Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 28, 2014, 07:33:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2]
26  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Natural BB 6ft tall weight? on: December 17, 2006, 07:08:49 AM
what I meant by "bad genetics" is that I am an ecto with endomorphic tendencies.  I gain muscle very slowly but put on fat very fast. I can lose muscle very easily but have a hard time losing fat.

Join the club. Wink

Grinch, for you to carry the same level of muscle mass as a typical drug-free champion you'd max out at roughly 197 @ 10% b.f. That's an estimate based on a lot of drug-free champs over a lot of years.

People with ectomorphic bone structures typically have a hard time reaching that maximum, so you're finding yourself about 6 lbs short of that mark after 10 years of training. I'd say a big congratulations are in order! Scaled for height and bone structure, you've reached 97% of the muscle mass that the best in the game have (this is a very common plateau point for ectomorphs).

Now you have a choice of busting your ass in search of those last few pounds that are theoretically attainable (at least by a person with good genetics), or you can perfect what you have now.

After over 15 years I find myself in the same situation as you -- right to the pound ...but I'm going after those last 5 pounds. Smiley

In either case, you've probably developed over 30 lbs of muscle more than when you started and increased your lean body mass by close to 25%. You're an example of a drug-free success story.
27  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 16, 2006, 09:04:47 PM
It's right.

LaCour competed at 232 lbs at a height of 5'10"

Arnold competed between 224 to 235 lbs at a height of 6'2"

LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition.
28  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Natural BB 6ft tall weight? on: December 16, 2006, 08:23:17 PM
What's your wrist measurement?
29  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 16, 2006, 08:21:41 PM
I read the study you referenced in FLEX over 10 years ago. The drug-free bodybuilders being used were Mr. America winners from 1939 to 1959. They estimated what their bodyfat levels were and compared them with some modern bodybuilders believed to be drug-free as well.

My thing is, why in the world would you be motivated to push yourself drug-free, if you believe you can't get any bigger than Mr. Americas from the 1940s? What's the point?

Remember that "experts" said that nobody could run a mile in under 4 minutes. We know how that went.

There have been several peer-reviewed studies published, all concluding essentially the same thing. I haven't read a FLEX since the early 1990s, so I'm not familiar with what they referenced. Park, Eiferman and Delinger, in particular, carried massive amounts of muscle. Unrealistic expectations are what often lead people to steroid use. I don't think that what anybody has accomplished should be viewed as a "limitation" to anybody, but reality is what it is. If someone is determined to build more balanced muscle without drugs, then more power to them.

Bannister broke the 4-minute mile a week after he received his newly designed lightweight (and spiked) racing flats. Several people broke the 4-minute mile shortly after because they also got such racing shoes. If people today had to run in the pre-Bannister era heavy track shoes of the 1950s, believe me, there'd be a lot less 4-minute miles being run. The motivational speakers always seem to leave that tidbit out when they use the 4-minute mile example. Comparing sports across the eras is not always apples to apples.

Maybe if certain people spend half as much time putting LaCour's advice to work as they do trying to "prove" that he's using anabolics...

LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.

That's what it's all about: Doing your best and just going for it.

I agree 100%. That's probably the truest thing ever written on this board.
30  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Casein Protein on: December 16, 2006, 11:43:41 AM
All cheeses are almost pure casein. Overnight, you're better off with cheese than protein powder because it takes longer for solid food to be digested and leave the stomach, and the fat in cheese slows down digestion further. Plus the cholesterol is good for hormone production.

The combination with desiccated liver is a good idea. Desiccated liver is high in P450scc, which is the rate-limiting enzyme responsible for setting off the production of all sex hormones. Protein stimulates glucagon, glucagon promotes cAMP, cAMP promotes P450scc activity. P450scc begins the production of testosterone from cholesterol. Testosterone promotes protein synthesis. Desiccated liver provides P450scc, cheese provides the protein, cholesterol and raises glucagon. The combination of cholesterol, P450 enzymes and protein is a perfect before-bed meal.

