[quote]Marko Begu? wrote:
Evil Dude625 wrote:
how long do you think its been since a mr. olympia champion wasn’t on roids?
its been 18 years. 1991 olympia was drug tested[/quote]
Wait, what?
That doesn’t mean they didn’t use them during the training year, and I’m sure Marko had absolutely zero intent of saying they didn’t.
Actually I was surprised it took so long for anyone to mention that. I didn’t recall the particular year but figured someone would post it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’m sure Marko had absolutely zero intent of saying they didn’t.
[/quote]
One would hope. I can’t tell if it was sarcasm or not.
Why would it be sarcasm?
That year they weren’t on roids at the time of contest. That year is therefore the answer to the question. The question said nothing about how long since a Mr Olympia had been lifetime drug free (to which the answer would be never.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why would it be sarcasm?
That year they weren’t on roids at the time of contest. That year is therefore the answer to the question. The question said nothing about how long since a Mr Olympia had been lifetime drug free (to which the answer would be never.)[/quote]
Ehm… There’s some misinterpretation. We’re both on the same page but something was read wrong. Forget I said anything.
I think that’s when some people or magazines were saying Lee Labrada would have the best chance to unseat Lee Haney, although it did not happen of course. Does Mike Ashley still claim to be drug free - he won the the Arnold Classic (which is only second to Mr. O)?
I think the interesting question is "Can current and former Mr. Olympia winners still win if all bodybuilders were lifetime drug free? "
When chemical assitance is not avaliable, pure genetics would count a lot more. I think Dorian probably won’t win at all. His muscle shape is not on the pretty side, so without the size advantage, i doubt he have a edge over the other competitors. 220lbs Dorian vs. 220lbs Kevin Levrone or 200lbs Shawn Ray?
Sergio Oliva would probably dominate over the tall and long limbed Arnold. Shawn Ray can grab a few titles. Markus Ruhl would still be a professional engineer. Don Long could still have his orginal kidney. blah blah blah
I don’t have anything to contribute to the original question, but I can totally understand where it comes from. I know it gets done to death and it winds up a lot of people, but if you plan on being life-time natural there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find some greats from the past who made the same choices.
Only problem is it’s basically impossible. I think you just have to settle for using common sense to find a physique you can admire and try and emulate while accepting that “support” may just be one of many reasons you won’t end up looking like that. It’s an “aim for the stars end up on a mountain top” sorta thing.
[quote]Roundhead wrote:
I don’t have anything to contribute to the original question, but I can totally understand where it comes from. I know it gets done to death and it winds up a lot of people, but if you plan on being life-time natural there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find some greats from the past who made the same choices.
Only problem is it’s basically impossible. I think you just have to settle for using common sense to find a physique you can admire and try and emulate while accepting that “support” may just be one of many reasons you won’t end up looking like that. It’s an “aim for the stars end up on a mountain top” sorta thing.[/quote]
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Roundhead wrote:
I don’t have anything to contribute to the original question, but I can totally understand where it comes from. I know it gets done to death and it winds up a lot of people, but if you plan on being life-time natural there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find some greats from the past who made the same choices. Only problem is it’s basically impossible.
I think you just have to settle for using common sense to find a physique you can admire and try and emulate while accepting that “support” may just be one of many reasons you won’t end up looking like that. It’s an “aim for the stars end up on a mountain top” sorta thing.
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough.[/quote]
Wait, whaat ??
[quote]Roundhead wrote:
I don’t have anything to contribute to the original question, but I can totally understand where it comes from. I know it gets done to death and it winds up a lot of people, but if you plan on being life-time natural there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find some greats from the past who made the same choices.
Only problem is it’s basically impossible. I think you just have to settle for using common sense to find a physique you can admire and try and emulate while accepting that “support” may just be one of many reasons you won’t end up looking like that. It’s an “aim for the stars end up on a mountain top” sorta thing.[/quote]
I never really understood the ‘trying to emulate a physique’ type of mentality… as for me, while there are many physiques i admire - mine is like my fingerprint. It is personal to me.
As i progressed i began to notice what type of physique my genetics (attachments/fibre ratio… etc) allow… and this is a blocky, fairly straight lined physique - as a visual aid it would eventually be comparable to Yates, rather than (what i would prefer) a popping and rounded physique like Phil Heath.
