• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Question for Doggcrapp, Dirk, Phil..

marshall

Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
493
Devil's Advocate for Fullybuilt here,

Ok, you all seem to be the main 3, or at least the main 3 that I recall who stand by the fact that most (or alot of) top competitors are genetically gifted and use very small amounts to succeed in this sport.

I believe Doggrapp said alot of people would even quit if people knew the amounts, because these people are so genetically superior.

Phil has referred to bodybuilders of the 70's and 80's as underdeveloped. So how is it that todays bodybuilders are so much more massive than the champions of the past.

I know they don't train harder and aren't stronger, even Ray Mentzer squatted over 9. I'm not buying nutrition as a difference, food hasn't changed or become more superior, if anything more inferior quality wise.

So it basically boils down to "supplementation" being the X factor.

If the top guys from 1975-1985 used baby amounts and the top guys of today reportedly use baby amounts, what's the difference? explain the x factor to me. How are these guys 30 pounds heavier on stage?

COLEMAN

PARIS
 

Attachments

  • Coleman.JPG
    Coleman.JPG
    15.2 KB · Views: 557
  • Paris.JPG
    Paris.JPG
    13.1 KB · Views: 561
Everything from training to diet knowledge and application has improved since the days of Arnold. I'm not seeing where you don't see this.

And I 100% gurantee you if you ask RC what the difference was from before '98 and after it is one thing FOOD.

The last thing is genetic evolution, lets take Basketball players for an example as that is something everyone notices.

Why are guys on average in the NBA 6'6 compared to a lot shorter 40 years ago. A guy 6'4 was considered to be extremely tall and 6'8 was unheard of. Now its not common now but it sure is not unusual.

Is it because everyone is going and taking GH from a young age on?? Really doubt it.

This is the same with all sports - We have guys that would have played on the O line in the nfl 40 years ago playing quarterback now. Is everyone on drugs??/

So do you think it is impractical that there are individuals out there that are more capable of growing more muscle previous generations? I don't

Just like I'm sure in 20 years guys will be looking back having the same debate we are.
 
Difference is more genetically gifted guys getting involved in the sport and drugs. More drugs, different drugs.

What did Milos Sarcev say was the cause of the average bodyweight increase of the pros in the early 90's? Insulin.
 
dirkmoneyshot said:
Everything from training to diet knowledge and application has improved since the days of Arnold. I'm not seeing where you don't see this.

And I 100% gurantee you if you ask RC what the difference was from before '98 and after it is one thing FOOD.

The last thing is genetic evolution, lets take Basketball players for an example as that is something everyone notices.

Why are guys on average in the NBA 6'6 compared to a lot shorter 40 years ago. A guy 6'4 was considered to be extremely tall and 6'8 was unheard of. Now its not common now but it sure is not unusual.

Is it because everyone is going and taking GH from a young age on?? Really doubt it.

This is the same with all sports - We have guys that would have played on the O line in the nfl 40 years ago playing quarterback now. Is everyone on drugs??/

So do you think it is impractical that there are individuals out there that are more capable of growing more muscle previous generations? I don't

Just like I'm sure in 20 years guys will be looking back having the same debate we are.

Evolution doesn't work that fast, so I don't think the 30 pounds of contest shape weight came from that.

Training is training, I seriously don't think that guys in the past trained any less intense than today, I'd have to say the opposite if anything.

A calorie is a calorie, food hasn't changed. There's more readily available quality food supplements than 30 years ago, but chicken, fish, beef and eggs are the same forever.

It's hard to compare other sports, we're talking just about the ability to build muscle mass here. Professional sports didn't take nutrition and training as intense and serious as they do today. Baseballers never worked out !

The NBA was mostly white well into the 70's, now they are just the 11th man for the most part.

Evolution takes multiple generations, so basically you are saying food intake?
Mentzer stated he always planned to go up to 270+ offseason, but it never made sense, he always ended up with the same amount of muscle, so he stayed in shape year round.

If food didn't work for him, how is it working now, if everything else is still the same (supplement use)?
 