Unfortunately, for some reason, certain brands of desiccated liver ruin my sleep. It's probably all the B-12 or something ...just a guess.
31  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 16, 2006, 07:57:15 AM
Several years ago researchers (primarily Dr. Harrison Pope) began doing some research with drug-using and drug-free bodybuilders and lifters. They did a regression based on lean body mass and height. The equation they fit calculates a number called the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Essentially, the FFMI is similar to the BMI, but lean body mass is used instead of body weight.

In that research, and since then, it has been determined that most genetically average people cannot surpass a FFMI of about 24-25 without drugs. A FFMI of 25-26 is a typical "natural" physique champion. It's thought that no champion bodybuilder in history has surpassed a FFMI of 27 without the use of drugs.

LaCour has competed with a FFMI of over 30. Not only is that impossible without drugs, fairly "heavy" drug-use would be necessary. For example, Schwarzenegger competed at a FFMI of about 28.

I'd estimate that LaCour's drug-use was similar to bodybuilders of the early 1980s ...but compared to bodybuilder's of his era he could claim to be "relatively natural". He also mastered how to beat drug tests -- as did Ronnie Coleman, who also claimed to be drug-free for years during his early pro career.
32  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 15, 2006, 04:48:18 PM
Jay, yeah, there were two 1.5 lb Whipper Watson plates. (I'm always on the lookout for small/odd plates so I can increase the weight on the bar by just a little.) I think I'll drop by Monday and get them. It'd only cost $2 ...but I know where buying old stuff just for the sake of having old stuff can lead. Wink I got the Weider 1.5's instead.
33  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 15, 2006, 07:57:24 AM
Throughout LaCour's career he's competed with a fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 27.5 up to 30. A FFMI over 26 is a practical guarantee of anabolic drug-use. Most people cannot even reach a FFMI of 25 without drug-use. In fact, at a FFMI of 30, LaCour's physique was quite dependent on a fairly heavy level of drug-use.
34  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 15, 2006, 06:57:44 AM
Speaking of wrestlers... I found some Whipper Watson plates the other day at a pawn shop. (They had Dan Lurie weights also.) I deliberately didn't buy them because I was afraid of starting a memorabilia collection. Wink
35  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 14, 2006, 07:06:07 PM
The bench presser was perhaps Karl Norberg? Used to bench sometimes with his legs straight on the bench- zero arch, bullishly strong.

Didn't he bench like 400 lbs when he was 70? No shirt, no arch, just strength. He was one of those guys that defy nature. Smiley

Stunt, Park was surprisingly narrow-shouldered when he was 19. If I can find the old photos I'll post them. He's a perfect example of a man who built width through hard work and knowing how to pose (and incredible delts). I'm not saying that his shoulders were narrow when he was fully grown, but they weren't as wide as one would assume. Even in some shots in his Hercules films you can see that he doesn't have a very wide shoulder structure. His width was due to muscle.

But look at the width here...
36  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Natural Lifts/Size on: December 14, 2006, 07:30:14 AM
I once spotted a short fat guy who did 415 for a triple on the bench. He was clueless and said he'd worked out "off-and-on" over the summer. I was getting irritated because I was Squatting and I could see him out of the corner of my eye. He was distracting me because he kept increasing the weight with no spotter. I thought that any minute that fat idiot is going to get stuck with 300+ pounds on his chest, and I'll have to ruin my set to "rescue" him.

He blew 415 off of his chest like an empty bar ...freaks are out there.
37  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Natural Lifts/Size on: December 13, 2006, 01:29:00 PM
Natural bodybuilding is a long, hard road for the vast majority of people. Jealous, lazy, insecure people accuse the natural lifters of "cheating" because they cannot bare to give them the respect that they deserve. In addition to that, they want to believe that "I'd be just as big and strong as him if I took drugs like he does."  When, in fact, they simply don't have the will-power and devotion.
38  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 13, 2006, 10:18:28 AM
Casey, in relation to Reg Park, are you performing your analysis of him at his peak or at the early stages of his career?

