yeh, i get it....
but if your gonna go with the whole "shreaded glutes is f@ggotry" argument...........it pretty laughable
shreaded glutes is the point where it gets gay huh....................n ot the part about watching muscle men "pump up" and "oil up", and dance around stage flexing for an audience primarily composed of men wearing NOTHING but shiny bedazzled bikini trunks................but shreaded glutes is where it gets gay 
furthermore you buy magazines and are a member fo message boards dedicated to this "sport" where men get into shiny thongs, "oil up" and dance and glex for you on stage...............LOL.........but shreaded glutes is where it finally get gay
i hope you now realize what a horrendous argument that was............when i say shreaded glutes, im just talking about a standard of conditioning........the glutes are the last place on the body that fat stores deplete from..........
the guys in the 70s had a different standard of condition then later guys did, obviously.............ha ving abs was enough back then..........to me personally, arnold looks fat there and i like the fact that the standards of leanness have gotten higher
but my original question was about the possibility of dieting to todays standards back then........was it possible?..........or only now with todays drugs possible?
First, I have not competed in over thirty years and the only magazine I have bought in at least ten years has been the
recent Robert Kennedy issue called "Legends". Why? Because I have zero desire to look at what amounts to over doped
queer bait in dental floss thongs, humping to cRap "music" to the thunderous applause of a herd of
testosterone deficient size queens. Arnold, Reeves, Draper, Park, et al, did not "dance" to anything.
Instead they moved gracefully from pose to pose with a dignity that will forever elude the gay billboards of today's posing dais.
If you took the time to look at most of the truly great physique champions routines, they displayed their physiques with dignity
and quite often grace. Style. The Oak for one never appeared as though he were some wayward gay clown (e.g., Kai Greene).
His facial expression was always one of calm supremacy, not like he was constipated vis a vie Ronnie Coleslaw taking a dump and disguising it as a "most muscular" pose.
Quite often these men would pay homage to Greek, Roman or Renaissance statuary. Poses depicting the Farnese Hercules or Michelangelo's David come immediately to mind. Compare their presentations to retards like the aforementioned Kai Greene or others of his kind and you will surely see the folly of your words. There is nothing queer about presenting your physique in a classical and tasteful manner such as what the Oak did.
The display of a genuinely masculine physique, done absent of homoerotic undertones can be a work of art. For proof I encourage you to look to the aforementioned statuary and not the bloated, crappy, comic book inspired pieces of shit like those in today's magazines nor in that faggy homo comic book crap that BayGm recently put up here in one of the threads. Disgusting does not begin to describe such filth.
It is as base as can be and reflects the state of mind amongst those that think with their genitals instead of being inspired by their hearts, minds and yes, perhaps their souls.
As to whether or not the bodybuilders of the 70s could have achieved the level of "conditioning" so prevalent among todays bodydopers,
I would say I suppose so, but no one I have ever known desired to look like a zit covered anatomy chart. Look, I'm not here to do anything other than state my thoughts on what was and what is now and the difference between what is right and wrong in bodybuilding. Some will agree with me and some will not. I tend to think I am correct. Because I am. Take care.
