# Has pro Bodybuilding lost its way?



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

I have been giving this some serious thought since reading a thread on just how bloated some of the bber's looked in the Arnold show.

It now seems to me that perhaps what BB should be and what it has become are poles apart.

I have been pushing weights since 1978 so I have seen many types of BB come and go. But I can honestly say that BB now seems to be more of how much chemical you can tolerate and what Company supports you. In my opinion top level BB will cease to exist if something does not change, it has become so far removed from reality that it is now unacceptable. People are now more interested at what chemicals they are on and what dosages, rather than what workout they use.

The real reasons for BB has now been lost, they were to be strong, healthy, look good and be fit. All that now appears to mean nothing.

Below is a you tube vid from Steve Reeves to Arnold, I must admit, to me, it is quite impactive on what BB has become.






I fully understand that many on UKM will not be happy of this opinion.


----------



## shaunmac (Aug 13, 2010)

In a way I agree with what you say. People are more interested in what they take instead of their workouts, which is wrong really


----------



## Zola (Mar 14, 2012)

Yes it has.

Its not aesthetics now, its 'chemical warfare'. (heard that term in a bodybuilding documentary recently)

Guys like Ronnie Coleman to me look absolutely ridiculous, I much prefer the classic look of the 80s and 90s.


----------



## huge monguss (Apr 5, 2011)

I think even back in day other people would of wanted to know what compounds they were taking dont think that will ever change and as for work outs you only have to type the bb name in to youtube etc and you will get most of there work out videos also very much doubt top level BB will cease to exist if something does not change! but everyone has there opinion


----------



## The Cheese (Sep 22, 2012)

Although I agree the amount of drugs the top boys use is sometimes pretty senseless, don't pretend for one moment that the guys back in the 70s or 80s wouldn't have used them if they'd all been available back then. The body shape of today would have been the norm in their day if they had the same chemicals to hand.

They certainly weren't angels back then - Arnold was a big AAS user and has admitted to it.

People are gonna take what they're gonna take. If they keel over from it, they've only got themselves to blame. And if people vote for the Ronnie Coleman shape, that's up to them. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to aspire to it.


----------



## roadwarrior (Apr 29, 2006)

As long as the judges give them first place nothing will ever change.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

good post mate, and you hit the nail on the head with it....the original reason we train has been totally lost.


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

my inspiration is still the BBers from arnies era. its what i grew up on

ill still watch todays BBers training vids and enjoy all of that side of things, but stage and competition just aint what it used to be


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

This is what i want to happen to the sport get it back to the 1970s early 1980s they were perfect back then , as many of you know my biggest idols in the sport is Frank Zane & Bob paris lets get back to THAT. When proportions & symmetry along with just the right mass for your type of body was the main focus. Lets turn this freakshow into what it once was ART true ART.


----------



## MasterShorty (Feb 17, 2013)

aesthetics over everything bro.


----------



## solidcecil (Mar 8, 2012)

I honestly prefer the look of ronnie, phil etc to the old school bb's. I think bigger the better, more freaky and cartoon physiques.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

MasterShorty said:


> aesthetics over everything bro.


Let me ask you this what do you put in the word aesthetics ? What exactly is a aesthetic body ? I just see people using the word but they have no idea of the actual definition of the word in contrast to bodybuilding .


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

solidcecil said:


> I honestly prefer the look of ronnie, phil etc to the old school bb's. I think bigger the better, more freaky and cartoon physiques.


If thats what you like then by all means everyone has their own taste.


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

You hit the nail on the head with your post,

The amount of chemicals taken by ifbb pros is ridiculous. However like Greg Valentino said "steroids are as American as apple pie" I really do wonder what the state of pro bodybuilding will be in 20 yrs time because in fairness the only thing bigger between the pros of today and of yesteryear are their guts/waistline.


----------



## MasterShorty (Feb 17, 2013)

infernal0988 said:


> Let me ask you this what do you put in the word aesthetics ? What exactly is a aesthetic body ? I just see people using the word but they have no idea of the actual definition of the word in contrast to bodybuilding .


i think most people use the word aethetics in bb to describe some someone with decent mass, and low bf and cut up, but in all honesty aesthetics is subjective, id prefer to be proportianate than huge but thats just me bro.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

The Cheese said:


> Although I agree the amount of drugs the top boys use is sometimes pretty senseless, don't pretend for one moment that the guys back in the 70s or 80s wouldn't have used them if they'd all been available back then. The body shape of today would have been the norm in their day if they had the same chemicals to hand.
> 
> They certainly weren't angels back then - Arnold was a big AAS user and has admitted to it.
> 
> People are gonna take what they're gonna take. If they keel over from it, they've only got themselves to blame. And if people vote for the Ronnie Coleman shape, that's up to them. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to aspire to it.


A very good point, but would the BB of the previous era won any trophys with todays look?

I think not as they look bloated and out of proportion.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

it's also the perception from everybody including the most uneducated muppet on the street about body building.....joe public just thinks it's chemicals and everbody is a fraud...the respect that bodybuilders used to have is gone....i tell people i weight train, because i know what will go through their minds if i mention body building.


----------



## jjcooper (Sep 1, 2010)

Steve reeves is writing to arnold saying how hormones need to be dropped. So your telling me they built their physiques by hard work and good diet only. negative, granted the dosages may be more extreme now, new drugs insulin, peptides, but they did not build their physiques naturally per say.

So is this letter abit hypocritical? i think so.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

justin case said:


> it's also the perception from everybody including the most uneducated muppet on the street about body building.....joe public just thinks it's chemicals and everbody is a fraud...the respect that bodybuilders used to have is gone....i tell people i weight train, because i know what will go through their minds if i mention body building.


fuk em everyone iknow knows im on gear they are still good mates they dont care cause its my choice, & they understand the hard work that goes into what i do, its not just drugs & they understand that.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

jjcooper said:


> Steve reeves is writing to arnold saying how hormones need to be dropped. So your telling me they built their physiques by hard work and good diet only. negative, granted the dosages may be more extreme now, new drugs insulin, peptides, but they did not build their physiques naturally per say.
> 
> So is this letter abit hypocritical? i think so.


Steve Reeves was not on any form of gear. Unless you have info that shows otherwise?


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

i remember seeing Steve reeves at Saturday morning pictures playing Hercules....afterwards we all ran to the nearest bit of waste ground and started lifting rocks and anything else we could find....lol we all wanted to be like him.


----------



## Gym-pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I think 99% of the population would agree with this post hence the growth of classic and mens physique classes . The demand for healthy obtainable physiques is out there


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

MasterShorty said:


> i think most people use the word aethetics in bb to describe some someone with decent mass, and low bf and cut up, but in all honesty aesthetics is subjective, id prefer to be proportianate than huge but thats just me bro.


Every bodybuilder has decent mass and is cut up.... Aesthetic in no way applies to them all, It is to do with proportion and symmetry (and having nice full round muscle bellies) along with a small waist (relatively small compared to the physique)


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

The Vegetarian said:


> Steve Reeves was not on any form of gear. Unless you have info that shows otherwise?


Do you have info that proves Phil Heath takes gear?

May sound silly but the question has relevance to your argument. 

I personally don't like the bloated stomach look but speaking from experience bloated stomach can come from over Carbing and depleting water too late. Not just drug use.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

jjcooper said:


> Steve reeves is writing to arnold saying how hormones need to be dropped. So your telling me they built their physiques by hard work and good diet only. negative, granted the dosages may be more extreme now, new drugs insulin, peptides, but they did not build their physiques naturally per say.
> 
> So is this letter abit hypocritical? i think so.


true but the issue isnt really the drugs its the massive increase in both usage & dosage & how they look now compared to then greek statues vs freaks . Dont get me wrong they are awesome today but i prefer the old physiques.


----------



## jjcooper (Sep 1, 2010)

Granted steve reeves did not use steroids because they were not around in his day but as Dr Harrison Pope states anyone more muscular and leaner than him Must have used anabolic's, (arnold) so he is writing to a guy that used gear to get where he wanted to be in life, large and lean, winning comps etc that led to his immense wealth.

The point i was trying to make was that how can arnold (if he chose to listen to the letter) stand there and say hormone use will be sanctioned at my events, he was the founder of larger leaner bodybuilders really and the reason behind young kids of today aspiring to get big and ripped.

I was not in anyway pointing the finger at steve, he had an awesome physique before the word hormone was used in gyms, and i respect him for that but i believe he is trying to get through to the wrong person, hence why i said hypocrite (aimed at arnie)


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Gym-pig said:


> I think 99% of the population would agree with this post hence the growth of classic and mens physique classes . The demand for healthy obtainable physiques is out there


good point, the growth in fitness and strength regimes like cross fit and web sites like livestrong has been amazing and qualifies your post.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Tinytom said:


> Do you have info that proves Phil Heath takes gear?
> 
> May sound silly but the question has relevance to your argument.
> 
> I personally don't like the bloated stomach look but speaking from experience bloated stomach can come from over Carbing and depleting water too late. Not just drug use.


No I do not, but there is a lot of evidence that the earlier era of BB ate a high carb diet, Steve reeves ate a diet consisting of 20% protein, 20% fat and 60% carbs. I suppose that this ratio was the norm and they did not have bulging tummies.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

jjcooper said:


> Granted steve reeves did not use steroids because they were not around in his day but as Dr Harrison Pope states anyone more muscular and leaner than him Must have used anabolic's, (arnold) so he is writing to a guy that used gear to get where he wanted to be in life, large and lean, winning comps etc that led to his immense wealth.
> 
> The point i was trying to make was that how can arnold (if he chose to listen to the letter) stand there and say hormone use will be sanctioned at my events, he was the founder of larger leaner bodybuilders really and the reason behind young kids of today aspiring to get big and ripped.
> 
> I was not in anyway pointing the finger at steve, he had an awesome physique before the word hormone was used in gyms, and i respect him for that but i believe he is trying to get through to the wrong person, hence why i said hypocrite (aimed at arnie)


Again a great point have a rep mate  Yeah arnie is the posterboy for steroids & yet now that its in his interest he condemns it.


----------



## jjcooper (Sep 1, 2010)

infernal0988 said:


> Again a great point have a rep mate  Yeah arnie is the posterboy for steroids & yet now that its in his interest he condemns it.


Thanks bro, just my opinion..

Repped back


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

The Vegetarian said:


> No I do not, but there is a lot of evidence that the earlier era of BB ate a high carb diet, Steve reeves ate a diet consisting of 20% protein, 20% fat and 60% carbs. I suppose that this ratio was the norm and they did not have bulging tummies.