Before 1958. I haven't really looked into his stats after that -- 1958 is my "cutoff". Park's physique didn't change much in terms of overall mass from 1951 to 1958 -- he was actually 1 pound lighter in 1958 when he won the pro Mr. Universe than he was when he won in 1951. He was 213 in '58 and 214 in '51. From 1949 to 1951 he went from 205 to 214 as his competition weight.

Park and Reeves onstage at the 1950 Mr. Universe (which Reeves won)...

Park a year later in 1951...
39  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 12, 2006, 06:06:13 PM
Hmmm so your using engineering to understand a question of biology. So could you please enlighten some of us on  what your data is. Or did you do a bunch of drawing's in AUTOCAD.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, and your sarcasm tells me that you probably don't have the education or ability to understand this subject fully. But you probably deserve some credit for being familiar with a software program that most first-year engineering students are at least familiar with. However, if you were familiar with engineering you'd probably also know that after first-year, most engineers (outside of some mechanical, civil and naval courses) actually use AUTOCAD very little.

But, for the benefit of the people reading this board who actually are interested in this subject and have the statistics background to understand it:  I did a regression analysis on population data. Such statistics are readily available and statistical analyses have been performed by others as well. I took anthropometric data from many sources and used the averages to estimate lean body mass based on height and structure. Then I used data from several studies of drug-free and drug-using lifters and adapted the regression to fit them as well.  The results show clearly that most people can add, at most, 25% lean body mass before the use of anabolic steroids is necessary.  Some individuals can exceed this, but they would be relative outliers on the Guassian distribution. Above that amount and anabolic steroid use becomes more and more likely. With regards to Dr. Harrison Pope's work with the fat-free mass index (FFMI), this would indicate that drug-free genetically elite bodybuilders can achieve a FFMI of about 25 before steroid use becomes almost a guarantee. In very rare cases, a FFMI of 26 has been achieved by drug-free lifters of heavier bone structure.

Interestingly, Reg Park had a FFMI of about 26 in 1951 (when he first won the Mr. Universe), but he had a relatively heavy bone structure. Reeves FFMI was closer to 25, on a lighter bone structure. Grimek, Delinger and Eiferman also hovered around 25-26. In the early 1960s bodybuilders commonly exceeded this.
40  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 10, 2006, 01:46:55 PM
"BEAST 8692", I'm forced to conclude that you either have insecurity issues or a learning disability.
41  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 09, 2006, 02:17:39 PM
Reeves carried just under 25% more lean body mass than the average "fit" man of his height and structure do I. That assessment is based on about 10 years of research into, and analysis of, anthropometric data. I have degrees in mathematics and statistics, physics and engineering that allow such analysis. I don't mean to throw credentials around, I mention it merely to assure you that I'm no stranger to the scientific process or the analysis of data fact, it's my "job".

Many natural trainees around the world, carry a similar (and greater) level of development than me. I didn't claim that I have a better physique than Reeves, that my "achievement" is in any way equal to his, or that we are "alike". I simply stated that, proportionally, we have added roughly the same amount of muscle mass to our frames. I will also state that with the proper training, dedication and patience almost anybody can do the same thing. If that offends some people then I think they probably aren't mature enough to warrant a response anyway. But I would also add that it is easy to call me delusional, but I am one of the few people here who is posting under his real name with his real photo in the corner. I may be under a "delusion", but I am not attempting to hide behind an "illusion" of any sort.

How I compared Reeves and Park: There is nothing funny about it. Reeves weighed 213 when he won the Mr. Universe in 1950. Park weighed 214 when he won it the following year. They are both the same height, however Park had an 8" wrist versus Reeves' 7.5" wrist. They both had the same ankle measurement. Also, Park was slightly leaner in 1951 than Reeves was in 1950. Therefore, Park carried, at most, only a few pounds more muscle mass than Reeves, and his heavier upper body bone structure would predict that.