KillerStack said:
Difference is more genetically gifted guys getting involved in the sport and drugs. More drugs, different drugs.

What did Milos Sarcev say was the cause of the average bodyweight increase of the pros in the early 90's? Insulin.

So more involvement? I agree with that

More drugs? I don't know firsthand, these guys are saying NO

Different drugs? You mean gh, igf and insulin? I don't think AAS is any better, if anything less because the majority is UG

Milos said that something magical happens over 4g / week and he trains alot of top competitors, so either they are not genetically gifted or are maximizing their genetics, I don't know.. :confused:
 
3 reasons

1.More people weight lift today. So there's a higher likelyhood of a freak coming out of the wood work.

2.New Drugs--HGH,Insulin,IGF-1,etc.
also--HIGHER DOSAGES and staying on for longer periods.

3. More emphasis on quality and proportion of the physique in the past. Today, people try to get bigger at all costs. I guess you could throw in force feeding into this.

thats it in a nutshell IMO
 
Interesting, well Killerstack and Conan agree on those 1st 2 points, more lifters getting involved, which brings more genetically gifted people into the sport and compounds that weren't available to the other generation of lifters.

Those 2 points certainly could be valid, so there's a consensus brewing here..
 
i agree.. there are many guys competeing today which raises the likelihood of many more freaks.. are the guys using more today.. yes.. it would be niave to assume otherwise.. but, many back then overtrained like it was going out of style.... but, yes,, having many more people involved does make a difference in seeing more freaks.. so does the addition if gh and slin ect.. both need to be taken into account..
 
WOW....How many different threads do we need about this subject?
 
Nevermind - This thread is going to go the same way as all the others.

Its not the drugs and you admit that to some degree when you say "with more people involved your more likely to find a freak". - Thats Genetics just like we have tried to say.
 
Last edited:
dirkmoneyshot said:
Nevermind - This thread is going to go the same way as all the others.

Its not the drugs

Not sure why you feel this thread is going the wrong way. Ok, it's not the drugs, what is it then? It's not training or nutrition, you can't train past failure and you can't eat beyond your optimal nutrient intake w/out getting adipose. It most certainly isn't evolution.

The facts as of now show that the only thing that has changed has been the addition of compounds that did not exist then and perhaps the geometric raise in amounts of AAS administered, which you are disputing.

There's more genetically elite training today, but it doesn't account for the drastic increase in stage weight.

You want us to take your word for it, doggcrapp wants us to take his word for it. Is that just it then?

I can dig that, if that's what it is. Everyone's entitled to have their opinion on the matter.
 
n4dmoney said:
WOW....How many different threads do we need about this subject?

Where is there a thread about the difference in stage weight from 20 years ago? I must've missed it.

I wanted the experts take on what's happening.

Dirk says it's evolving, which will mean a 350 pound ripped competitor @ 6ft is coming down the pike and 5 or 6 generations down the road a 400 pound competitor.

I don't know if this is what is happening.
 
marshall said:
Where is there a thread about the difference in stage weight from 20 years ago? I must've missed it.

I wanted the experts take on what's happening.

Dirk says it's evolving, which will mean a 350 pound ripped competitor @ 6ft is coming down the pike and 5 or 6 generations down the road a 400 pound competitor.

I don't know if this is what is happening.


Its kind of funny you say a 350 pound 6 foot bb---I think it was 2 or 3 years ago Chad Nichols said that in the next 10 years we would see exactly that or very close as Mr. Olympia.

I guess I don't see where you say training hasn't changed from years ago----The difference in Arnolds volume to DC's training is night and day.

As far as nutrition how can you say that - we have a better idea now because of those guys of what works and what doesn't. When you have a guy like (trop, skip, phil, dogg, ect) you don't have guessing. Its taken care of. No lost muscle.
 
dirkmoneyshot said:
Its kind of funny you say a 350 pound 6 foot bb---I think it was 2 or 3 years ago Chad Nichols said that in the next 10 years we would see exactly that or very close as Mr. Olympia.