Not every pro has a bloated stomach. Are they the ones that don't take gear? Bit confused


----------



## 1manarmy (Apr 22, 2012)

Unfortunately its just the way its gone.. I bet the generations before arnie Ect said they hated the way its all gone with them all coming through! Regardless of what the pro's look like now they didn't get there with bad diets and bad routines! But I do agree because I really like the look the 'older generation' managed to achieve


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

the bottom line really to my mind at least is, modern body builders are only respected by their fellow body builders, the general public thinks of them as freaks and to be laughed at....whereas in the old days the public had a real jealous respect for them.


----------



## 1manarmy (Apr 22, 2012)

^^^^ very true mate.. The alpha male seems to have lost its way!


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

fuc.k proportions and symmetry...i want to see be bloated freaks.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

Tinytom said:


> Not every pro has a bloated stomach. Are they the ones that don't take gear? Bit confused


Idk if this makes any sense but when i overeat on or off cycle my stomach bulges out massively, i can only imagine how much food the pro`s eat & doing this all day everyday for years has to have SOME sort of effect on their bowels i should think.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Tinytom said:


> Not every pro has a bloated stomach. Are they the ones that don't take gear? Bit confused


This!

Phil Heath, Shawn Rhoden etc all look pretty tight to me?


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

It's what makes the money that drives it. They did look better in Arnolds day but people want to pay to go see the freaks. They are so far beyond what the normal person can do and it's why people want to go see them.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

monkeybiker said:


> It's what makes the money that drives it. They did look better in Arnolds day but people want to pay to go see the freaks. They are so far beyond what the normal person can do and it's why people want to go see them.


Back in the day, Arnold et al are the freaks of which you speak.

Personally I like the Phil Heath/Shawn Rhoden look myself - mass and a tight gut.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I don't think bodybuilding has lost it's way as such, it's just taken a particular direction that some find hard to identify with... things tend to go full circle in time, and I think the look that dominates will always change and evolve.

I think the main thing with the classic look versus the freaky look is width of appeal - I think people who bodybuild themselves are about 50/50 in terms of which kind of look they prefer if they have a strong preference, whereas the wider public generally mostly go for the classic look.


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

The Vegetarian said:


> I have been giving this some serious thought since reading a thread on just how bloated some of the bber's looked in the Arnold show.
> 
> It now seems to me that perhaps what BB should be and what it has become are poles apart.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you on this

The focus seems to be more on how much chemicals the body can cope with rather than the gym workouts imo.

I personally would much rather have the builds of the 70s and 80s compared to the colemans and cutlers of today,,,


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dtlv said:


> I don't think bodybuilding has lost it's way as such, it's just taken a particular direction that some find hard to identify with... things tend to go full circle in time, and I think the look that dominates will always change and evolve.
> 
> I think the main thing with the classic look versus the freaky look is width of appeal - I think people who bodybuild themselves are about 50/50 in terms of which kind of look they prefer if they have a strong preference, whereas the wider public generally mostly go for the classic look.


TBH I've found the public generally don't have an interest in bodybuilding full stop.

Hence the bikini/mens physique classes etc that have been added to appeal to people who want the beach look/brad pitt fight club look... but you then have the danger of alienating the base of people who watch the larger guys at work.


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Papa Lazarou said:


> TBH I've found the public generally don't have an interest in bodybuilding full stop.
> 
> Hence the bikini/mens physique classes etc that have been added to appeal to people who want the beach look/brad pitt fight club look... but you then have the danger of alienating the base of people who watch the larger guys at work.


I would say 90% of women dont like guys too well built and much rather have the rambo type builds etc

I much prefer the bikini looks rather than a huge built woman that looks like a man

On the Alan Titchmarsh show today 3 girls were on,,one of which who was on the juice and built like a guy,,,holy crap no thanks.The only thing missing was a beard and tash.

The other two girls were class looking with nice figures and very girly looking,,,to me thats a woman


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> TBH I've found the public generally don't have an interest in bodybuilding full stop.
> 
> Hence the bikini/mens physique classes etc that have been added to appeal to people who want the beach look/brad pitt fight club look... but you then have the danger of alienating the base of people who watch the larger guys at work.


Haha, well i tend to bother all my friends and family who don't have an interest themselves, and when looking at different pics pretty much all of them say they prefer pics of guys like Zane, Robinson, Wheeler, Reeves etc over guys like Yates, Coleman.

My g/f follows bb'ing with me and likes the look of Roden and Heath, but can't stand Cutler or Ronnie's look... she explains it as a difference between looking huge, and looking big but athletic... the X frame look seems to give that impression of athleticism more, and challenges the musclebound stereotype a bit more I think, so is more likely to spark an interest from others.

In respect of what is actually going on in bodybuilding contests though, yes for sure, mostly it's only bb'ers and strength athletes who have a clue.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Arnold and his group were never regarded as freaks, he was the epitome of body building and was the inspiration for much of the popularity of modern body building....

it should have stayed at that level in my opinion.


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

So without hijacking the thread, what do we think of jay cutlers chances for the mr o.. I read on here he is bulking up and is hoping to go on stage looking massive. Which IMO is exactly what the judges DON'T want to see. Personally I think the only way he will win again is if heath retires or he moves to a senior class.

Your thoughts please gentlemen.


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

your right todays top bb look ridiculously over sized i think serge nubret franko and arnie had the best aethetics they are just too big today .But on the other hand they have to be to win nowerdays its 70s all the way for me


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

heath will win


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

What is everyones height and weight on this thread?

Would be interesting to see you're perceived preferred size against musculature.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

All things change and evolve I wonder how many would be against change if supplements remaining the same (mmmm yummy liver tablets) as they where in Arnold's day??

The problem here is the whole pro scene is being compared to just a few.......many mention Arnold yet if you compare him to the current Mr Olympia (as you can really only compare the best against the best) Phil Heath I would love to know how Phil has it so wrong.....now do not confuse this with a personnelt opinion of what you like as a physique.....

Many will be down on the Pro's nowadays because they do not like the look Ronnie had or Jay but love Rhoden or Heath? For every Pro you can name who has true distension there are 2 or 3 that do not.......

Arnold was not the best Mr Olympia ever when you compare physiques, he was the most influential on the BB world that cannot be questioned but he was not revered as some might think he was just as much a freak in his days as Heath is now, he is not a freak compared to the present stock but that was then this is now.

For those who have said that it is more about what they use than how they train please elaborate on how you know this for the Pro's I know several Pro' who I can call friends and this certainly is not the case it is an assumption made by people who do not know to prove a point.

So the question should be *Do you like the current pro look compared to Arnold's day?* it should not be that does not mean it is not better but in your opinion you prefer the look of Arnold.

This is like saying you prefer the cars that where around in the 70's and 80's not the ones now and there is nothing wrong with this but that does not mean that Pro Bodybuilding has lost it's way it just means YOU do not like it now........two totally different things.

As I mentioned in another thread distension is a problem that no one knows what causes it the amount of food that the Pro's eat these days has to have a big influence along with drugs of all types......some have said Pro's back then eat loads of carbs and did not suffer but how much was loads? I know of big amateurs and Pro's that eat upwards of 3000 cals just from carbs I will bet my house not many if anyone eat that much back in Arnold's day........


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

I feel that it has hit a point of extreme, i personally don't feel that there's much room left for taking it much further, look at Markus Ruhl for example, he looks like he's trapped inside his own physique.

I think that there will be a breakthrough in the next few decades, maybe much sooner of a way to enhance the physique as quickly and as well as steroids but without the side effects, steroids have been around for long enough now to the point that they seem old fashioned compared to advancements in medicine elsewhere.

Future generations will look back in horror at the fact that people did what they did to achieve what they have similar to how we look back at how people had limbs removed without anesthetic many years ago.

Sadly i often imagine the current big guys dying horrible deaths, not to be morbid but i would be surprised if there are not a few of you waiting to read of something terrible happening to Ronnie or one of the others, there's little chance any of those guys are going to reach old age.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

balance said:


> I feel that it has hit a point of extreme, i personally don't feel that there's much room left for taking it much further, look at Markus Ruhl for example, he looks like he's trapped inside his own physique.
> 
> I think that there will be a breakthrough in the next few decades, maybe much sooner of a way to enhance the physique as quickly and as well as steroids but without the side effects, steroids have been around for long enough now to the point that they seem old fashioned compared to advancements in medicine elsewhere.
> 
> ...


You assume these big guys do not look after themselves?? Where as there is no drug that is risk free your assumption is that these Pro's who make there living with there bodies do not take some precautions, I am not naive to think every top guy does this but then you should not be naive to think they all don't.........

The health risk is always raised when Pro Bodybuilders are mentioned yet no one mentions the health risk associated with a night out on the beer and a kebab before bed..........before you say they are not the same go have a look at the deaths per year associated with alcohol and obesity and then compare that figure to the one (if you can find it) where deaths have been associated with steroids, GH, insulin etc........


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Indeed 100,000 died 2011 from smoking, 7700 from drink - just disease, thats excluding violence caused by it.

Now show me *a* steroid death.

Why do people care so much about body builders health and not their own?


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2013)

Time has evolved,if arnie could of taken some of todays products,he would have.FACT


----------



## bigbob33 (Jan 19, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> What is everyones height and weight on this thread?
> 
> Would be interesting to see you're perceived preferred size against musculature.


I'm 6'4 16 stone and much prefer the look of earlier bodybuilders compared to that of those today. That's not to say I don't appreciate the time and serious effort todays guys put in, just that I prefer the look of that bygone era.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

bigbob33 said:


> I'm 6'4 16 stone and much prefer the look of earlier bodybuilders compared to that of those today. That's not to say I don't appreciate the time and serious effort todays guys put in, just that I prefer the look of that bygone era.


That is very true, they still give 120% effort in what they do.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

this smoking and drinking argument that's often used as a counter argument against the use of steroids isn't really relevant...you have to seriously abuse your body on a daily basis for at least a third of a lifetime before smoking and drinking will claim you as a statistic.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

justin case said:


> this smoking and drinking argument that's often used as a counter argument against the use of steroids isn't really relevant...you have to seriously abuse your body on a daily basis for at least a third of a lifetime before smoking and drinking will claim you as a statistic.


Come on then, bring on the steroid deaths? 

And I call BS on a third of your life time. I sadly know a quite a few people that booze and **** have caused quite a number of problems, booze esp.


----------



## Lean&amp;Mean&amp;Clean (May 9, 2008)

Papa,stats 6"1 here , I do have weight scales phobia even at 10%BF or less however I like how Ronnie looked and to me he is No.1 even as of today


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Come on then, bring on the steroid deaths?
> 
> And I call BS on a third of your life time. I sadly know a quite a few people that booze and **** have caused quite a number of problems, booze esp.


