing show in history where a decent argument can be made for most of the competitors being totally off testosterone, and this was only for a few months prior to the show where each competitor was supposedly weaned off with pct.
it is obvious, however, that guys like strydom where still on something because he didn't look any different to the first show and before anyone says that strydom was a natural freak i remember seeing a couple of shots in lonnie teper's column in musclemag post wbf collapse where strydom decided to 'take a break'. gary looked like another person, a person that had never trained weights in his whole life.
he obviously had a sense of humour because it was his first day back in golds or something and there he is doing concentration curls with a 10lb dumbell...i shit you not, if his skinny fat upper arms were more than 13" i would be very surprised.
don't underestimate the dark side...
I must disagree with you about the comments on Strydom. I remember watching the show on pay-per-view (I taped it, as well). Vince McMahon even commented that "I don't believe he's quite as big as he was last year. But, overall, he may even be better."
Strydom was not as big in '92 as he was in '91. He looked to be about 10-15 lbs. lighter. In fact, the only guy in that show who appeared bigger (that is, more muscular) that the previous year was "The Dark Angel", Aaron Baker. "Jetman" Tony Pearson looked about the same, maybe a little sharper. But, everyone else appeared smaller and/or smoother.
Berry DeMey was a bit odd. The "Flexing Dutchman" looked fine during his routine, in which he took time out of his busy schedule (winning at roulette and fornicating with a busty brunette, who gave him the key to her hotel room) to pose for the audience. But, during the top-5 posedown, he was smooth as a baby's behind, his condition almost mirroring that of "Major Guns" Eddie Robinson.
-
I dont really understand why bber should take drugs.
Even if they turn into natural, they are enough tremendous to surprise us with their mass.
Ronnie or Markus or Paco or whoever... these monsters without drugs can be still bigger than 80s bbers like Samir bannout or Mohamed Makkawy.