Author Topic: 70's build. What was so complicated?  (Read 19978 times)

chester_bbb

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 973
  • #1 Shawn Ray fan!
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2008, 08:30:10 AM »
Yes genetics play a part, but today you have many guys with bad genetics who turn pro simply because they force their body to gow thru extreme drug use.

Are you talking about a pro who is of middle-eatern descent and has an attitude problem? ;D

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32174
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2008, 08:32:45 AM »
Thats interesting you say that squad, cause something else that wasn't mentioned is that competitors back then were not going into shows as lean or as shredded as competitors today, but they still looked good.
EXCEPT ZANE 77.78,79,

nycbull

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Team Jay Should Have Won
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2008, 08:50:40 AM »
i think competitors would look better with around 9-10 percent bodyfat.
agree even a little more, There is no reason they need to be 'dry', 'crisp' and near death. 

jaejonna

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14944
  • Head Asian of Getbig
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2008, 08:51:55 AM »
agree even a little more, There is no reason they need to be 'dry', 'crisp' and near death. 
Dennis James is a testement to this, two weeks out he looks ridiculous...
L

The.Giant

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1837
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2008, 09:42:34 AM »
i think competitors would look better with around 9-10 percent bodyfat.

That's still kinda fat for the stage, 5-6 would probably be better. It's very cut but much safer than the 3% some of these guys get to.
It's Hip to be Square!

turner98

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 149
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2008, 09:47:12 AM »
you consider 2 plate a side bb rows and 60 pound db curls strong? i'd hate to see what you condsider weak. ::)

I mean for 8-10 textbook reps, Squad. I agree 9-10% bodyfat would look good on stage [depending on the guy's structure of course]

KillerMonk

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1266
  • Future President Of USA
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2008, 09:52:02 AM »
I like the shredded look,theres no hiding of flaws in the physique.
Arnold For President 2012.2016

_bruce_

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 23817
  • Sam Sesambröt Sulek
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2008, 09:57:40 AM »
I agree with the slightly higher bodyfat % - todays grilled + skinned chicken look has to go.
.

Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2008, 09:58:41 AM »
The old guys did the same things the new guys do, the same things I do, the same things every gym rat does.  They just used less gear.  How many times do I need to say the only reason the guys today look worse is because they are using more drugs, get bigger, and inevitably get bigger EVERYWHERE.  What is so hard to grasp about that?

PS - I deadlift 410 for reps now!!!  By "reps", I mean like 2-6, but whatever.  ;D
Bodybuilding Pro.com

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7108
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2008, 10:20:37 AM »
In fact since they were doing so many orals they may have been jeopardizing their health more than the guys today.

where are the bodies?    while orals can be harsh on the liver, I think it's a stretch to say that a little liver stress is jeopardizing one's health more than using diuretics and insulin.   Getting down to 3% bodyfat is very hard on the body.

nycbull

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Team Jay Should Have Won
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2008, 10:23:09 AM »
where are the bodies?    while orals can be harsh on the liver, I think it's a stretch to say that a little liver stress is jeopardizing one's health more than using diuretics and insulin.   Getting down to 3% bodyfat is very hard on the body.

true, I meant in comparison to doing more injectables than orals...but yea the dirutetcs and insulin have a more immedieate life risk.

AllDrugs

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #86 on: February 14, 2008, 10:31:55 AM »
Ok I don't claim to know exactly what these guys did, but I have talked to some guys, one who knew Arnold and another that knew Sergio. From what I was told these guys did a lot of orals. Test wasn't used all that much or at all back in the 70's It was considered a dirty drug. Remember that steroids were still kinda knew and were looked upon as something that took that place of test without all the bad side effects.

Dbol, anavar, drol and some deca and Primo. Winny to a degree also. I think that doses were fairly high. I know Sergio liked dbol, deca and winny, no test. For his comeback in 1984 he added test and tren and he had a different look, one that I personally did not like. I don't think that Franco had gyno untill his comeback in 1981.

Diet was simple, they ate roughly 4 times daily and like Tim said protein was first priority then carbs and fat. It was simple eating of good food.

They spent hours in the gym and why not? it was their job basically. I personally don't believe in over training. Things today are made way too complicated and they certainly don't need to be. Personally this is fine by me. I know that it is nearly impossible to convince these guys today otherwise. Yes genetics play a part, but today you have many guys with bad genetics who turn pro simply because they force their body to gow thru extreme drug use.

That last paragraph is gold.  It's comical to me to hear people talk about "overtraining".