IF i wanted to emulate a physique - it wouldn’t be the blocky and grainy look of many white bodybuilders - which i will most likely end up with, but more of a flowing aesthetic with popping muscles and a tiny waist.
The point of that lovely little personal insight(!) - is simply that attempting to emulate a physique won’t end up in achieving it, as one is destined to be a certain shape and style when holding a certain amount of muscle.
[quote] Brook wrote:
Roundhead wrote:
I don’t have anything to contribute to the original question, but I can totally understand where it comes from. I know it gets done to death and it winds up a lot of people, but if you plan on being life-time natural there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find some greats from the past who made the same choices.
Only problem is it’s basically impossible. I think you just have to settle for using common sense to find a physique you can admire and try and emulate while accepting that “support” may just be one of many reasons you won’t end up looking like that. It’s an “aim for the stars end up on a mountain top” sorta thing.
I never really understood the ‘trying to emulate a physique’ type of mentality… as for me, while there are many physiques i admire - mine is like my fingerprint. It is personal to me.
As i progressed i began to notice what type of physique my genetics (attachments/fibre ratio… etc) allow… and this is a blocky, fairly straight lined physique - as a visual aid it would eventually be comparable to Yates, rather than (what i would prefer) a popping and rounded physique like Phil Heath.
IF i wanted to emulate a physique - it wouldn’t be the blocky and grainy look of many white bodybuilders - which i will most likely end up with, but more of a flowing aesthetic with popping muscles and a tiny waist.
The point of that lovely little personal insight(!) - is simply that attempting to emulate a physique won’t end up in achieving it, as one is destined to be a certain shape and style when holding a certain amount of muscle.[/quote]
That’s a very good point. I am new to bodybuilding proper (and as such would not usually be found in the Steroid forum!), and I think most people who ask questions like the OP are too, so we have less of an idea where we can/will end up. My own personal blueprint, to use your term, hasn’t emerged yet.
I guess when I say “emulate” what I really mean is “aspire to”- physiques that I look at and get inspired to try and achieve. For example I get fired up by Steve Reeves and Reg Park, tall bodybuilders who at the very least used less drugs than our modern day pros, because they are closer to my personal circumstances- there is no value judgement involved.
But I think you are right, as my own physique becomes better developed I will probably have a better idea of what I can personally achieve and will stop looking for external blueprints.
This is all a bit of irrelevant to the OP, I was just trying to say that while I understand that a lot of bb’ers get wound up by questions like the OP, I can understand why someone would ask them.
HEY! i did NOT say flat muscles… lol!
…Buuut you are right - i think we have a very similar aesthetic actually - right down to the pec’s being a weak point.
Still - at least neither of us are the 25yr old who needs to be more manly and has acne and gyno but has never done a cycle, like the post i just read! Sucks to be HIM!
Here is an interesting article recently posted at Rx. Its about top level Pro’s and “What They Take”. I’m not sure how reliable becasue I do not have the knowledege to make that judgement, but the test doseage is mindblowing (4-5g/wk)!
Let’s look at some of the statements:
“Guys are combining short acting testosterones such as propionate and acetate for rapid response growth, then medium acting testosterones such as Cypionate and Enanthate which keeps fluctuating testosterone levels in check giving a more predictable response with a minimum of side effects, and then long acting testosterones such as undecanoate for that lingering effect after the cycle is over. Some guys add these to blended testosterones such as Sustanon, Testoviron or Sten just to make sure all the bases are covered.”
Now if Romano were simply reporting a fact of stupidity that could be a correct statement, but thing is, I think Romano himself actually believes that combining lots of different esters covers more bases. Anyway anyone who thought they were learning from this some practice that accomplishes something would have been deceived.
“Some gurus are clever enough to arrive at their charge’s optimal dose using a little process known as receptor mapping. By carefully monitoring and gradually increasing the steroids dose, one can actually “map” the steroids effect, at the receptor level in the muscle cells, until it spills over to other receptors such as those contained in the hair follicles, skin and sebaceous glands.”
Utter nonsense. Both with regards to the pharmacology and with respect to the claim that steroid gurus employ or say they employ “receptor mapping.” (Not positive on this next point, but I think it is ripped off almost verbatim from Bill Phillips’ book. If not, then almost verbatim from a differing old and outdated source.)
