This reflects what I think.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
This reflects what I think.[/quote]
Good for you…so why are you posting here?
Of all of the people on this forum from writers to posters, Chris Shugart has to be the least credible as far as knowledge about bodybuilding. If that hasn’t been proven by now, I am not sure what will.
So again, why do people with that mentality love posting in the bodybuilding forum so much?
I REALLY want to know.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
This reflects what I think.[/quote]
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
CPerfringens wrote:
This reflects what I think.
[/quote]
LOL!
It’s always a common them with people like CPerfringens, they look like shit, are very weak, see bodybuilders, get jealous, and cry about it.
How’s that 225 bench press working for you CP? Want me to curl that a few times real fast?
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
CPerfringens wrote:
This reflects what I think.
[/quote]
lmao
RSGZ that is an accurate description of the beginners forum at times.
Freaky shoulders & quads are better.
[quote]xxxwtfxxx wrote:
bodybuilders like arnold,lou and serge win in my book if u put them agaist jay cutler,ronnie,or dennis wolf.but why do they have a diffrent shape then bodybuilders today?is it the way they train or supplements or what and NO i am not trolling.[/quote]
1)Biggest reason I think these guys are bigger is that their core is bigger. Back in Arnold and Zane’s day, there was a focus to have a smaller stomach. To the point that many of the champs would avoid stomach exercises, or excess stomach exercises to minimize size at the waist. A small waist even if it means no muscle has always been aesthetically appealing to the laymen. For a majority of the “mass monster” era, muscle was more important then tiny stomach. By small I don’t mean lack of fat but lack of muscle too, minimizing obliques and everything.
-
Of course supplements are better it’s been 50 years of advancements in bodybuilding supplements both legal and illegal.
-
They start off bigger. People are just bigger nowadays from regular people to athletes to bodybuilders. Food contains more calories and easier to obtain.
4)Young people don’t have the old myths associated with weights— growth stunt, lack of athletecism, small dick. They start off lifting alot younger now.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Food contains more calories and
[/quote]
steroids.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Why can’t “purists” let people theorize that it is INDEED substance abuse that’s ONE OF the factors?
Read IDs first post. Holy fuck.
They had completely different standards in the 60’s. No one was even trying to build legs up like people today. They didn’t even start to focus on that until the 80’s around the time that Tom Platz hit the scene. Like all things in bodybuilding, those who take things to an extreme help redefine the sport. To jump over all of that and blame “substance abuse” isn’t just short sighted, it takes away from the hard work of the guys competing today.
Most of the people even making these threads about how great guys were in the 60’s completely ignore current bodybuilding which is why Ronnie Coleman gets mentioned first when he isn’t even the current Mr. O…Dex is. [/quote]
Interestingly Platz was around and ‘known’ from about 1975 (he started competing as an amateur in 1973) and turned pro in 1978, so i am guessing that you saying that legs weren’t prioritized until the 80’s is probably not completely accurate ?
[quote]porkpie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Why can’t “purists” let people theorize that it is INDEED substance abuse that’s ONE OF the factors?
Read IDs first post. Holy fuck.
They had completely different standards in the 60’s. No one was even trying to build legs up like people today. They didn’t even start to focus on that until the 80’s around the time that Tom Platz hit the scene. Like all things in bodybuilding, those who take things to an extreme help redefine the sport. To jump over all of that and blame “substance abuse” isn’t just short sighted, it takes away from the hard work of the guys competing today.
Most of the people even making these threads about how great guys were in the 60’s completely ignore current bodybuilding which is why Ronnie Coleman gets mentioned first when he isn’t even the current Mr. O…Dex is.
Interestingly Platz was around and ‘known’ from about 1975 (he started competing as an amateur in 1973) and turned pro in 1978, so i am guessing that you saying that legs weren’t prioritized until the 80’s is probably not completely accurate ?[/quote]
Or better yet that you don’t have any personal knowledge of how things occurred. Platz didn’t start getting huge recognition for those massive quads (including many mag articles about them along with supplement endorsements) until the mid to late 80’s. I didn’t say that as soon as he started competing he changed development standards.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
This reflects what I think.[/quote]
please leave then
While, I tend to learn a lot about some details about the history/sport of bodybuilding (versus training), the premise of these threads annoy me.