I'm in my early 50s and my circle of friends and acquaintances have been smoking and ****ing it up since their teens, and they are all still alive.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

justin case said:


> this smoking and drinking argument that's often used as a counter argument against the use of steroids isn't really relevant...you have to seriously abuse your body on a daily basis for at least a third of a lifetime before smoking and drinking will claim you as a statistic.


But you still have to abuse your body and it is relevant as the biggest argument is "I am sure BB will suffer when there older" you don't use steroids for a few years and your dead........there is a warning on packets of cigs that tell you they can kill you how fukcing stupid seeing that do you have to be to smoke but then condemn BB using gear.

that aside let's look just at obesity and the deaths associated with that (diabetes for one) the stats show us that 24% of the UK population is obese and in the next 10yrs it will be the biggest drain on the NHS and the biggest health risk to both adults and children.......how's that for a counter argument?? Especially when steroids and the drugs BB use do not even make the top 10


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

justin case said:


> I'm in my early 50s and my circle of friends and acquaintances have been smoking and ****ing it up since their teens, and they are all still alive.


Snap, I am in my early 40's and my large circle of friends and acquaintances in BB are all still alive......you cannot get around the stats for smoking, rec drugs, smoking and obesity every single one kills more and is a bigger health risk per day than steroids are per year.......


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

The top Pros of today still train like demons.

They have access to vastly superior knowledge not just of training but also nutrition and gear/peptides use.

The science has changed so much in the last 30-40 years, if the Arnie era guys had this type of knowledge they would be bigger too.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> Snap, I am in my early 40's and my large circle of friends and acquaintances in BB are all still alive......you cannot get around the stats for smoking, rec drugs, smoking and obesity every single one kills more and is a bigger health risk per day than steroids are per year.......


Iknow a man who is 66 years of age been using steroids since the 80s he is in great shape & not a single thing wrong with him , i also know one who is 45 smokes & drinks but jogs & goes to the gym, has had 3 major heart attacks first one when he was 36, then at 41 then another one at 43.

That alone speaks for its self imo.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

TBH there isn't ANY long term studies I know on steroids and their effects on health.

Even the chief czar in america couldn't give any statistics when asked!

I'm not claiming them as safe, but to call them deadly and will kill you before you know it is somewhat misguided.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

Papa Lazarou said:


> TBH there isn't ANY long term studies I know on steroids and their effects on health.
> 
> Even the chief czar in america couldn't give any statistics when asked!
> 
> I'm not claiming them as safe, but to call them deadly and will kill you before you know it is somewhat misguided.


With any drug their will always be a positive to negative ratio there is no safe drug to much of anything or wrong use of almost anything can kill you. We openly sell the most liver toxic pills at our local stores paracetamol , and we also sell two legalized drugs that kill more people & destroy more families & lives per year then anything els alcohol & tobacco. So why is it as regards to steroids we are taking this negatives stance on it when its clearly more safe then ALOT of legalized things on the market ? .


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Doubtful steroids are deadly, as some think. Good for you? Unlikely, but bad for you? Probably not that much.

Seems to have gone off topic anyway, personally for me, I would love the Frank Zane look, I think today it's just about throwing as much lean tissue onto every part of the body you can. Takes some serious effort and training, and if that's what the judges want to see so be it. But the majority of people I've discussed it with prefer the Arnie/Zane look (Many say even that's too far, so I guess everyone has a right as to what they like)


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I don't think steroids or PEDs are dangerous, but they do come under a category of drugs that need to be taken in conjunction with other drugs to limit or negate side effects, or there is a physiological consequence - gyno, estrogen rebound, shutdown of testicular function, bloating etc.

A second thing is that when used in a bodybuilding context and dosage their purpose is not to alleviate ill health and restore the body to its natural state but to move the body away from its natural state into one either of accelerated muscle hypertrophy, or accelerated fat catabolism (or both).

The above factors put most PEDs in a category of substance which does require a great degree of understanding to use properly. Now this is true of many medications also, but in the case of such medications there are trained professionals (doctors) qualified to help with years of verified and clinical testing for the precise purposes of use and thousands of well recorded case studies all to guide best practise

In the case of steroids most people get their usage guidance from articles on the internet or from guys down the gym or even their dealer, and this I think is the biggest danger - not that steds are gonna kill them, but that the prevalence of idiotic advice that is given out makes it incredibly common for people to dose inappropriately (usually far more than their existing muscle mass requires) with often inadequate cycle support resulting in a load of unnecessary side effects to deal with, and gains that are somewhat disappointing.

I'm not going to name any names but I get a lot of PM's from people who have followed the advice for PEDs from well regarded advice givers on here, and have run into a whole range of issues and they want a second opinion on what they should be doing.

My point is that the main danger with PEDs isn't death, the danger is unnecessary amounts of money spent on highly inefficient cycles resulting in poor gains and loads of unnecessary sides that then need further drugs to deal with.


----------



## cris (Apr 11, 2012)

for me it is serge nubret

not savvy enough to post a link

but for me that is a physique that many can aspire to

just my opinion


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

The other point people seem to miss when they post they want to look like Arnie/Serge/Franco etc

THESE GUYS ARE STILL MASSIVE.

Arnie was 225-235lb on stage. Thats heavy when as lean they got, same as Serge (height for height).

If you are going on health (which is ridiculous in my eyes when you look at most of our nose bag, MacDonalds scoffing mindless majority) Arnie et al are all at a weight 99.9% of you will never achieve.


----------



## RocoElBurn (May 31, 2010)

Arnie has even said himself just this week, that competitions "need to start awarding better physiques, not just bigger" .

I think there are plenty of great physiques in current BB'ing, and I think the guys are focussing on mass and a pleasing aesthetic. The guys with sh!t condition aren't winning. This is why Dexter got 1st at the Arnold.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Steroids rank behind vitamin C for hospital admissions caused by drugs btw


----------



## robsam23 (May 15, 2006)

I think some of the points being raised here aren't relative. Saying more people die from smoking than steroids doesn't 'prove' the point that people seem to be trying to make.

1000s more smoke than take steriods so they are not even statistics to compare.

Also - what counts as health issues caused by steriods? Silvio Samuel for example. He was officially admitted to hospital with heart and kidney problems (no mention of steriods) but you'd have to be very naive to suggest none of his issues were linked to his steriod use.


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

Leeds89 said:


> Steroids rank behind vitamin C for hospital admissions caused by drugs btw


you can see on this forum though when people ask about going to the doctors or hospital most people on here reply with 'don't mention that you're on steroids or they'll be ****s' whereas I don't think anyone denies the use of vitamin C lol

I don't think its fair to compare steroids to smoking etc, where do they get the stats for smoking from? for it contributing to people getting lung cancer etc? The same way steroids can contribute to you having heart problems etc..

Also steroids have only got popular much more recently than smoking/drinking and still obviously far less people doing them.

The main thing I don't like with pro bodybuilding is a lot of them seem out of breath from even standing up, think they should atleast have a decent level of fitness as well as the huge muscles


----------



## RocoElBurn (May 31, 2010)

This thread has lost its way, I know that much :0p


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> you can see on this forum though when people ask about going to the doctors or hospital most people on here reply with 'don't mention that you're on steroids or they'll be ****s' whereas I don't think anyone denies the use of vitamin C lol
> 
> I don't think its fair to compare steroids to smoking etc, where do they get the stats for smoking from? for it contributing to people getting lung cancer etc? The same way steroids can contribute to you having heart problems etc..
> 
> ...


You mean the same steroids they give to men for TRT? Aids patients for tissue? Burns victims etc? I'm not saying they are perfect but I do think people over state them. The stats are from the government for smoking and drink. Try finding the same ones for steroids.

As for danger, where are YOU getting your stats from exactly, name ONE source. Steroids have been popular for years - its not until the early 2000s the whole bodybuilding scene died, and were available OTC until 1992. Heck even the USA's own health and enforcement agencies had the below to say:






and also one of the leading american Dr's on the subject:






America's chief czar (pretty clueless LOL)






Makes you think.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> you can see on this forum though when people ask about going to the doctors or hospital most people on here reply with 'don't mention that you're on steroids or they'll be ****s' whereas I don't think anyone denies the use of vitamin C lol
> 
> I don't think its fair to compare steroids to smoking etc, where do they get the stats for smoking from? for it contributing to people getting lung cancer etc? The same way steroids can contribute to you having heart problems etc..
> 
> ...


You mean the same steroids they give to men for TRT? Aids patients for tissue? Burns victims etc? I'm not saying they are perfect but I do think people over state them. The stats are from the government for smoking and drink. Try finding the same ones for steroids.

As for danger, where are YOU getting your stats from exactly, name ONE source. Steroids have been popular for years - its not until the early 2000s the whole bodybuilding scene died, and were available OTC until 1992. Heck even the USA's own health and enforcement agencies had the below to say:

Fast forward to 3 mins 6 seconds






and also one of the leading american Dr's on the subject:

Fast forward to 4 mins 13 seconds






America's chief czar

Fast forward to 50 seconds






Makes you think.


----------



## roadwarrior (Apr 29, 2006)




----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> You mean the same steroids they give to men for TRT? Aids patients for tissue? Burns victims etc? I'm not saying they are perfect but I do think people over state them. The stats are from the government for smoking and drink. Try finding the same ones for steroids.
> 
> As for danger, where are YOU getting your stats from exactly, name ONE source. Steroids have been popular for years - its not until the early 2000s the whole bodybuilding scene died, and were available OTC until 1992. Heck even the USA's own health and enforcement agencies had the below to say:
> 
> ...


yes exactly the same way a lot of doctors would say a few glasses of wine a week are healthy, pro bodybuilders and even people on here use far far more than trt doses so not sure how thats relevant.

Personally I don't think there as bad for you as smoking but I don't really see a fair way to compare, people get addicted to smoking and smoke for 40-50 years. I think a 70 year old would do more damage to themselves pinning 3 grams of test than having 40 **** in a day


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

The health issue always comes up! Noone gives a **** about professional fighters kicking the crap out of each other or boxers that have developed severe alzheimers and parkins in early stages in their life from the repeated blows to the head. Or the spinal injuries and concussions associated with contact sports like rugby or NFL, average life expectancy can drop as low as 58. Or athletes keeling over and having heart attacks / cardiac arrests e.t.c in endurance events. No one says how unhealthy they are. But for some reason bodybuilders have to be healthy?? Top level competitive sport is not healthy, its about winning. People dont lose sight of that with other sports.

And as for todays bodybuilders being freaks, all athletes today are, usain bolt is a freak, having everyone at the olympics bar 1 running a sub 10 time in the 100m is freakish. Back in arnold time not even the winner was running sub 10!

