marshall said:
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.
Hey Marshall,
I understand your points but I think that you generalize a bit too much. Also, you're not paying attention to the fact that training and nutrition have most DEFINITELY evolved from the 70's, and let's not forget prior to that there were some pretty amazing freaks out there - John Grimek comes to mind.
To say that nutrition is no better now than it was 30 years ago is just false. Manufacturing processes retain a hell of a lot more nutrients now than they did back then, we have a much broader selection of macronutrients to choose from, vitamins of every type, herbs, exotic foods - we have access to anything we want and can have it shipped to our door at will. That's a HELL of an advancement on food technology since the 70's.
As well, training. Most of the guys back then did NOTHING BUT HIGH VOLUME training. They were in the gym for HOURS at a time and did nothing but sleep , eat, train, shit, fuck, repeat. Of course training evolved. The consensus back then was that you MUST do 5 set of this for your UPPER chest, 5 sets of this for LOWER, 5 sets of this for CUTS, etc on and on. You know that. And now we have abbreviated training, circuit training, periodization, west-side - etc. There's dozens of new and different routines that were created over the past 30 years. To not acknowledge that is just being disingenuous.
marshall said:
It most certainly isn't evolution.
Agreed. Anyone who says "evolution" plays a role is a fool.
marshall said:
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.
No, the facts do not show this. This is what you believe, and it's based on not getting your information from enough sources. You seem to focus strictly on the drug aspect of bodybuilding, without venturing out and seeing what improvements have been made to food delivery and manufacturing systems, training philosophies and in terms of drugs you forget that Dbol, Deca, A-Bombs and Test were all available back then. The only major additions have been Recombinant HGH and use of insulin (insulin was available back then to, but who knows if any bodybuilders used it???)
marshall said:
There's more genetically elite training today, but it doesn't account for the drastic increase in stage weight.
Of course it does, you just contradicted yourself. The stage weight you're referring to is the average weight at major PRO shows. How many of those pro guys are doing the same contests? I'd say about 30 or 40 - if even that high. So that's 30 or 40 mutants out of a few BILLION people on planet earth that are competing at over 250 pounds. That's a VERY SMALL NUMBER.
marshall said:
You want us to take your word for it, doggcrapp wants us to take his word for it. Is that just it then?
No, it's lots of us who have discussed this before and provided more evidence than simply anecdotal ones.
marshall said:
I can dig that, if that's what it is. Everyone's entitled to have their opinion on the matter.
Your facts are more opinions than what others are saying.
I respect your opinion, but you have to have a more open mind on this. To say that simply it's the drugs while turning a blind eye to nutrition, training and genetics is being ignorant.