But Arnold openly admitted to steroid use. So if you agree to Lacour being natural because he proclaims he is, wouldn’t it be unfair to compare the two anyway?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.[/quote]
If you truly believe that in the last 50 years nothing has changed as far as training and nutrition, you clearly don’t even follow weight lifting or bodybuilding much at all. Bodybuilders no longer spend 3-4 hours in the gym at a time to build size. They no longer have to rely on poor quality protein supplements made from liver that tasted like shit.
Did you actually write that bodybuilders didn’t have off seasons back then? Arnold was known as “smooth” when he first got to this country because of how much more size he put on between contests.
If you think steroids are needed today for someone who is 6’2" to reach 215lbs then I have no doubt your own progress is about as impressive as watching the average fat chick eat a donut.
Have a great one. People like you hold back other people’s progress. We would appreciate it if you simply moved out of the way.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).
Is he functional though?
LOL. Yup, his muscle is perfectly suited for winning natural BB’ing championships. ;)[/quote]
But what if he had to balance on a bosu ball. Could he do that?
How did this thread go from people at/around 6’ complaining about how it is difficult to get up/over 200lbs to retards bitching about whether some obscure bodybuilder was either 215 or 216?
This is the internet everyone; chill the f*ck out.
OP, define your goals and keep your eyes on them my friend. Don’t let anyone on here make you think they are not tangible. You have a lot of tall brothers on your side doing the same thing.
Something interesting which I found over at AP:
note2: The guy is pretty short, I believe, hence the low weight in general.
Interesting thing, though. Arnold’s kind of routine vs. a more modern approach.
Also: Arnold and most of the guys in his day and age had comparatively skinny legs… Too much running for cardio imo, or maybe trying to shoot for different upper/lower ratios…
Add to that diet focused on high carbs, extremely low fat and kinda low protein.
Try growing off all that and you pretty much have to be arnold and on assistance to make any kind of progress…
[quote]Frank.S wrote:
I agree with everyone. 6 feet tall and <200lbs unless in contest shape is rarely going to look big.
Im 5’9 and just over 240lbs, I dont feel any bigger then when i was 165lbs. I know I am bigger, ive gone from wearing medium to xxl shirts.
I cut down to 218lbs a few month ago and was lean (not contest shape though). Felt insanely small. I wasn’t even sure if people knew I lifted.
Your mind can play funny tricks with your body size. Same reason why some 160lbs kids think they are huge, maybe.[/quote]
Your green chucks are what make you still look small. (dmw)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.
If you truly believe that in the last 50 years nothing has changed as far as training and nutrition, you clearly don’t even follow weight lifting or bodybuilding much at all. Bodybuilders no longer spend 3-4 hours in the gym at a time to build size. They no longer have to rely on poor quality protein supplements made from liver that tasted like shit.
Did you actually write that bodybuilders didn’t have off seasons back then? Arnold was known as “smooth” when he first got to this country because of how much more size he put on between contests.
If you think steroids are needed today for someone who is 6’2" to reach 215lbs then I have no doubt your own progress is about as impressive as watching the average fat chick eat a donut.
Have a great one. People like you hold back other people’s progress. We would appreciate it if you simply moved out of the way.[/quote]
Jesus Christ. Ever single statement of mine in your post, you somehow managed to fuck up.
-
I did not say “nothing” has changed. I said the only “big change” was the drugs. If you’d like you can replace the word “big” with “significant”. Training on nautilus machines isn’t going to magically add 50 pounds of mass to a natural trainee who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to get it.
-
When I said “back then” I wasn’t talking about arnold, I was talking about steve reeves. Steve reeves was the 1950s, arnold was the 70s. Try and at least get the decade right.
-
Did I say someone who’s 6’2 needs steroids to get up to 215? Wrong, as a matter of fact I named two guys who actually did it before Dbol was even invented.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Oh look, a post full of questions tangentially related to my post at best with little to no actual substance of it’s own.
[/quote]
Well I didn’t want to mess up your streak of substance free posts. 