It’s nearly impossible to compare today’s standards to those decades ago in just about any sport. You can talk about the greatest quarterbacks and linebackers from the 50’s and 60’s, but can you really compare them to today’s?
Not really, at least not without some qualifiers, like they do when you talk about money from long ago (adjusting for inflation), and even then, the time periods are not really compatible. Rules change, equipment changes, medical procedures changes, motivational influences change, etc.
Hell, same with race cars, and I’d sooner lump bodybuilding in with a race car analogy-- taking something to the extreme of its potential at that time. In any decade, race cars and bodybuilders usher in the standards for the next generation, sometimes that takes a decade or more.
Jeez, nutritional ‘standards’ for bodybuilders 30-40 years ago (like low-carb diets) have only gone mainstream in the past decade or so.
Todays athletes are all bigger, faster, and stronger than the last generation. It’s a continuum, and each is a stepping stone to the next. Are they more ‘aesthetic’? Well, that really boils down to who’s defining the aestheic at that time — and that standard changes year to year.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that Zane or Arnold are the best, or that Ronnie Coleman is the best, etc., but what you can’t argue is that the older generation set the standards of their day, and someone eventually came along and set a new standard for a new generation.
Better? I don’t know. Different? Definetly. Higher? depends on how you define ‘higher’, but today’s BB’ers are bigger and dryer than yesteryear’s.
Personally, the more I learn about this stuff, the more I respect all of them-- the golden years for forging the path with no information and little in the way of supplements (by today’s standards) and today’s guys for pushing the envelope even further.
If you’re a hardcore ‘golden age’ bb fan, then you have to understand that times have changed. Those guys were exploring new continents. Today’s guys are exploring new planets.
If you’re a hardcore ‘new age’ bb fan, you have to understand that without the older generation, there would BE no new generation…
^ That was really well-said SteelyD
What do I think the culprit is here for the mass monsters of today? HGH. The guys didn’t appear until the 80’s, which is right when HGH appeared and became mainstream among bodybuilders. HGH doesn’t just cause hypertrophy and hyperplasia with the skeletal muscle; it causes hypertrophy and hyperplasia in the smooth and even cardiac muscle cells. Hence the HGH gut. Also, just look at the bone structures on some of these guys. Their heads look completely different. Just look at Jay Cutler from when he was 18 until now. It’s freaky.
[quote]guitarlifter wrote:
What do I think the culprit is here for the mass monsters of today? HGH. The guys didn’t appear until the 80’s, which is right when HGH appeared and became mainstream among bodybuilders. HGH doesn’t just cause hypertrophy and hyperplasia with the skeletal muscle; it causes hypertrophy and hyperplasia in the smooth and even cardiac muscle cells. Hence the HGH gut. Also, just look at the bone structures on some of these guys. Their heads look completely different. Just look at Jay Cutler from when he was 18 until now. It’s freaky.[/quote]
Wait…you mean to tell me that someone looks different after 15+ years? OH DEAR GOD NO!!!
[quote]guitarlifter wrote:
What do I think the culprit is here for the mass monsters of today? HGH. The guys didn’t appear until the 80’s, which is right when HGH appeared and became mainstream among bodybuilders. HGH doesn’t just cause hypertrophy and hyperplasia with the skeletal muscle; it causes hypertrophy and hyperplasia in the smooth and even cardiac muscle cells. Hence the HGH gut. Also, just look at the bone structures on some of these guys. Their heads look completely different. Just look at Jay Cutler from when he was 18 until now. It’s freaky.[/quote]
I doubt theres even a slight chance you will watch the Mr O this year but in the off chance that you do pay close attention to Jay Cutler. Tell me if you see the gut that he is apparently notorious for. Some people know where I am going with this but I know that most reading this already assume that Cutler will look exactly the same as he has in the past.