Bodybuilders today are proportionally bigger as sprinters and other athletes are proportionally faster. All sports and all athletes are pushing the boundaries constantly, thats how it works, why is bodybuilding taking all the heat?


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> yes exactly the same way a lot of doctors would say a few glasses of wine a week are healthy, pro bodybuilders and even people on here use far far more than trt doses so not sure how thats relevant.
> 
> Personally I don't think there as bad for you as smoking but I don't really see a fair way to compare, people get addicted to smoking and smoke for 40-50 years. I think a 70 year old would do more damage to themselves pinning 3 grams of test than having 40 **** in a day


Show me the bodies? And how many pro's do you know? What is the source of your information? Why do you think they will die? Based on what?

Why the huge concern for bodybuilders when people are already happy to drink, eat, smoke etc themselves to death in far far far far far far greater numbers? Is is because we stand out?

I really really don't know why people have such huge concern?


----------



## leeds_01 (Aug 6, 2008)

solidcecil said:


> I honestly prefer the look of ronnie, phil etc to the old school bb's. I think bigger the better, more freaky and cartoon physiques.


yes this

people at the top of their game will do anything they can do to win, in the 70's rights through to today in BB - arnie and all other would have experimented with and no doubt abused most recent/advanced gear if they could have done

i dont think zane or or arnie look more 'aesthetic' nor do i prefer the lean slender tapered look of them - thats BS - mutants like ronnie simply blow them out of the water in bb'ing standards and simply have a better physique in having more mass/more symmetry/density/lower bf


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Just stumbled across this lol


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

dann19900 said:


> yes exactly the same way a lot of doctors would say a few glasses of wine a week are healthy, pro bodybuilders and even people on here use far far more than trt doses so not sure how thats relevant.
> 
> Personally I don't think there as bad for you as smoking but I don't really see a fair way to compare, people get addicted to smoking and smoke for 40-50 years. I think a 70 year old would do more damage to themselves pinning 3 grams of test than having 40 **** in a day


you're mad! do old people get prescribed steroids in low dosages? yes. Do old people get prescribed cigarettes in low doses? no. This is because cigarettes have absolutely no health benefits at all, compared to a long list of extensively, researched and proven dangerous risks. If this was the case for steroids would doctors go round handing out what would effectively be a lethal injection to euthanize old people? Does the fact that professional medical bodies prescribe this drug, while actively discouraging the use of the other not show to you that maybe cigarettes are worse than steroids?


----------



## hoaxey (Jan 7, 2013)

justin case said:


> good post mate, and you hit the nail on the head with it....the original reason we train has been totally lost.


off topic but me and u have same phone =d


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> you're mad! do old people get prescribed steroids in low dosages? yes. Do old people get prescribed cigarettes in low doses? no. This is because cigarettes have absolutely no health benefits at all, compared to a long list of extensively, researched and proven dangerous risks. If this was the case for steroids would doctors go round handing out what would effectively be a lethal injection to euthanize old people? Does the fact that professional medical bodies prescribe this drug, while actively discouraging the use of the other not show to you that maybe cigarettes are worse than steroids?


We're not talking about low dosages here though are we? that was my whole point lol. I've already said I think cigarettes are worse for you, mainly because you get addicted though, if you were on a high dose of steroids every single day for 50 years compared to people smoking for 50 years then I think the steroids would be worse


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Show me the bodies? And how many pro's do you know? What is the source of your information? Why do you think they will die? Based on what?
> 
> Why the huge concern for bodybuilders when people are already happy to drink, eat, smoke etc themselves to death in far far far far far far greater numbers? Is is because we stand out?
> 
> I really really don't know why people have such huge concern?


I don't need to know any pros to know that they're on more than trt doses lol. Where did I say I think they will all die?


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> We're not talking about low dosages here though are we? that was my whole point lol. I've already said I think cigarettes are worse for you, mainly because you get addicted though, if you were on a high dose of steroids every single day for 50 years compared to people smoking for 50 years then I think the steroids would be worse


Could you cite some proof behind your thoughts. Rather than just repeat what you have been saying?


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> I don't need to know any pros to know that they're on more than trt doses lol. Where did I say I think they will all die?


I'm saying who do you know that is big, pro and their doses? How can you claim they are on huge amounts?

Where is this info on mortality that you think will occur?


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Could you cite some proof behind your thoughts. Rather than just repeat what you have been saying?


I don't have any proof mate just giving my opinion, 1 of my first points was how can there be any proof when most people deny the use of steroids..


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> I'm saying who do you know that is big, pro and their doses? How can you claim they are on huge amounts?


I thought it was pretty obvious pro's are on much more than trt doses, do u disagree?


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> I don't have any proof mate just giving my opinion, 1 of my first points was how can there be any proof when most people deny the use of steroids..


But the bodybuilders you claim who the doses are bad for them, where are they? Where are those people dying? Remember people around in Arnies day are mostly still with us. Where is the statistics to back up your claims?

Everyone can have an opinion of course but surely that needs to be based on fact, mortality rates rather than a gut feeling?

It seems if a bodybuilder dies of anything heart related people scream "steroids!!!!!" yet 1 in 4 people die of heart disease, its a very normal way to die - see official British Heart Foundation stats - http://www.bhf.org.uk/media/news-from-the-bhf/bhf-facts.aspx

I'd like some facts behind the claims - I've given plenty.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

i see the thread has gone off the rails as usual and turned into a steroid debate, it was quite interesting for a while...lol


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

dann19900 said:


> I thought it was pretty obvious pro's are on much more than trt doses, do u disagree?


Yes, but do you know how much? Most I've spoken to are on much less than you think.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

justin case said:


> i see the thread has gone off the rails as usual and turned into a steroid debate, it was quite interesting for a while...lol


Agreed. Personally I don't give a fvck if the people on stage are healthy, as long as they look good that's what people want to see and that's what they are judged on


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

I think that this thread has lost its way more than pro bodybuilders. Perhaps a mod could now shut it down.


----------



## onthebuild (Sep 3, 2011)

@Pscarb

This year you'regoing to be judging rather than competing right? Could you explain, for people like me who dont know much about it, what are bodybuilders marked upon by judges?

Is it symmetry and muscularity? Does one take precedence over the other? And is there more than just these two categories?

Because as much as I agree that todays bodybuilders arent as 'pleasing to the eye' as the 80's bodybuilders, if they are being marked on muscularity then the mass monsters are just doing what is required of them IMO.


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> you're mad! do old people get prescribed steroids in low dosages? yes. Do old people get prescribed cigarettes in low doses? no. This is because cigarettes have absolutely no health benefits at all, compared to a long list of extensively, researched and proven dangerous risks. If this was the case for steroids would doctors go round handing out what would effectively be a lethal injection to euthanize old people? Does the fact that professional medical bodies prescribe this drug, while actively discouraging the use of the other not show to you that maybe cigarettes are worse than steroids?


If you are really old and still smoking then you'll be one of the people that smoking has no real adverse effect on. Its like 1/3 'die' of smoking related illness. Not 3/3.

In elderly care there is the quantity/quality of life balance. Steroids in low doses probably aren't that good for old people, and we know that lots of testosterone is not optimal for longevity. But they'd prefer to take steroids and have say 5 more years of mobility rather than a longer life of disability.


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> You assume these big guys do not look after themselves?? Where as there is no drug that is risk free your assumption is that these Pro's who make there living with there bodies do not take some precautions, I am not naive to think every top guy does this but then you should not be naive to think they all don't.........
> 
> The health risk is always raised when Pro Bodybuilders are mentioned yet no one mentions the health risk associated with a night out on the beer and a kebab before bed..........before you say they are not the same go have a look at the deaths per year associated with alcohol and obesity and then compare that figure to the one (if you can find it) where deaths have been associated with steroids, GH, insulin etc........


I assume that to reach their level they are taking consumption to extremes, i agree that no drug is risk free, i'm unsure what precautions you can take against doing what they do, tablets for high blood pressure and prostate? Regular checks with the doctor? I don't expect that they all use the same amounts but where one might not be a heavy user of something they might be taking it to the extreme with something else.

The reason that there are more reported deaths through people smoking, drinking, using hard drugs etc is because the amounts of people doing those things are huge compared to the amounts that use steroids, growth hormone etc so it isn't statistically sensible to try and compare things this way, the numbers are different for obvious reasons.

So that you know that i'm not "anti steroids" i am aware that deaths and health problems are often not a direct result of steroid use, of course some people have underlying health problems already, some of the deaths of bodybuilders i know have been from suicide, murder and other things so i understand that it's not the sole reason that they died or nearly died.

I remember reading years ago of some of the mr olympia competitors that they wouldn't mention names were heavy users of nubain, literally hooked on the stuff, of course it allows them to train through what is often an injury that they should probably be resting an recovering from but they were getting strung out of nubain and carried on training most likely further aggravating injuries.

I don't want to see nasty things happen to them but it's bloody obvious what is coming, i think we all expect to read some nasty stuff about some of them in the future.

*Added text* a side effect of Nubain "difficulty speaking" now i'm not being rude but sometimes Ronnie Coleman can barely string a sentence together.


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Leeds89 said:


> Just stumbled across this lol


I will always admire the Arnie look more, at that point in bodybuilding history it was "just right" advanced enough to freak people out a bit without being extreme. Look at Arnie's waist


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

onthebuild said:


> @Pscarb
> 
> This year you'regoing to be judging rather than competing right? Could you explain, for people like me who dont know much about it, what are bodybuilders marked upon by judges?
> 
> ...


judging a show is about judging the physiques onstage against each other not judging them against what I think they should look like......

A physique is judged on 3 things mainly...

Muscle Mass

Condition

Aesthetics

The winner SHOULD be the competitor that has the best of all three together, this does not mean they are the biggest or the most conditioned onstage but the athlete with the best overall physique.

For example a shredded to the bone athlete should not beat a guy who is a few stone heavier but not as shredded as the overall package should win not the biggest or the most ripped..........

I have been asked a few times why someone won when he or she was not the most conditioned my answer is simple condition is only a third of what is required.........

I admire all of the guys back in the 70's and 80's for what they achieved with very little but In my opinion only a few would make any impact these days I am afraid to say that from a judging point of view many if not all would fall short.

Many might prefer Arnold's physique but if he was competing now with the same physique he would find it hard to win his Pro card.........IMO



frenchpress said:


> Steroids in low doses probably aren't that good for old people


really so why does the medical profession give Test as HRT/TRT?? One of the recognised issues to health as you age is the decline in testosterone



frenchpress said:


> we know that lots of testosterone is not optimal for longevity.


Do we please show the facts that using Testosterone effects longevity given my answer above about TRT??