It really doesn't matter to me if Reeves used drugs or not. However, for some people it does because strong positive role-models are necessary for drug-free beginners and intermediates. People need to know what is capable without drugs so they know where to set ambitious, but realistic, goals for themselves ...without the use of drugs.

I joined this board compulsively when I saw some obvious misinformation being spread by people who, quite honestly, aren't qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject. I don't consider myself an "authority" but I do know a lot more than most people about this - I've been at this for a long time and I've seen this stuff hashed around for years. At the same time, there are some people on here who do speak with some authority on these matters. I cannot state emphatically that any of these men did or did not use drugs. However, given the history of anabolic steroids, and the level of development they carried, I can say that it was highly unlikely that they were drug-users.

Ahhh Jay -- a perfect example of a man with a well-developed physique who feels no need to doubt or slander the "old-timers". Thanks for the "support", by the way, but I'm afraid this thread definitely has that "gettin' ugly" smell to it. Wink
42  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Gallery of The Natural Ideal on: December 09, 2006, 12:15:42 PM
How do we really know these old guys are "natural".

Because testosterone wasn't approved by the FDA for prescription by physicians until 1950. Before that it simply wasn't available to the public (or even physicians), and wasn't manufactured in anything other than limited quantities for experimental lab use only. The first anabolic steroid derivatives weren't available in the west until 1956-58. Even during most of the '50s, when it was technically available, almost nobody had a clue that it could improve lifting or athletic performance. Many prominent lifters and bodybuilders, whose careers spanned both eras before and after testosterone availability, didn't improve substantially after test became accessible for them, so they either weren't using it or it had no effect on them.

On the other hand, beginning around 1960 there was a clear increase in the performance of the American Weightlifting team. In addition, most of the high-level bodybuilders of that time suddenly were developing muscle mass and muscularity well above and beyond the athletes of the 1950s. Bill Pearl is an obvious example his development in the mid-50s to the early 1960s.  By Pearl's own admission he began experimenting with Nilevar in 1956.
43  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 09, 2006, 07:49:21 AM
I think a large part of the problem when discussing the drug-free status of certain bodybuilders is simple jealousy. Drug-users don't want to admit that some people have built superior physiques than them, simply through hard work, time and dedication. And many natural athletes who have failed to achieve their physique goals prefer to believe that they have failed only because they're not taking steroids (i.e. "I'd be just as good as him if I was using steroids). All the strong and very well-built, drug-free lifters I have known have no problem accepting that Reeves, etc were drug-free. It's the drug-users and people who never seem to leave the "beginner" and "intermediate" categories that always point the finger.

Statistically, for my height and bone structure, I'm carrying roughly the same amount of muscle as Reeves. I'm completely drug-free, always was, and always will be ...and I have no problem whatsoever accepting that Reeves didn't take test.

The burden of proof lies on the accusers in this case. There's no physiological reason to believe that the pre-1960s lifters were hormone-users -- their levels of muscular development simply didn't necessitate it  (that and the fact that they would not have had access to what was then an experimental drug that wasn't even FDA-approved for prescription). Statistical analyses of the American Weightlifting team performances (which have been published several times over the years in peer reviewed academic journals) indicates that it was the 1960s before western teams began using anabolics/androgenics.

So rather than cling desperately to the comforting illusion that all successful lifters have used drugs, it would be of much greater benefit to people if they used drug-free lifters as positive role models and examples of what can be achieved. Making unsubstantiated claims about people, based simply on unqualified personal bias, doesn't help the accuser or the accused in this case.
44  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 08, 2006, 10:32:08 PM
I was amazed that Tommy Kono would even take the time to correspond with me. I was just learning the Olympic Lifts at the time and his genuine interest in my progress surprised me. I slipped the steroid topic in as respectfully as possible, but he wasn't at all "touchy". Even a year or so later he would check up on my progress. That was several years ago now. He seemed modest about his accomplishments. He mentioned Pete George to me. I think he didn't want to steal all the limelight for himself. Smiley If he remembers me it's probably because I'm in Newfoundland, Canada ...quite a contrast to Hawaii.