Right, except that Ronnie and Jay didn’t compete in DRUG TESTED competitions once they turned pro/with that level of muscularity. Lacour did.
Why not? You think that Arnold won every one of those Olympia titles because he had the best genetics on stage in every competition? Both Mentzer and Oliva had better genetics than arnold IMO. The only reason Arnold won a number of Olympias (some I’d say were legit) was because he was Joe Weider’s man crush.
Besides, who says that Arnold trained optimally? Maybe Lacour’s training methods and/or dietary practices were superior, allowing him to get more out of his body.
[quote]
I’m not buying it.[/quote]
Of course not, because that would prove you wrong.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
-
I did not say “nothing” has changed. I said the only “big change” was the drugs. If you’d like you can replace the word “big” with “significant”. Training on nautilus machines isn’t going to magically add 50 pounds of mass to a natural trainee who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to get it.
-
When I said “back then” I wasn’t talking about arnold, I was talking about steve reeves. Steve reeves was the 1950s, arnold was the 70s. Try and at least get the decade right.
-
Did I say someone who’s 6’2 needs steroids to get up to 215? Wrong, as a matter of fact I named two guys who actually did it before Dbol was even invented.
[/quote]
Wait, let me guess, 15" arms or smaller and a “hardgainer”.
You wrote this earlier:
We would have to be a competitor to get there in the first place? Really? Because weighing over 215lbs is such a hard task?
It has been explained to you. Judging by your current perspective, I am doubting going round and round with you is going to do anything but waste my time so I will leave it at this;
Being able to easily find a good tasting protein shake that doesn’t cost a fortune that quickly gives you 40+gr of protein a pop can change a lot in and of itself. I wouldn’t be the size I am now if it weren’t for MRP’s and the 2-3 protein shakes I drink everyday. If I had to rely on solid food for all of that, I would probably still be less than 230lbs since I don’t have the time to eat the same amount in steaks all day long. These are things you don’t have to worry about when you weigh under 190lbs.
For some strange reason, you don’t think changes like that are BIG CHANGES or that this alone could lead to even bigger muscles being built than 50 years ago.
It is no mystery that your profile doesn’t have your stats listed.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.
Really?
So, then the bodybuilders had offseasons back then? Oh wait, nope you already said they didn’t. You truly don’t believe that makes a difference? Well then why do today’s BB’ers have offseasons? And do you truly believe that none of the weight that BB’ers lose during a cut is muscle weight?
Second, most guys back then trained with full body programs. Today’s top guys train with splits. And again, you don’t think this makes a difference?
Seriously, just think about the improvements that have been made in terms of nutrition, training, and rest methods in all areas of athletics. These areas are not stagnant entities, they are constantly improving and evolving, which is pretty obvious by the fact that today’s athletes have pretty much smashed any and all records set by athletes during Reeves and Park’s time period. You truly don’t think that BB’ing falls into this category as well?
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).
What’s his best time on combat pyramids? eh? eh?
[/quote]
LOL. To this day I have no idea what the hell those are. I even tried googling it a while back with no luck.
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).
Is he functional though?
LOL. Yup, his muscle is perfectly suited for winning natural BB’ing championships. 
But what if he had to balance on a bosu ball. Could he do that?[/quote]
You mean while holding up all his BB’ing trophies? Yup, probably.
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
[quote]elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?[/quote]
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Right, except that Ronnie and Jay didn’t compete in DRUG TESTED competitions once they turned pro/with that level of muscularity. Lacour did.
[/quote]
Steroids aren’t used continuously. They’re used in cycles so if someone knew what they were doing they could easily get the drugs out of their system in time for a competition. So the premise that he must be natural because the competitions are drug tested doesn’t mean jack.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait, let me guess, 15" arms or smaller and a “hardgainer”.
You wrote this earlier:
You’d have to be a competitive bodybuilder to get there in the first place considering Steve Reeves and Reg Park were both 6’2 and were barely able to make it to 215.
We would have to be a competitor to get there in the first place? Really? Because weighing over 215lbs is such a hard task?