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Maybe today's competitive bodybuilders could take some control and refuse to take things to extremes, i imagine that there are bodybuilders who would be happy to compete at a certain size but because of the pressure for more and more they are quite literally forced to take it further or quit.

It's that classic fault where it's never enough, but the human body is nearing it's limit i would say with the current trends.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Who ever says steroids are not dangerous is a fool.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

hackskii said:


> Who ever says steroids are not dangerous is a fool.


True, but the same can be said for many OTC medications. Not taking sides as tbh I don't know about the true dangers, just that a lot of what we take in everyday is dangerous to us


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

balance said:


> I will always admire the Arnie look more, at that point in bodybuilding history it was "just right" advanced enough to freak people out a bit without being extreme. Look at Arnie's waist


Agreed, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle belly look doesn't appeal to me personally, also the legs of todays BB look like they're more swollen than muscular. Arnies legs there look perfect imo


----------



## Dagman72 (Apr 2, 2009)

maybe they could introduce a max weight that they have to keep too for the two days. And bring back the 200 class. So have a 200, 212 and open up to a certain weight.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

hackskii said:


> Who ever says steroids are not dangerous is a fool.


Not saying that at all, just saying i would rather take the 3g of gear a week over the 40 cigarettes a day that someone was suggesting is probably less damaging to health...


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Dagman72 said:


> maybe they could introduce a max weight that they have to keep too for the two days. And bring back the 200 class. So have a 200, 212 and open up to a certain weight.


A capping / max weight wouldn't be fair on the taller guys though, it would mean shorter guys could come in with relatively more muscle and look bigger than the taller guy because they are limited by the extra weight incurred by height


----------



## Dangerous20 (May 20, 2012)

Are there any guys with pro cards that are say 215-240 on stage but with a height of about 5"10+?

So not mass guys but as pscarb says guys with that WHOLE 1/3 of the package (condition)?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

balance said:


> Maybe today's competitive bodybuilders could take some control and refuse to take things to extremes, i imagine that there are bodybuilders who would be happy to compete at a certain size but because of the pressure for more and more they are quite literally forced to take it further or quit.
> 
> It's that classic fault where it's never enough, but the human body is nearing it's limit i would say with the current trends.


this is what I don't get is this debate when the current Mr is smaller than the last 3 I believe (not sure on Dextor) the current Arnold winner is smaller than the last one........

It is the nature of all sports to push to the extremes, I am sure when Arnold was Mr O people asked how much further they could go, same with Lee Haney and then with Dorian as they then said about Ronnie and Jay, Phil Heath is smaller than Jay, Ronnie and Yates so the sport is not obsessed with size........

Sprinters have taken it to the extreme so have distance runners and will continue to do in the coming years....my point is that the finish line is always moved better condition, more mass etc......competitors will always try to win it is the nature of the sport........many will not understand this as they do not compete......the need to win is the only thing that matters.



hackskii said:


> Who ever says steroids are not dangerous is a fool.


Yes but steroids are not dangerous the person using them is, if they where dangerous the health services would not use them at all, obviously people do not use them in the doses the medical field does this is why I say the products are not dangerous but the people who use them in the doses they do are.



Leeds89 said:


> True, but the same can be said for many OTC medications. Not taking sides as tbh I don't know about the true dangers, just that a lot of what we take in everyday is dangerous to us


Take a look at the deaths related to NAIDS meds.......says it all really.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dangerous20 said:


> Are there any guys with pro cards that are say 215-240 on stage but with a height of about 5"10+?
> 
> So not mass guys but as pscarb says guys with that WHOLE 1/3 of the package (condition)?


But if they just had condition they would not be Pro's mass is relevant to the individual a Pro who is say 212lbs like flex Lewis in many people's eyes is not a mass monster but holds plenty of muscle mass, you should be able to win any show with only 1 out of the 3 criteria that is judged


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Hold on a minute, comparing steroids to anything that is of risk is quite pathetic, and a poor arguement to defend one's use.

I have been in the hospital twice for stage II stroke range blood pressure, blood in the urine, testosterone levels of a girl, tore two biceps from lifting past my genetic limit, liver issues.

Funny, never had this before from any recreational drug use.

There is a danger, comparing them to anything for risk is a joke.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I agree Paul, but the context is a bit different from replacement therapy, and use/abuse.

Some of the cycles I see now days is well, shocking.


----------



## Dangerous20 (May 20, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> But if they just had condition they would not be Pro's mass is relevant to the individual a Pro who is say 212lbs like flex Lewis in many people's eyes is not a mass monster but holds plenty of muscle mass, you should be able to win any show with only 1 out of the 3 criteria that is judged


Yeah I know I just wondered if there were any taller and leaner guys with pro cards at all?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

justin case said:


> the bottom line really to my mind at least is, modern body builders are only respected by their fellow body builders, the general public thinks of them as freaks and to be laughed at....whereas in the old days the public had a real jealous respect for them.


This is absolutely true and a shame to be honest


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> really so why does the medical profession give Test as HRT/TRT?? One of the recognised issues to health as you age is the decline in testosterone
> 
> Do we please show the facts that using Testosterone effects longevity given my answer above about TRT??


Basically cultures that have minimal hormonal modification and generally low testosterone have a higher life expectancy than anyone else (Japanese etc), and low growth hormone levels/resistance to growth hormones are linked to immunity from diabetes and cancer (most studies done on people with Larons).

Also there is the general cause and effect argument. TRT is 'shown' to improve all manner of things. A brief search said that adult age related TRT is like rolling slowly down a hill, while female menopause is like dropping off a cliff. Now, given the upbringing, conceptions of being old etc that the people who've turned 50-60 over the last 10-15 years will have; it may well be that many of these people simply settle into getting old prematurely, after years go to their doctor and say they are feeling a bit ****, doc does a test, gives them TRT, and suddenly they feel more able to do stuff and do, rather than the same people who don't get it who settle into being old.

Now, I'm sure TRT is excellent for elderly people who have injured themselves - if you break your leg when you are 60, then clearly hormonal replacement is a good idea, and in quality/longevity it is the healthiest choice.

However, if people hit 40 or 50 or whatever, and understood and acted on medical advice to improve their life without drugs (mental and physical activity, diet etc), they would probably keep their hormonal levels high, and be healthier than inactive 60 year olds who want a boost to compensate for 10 years of being sedentary.

In short, living an optimal drug free lifestyle will be more optimal than taking drugs for years of sub optimal behavior. Taking testosterone reduction as something to be medicated also is likely to avoid the lifestyle issues that cause test to be low - and those lifestyle choices are going to be an ancillary cause of all manner of other diseases.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

For those interested in studies, this review article might be worth a read. I haven't read it through fully yet myself so don't blame me if it's bunk. The link is to the full study, not just the abstract, and the review itself is dated 2006 and from a well respected journal which makes it likely to be a decent level of analysis.

I have not yet found a decent set of stats for all cause mortality in AAS or PED users. Will post if I find anything.



> *MEDICAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ANABOLIC STEROID USE: ARE THEY EXAGGERATED?*
> 
> ABSTRACT
> 
> ...


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

hackskii said:


> Hold on a minute, comparing steroids to anything that is of risk is quite pathetic, and a poor arguement to defend one's use.
> 
> I have been in the hospital twice for stage II stroke range blood pressure, blood in the urine, testosterone levels of a girl, tore two biceps from lifting past my genetic limit, liver issues.
> 
> ...


That approach is usually taken to point out to the people that often pick and choose / are hypocritical in that they don't go round telling every smoker and drinker its bad for their health, but will happily lecture someone on steroids about how they are killing themselves, just asking them why they are so bothered with only steroids and not other major health problems, caused by activities they probably readily partake in. I totally accept the risks of what i do and know i have noone but myself to blame, im not kidding myself that they are safe. Its more of a, dont you have bigger fish to fry / First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye, kind of thing


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

hackskii said:


> I agree Paul, but the context is a bit different from replacement therapy, and use/abuse.
> 
> Some of the cycles I see now days is well, shocking.


Thing is I am not saying PEDs are risk free far from it in fact and I certainly am not dismissing the risk of some of the stupid doses some are using theses days but what I am saying is many will condemn the use of steroids and say stupid things like "you will have issues later in life" or "you will die" blah blah but then think nothing about smashing in pint after pint on a night out and eating foods high in trans fats etc......not to mention smoking as if that's all ok ????



Dangerous20 said:


> Yeah I know I just wondered if there were any taller and leaner guys with pro cards at all?


Tony Freeman is tall and very very lean.....



frenchpress said:


> Basically cultures that have minimal hormonal modification and generally low testosterone have a higher life expectancy than anyone else (Japanese etc), and low growth hormone levels/resistance to growth hormones are linked to immunity from diabetes and cancer (most studies done on people with Larons).
> 
> Also there is the general cause and effect argument. TRT is 'shown' to improve all manner of things. A brief search said that adult age related TRT is like rolling slowly down a hill, while female menopause is like dropping off a cliff. Now, given the upbringing, conceptions of being old etc that the people who've turned 50-60 over the last 10-15 years will have; it may well be that many of these people simply settle into getting old prematurely, after years go to their doctor and say they are feeling a bit ****, doc does a test, gives them TRT, and suddenly they feel more able to do stuff and do, rather than the same people who don't get it who settle into being old.
> 
> ...


I am not saying that taking drugs even TRT is better than none at all, my point was after your last post that you claim using testosterone shortens life I say it does not and asked you to give the stats otherwise.

I am not claiming you live longer at all I am saying many slate steroid use but fall into one of the three biggest health risks/killers of the western world(won't take into account Japan seeing as no one lives there on this forum  ) I have never smoked and I drink alcohol no more than a handful of times in a year, I am not obese in general I am healthy, I have a few issues but nothing major yet am slated for my steroid use mainly by those who eat a load of processed foods and smoke or drink and I just don't get that way of thinking??


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

dtlv said:


> For those interested in studies, this review article might be worth a read. I haven't read it through fully yet myself so don't blame me if it's bunk. The link is to the full study, not just the abstract, and the review itself is dated 2006 and from a well respected journal which makes it likely to be a decent level of analysis.
> 
> I have not yet found a decent set of stats for all cause mortality in AAS or PED users. Will post if I find anything.


That is a great find mate, and it is good to show the health risks as I do believe many underestimate them especially when they are in there late teens and early twenties and feel indestructible as we all did.......BUT what do you think the reaction would be if the same type of paper was done for Smoking, Alcohol or obesity? Before some jump saying it is not the same you are correct as I would bet they would be much worse.......this does not dismiss the dangers of steroids but puts it all into perspective when the same type of paper on the other 3 would not change the ways of anyone who does one or more of those three......