“Combining GH, IGF-1, and short and medium duration insulin creates a biological environment that’s sole purpose is to potentate IGF-1 activity.”
No.
“HCG is also anti-catabolic.”
No.
However the part about a significant number of pros using amounts such as 4 g/week is accurate.
Haha I love when you give your input on these articles. I would have thought that more test after a certain point (1-1.5g) would not yield better results.
What happens, in general, is that a receptor binding curve (blood levels vs. percent of receptors bound) is an asymptotic curve. That is to say, a curve that constantly gets closer to but never quite reaches some limit, such as 100%.
This is I think (I don’t know recall the equation, it’s been a long time) a reasonable illustration even though not absolutely exactly correct:
Say you have a level that is already binding some high percentage of receptors, such as 80%. Doubling the level might split the difference between that and 100%, and same for further doublings.
So double that level might achieve about 90% receptor binding. Doubling it yet again might achieve about 95%. Further doubling beyond that might achieve about 97.5%, etc.
I no longer have any copies of my old articles for Dan Duchaine’s Dirty Dieting newsletter. (I could, or in the past could have, bought copies online but I don’t care to do so.) But one of the articles was on dose/response relationship. Using the correct equation and what rather little data is scientifically available on dose/response, interestingly enough the fairly flat part of the curve did wind up being reached at about the 4 g/level, though predicted percent binding is very nearly as good at the 2 g/week level and still certainly a high percent of that at the 1 g/week level.
From the standpoint of practical evidence: There’s a lot of difference between 500 mg/week testosterone and 1 g/week. Some further improvement, but not nearly the increment, for 2 g/week. (And that difference typically will not be apparent unless already having gotten about as much as one can out of 1 g/week in the first place.) I do not have sufficient practical information to say with accuracy on what apparent improvement there is between 2 g/week and 4 g/week. I understand it to be small in practice, and scientifically would not expect it to be zero.
I also would expect that similarly to the 2 g/week vs 1 g/week case, unless one has seemingly pretty much plateau’d out at 2 g/week, 4 g/week would not yield significantly different results.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What happens, in general, is that a receptor binding curve (blood levels vs. percent of receptors bound) is an asymptotic curve. That is to say, a curve that constantly gets closer to but never quite reaches some limit, such as 100%.
This is I think (I don’t know recall the equation, it’s been a long time) a reasonable illustration even though not absolutely exactly correct:
Say you have a level that is already binding some high percentage of receptors, such as 80%. Doubling the level might split the difference between that and 100%, and same for further doublings.
So double that level might achieve about 90% receptor binding. Doubling it yet again might achieve about 95%. Further doubling beyond that might achieve about 97.5%, etc.
I no longer have any copies of my old articles for Dan Duchaine’s Dirty Dieting newsletter. (I could, or in the past could have, bought copies online but I don’t care to do so.) But one of the articles was on dose/response relationship. Using the correct equation and what rather little data is scientifically available on dose/response, interestingly enough the fairly flat part of the curve did wind up being reached at about the 4 g/level, though predicted percent binding is very nearly as good at the 2 g/week level and still certainly a high percent of that at the 1 g/week level.
From the standpoint of practical evidence: There’s a lot of difference between 500 mg/week testosterone and 1 g/week. Some further improvement, but not nearly the increment, for 2 g/week. (And that difference typically will not be apparent unless already having gotten about as much as one can out of 1 g/week in the first place.) I do not have sufficient practical information to say with accuracy on what apparent improvement there is between 2 g/week and 4 g/week. I understand it to be small in practice, and scientifically would not expect it to be zero.
I also would expect that similarly to the 2 g/week vs 1 g/week case, unless one has seemingly pretty much plateau’d out at 2 g/week, 4 g/week would not yield significantly different results.[/quote]
Its funny you write this - i was arguing this point in another thread - simply the dose response curve being related to steroids binding to the androgen receptors.
Am i correct in assuming this would be one of the major causes for the tapering off in desired results in ALL AAS, but not the only cause as AAS have non-AR mediated effects too?
And that side effects will also have a similar curve, as the hormones that cause the most side effects (Estrogen and DHT) also need receptors to bind to - BUT they are more noticeable in the higher doses as they are not desired?
Generally yes.