You reminded me of an old Reg Park story ...when Reg Park first arrived in Vancouver in 1956, Ray Beck took him out on the town. He said that they staggered home fairly drunk early in the morning.  At that time, Mr. Beck lived in the apartment above the gym. A few hours after they "passed out" he was awoken by a clanging in the gym downstairs. He went downstairs to see what was happening and Park was down there Front Squatting with 405 ...he said he couldn't miss his workout.

I tried the same thing one time in a little town south of Odessa, Ukraine. I drank half the vodka in Ukraine the night before, but I remembered what Mr. Beck had told me ...and I was all fired up because the gym was a real weightlifting dungeon and I was lifting those old red plates from the Soviet era. I'd glance over at the cyrillic letters on the plates and pound out another rep with visions of Alexeyev in my head (plus I had to show the Ukrainians how strong us westerners are Wink). Anyway, I ended up blacking out and woke up with an old Ukrainian lady taking my blood pressure. Certainly the strangest workout I can remember.
45  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 08, 2006, 12:44:22 PM
Stuntmovie, I've never corresponded personally with Bill Starr, but I certainly would like to. On several occasions I was tempted to contact him (I was given his home address) but, for some reason, I never did it. I figure this stuff must be "old hat" to him and not that interesting.

Several years ago I drafted up a set of equations based loosely on Dr. Harrison Pope's research with the fat-free mass index as well as a regression of drug-tested and 1950's era (and before) bodybuilders. The result was a somewhat clear limit as to the maximum amount of lean body mass that could be developed be a drug-free athlete of a certain height and bone structure. Park, Delinger and Grimek, as well as several modern drug-tested bodybuilders are on that limit ...but none have managed to surpass it. I've never published that in any one source, but there are several websites with articles I wrote. Perhaps the info was referenced in some of those. As for the "Hardgainer" and "Milo" articles, they're the legal property of Stuart McRobert and Randall Strossen. Wink

I corresponded with Tommy Kono for awhile (who's a real class act, by the way) and I asked him about the issue of steroid use in the 1950s (who better to know!) ...he said he wasn't even aware of such things until the late '50's and never took them personally. Also, I once asked Ray Beck about Reg Park (Mr. Beck owned a gym in Vancouver in the 1950s and hosted Reg Park's trip to Vancouver in 1956. He also wrote an article for a 1956 Iron Man about Reg). Mr. Beck said that Park had no knowledge of steroids at that time. I can't remember exactly who told me this, but I think it was Tommy Kono who said that Zeigler wouldn't test anabolics on the top lifters, such as himself, because he was unsure of the side-effects and Hoffman didn't want to risk the top athletes. That's why March was one of the early guinea pigs (in 1959) - he wasn't an Olympic threat at that time. Kono was already a gold medalist and didn't need to take such a risk.

Over the years I've spoken to quite a few notable people about this. I'd take what Joe Roark has to say very seriously. I don't think these questions will ever be answered definitively. But it is definitive that steroid-use in bodybuilding was very unlikely before the late 1950s ...and the level of muscle mass on someone like Steve Reeves (again, who had a lean body mass of about 190-195 at 6'1") is clearly attainable without the use of drugs.
46  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 08, 2006, 06:50:35 AM
I agree, Park did have "that look" (specifically, a large amount of muscle on the delts, traps and upper back, which have the highest density of androgen receptors and, therefore, typically grow the most in response to steroid use) and he was ridiculously strong.  It makes me suspicious of him also.  But his lean body mass was only about 195 (on a fairly large structure - 8" wrist and 9.5" ankle), and the impracticality of obtaining test at that time makes me doubt that he was using it. So, historically, and based on his lean body mass, I'd have to say "No, he was not using." But, visually, based on his appearance, I have my doubts. On the other hand, many drug-tested bodybuilders today equal his level of development and conditioning (albeit, none that I know of have as impressive a physical build due to height and bone structure).