I guess I don't see where you say training hasn't changed from years ago----The difference in Arnolds volume to DC's training is night and day.

As far as nutrition how can you say that - we have a better idea now because of those guys of what works and what doesn't. When you have a guy like (trop, skip, phil, dogg, ect) you don't have guessing. Its taken care of. No lost muscle.

I think I do remember Nichols mentioning that at some time. I don't think this will happen.

I think the more things change, evolve or progress if you will, the more they come full circle. I think the mass monster days are going to become extinct to some degree, or at least not rewarded competitively.

Training has changed, but there are so many ways to "skin a cat". I think pretty much any training program that is progressive will show optimal results, be it HIT, volume, DC's type program etc al. If you are giving 100% in the gym you are giving 100%.

When Ray Mentzer was hitting sets with 7+ on the squat in the late 70's, no one even by todays standards would be saying much to the man about his work ethic or training habits.

Nutrition may be the only other gray area. But the force feeding that Conan mentioned doesn't cut it with me, adding fat isn't going to add mass, once you've gotten your optimal nutritional intake, you've got it, whether it's 1979 or 2006.

I do think some advantage has been made with quality of supplements, but food is still food and the amount of macro nutrients someone can uptake has a point of no more return. I just don't know if those small nutritional advantages can make up such a huge difference in mass.
 
Its a process of evolution. The diets have evolved and are miles better. So much more has been learned about training since then. The drugs are being used smarter. And. You have so many more people competing now than back then. I believe these guys are right when they say the gifted gened athlete is at the top of the game and that's PART of what has put them there. RC was a freak even before getting on drugs 220lbs and ripped. He was also a powerlifter before getting into bodybuildng. Still, I think genetics is playing less of a role b/c the bottom line is there are more people with great genetics than you think. This planet is walking with people who have really good genes, but never pursue bodybuilding, nor have the knowledge, or desire. It requires using AAS and that is still controversial and illegal in the US. So that's probably a large deterent. Also, most of the gifted genetic athletes are going where the money is. Football, basketball, and baseball. Where they excel early in highschool. Powerlifting in highschool is for the most part 2nd to football at most schools as is wrestling. These kids may not be all that great in highschool either and walk on in college. There are stories of lazy high school athletes who excel in college and the pros. Late bloomers. Gene Upshaw is a perfect example of that. He was 2nd string all through highschool, but his college coach got the lead out of his ass and had a very succefull college and pro career. He also squated in the 9's and I'm sure his diet was terrible. ha
Sorry for going a little off topic there.
Oh yes, also remember, the old schoolers trained with the V-Taper in mind. Today's guys are BRICKHOUSES! hahahaha
 
i remember getting the hardcoremuscle newsletter back about i'd say 10-12 years ago. if i remember correctly and i could be wrong but i am pretty darn sure dante wrote an article about the mega doses of test being used that he thought was the reason for the mass increase during that time. pretty sure he said it wasnt the gh or insulin but test and lots of it. then when on to say a certain top national heavy was doing several grams of test in the offseason to bring up his size, i think it was 4g cant remember. all this discussion kinda jarred my memory about reading it because it was kinda hard to believe and made an impression on me as i was young and just getting serious about bb. this newletter was pretty much cutting edge at that time, sources, everything. the internet wasnt big then and that was the only hardcore info i had available. doggcrapp do you remember this article??? do you still stand behind it??
 
also again same newsletter. ya posted the cycle of an arnold classic either winner or top competitor. cant remember the exact numbers i know the eq was at 1200mg, alotta anadrol, etc. damn i wish i had kept all those anyways the cycle was several grams.
 
I know that Duchain had the Dirty dieting news letter that gave out some hardcore info. Some of the issues went into large doeses. Is this the one you are talking about?
 
and just for the record i take no sides on this debate as far as megadosing pro's or not.
 

Staff online

  • LATS
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,041,217
Threads
135,756
Messages
2,768,610
Members
160,341
Latest member
Sickxlost
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top