Rearden Metal

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4348
  • Team Honey Badger cuz he don't Care.
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #87 on: February 14, 2008, 10:45:34 AM »
Wrong bro. Any kid who goes to McDonalds is getting plenty of trenbolone. Fact, sad, but fact.

I had a Double Quarter Trenbolone w/ Chee just yesterday!  :D

LATS

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #88 on: February 14, 2008, 11:33:50 AM »
   i agree that bodybuilders actually look their best at about 5 weeks out.. phil heath was example of that.. as for geasr use..i  have talked about this with disgusted a couple of times and can tell ya that the guys back then ABUSED the hell out of orals.. dbol by the handful ect ect.. they just did not know any better back then.. also, the one factor that most do not bring up is that he guys back then overtrained like crazy.. hitting bodyparts three times a week and 20 sets ect ect.. guys today have toned that down quite a bit and have became bigger for it.. ets was not used much in teh early 70's like disgusted has said.. was considered dirty because of bloating and possible gyno ect.. but, they did love tren, primo and deca.. deca / dbol cycles were the most commonly prescribed for the newbie ect.. one of the biggest men known in bodybuilding took eq and tren only.. that came straight from his mouth.. eq was constant thoughout cycle and tren was wroked in at 6 week intervals.. so the reliance on test came around because it is so damn cheap and easily available..

cht868

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #89 on: February 14, 2008, 11:41:28 AM »
so basically gh and insulin ruined bb is the point of this thread

candidate2025

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3281
  • chillin out relaxing
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2008, 12:54:19 PM »
b] I personally don't believe in over training.[/b]
what? certainly you dont think training a muscle before it has fully recooperated is a good idea..do you? ???
 Yes genetics play a part, but today you have many guys with bad genetics who turn pro simply because they force their body to gow thru extreme drug use.  good to know that its possible. ;D
d[-_-]b actin all cool

candidate2025

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3281
  • chillin out relaxing
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2008, 12:57:20 PM »
You know it's sad that you believe in fairy tales. first of all, have you ever seen what someone looks like on 1000mgs a week of "REAL" test. A bloated mess. The water retention is there even with a good diet. Think logical man. Arnold started his precontest bout 4 months out. What you saw was a steady growth of muscle not a ton a water weight. Again, someone who is on a lot of test has a certain look to them. Arnold NEVER showed any of these signs. As far as GH goes, you say they had it so why don't you tell us the brand name and or a little background on how it was synthesized.
hahah. so very true. ;D
d[-_-]b actin all cool

Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2008, 01:54:51 PM »
so basically gh and insulin ruined bb is the point of this thread

Depends on your taste I suppose.  I like Shawn Perrine, but it is the ironage delusion to believe that Arnold these days would merely be 60 pounds heavier in all the right places.  If Arnold were competing today, he would basically just look like Gunter, with a bigger chest and better peak to his biceps, but he would preserve his flaws too.  Lee Haney at 300 pounds would still not look good.  You can't have the best of both worlds!  Moderate drug use and a more streamlined physique at a lighter body weight, or more drugs and pure freak.  Which is it going to be?
Bodybuilding Pro.com

Bobby

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5219
  • is da lordes plan
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2008, 02:13:21 PM »
So you're saying some of them only got gyno when they started to use test?

So dbol, deca, primo, winny, tren does not cause gyno? no risk at all?

What drugs causes it and why?
tank u jesus

Pollux

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • I'm kind of a big deal!
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #94 on: February 14, 2008, 02:21:15 PM »
Rick Wayne said Arnold told him he started taking steroids at 13, I think it was.

And Kurt Marnul said he introduced them to Arnold when he was 15 - even hepled with the injections! So who the hell knows for sure...

gh15

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16991
  • angels
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #95 on: February 14, 2008, 04:38:23 PM »
im not going to answer all questions to me individually or the pms neither,,im going to write here the answers to your concerns since i have limited time and i have to be in gym early morning,,


when gh15 says genetics has nothing to do with it what gh15 means is that the 5'8 guy and 5'7 guy gene5tics is average at best,,it all suck to be honest with you ,,they got frames some kids at 16 have,,,

yes ron and arnold were both tall and wide,,if you want to consider it generics then yes its genetics but i consider it original frame,,90% of bodybuilders have average to average minus genetics,,its the frame and stucture you have that will consitute how well andimpressive you will look,,, the respond to hormones is right up there too,,but genetics per say and wether one muscle is little rounder or have higher peak have nothing to do with it unless you are at the highest of highest of competitions trsut me on that,,especially today when size and conditiion is pretty much everything !