EVERYONE IN THE 2009 OLYMPIA USES hGH. NOT EVERYONE ON THE STAGE WILL HAVE A GUT.
And since you haven’t the slightest clue who’s using how much of what drug, your argument is pointless.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
g
I doubt theres even a slight chance you will watch the Mr O this year but in the off chance that you do pay close attention to Jay Cutler. Tell me if you see the gut that he is apparently notorious for. Some people know where I am going with this but I know that most reading this already assume that Cutler will look exactly the same as he has in the past.
EVERYONE IN THE 2009 OLYMPIA USES hGH. NOT EVERYONE ON THE STAGE WILL HAVE A GUT.
And since you haven’t the slightest clue who’s using how much of what drug, your argument is pointless. [/quote]
You insinuated a great point here bonez…the people who have such a problem with bodybuilding likely have never watched the olympia. hell, they likely haven’t followed bodybuilding until they decided they wanted to “work out” and 200 lbs was a lofty goal
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
guitarlifter wrote:
What do I think the culprit is here for the mass monsters of today? HGH. The guys didn’t appear until the 80’s, which is right when HGH appeared and became mainstream among bodybuilders. HGH doesn’t just cause hypertrophy and hyperplasia with the skeletal muscle; it causes hypertrophy and hyperplasia in the smooth and even cardiac muscle cells. Hence the HGH gut. Also, just look at the bone structures on some of these guys. Their heads look completely different. Just look at Jay Cutler from when he was 18 until now. It’s freaky.
I doubt theres even a slight chance you will watch the Mr O this year but in the off chance that you do pay close attention to Jay Cutler. Tell me if you see the gut that he is apparently notorious for. Some people know where I am going with this but I know that most reading this already assume that Cutler will look exactly the same as he has in the past.
EVERYONE IN THE 2009 OLYMPIA USES hGH. NOT EVERYONE ON THE STAGE WILL HAVE A GUT.
And since you haven’t the slightest clue who’s using how much of what drug, your argument is pointless. [/quote]
Jay does have a much larger gut than he had when he was younger. His isn’t quite as bad as others (think Dorian Yates), but there’s no way his waist is from “his blocky structure and thickly-muscled midsection.” Jay has also had structural changes in his face over the years. But don’t get hung up on my reference of Jay Cutler for I was only using him as an example and in no way saying that he is the poster-child of HGH.
And I follow the Olympia every year via pay per view (or internet like webcast) and have done so for many years. I’ve also reviewed and researched every year of the Olympia so don’t try to give your “argument” merit by trying to demerit my knowledge in a subject without actually fronting a sound reason for doing so.
Also, I agree that it’s probably true that everyone uses HGH in different amounts that contends for the Sandow granted in different doses, but regardless, you contradicted yourself in first making a claim of which you have no proof, then stating that I don’t have a clue of how much of what drug each bodybuilder is taking, which is true, but neither do you. It’s a simple case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Regardless, of course not everyone who uses HGH is going to have an HGH gut. HGH is not some outlier when it comes to drugs having different effects on different people where everyone is going to see the exact same effect from a certain drug. Everyone responds differently to different drugs or just doesn’t use enough HGH to induce the hyperplasia of smooth muscle tissue or change in facial structure as well as other bones prone to HGH’s effects.
Overall, my statement from my first post stands. My argument was that HGH has been a large factor in the evolution of the shape and size of bodybuilders. It’s naive and silly to think that statement of mine applies to all bodybuilders and is the only contributing factor to the changes in bodybuilders over the years. Anyhow, I openly welcome you to politely argue my statement and not attack the person.