It has been explained to you. Judging by your current perspective, I am doubting going round and round with you is going to do anything but waste my time so I will leave it at this;
Being able to easily find a good tasting protein shake that doesn’t cost a fortune that quickly gives you 40+gr of protein a pop can change a lot in and of itself. I wouldn’t be the size I am now if it weren’t for MRP’s and the 2-3 protein shakes I drink everyday. If I had to rely on solid food for all of that, I would probably still be less than 230lbs since I don’t have the time to eat the same amount in steaks all day long. These are things you don’t have to worry about when you weigh under 190lbs.
For some strange reason, you don’t think changes like that are BIG CHANGES or that this alone could lead to even bigger muscles being built than 50 years ago.
It is no mystery that your profile doesn’t have your stats listed.[/quote]
Wait, let me guess. You can’t debate my argument on it’s merits so you’re resorting to infantile personal attacks.
If you’re six foot (give or take an inch)and at single digit bodyfat, yes you would have to be training at a competitive level.
Yes, protein shakes have made things easier for you, but you’d never have even gotten to the point where you’d need that much protein if it weren’t for Dbol, so give the credit where it’s due.
And to clarify my position on nutritional and training advances over the last 50 years. I think they make things easier for someone to build muscle. I don’t think it’s going to make them look like Dorian Yates.
If you are now arguing that Skip isn’t natural, no one should waste any more time on you. For people like you, no matter what anyone says, if they make more progress than you think they can, you will accuse them of whatever. However, the fact that you think “D-bol” is what pros are using in majority or is what is responsible for the size of these guys today shows how clueless you are.
The fact that you think most pro bodybuilders are “cycling” REALLY shows how out of touch you are.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.[/quote]
How do you know a priori whether or not your genetics are average? Judging by your “before” picture, people would say you had below average “genetics.” Seems to me that hard work and determination compensate for "genetics. A lot of people just like to blame their equipment.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.
How do you know a priori whether or not your genetics are average? Judging by your “before” picture, people would say you had below average “genetics.” Seems to me that hard work and determination compensate for "genetics. A lot of people just like to blame their equipment. [/quote]
That’s what I was getting at. He is the one who asked about “average genetics”. If he already thinks he has average genetics, he won’t be making anything but “average progress”.
It seems like a shit load of people today love limiting themselves before they ever actually do anything.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.[/quote]
What I mean is people who are not genetic freaks. Guys who start off at 6" 140lbs and lift hard and eat like they should for 10 years or however long it would take.
[quote]elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.
What I mean is people who are not genetic freaks. Guys who start off at 6" 140lbs and lift hard and eat like they should for 10 years or however long it would take.[/quote]
What I’m trying to get you to understand is that genetics do NOT just apply to what someone started with. They also apply to how fast someone makes gains once everything is in order.
That same skinny guy you mentioned could very well gain 50+lbs of muscle quicker than most. Maybe he simply wasn’t eating enough before.
These are things no one can predict UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DO IT.
While you can tell someone is genetically above average based on bone structure and initial muscle mass, there is also the flip side which includes the untrained guy who you can’t tell one way or the other until they get big.
Lou Ferrigno was a skinny kid. He is also considered a “freak”.
[quote]elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
So is 250 natural even possible for a hard lifter with average genetics?
If you have “average genetics”, why would you expect above average results? The person who could do that wouldn’t think of themselves as “average”.
What I mean is people who are not genetic freaks. Guys who start off at 6" 140lbs and lift hard and eat like they should for 10 years or however long it would take.[/quote]
You can train 20 years and still look the same or only marginally better than before if you don’t increase your poundages enough.
It will take as long as it takes you to get strong enough for moderate to high reps to sport such a physique.
250 in comp shape for a natty at that height is probably pretty much top of the line and will likely require an off-season weight of 310-320 or so…
If you didn’t mean competition shape, then yes, 250 is quite achievable.
I’m saying all this assuming that you can force down around 500 grams of protein a day and make sure you get your working weights or reps up every time you train.
You’ll have to work on your mental approach to things, though.