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

just to throw a swerve ball in this very informative and constructive thread, ive seen and read off many sports/fitness athletes etc dropping dead in the prime off there careers, including pro football players suffering from cardiac arrests midfield, so end off the day you can claim smoking is the worst killer, steroids, drinking etc you can do everything to avoid death you can do everything to dive in its way, when its your turn your gonna get it, wether you inject 3grams a week, or wether you drink a bottle off vodka every weekend.


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

hackskii said:


> Hold on a minute, comparing steroids to anything that is of risk is quite pathetic, and a poor arguement to defend one's use.
> 
> I have been in the hospital twice for stage II stroke range blood pressure, blood in the urine, testosterone levels of a girl, tore two biceps from lifting past my genetic limit, liver issues.
> 
> ...





Pscarb said:


> That is a great find mate, and it is good to show the health risks as I do believe many underestimate them especially when they are in there late teens and early twenties and feel indestructible as we all did.......BUT what do you think the reaction would be if the same type of paper was done for Smoking, Alcohol or obesity? Before some jump saying it is not the same you are correct as I would bet they would be much worse.......this does not dismiss the dangers of steroids but puts it all into perspective when the same type of paper on the other 3 would not change the ways of anyone who does one or more of those three......


Two really good views on the subject of miss use of anything from two top blokes in this business

Breathing in car fumes can cause serious health issues to tho aas in the wrong hands can be deadly just like alcohol and smoking etc

I had really bad issues with aas in my early 20s to the point of my liver had give in and i was heading towards a transplant tho that was down to bad knowledge on my behalf and no internet in the 80s and early 90s.

After i got over the aas use i ended up eating bad and drinking which put me up to 20st 6lbs in my 30s and i was at risk of a heart attack never mind what else.

In my honest opinion its down to the individual to see the dangers of EXCESS in whatever he or she puts into their body.

I live a life of being addictive to anything i do and have to control my mind which in truth i really believe most bodybuilders have to a certain extent as it takes that sort of mind to achieve goals in this game.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> That is a great find mate, and it is good to show the health risks as I do believe many underestimate them especially when they are in there late teens and early twenties and feel indestructible as we all did.......BUT what do you think the reaction would be if the same type of paper was done for Smoking, Alcohol or obesity? Before some jump saying it is not the same you are correct as I would bet they would be much worse.......this does not dismiss the dangers of steroids but puts it all into perspective when the same type of paper on the other 3 would not change the ways of anyone who does one or more of those three......


Yes mate, agreed. Have just been scanning through the paper, and the conclusion suggests that the dangers of PEDs are often over exaggerated. There are of course very real risks, but most of them are manageable with proper ancillary drugs.



> CONCLUSIONS
> 
> For many years the scientific and medical communities depicted a lack of efficacy and serious adverse effects from anabolic steroid use. However, competitive athletes continued to experiment with, use, and abuse anabolic steroids on a regular basis to enhance athletic performance despite the potential harmful side effects. The empirical evidence that the athletes viewed may have led to the development of distrust between the athletic and medical communities. Science has been lagging several years behind the experimental practices of athletes. In fact, most athletes consume anabolic steroids on a trial and error approach based on information gained from other athletes, coaches, websites, or gym "gurus." Science has lacked in its approach to study anabolic steroids because only few studies have examined long-term cyclical patterns, high doses, and the effects of stacking different brands of steroids. These practices are common to the athletic community and not for the medicinal purposes of anabolic steroid therapy. In addition, some athletes (especially bodybuilders) have experimented with drugs unbeknown to the medical community, i.e. insulin, thyroid hormones, and site-specific enhancers such as Synthol and Esiclene to name a few.
> 
> When examining the potential medical issues associated with anabolic steroid use, evidence indicates that most known side effects are transient. More so, few studies have been able to directly link anabolic steroids to many of the serious adverse effects listed. Although clinical case studies continue to link anabolic steroid administration with myocardial infarct, suicide, and cancer, the evidence to support a cause and effect relationship is lacking and it may be other contributing factors (i.e. genetic predisposition, diet, etc.) play a substantial role and potentiate the harmful effects from anabolic steroids. Consistent physician monitoring is critical to the athlete who consumes anabolic steroids. However, many athletes may not undergo extensive medical exams prior to androgen administration and few physicians may be willing to provide such monitoring. The purpose of this review was not to support or condone anabolic steroid use. Rather, the aim was to discuss pertinent medical issues and provide another perspective in light of the fact that many anabolic steroids users do not appear to prioritize the health/safety hazards or potential adverse medical events. In order to maintain credibility with the athlete, it is important to provide accurate information to the athlete in regards to these performance enhancing drugs, and provide education about alternative means and potential risks. Finally, anabolic steroids have been used legitimately for several clinical purposes such as muscle wasting or hypogonadal related diseases.


I think there's no doubt that behaviors like smoking, reccy drugs and regular alcohol consumption are more likely to lead to health problems, but I don't think a real detailed comparison can ever be made - each substance is different, even within the category of Performance Enhancing Drugs, just like the blanket term Recreational Drugs covers a massively wide range of things. From a scientific point of view all you can do really is assess each substance separately, and it maybe that some very specific PEDs do have a high risk association in the way they are commonly used, while others may have almost no risk associated at all.

EDIT this is where i think the current legal status of PEDs potentially does more harm than good, because with use falling into a legal grey area it means that all the public information about them is focused on 'preventing use' and deterent, and not focusing on how to use them most safely. Since people are going to use them whatever the law says, I think it'd be better to legalize, remove the stigma and licence and control these drugs and present them with proper information and education.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Yes but steroids are not dangerous the person using them is, *if they where dangerous the health services would not use them at all*, obviously people do not use them in the doses the medical field does this is why I say the products are not dangerous but the people who use them in the doses they do are.


Not that I'm leaning one way or the other - but just in response to that, three points:-

1. The health services use some pretty damned dangerous drugs, on occasion, however they follow protocol on dosage and usage

2. Which leads to the next point, something used within certain boundaries of dosage, perhaps for certain periods, may have a certain risk. Just because of this, and point 1. doesn't really mean the substance should be considered either a) safe or B) dangerous

3. HRT at times has been popular for women during / post menapause. A certain clinicial faced a very uphill, and decidedly hostile reception from countless areas, because she had the audacity - correctly I might add - to try and expose the risks - and that was a therapuetical dosage


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Dangerous20 said:


> Yeah I know I just wondered if there were any taller and leaner guys with pro cards at all?


Cedric McMillan who won the 2012 new york pro and placed 5th at the arnold this year, if he can sort his conditioning he will be a big threat, classic shape aswell. He is 6'1", competes about 250 though










Dennis wolf is 5'11" and also a top IFBB pro, narrow waist, good x frame


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

i would hate to see the damage done to the liver and kidneys of these pro bb half wont see 50 plus it looks ridiculus with their bloated bellies and barrel shaped bodies


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

tiger lion said:


> i would hate to see the damage done to the liver and kidneys of these pro bb half wont see 50 plus it looks ridiculus with their bloated bellies and barrel shaped bodies


Don't derail the thread man! Are you saying you have read and disagree with everything posted on the last 2 pages? If you want to see liver and kidney damage go take one of your mates that goes out bingeing every weekend down the hospital for a checkup.

Steroids arent safe, but pro bodybuilders arent exactly all keeling over in their late 40's either


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

well whats alcohol abuse got to do with steroid abuse


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

tiger lion said:


> well whats alcohol abuse got to do with steroid abuse


Im just saying i hope you are as concerned for your friends and familys health as you are for these individuals you have never met before. As you seem so concerned about the damage pro bodybuilders are doing to their organs i just hoped you were aware of the damage people you know are doing to themselves so you can spread the word and save them too...


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Maybe im overreacting a bit, but if you read the rest of the thread you will realise how your post makes it look like you are trolling


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

tiger lion said:


> i would hate to see the damage done to the liver and kidneys of these pro bb half wont see 50 plus it looks ridiculus with their bloated bellies and barrel shaped bodies


Nice statement. Can you name any pro bber who has died before age 50 recently.

In fact I think if you look closer most of bbing related issues to health stem from anti inflammatory or water manipulation. Not from steroids as a direct cause.

To say about liver and kidney abuse like its only limited to bbers is both blinkered and ill informed.

In fact I would argue that if you looked at ANY 50 year old person you would see some evidence of wear and tear. Even more so in professional athletes in any sport as the limits of physical endurance or performance will always take a toll on the body.


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

john riggings curtis lefler don youngblood rob sayer paul demayo scott cline and many many more


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

tiger lion said:


> john riggings curtis lefler don youngblood rob sayer paul demayo scott cline and many many more


They are all NFL players? most of their early deaths were caused from brain damage or related diseases?

-Edit ok my bad they arent all NFL players but john riggins is, and paul demayo died of a heroin overdose


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

I wanna see freaks onstage. And the only thing I dislike about the physiques now is the distended gut. The rest of the body, the bigger the better.

Anyone can walk around lean at 240lbs. I wanna see 300lb monsters when I watch pro bodybuilding


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

sugar coat it any way u want these pro bb are pumpin that much gear its impossible to say its not gonna damage their health it will fact


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Tue it is impossible to say, noone is saying it is safe, just that they arent all dropping dead at young ages at any particularly higher ammount than other professional sports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_who_died_during_their_careers

Particularly shocking are college football stats (NCAA) these are kids in college dying on the field


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> I wanna see freaks onstage. And the only thing I dislike about the physiques now is the distended gut. The rest of the body, the bigger the better.
> 
> Anyone can walk around lean at 240lbs. I wanna see 300lb monsters when I watch pro bodybuilding


but not all in fact very few of the mass monsters have distension and I take it from your above statement you are lean at 240??



tiger lion said:


> sugar coat it any way u want these pro bb are pumpin that much gear its impossible to say its not gonna damage their health it will fact


Its not sugar coating it is fact Paul demayo did die of a class a drug overdose and many of the others are not BB?? Using steroids at a high dose for long periods is not healthy by any means but then nor is being obese or smoking yet no one would blink an eye.......

for every name you pull out of the hat for a Pro BB who has died before 50 I will give you 500 people who have died before 50 that where not Pro BB........plus your making an assumption to the dose they use.....now you may come back with "it is obvouise they do blah blah" but truth is you have no clue, I know a handful of Pro's and I can tell you as fact that there are hundreds of guys on this forum who use much much more per week yet look like they have just started lifting.......only the genetically gifted BB become Pro's and although they do use high amounts at some point they don't as much as you and others think they do..........