[quote]guitarlifter wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
guitarlifter wrote:
What do I think the culprit is here for the mass monsters of today? HGH. The guys didn’t appear until the 80’s, which is right when HGH appeared and became mainstream among bodybuilders. HGH doesn’t just cause hypertrophy and hyperplasia with the skeletal muscle; it causes hypertrophy and hyperplasia in the smooth and even cardiac muscle cells. Hence the HGH gut. Also, just look at the bone structures on some of these guys. Their heads look completely different. Just look at Jay Cutler from when he was 18 until now. It’s freaky.
I doubt theres even a slight chance you will watch the Mr O this year but in the off chance that you do pay close attention to Jay Cutler. Tell me if you see the gut that he is apparently notorious for. Some people know where I am going with this but I know that most reading this already assume that Cutler will look exactly the same as he has in the past.
EVERYONE IN THE 2009 OLYMPIA USES hGH. NOT EVERYONE ON THE STAGE WILL HAVE A GUT.
And since you haven’t the slightest clue who’s using how much of what drug, your argument is pointless.
Jay does have a much larger gut than he had when he was younger. His isn’t quite as bad as others (think Dorian Yates), but there’s no way his waist is from “his blocky structure and thickly-muscled midsection.” Jay has also had structural changes in his face over the years. But don’t get hung up on my reference of Jay Cutler for I was only using him as an example and in no way saying that he is the poster-child of HGH. And I follow the Olympia every year via pay per view and have done so for many years. I’ve also reviewed and researched every year of the Olympia so don’t try to give your “argument” merit by trying to demerit my knowledge in a subject without actually fronting a sound reason for doing so.
Also, I agree that it’s probably true that everyone uses HGH in different amounts that contends for the Sandow granted in different doses, but regardless, you contradicted yourself in first making a claim of which you have no proof, then stating that I don’t have a clue of how much of what drug each bodybuilder is taking, which is true, but neither do you. It’s a simple case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Regardless, of course not everyone who uses HGH is going to have an HGH gut. HGH is not some outlier when it comes to drugs having different effects on different people where everyone is going to see the exact same effect from a certain drug. Everyone responds differently to different drugs or just doesn’t use enough HGH to induce the hyperplasia of smooth muscle tissue or change in facial structure as well as other bones prone to HGH’s effects.
Overall, my statement from my first post stands. My argument was that HGH has been a large factor in the evolution of the shape and size of bodybuilders. It’s naive and silly to think that statement of mine applies to all bodybuilders and is the only contributing factor to the changes in bodybuilders over the years. Anyhow, I openly welcome you to politely argue my statement and not attack the person.[/quote]
If a bodybuilder can trim his waist like has been seen on many pros lately, then abdominal protrusion is not the result of acromegaly. Most of you making these statements have never weighed over 250lbs. The amount of food it takes for someone to maintain that kind of size on a relatively lean physique is massive when compared to the diet of someone only 200lbs.
If you see a pic of Kai Greene in the off season and his stomach sticks out a little, you would have to be pretty naive to ignore the fact that the man eats several pounds of meat daily all day long in some attempt to blame GH.
Overall body structure is the other issue because to carry near 300lbs of mass on a frame that may be under 6 feet tall requires a wider waist for support. You don’t see anyone weighing 300lbs at 5’10" or shorter with a tiny wasp waist. That would look ridiculous.
While gh may actually be the cause in some cases, I doubt most of you who are most opinionated actually have the medical background to diagnose acromegaly from a picture.
Jean Pierre Fux was one who I truly believe had overgrowth of internal organs. Nasser el Sonbatty as well. However, anyone even focusing on the negative at this point when there have been so many clear improvements on the pro stage is just looking for shit to complain about.
A slightly protruding gut on someone north of 250lbs does NOT equal GH abuse alone.
I prefer old school sprinters like Percy Williams to todays runners like Usain Bolt. Sprinters are just getting too fast now, theyve pushed it to far, they are so far away from the general population. I prefer people that run at a more “normal” pace.
Thats why I go onto lots of sprinting forums, and criticise Usains long legs and his super genetics, and show how much better Percy Williams was, because it makes me feel better about being a worthless cretin and not being able to improve my sprinting times by even 0.1s in the last year of training.