I was replying to a thread, when I thought this would be good discussion...
First off, I don't understand this idea of golden era bbers not using Tren. It was available. Also, they had some of the best pharmaceuticals (complete with patented drug delivery systems) readily available at cheap prices. If some of you think they didn't use as much as possible you are kidding yourselves. Just knowing how driven Arnold is, do any of you doubt for a second that he didn't take EVERYTHING under the sun? Tren was available in the 70's. Great drug with sometimes intolerable side effects... Nothing dramatic. I'd venture to say that there is hardly much difference in the AAS doses used in the 70-80's vs now. Ancillaries are much more available now. Nutrition and training have evolved. The "science" of bodybuilding has evolved as well.
Game changers are hGH, Insulin and real receptor grade IGF 1(This came later on, Gropep) and site enhancing oils. AAS dose has pretty much leveled off for years. What benefits do you really get from let's say going over 3,000mg per week without the use of GH? Not much.
If you think Frank Zane used less drugs than Franco Columbo, etc... You can never make that claim, it's ridiculous. Your dose is not proportional to the way you look. It's not a linear equation. Bone structure, receptor affinity, genetics play a huge role, followed by training/nutrition which I'm beginning to see play a much smaller role than I initially thought. To add more confusion to the mix, the quality of your drugs also plays a huge role...too many variables to make claims that so and so is on more stuff than so and so.
Maybe the golden era bbers did not train in an optimal way. Maybe Arnold's delts and legs would have been larger if he had backed off the weights and used isolation exercises...
In closing, Frank Zane ain't shit, I don't beleive he looked the way he did because of conservative drug doses.
First off, I don't understand this idea of golden era bbers not using Tren. It was available. Also, they had some of the best pharmaceuticals (complete with patented drug delivery systems) readily available at cheap prices. If some of you think they didn't use as much as possible you are kidding yourselves. Just knowing how driven Arnold is, do any of you doubt for a second that he didn't take EVERYTHING under the sun? Tren was available in the 70's. Great drug with sometimes intolerable side effects... Nothing dramatic. I'd venture to say that there is hardly much difference in the AAS doses used in the 70-80's vs now. Ancillaries are much more available now. Nutrition and training have evolved. The "science" of bodybuilding has evolved as well.
Game changers are hGH, Insulin and real receptor grade IGF 1(This came later on, Gropep) and site enhancing oils. AAS dose has pretty much leveled off for years. What benefits do you really get from let's say going over 3,000mg per week without the use of GH? Not much.
If you think Frank Zane used less drugs than Franco Columbo, etc... You can never make that claim, it's ridiculous. Your dose is not proportional to the way you look. It's not a linear equation. Bone structure, receptor affinity, genetics play a huge role, followed by training/nutrition which I'm beginning to see play a much smaller role than I initially thought. To add more confusion to the mix, the quality of your drugs also plays a huge role...too many variables to make claims that so and so is on more stuff than so and so.
Maybe the golden era bbers did not train in an optimal way. Maybe Arnold's delts and legs would have been larger if he had backed off the weights and used isolation exercises...
In closing, Frank Zane ain't shit, I don't beleive he looked the way he did because of conservative drug doses.