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> but not all in fact very few of the mass monsters have distension and I take it from your above statement you are lean at 240??
> 
> Its not sugar coating it is fact Paul demayo did die of a class a drug overdose and many of the others are not BB?? Using steroids at a high dose for long periods is not healthy by any means but then nor is being obese or smoking yet no one would blink an eye.......
> 
> for every name you pull out of the hat for a Pro BB who has died before 50 I will give you 500 people who have died before 50 that where not Pro BB........plus your making an assumption to the dose they use.....now you may come back with "it is obvouise they do blah blah" but truth is you have no clue, I know a handful of Pro's and I can tell you as fact that there are hundreds of guys on this forum who use much much more per week yet look like they have just started lifting.......only the genetically gifted BB become Pro's and although they do use high amounts at some point they don't as much as you and others think they do..........


Of course I am. I weigh 260 in my avi. But as I say I don't think that's impressive that's my point I wanna see something that blows my mind when I watch pro bodybuilding. And the guys know the health risks when they get involved in the sport so I have no issue with how much drugs their taking. Nor do I care


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> for every name you pull out of the hat for a Pro BB who has died before 50 I will give you 500 people who have died before 50 that where not Pro BB........plus your making an assumption to the dose they use.....now you may come back with "it is obvouise they do blah blah" but truth is you have no clue, *I know a handful of Pro's and I can tell you as fact that there are hundreds of guys on this forum who use much much more per week yet look like they have just started lifting*.......only the genetically gifted BB become Pro's and although they do use high amounts at some point they don't as much as you and others think they do..........


Bang on mate. I'm fairly clueless about gear, but I know enough people who bodybuild at almost every level and of course I moderate this forum and get told about and find out about a lot of things... and from what I've seen I think the highlighted bit is very true, generally the greatest abuse (or perhaps a better term is 'over-use') of gear is by very average guys who haven't got a physique close to getting on stage - plenty of guys around 150-180lbs pinning an entire pharmacy weekly and swallowing dnp tabs like smarties, whereas generally the better the physique the more efficient and intelligent the ped use.

I often think that is one thing people miss when they look at the pros - yes they have great genetics, yes the worrk hard etc and see bodybuilding as a lifestyle not a hobby, but also they are mostly more intelligent with their gear use... if they abused the peds as often assumed then they probably wouldn't be where they are.

"It's not excess that leads to success - it's cleverness!"


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> Not saying that at all, just saying i would rather take the 3g of gear a week over the 40 cigarettes a day that someone was suggesting is probably less damaging to health...


I was referring to a 70 year old mate seeing as you pointlessly brought up trt doses but having said that I'd fancy my chances on 40 **** a day for longer than 3 grams of test lol.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

dann19900 said:


> I was referring to a 70 year old mate seeing as you pointlessly brought up trt doses but having said that I'd fancy my chances on 40 **** a day for longer than 3 grams of test lol.


I brought up trt doses to show that steroids can have benefits to health e.g hormone replacement therapy, and although they do have side effects that will be greater on higher doses, these are not on the same level as smoking, which not only has no benefits, but quite a few risks. I guess at the end of the day its pick your poison, smoke if you want instead of taking gear, you could be fine, just the risks of not being fine are higher.

Most pro bodybuilders that die young die from stimulant / diuretic use as this can have a relatively quick effect on the heart. Mess up the dosage and take 2g of gear instead of 500mg, you'll be alright, may get some sweats and insomnia if its tren. But overdose on stimulants or dieutetics and you are at serious risk


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Having seen genetics at play with my fiancee, they are a massive contribution towards muscular gain and fat losses - she's changed hugely in 4.5 months. The photos below are her before we started training and then last weekend. Also photo's in my siggy show her too.

This is since end of October. People seem to think they stick a needle in them and boom they grow like anything, when in fact like my fiancee has proven that genetics alone make normal people amazing like Yo, and I can only imagine what she'd took it further....

Before bodybuilding:










After:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Having seen genetics at play with my fiancee, they are a massive contribution towards muscular gain and fat losses - she's changed hugely in 4.5 months. The photos below are her before we started training and then last weekend. Also photo's in my siggy show her too.
> 
> This is since end of October. People seem to think they stick a needle in them and boom they grow like anything, when in fact like my fiancee has proven that genetics alone make normal people amazing like Yo, and I can only imagine what she'd took it further....
> 
> ...


I was looking through your journal last night (I will drop some comments in there later) and Yo has really progressed amazingly, is fantastic - is not just undeniably good genetics though, she has your help which counts for a good quality of experienced training and dietary advice right from the start, and that makes a massive positive difference on top of genetics.

Many people struggle not necessarily because their genetics for bodybuilding are worse than that of an earthworms, but because they do the wrong things without the appropriate planning, effort and patience. Many people seem to follow sub standard diets and training routines and reach too quickly for the d'bol, the dnp or the pin full of test as the answer.

I guess in one sense it's fine as people are of course allowed to do things however they like - ie, if they want to cut but try to achieve it with loads of drugs and not control their beer drinking kebab swallowing calorie uncontrolled diets it is their choice, but they have to except the health consequences as part of the package when they combine high use of drugs with an unhealthy lifestyle. The wider problem with that though is that these are the guys who usually end up ill, and then it gets generalized that all PEDs are dangerous to everyone.


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

dtlv said:


> I was looking through your journal last night (I will drop some comments in there later) and Yo has really progressed amazingly, is fantastic - is not just undeniably good genetics though, she has your help which counts for a good quality of experienced training and dietary advice right from the start, and that makes a massive positive difference on top of genetics.


dont forget the anavar :whistling: ...


----------



## newborn (Nov 29, 2011)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Of course I am. I weigh 260 in my avi. But as I say I don't think that's impressive that's my point I wanna see something that blows my mind when I watch pro bodybuilding. And the guys know the health risks when they get involved in the sport so I have no issue with how much drugs their taking. Nor do I care


260? are you like 6'6?

240 is near impossible to achieve lean unless you are very tall, so yea, it is VERY impressive. The general rule of thumb is half a stone for every inch of height, so someone who weighs 260 at 6'6 would weigh 204 at 5'10...


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

newborn said:


> 260? are you like 6'6?
> 
> 240 is near impossible to achieve lean unless you are very tall, so yea, it is VERY impressive. The general rule of thumb is half a stone for every inch of height, so someone who weighs 260 at 6'6 would weigh 204 at 5'10...


im 6'3


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

comparing steroids to smoking and drinking is just idiotic at best 70 percent people in the world smoke or drink so its no comparison at all to think it is is retarded


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

muscular woman are such a turn off they look like men


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

tiger lion said:


> muscular woman are such a turn off they look like men


Women can still be muscular and feminine.


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

toned yes mucular no way it looks rank dont know whether to fight them or //// em lol


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

never sleep with a woman with a bigger adams apple than mine pmsl


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

dtlv said:


> I was looking through your journal last night (I will drop some comments in there later) and Yo has really progressed amazingly, is fantastic - is not just undeniably good genetics though, she has your help which counts for a good quality of experienced training and dietary advice right from the start, and that makes a massive positive difference on top of genetics.
> 
> Many people struggle not necessarily because their genetics for bodybuilding are worse than that of an earthworms, but because they do the wrong things without the appropriate planning, effort and patience. Many people seem to follow sub standard diets and training routines and reach too quickly for the d'bol, the dnp or the pin full of test as the answer.
> 
> I guess in one sense it's fine as people are of course allowed to do things however they like - ie, if they want to cut but try to achieve it with loads of drugs and not control their beer drinking kebab swallowing calorie uncontrolled diets it is their choice, but they have to except the health consequences as part of the package when they combine high use of drugs with an unhealthy lifestyle. The wider problem with that though is that these are the guys who usually end up ill, and then it gets generalized that all PEDs are dangerous to everyone.


yeah breast implants are good genetics lol


----------



## secondhandsoul (Feb 6, 2012)

tiger lion said:


> muscular woman are such a turn off they look like men


Good job they don't spend all day training to fit your ideals then, ha!

Muscular women are hot! Id love to have a body like Rene Campbell. Muscular thighs and back are lush


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

well they should


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

secondhandsoul said:


> Good job they don't spend all day training to fit your ideals then, ha!
> 
> Muscular women are hot! Id love to have a body like Rene Campbell. Muscular thighs and back are lush


thats because most of them are more muscular than you judging by your toothpick arms lol


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

tiger lion said:


> thats because most of them are more muscular than you judging by your toothpick arms lol


ugh, for god sake, you clearly don't like bodybuilding and probably don't even train, so just do everyone a favour and stop posting on this forum.


----------



## Total Rebuild (Sep 9, 2009)

tiger lion said:


> thats because most of them are more muscular than you judging by your toothpick arms lol


errrrm.....


----------



## Sambuca (Jul 25, 2012)

swift neg on that comment


----------



## secondhandsoul (Feb 6, 2012)

tiger lion said:


> thats because most of them are more muscular than you judging by your toothpick arms lol


They're are a work in progress and I've yet to meet a women in the gym with bigger but I'll race you to 18inches. Noob.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

tiger lion said:


> thats because most of them are more muscular than you judging by your toothpick arms lol


No need for this, infraction and warning given. Please either be supportive of other members and constructive in any criticism or simply don't bother posting.


----------



## tiger lion (Feb 13, 2013)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> ugh, for god sake, you clearly don't like bodybuilding and probably don't even train, so just do everyone a favour and stop posting on this forum.


deadly you got no chance in the nabba give up now your all outta proportion to place


----------



## loganator (Mar 19, 2011)

The Cheese said:


> Although I agree the amount of drugs the top boys use is sometimes pretty senseless, don't pretend for one moment that the guys back in the 70s or 80s wouldn't have used them if they'd all been available back then. The body shape of today would have been the norm in their day if they had the same chemicals to hand.
> 
> They certainly weren't angels back then - Arnold was a big AAS user and has admitted to it.
> 
> People are gonna take what they're gonna take. If they keel over from it, they've only got themselves to blame. And if people vote for the Ronnie Coleman shape, that's up to them. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to aspire to it.


well said mate , got to say tho that id you or i took what ronnie or jay takes it doesn't mean that you would look like them in a few years time so basically i have to partly disagree about chemical warfare and say that diet hard work and genetics have more or at least as much of a role as gear


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

tiger lion said:


> most ov the people on here dont look anything like body builders just steg head wannabees


Ban this troll already


----------



## liam0810 (Jan 6, 2011)

tiger lion said:


> most ov the people on here dont look anything like body builders just steg head wannabees


I don't know what a steg head is but they sound cool and I wanna be one


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

tiger lion said:


> deadly you got no chance in the nabba give up now your all outta proportion to place


you know this how? what have you achieved in NABBA ??