Reeves, I'd have to say undoubtably "no" -- the timing was wrong and his development and strength doesn't indicate it in any way.

After about 1960, practically all high-level bodybuilders had been "exposed" to steroids -- either by using them themselves or knew bodybuilders who were. After 1958 I would suspect any bodybuilder of steroid use, because it was a possibility. From 1952 to '58 I would say that steroid use was possible, but somewhat unlikely. Before 1952, I would seriously doubt that they were using anything. And before 1950 I'd say it was practically impossible that bodybuilders had access to any extraneous hormones.

Some years ago, I did some rather in-depth research into this (actually, it was in tandem with a series of articles I was writing for the now-defunct "Hardgainer" magazine). I've personally corresponded with some "big names" from the iron game (including from that era), as well as some prominent modern researchers at the University level (and above actually). From that, there appears to be a somewhat clear limit as to how much muscle mass a person can develop without the use of exogeneous "drugs". That would appear to be about 25% of untrained, but healthy, lean body mass. Reeves was within that region and Park appears to have been pushing it a little ...but still within the realm of possibility. Jack Delinger, in proportion, was also at about the same developmental level as Park, but he achieved that in 1947 -- when test use was a practical impossibility. Actually, scaled for height, John Berry (from's "Brit Show") carries a similar level of development as Park did in 1951 (when he won the Mr. Universe) ...and Berry competes in drug-tested events (which aren't infallible).

In fact, before 1958 or so, there's no physiological reason to conclude that any of the prominent bodybuilders were using steroids. Their lean body masses were clearly attainable without drug use.

For me, this isn't at all about defending or attacking "heroes" because of some religious-like worshipping. I don't attach any moral issues to taking steroids -- other than the deception of people who are setting goals for themselves based on what they believe is attainable without drugs (and that type of deception really angers me). But there's also a tendency for drug-users and people with inferior physiques to accuse Reeves, Park, Grimek, Delinger, Eiferman, Ross, etc of using drugs simply because it provides an excuse for their own lack of development. Many people claim that the "old-timers" were using steroids because they are simply looking for a reason to "justify" their own steroid-use, to put the old-timers on the same "moral level" as current "heroes", or to provide an excuse as to why they haven't achieved the same amout of muscle (i.e. "I'd be that big too, if I was using drugs.").

What's important is that we stick to the facts and look at it unbiasedly.
47  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / History - Stories - and Memories / Re: STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!) on: December 07, 2006, 07:58:28 PM
I don't see any reason to conclude that Reeves used test or its derivatives. For one, test itself wasn't approved by the FDA for perscription until 1950. If bodybuilders were using it before that then they were experimenting with a "drug" that wasn't widely available or that the FDA itself was confident in.

Reeves weighed between 210 and 215 at 6'1" in lean, but not "ripped" condition. Steroid use was not necessary to develop his level of muscle, so why suspect that he experimented with an unpractical, unavailable and unapproved "drug"? If he did, he certainly didn't achieve anything that couldn't be achieved without it.

Same with Park. He won the 1951 Universe weighing 214 pounds at 6'1". He appeared to be leaner than Reeves but he also had a heavier bone structure. In '58, when he won the professional Mr. Universe, he weighed 213. Obviously, he had a phenomenal physique, but the bodyweight just doesn't necessitate steroid use. If he eventually did use steroids, it would have to have been later.

Both of these men carried about 25 pounds more muscle than the average male U.S. Army recruit of the same height. It isn't at all unrealistic to think that 25 pounds of muscle could be gained by these men without steroid use.

Also, several statistical analyses of weightlifting performances seem to indicate that the Soviet team began experimenting with steroids in 1952. It's not practical to conclude that a few bodybuilders were ahead of them in regards to this. And if they were, why did they respond so poorly to it?

So, I see no reason to believe that Reeves, Park, Grimek, etc were using steroids in the early 1950s and before.
Pages: 1 [2]
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!