so thats that


now ,,you fellas got to understand that gh15 cant come hgere and respond to every pip that you ask,,gh15 answer and when it answers it is absoult gh15 can not just come all the time and answer the 10 th same question to the same original post of gh15,,,so let me clarify here again

DECA DURABOLIN WILL BLOAT YOU MORE THAN TESTOSTERONE ,,,,ALOT MORE THAN TESTOSTERONE! THE COMEPTITORS IN THE 60S 70S USED TESTOSTERONE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO ARGUE ABOUT IT ITS WRITTEN IN STONE,,NOW LIKE MATT C SAYS HERE THEY HAD LEGIT HUMAN GRADE AND VET GRADE AND ONLY THOSE PRODUCTS,,THEY WERE AWAYS LAGIT AND NOT CONTROLLED SO NO NEED TO GET INTO SHADY UNDERGROUND BUNK AND INJECY 20 TIMES A WEEK ALSO THEY WERE NOT AS BIG BECAUSE THEY DID NOT USE AS MUCH,,

NOW,,THE USE OF ORALS WAS A LOT BACK THEN ,,BUT TODAY IT IS EVEN MORE~ WE LOVE ORALS ORALS ARE THE BEST AAS YOU CAN FIND ,,ORALS ARE KEY FOR GROWTH ,,WHO EVER SAY OTHERWIZE NEVER BEEN A BODYBUILDER NOR DID ANYTHING IN BODYBUILDING,,

NOW,,DURETICS WERE INTERGRAL PART OF THE 40S LOOK,,YOU USED THEM LIKE YOU USE THEM THESE DAYS TO LOOK GOOD FOTR A WEDDING IF YOUR A GIRL,,NO YOU DO NOT USE THEM ONLY FOR COMPETITION ,,,BODYBUILDERS THEN AND NOW USE DURETICS ALL THROUGH THE YEAR,,ESPEPCIALLY IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN PAPER THIN SKIN ALL THROUGH THE YEAR AND DONT WANNA LKOSE AND SACRIFICE A LOT OF MUSCLE DURING PREP,,OFCOURSE YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU DO WITH DURETICS BUT IT IS CULPRIT OF THE BODYBUILDER,,THIS IS ALSO THE CAUSE OF MANY DEATH DUE TO A LOT OF USE OF THOSE PRODUCTS,,


GH WAS EXPERIENCED IN THE 70 S BY ARNOLD ,,END OF 70S AND I SET WITH HIM MANY TIMES AND DISCUSSED IT ,,IN THE 80S IT WAS MORE OFTEN USE ESPECIALLY BY HANEY AND TOP COMPETITORS ,,AGAIN IT WAS OLD RUSSIAN AND DIDNT BECOME FOR THE MASSES TILL END OF 80S BEGGINGIN OF 90S IN MORE ADVANCED FORM AND NOT FROM DEAD PEOPLE CADAVARS,,

i think i answered all concerns now,,please i beg you to avoid bombasing gh15 with questions,,what i say here is loud and clear and the only way this game/sport works,,there is no second oprion and only this one counts simply because we all do it on o stage and done it for many years

fallen angel

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #96 on: February 14, 2008, 05:18:51 PM »
Some of the resident experts here have left out crucial parts of the equation. It wasn't just quantity.

It wasn't just the quanity of drugs taken. Besides GH being less widespread then and taken in lower doses due to price differences and availability:

-There were no GH + slin cocktails, which seems to have been the crucial difference in today's equation. GH by itself wasn't necessarily the difference maker in terms of some of today's negatives, it was slin + GH + AAS = freakenstein, tampering with the body's integral chemistry.

-Difference in effect between artificial and natural GH, plus the price difference that encourages higher doses more recently.


Add all of those up, taken together.

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #97 on: February 14, 2008, 05:21:13 PM »
Don't forget IGF, I think peptides in general changes things to what we have today.  I prefer the older look but guys like Coleman in his prime and Yates always impressed me with their sheer mass and size.

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #98 on: February 14, 2008, 05:22:23 PM »
Don't forget IGF, I think peptides in general changes things to what we have today.  I prefer the older look but guys like Coleman in his prime and Yates always impressed me with their sheer mass and size.

There you have it; Matt and GH15 have conveniently left that out.

Sharma

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2321
  • TEAMNASSER4LIFE
Re: 70's build. What was so complicated?
« Reply #99 on: February 14, 2008, 05:31:53 PM »
whatever you people want to say about the drugs, the change to one bodypart once a week made a big difference.