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Maybe it's not pro bodybuilding itself that has lost it's way but the way that supplement companies, their contracts, the magazines and a few other things work. From what i believe the top guys don't need to buy their own steroids, growth hormone etc as its provided as long as they stick to what is in the contract of the products that they endorse.

I imagine that the bodybuilders are pimped in a way, obliged to compete, obliged to do a few other things too.

I would compare the competitive bodybuilding business to that of the music or film business, that a lot is expected of the "performers" whether they like doing certain things or not, many people end up doing some things that they hate as part of a contract.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

balance said:


> Maybe it's not pro bodybuilding itself that has lost it's way but the way that supplement companies, their contracts, the magazines and a few other things work. From what i believe the top guys don't need to buy their own steroids, growth hormone etc as its provided as long as they stick to what is in the contract of the products that they endorse.
> 
> I imagine that the bodybuilders are pimped in a way, obliged to compete, obliged to do a few other things too.
> 
> I would compare the competitive bodybuilding business to that of the music or film business, that a lot is expected of the "performers" whether they like doing certain things or not, many people end up doing some things that they hate as part of a contract.


so this is what you believe based on what?? i know a few Pro's and non of them get there gear bought for them.....

on a different note this write up on RX muscle is a good read on the subject of bloated guts...

http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/latest-news/7760-no-guts-no-glory-bloated-bodybuilders.html?hitcount=0


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

My gut is bigger this year than years before. I have to hit 6-6500 cals per day to grow and the food has to go somewhere. As I bulk, the belly is naturally rounder, its got to be digested after all. Even now when I cut i'm on 4000 calories a day, again its a lot of food to digested.

Its perhaps hard to understand when you're not having to eat so much for the size you are, but its what is needed to grow. I don't have freaky genetics either, all my gains are slow and labourious as well, its years of heavy eating.


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> so this is what you believe based on what?? i know a few Pro's and non of them get there gear bought for them.....
> 
> on a different note this write up on RX muscle is a good read on the subject of bloated guts...
> 
> http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/latest-news/7760-no-guts-no-glory-bloated-bodybuilders.html?hitcount=0


There are hints of masonic symbolism within competitive bodybuilding, that it has a darker and sinister side beyond the typical jokes, that like many types of business the ones controlling it are never the ones that take the physical risks themselves.


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

balance said:


> There are hints of masonic symbolism within competitive bodybuilding, that it has a darker and sinister side beyond the typical jokes, that like many types of business the ones controlling it are never the ones that take the physical risks themselves.


Masonic symbolism? How?


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> so this is what you believe based on what?? i know a few Pro's and non of them get there gear bought for them.....
> 
> on a different note this write up on RX muscle is a good read on the subject of bloated guts...
> 
> http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/latest-news/7760-no-guts-no-glory-bloated-bodybuilders.html?hitcount=0


The last picture at the bottom with the guy posing and his stomach sticking out that far looks so ridiculous :thumbdown:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Cactus87 said:


> The last picture at the bottom with the guy posing and his stomach sticking out that far looks so ridiculous :thumbdown:


yes but if you read the article you will see he was doing an AB roll so if put into context he does not have that gut normally......


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> yes but if you read the article you will see he was doing an AB roll so if put into context he does not have that gut normally......


I did read it, I just must have not connected the text with the pic.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> so this is what you believe based on what?? i know a few Pro's and non of them get there gear bought for them.....
> 
> on a different note this write up on RX muscle is a good read on the subject of bloated guts...
> 
> http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/latest-news/7760-no-guts-no-glory-bloated-bodybuilders.html?hitcount=0


probably my favorite bit:

"So where does this love fest for non-bloated bodybuilders come from in the first place? The obvious answer is the "classic" physiques of the 60's and 70's. But the better question is why do all types of fans almost unanimously say they prefer that style of physique over the current IFBB pro? My first guess is because it seems somewhat more attainable. The delusional minds of gym rats across the world feel the physiques of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sergio Oliva, Larry Scott, and Frank Zane all seem more attainable than Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, and Phil Heath. Guess what dreamers? The odds of looking like Arnold or Ronnie are about the same - slim to none."


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

I believe a lot of the pictures that are posted are split second shots before or after the pose is hit so people don,t get the full story.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> probably my favorite bit:
> 
> "So where does this love fest for non-bloated bodybuilders come from in the first place? The obvious answer is the "classic" physiques of the 60's and 70's. But the better question is why do all types of fans almost unanimously say they prefer that style of physique over the current IFBB pro? My first guess is because it seems somewhat more attainable. The delusional minds of gym rats across the world feel the physiques of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sergio Oliva, Larry Scott, and Frank Zane all seem more attainable than Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, and Phil Heath. Guess what dreamers? The odds of looking like Arnold or Ronnie are about the same - slim to none."


I don't buy the attainability argument - I think it's spurious posturing or a sly dig.

I suspect there are people who have no true intention, or realistic intention of approaching either physique - and I also think the "almost unanimously" is a stretch - I think there are a lot who would state they prefer the "classic" look, but as this thread and others before it have shown, there are some who would choose the contemporary look.

My belief is that there are some, probably most, who weigh-in with their opinion, and it's more of an opinion based on aesthetics - ie what they perceive as being most aesthetically pleasing - or perhaps, at a stretch what some would like to achieve. I genunely don't buy that the detractors of the looks of many contemporary bodybuilders do so purely because it's perhaps more unlikely they could achieve that look personally - I suspect many (not all, not sure about the whole majority thing) wouldn't choose to look that way, even if it was tenable that they could.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

andyhuggins said:


> I believe a lot of the pictures that are posted are split second shots before or after the pose is hit so people don,t get the full story.


you are correct, markus hayley is doing some stupid ab roll thing in free posing, which is his own fault, but with the back double biceps e.t.c you are focused on squeezing the back, and may lose focus on holding in the mid section for a second


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Jaff0 said:


> I don't buy the attainability argument - I think it's spurious posturing or a sly dig.
> 
> I suspect there are people who have no true intention, or realistic intention of approaching either physique - and I also think the "almost unanimously" is a stretch - I think there are a lot who would state they prefer the "classic" look, but as this thread and others before it have shown, there are some who would choose the contemporary look.
> 
> My belief is that there are some, probably most, who weigh-in with their opinion, and it's more of an opinion based on aesthetics - ie what they perceive as being most aesthetically pleasing - or perhaps, at a stretch what some would like to achieve. I genunely don't buy that the detractors of the looks of many contemporary bodybuilders do so purely because it's perhaps more unlikely they could achieve that look personally - I suspect many (not all, not sure about the whole majority thing) wouldn't choose to look that way, even if it was tenable that they could.


true at the end of the day it is an extremely subjective and opinion based sport as there are not any quantifiable stats so to speak, like most sports achievement and ability can be measured in terms of speed / goals / tackles e.t.c.

i just found it refreshing to hear the other side of the argument as like you say, most people do say they prefer the classic aesthetic look. I personally prefer modern bodybuilding look, well i would say i lean towards what i would call the massthetic look, like kevin levrone, shawn ray, phil heath, flex wheeler, shawn rhoden, cedric mcmillan, who all have the superior mass and conditioning to classic era bodybuilders while still maintaining a smaller waist.

I will agree classic bodybuilder look like normal people but bigger, where as the modern guys do look more unnatural / super human, but that is the nature of sport, i bet if you saw usain bolt run past you, you would think that was pretty super human aswell.

i do think the idea that classic physiques are more obtainable compared to modern ones is a phallacy though, a slightly misguided opinion. Old school and modern bodybuilder work just as hard as each other and sacrifice just as much, maybe drug use is slightly different now, or the understanding of human physiology and more time for trial and error in terms of bodybuilding has allowed the pros today to be much larger and better conditioned. But for average joe they are both vastly unnatainable and the difference between each is negligible compared to how hard it is to achieve either in the first place.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

I think 240-260lb on stage is enough weight for anyone tbh, maybe have the mass monsters there own comp if they want but for mr oly I think 240-260lb is a good size for aesthetic/size ratios


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Another thought aswell, the pros that look this way with the large abdomen probably dont want to look like that either. Taking myself for example (and probably most others) i would want to maintain proportions and develop an x-frame and be as large as possible, this would be ideal for me. BUT, if to get as large as i wanted / needed to be meant sacrificing my smaller waist, i would probably do it anyway, because i would rather be able to step on stage with the mass and conditioning to win, than look good on the beach and never achieve anything significant. This is all assuming i even have the potential to get that large in the first place.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> probably my favorite bit:
> 
> "So where does this love fest for non-bloated bodybuilders come from in the first place? The obvious answer is the "classic" physiques of the 60's and 70's. But the better question is why do all types of fans almost unanimously say they prefer that style of physique over the current IFBB pro? My first guess is because it seems somewhat more attainable. The delusional minds of gym rats across the world feel the physiques of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sergio Oliva, Larry Scott, and Frank Zane all seem more attainable than Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, and Phil Heath. Guess what dreamers? The odds of looking like Arnold or Ronnie are about the same - slim to none."


this is one of the major points in this article....



stone14 said:


> I think 240-260lb on stage is enough weight for anyone tbh, maybe have the mass monsters there own comp if they want but for mr oly I think 240-260lb is a good size for aesthetic/size ratios


you don't consider 260lbs onstage to be a mass monster?? Dorian was 257lbs in more than one of his Mr O victories and he is considered a mass monster....

what many believe is distention could very well be there transverse abdominal's as someone pointed out on another forum with everything else growing why is it hard to believe this muscle would not as well??


----------



## ryda (May 31, 2010)

Some good points here, I used to get asked what you benching? Now it's what protein shake you on? And it's always some skinny little ****e that asks me.

I've always thought Kai Greene looked abit bloated 

But how many of today's Bodybuilders could pose like Walter O'Malley? 

Or Lee Haney?



Anyone with Facebook add roger shelley!! Some great old skool photos from back in the day on there

And regarding shape I do like the modern day look but personally would rather look like an old skool body builder they just looked more natural


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

@ryda, i get what your saying, but if you put Walter O'Malley or other 60s and 70s guys up against todays top pros, they would not have the same mass or conditioning, they do look big when standing on their own, but if you stood them in a lineup it would be a different story.

And yeah they do look more natural, would you rather be usain bolt or blake as opposed to an old school olympic sprinter? becaues they would look a lot more natural running 100m that todays top athletes do. What im trying to say is the level of talent far supressing what would appear natural or human is happening in most sports, would you apply the same preference to other sports as you would to bodybuilding?


----------



## balance (Jan 9, 2011)

Cactus87 said:


> Masonic symbolism? How?












http://www.musclemissions.org/public/110.cfm

http://www.musclemissions.org/public/103.cfm

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=206996


----------



## Crushing It (Mar 24, 2013)

This isn't healthy looking or appealing at all!


----------

