Depends on the division. Big Ramy is around 5’8 and a half and supposedly steps on stage at 300lbs.
My heart hurts thinking about it
Why isn’t his opinion worth much? @brickhead has competed and has been around bodybuilding for more/less a very large portion of his adult life.
Right, and that’s why I think the title of this thread is fitting.
1 Like
It’s OK. Lol. He didn’t dismiss my statements. Plus he was replying to me and agreed.
1 Like
yes, although I’d argue Big Ramy is on a hell of a lot more than merely AAS. HGH, insulin, peptides, IGF-1, SEO’s, beta 2 agonists, Stimulants, DNP (do bodybuilders use DNP?) and more may be utilised.
Quite frankly I don’t follow bodybuilding anymore. I believe the drug abuse and toxic mentalities harboured within the competitors has gotten out of control. Not that I have an issue with steroid use per se (though admittedly it’s far from a healthy pastime), I have an issue with rampant drug abuse being rewarded or encouraged. The current mentality of rewarding prizes towards the biggest freak showing up on stage in sub par condition regardless of symmetry, proportions etc irks me.
Get back to focusing purely on aesthetics, symmetry and conditioning over sheer size and I’ll come back. A physique like that of Franco Columbu is what I believe a competitive top tier bodybuilder ought to look like. Not natural by any means, but somehow I don’t think he’s shooting slin before carb heavy meals.
Even during that time you had bodybuilders like Frank Zane who could place in or even win competitions due to superior conditioning/his aesthetic appearance.
I’ve noticed on comment sections on certain social media platforms. The standard between natural and non is being created by indviduals and agreed on by some that have no experience or time under a bar. Most of the time the standard is ridiculous low… hey you can bench 315? Boom Steroids!!! I mean my oldest has told me hes been asked about his dose amount… im like seriously?
1 Like
@eyedentist is referring to his own opinion here. “IMO” means “In my opinion”
2 Likes
It depends, I’m a pretty small guy; though I can (or could #3hernias) deadlift, bench press and OHP far more than most who are quite a bit larger than I am. When you have a guy my size maxing out on a ton of the machines it looks odd.
I don’t think I’ll be getting back into powerlifting, the toll it’s taking on my body doesn’t seem worth it. I’ll def get back into graded weightlifting (and already have despite being adamantly told not to, being sedentary was driving me nuts), but lifting heavy for the sake of heavy… nah… There are better ways to achieve aesthetic goals, the heavy lifting was about ego.
If someone my size was benching 315 for reps I’d definitely think “is he on something?” because pushing 315 for reps at my size would be considered a very elite lift.
1 Like
Well, Ramy is an outlier among outliers. But if we (the general ‘we,’ not you and I) can agree that Whitacre would weigh 265# or so as a pro, I think it’s fair to say that extra 100# of lean muscle mass would amount to a doubling (at least) of his current, ‘unassisted’ lean muscle mass.
Point of clarification: I am assuming that when OP posed the question originally, by steroids he meant PEDs generally.
I am happy to acknowledge that he knows far more than I about this subject–though perhaps not as much as Stu and RT, who seem to me to dwarf the rest of us in terms of direct experience with BBing (hence my decision to single out the two of them in my comment above).
Edited to acknowledge that the construction “single out the two of them” probably scans poorly, but I hope it conveys nevertheless.
1 Like
That’s correct. Stu has far more involvement.
Plus this isn’t that serious. Lol.
1 Like
Agreed, the sheer volume of pharmaceuticals ifbb pro’s use may equate to an extra 100lbs of extra mass (depending on starting point, a 5’1 guy adding 100lbs would be absolutely absurd)
This is absolutely beserk to think about given how difficult it is to accrue new muscle mass as a natural bodybuilder once the years go by!
I’d be more interested to ascertain the volume of excess muscle mass one theoretically keep after going off. Does prolonged, high dose AAS use create a new baseline that significantly differs from lifetime drug free status?
Say a competitive bodybuilder uses anabolic steroids for a long time, permablasing. He cruises at 300mg test/W and blasts using enormous dosages because he competes professionally in an untested league.
Ten years down the line the bodybuilder has a fat heart attack, a “widowmaker” (100% blockage LAD artery because of all that tren and winny DAMMIT) yet survives. Now he is on 100-125mg test/w as his HPTA is shot to shit.
Provided his regiment of medication is stable and he has been cleared to get back into lifting, how much excess muscle mass can he hold? I’d assume he’d look different comparative to had he been a lifetime natural.
Will the aesthetic advantage still be apparent ten years later provided the bodybuilder isn’t dead?
I don’t know what Dave Palumbo currently uses, but he looks damn good; much better than he did during his bodybuilding days.
This is both the most salient and irrefutable point to be made on the thread thus far.
3 Likes
muggsy bogues 5’3" would like a word
2 Likes
sure I missed the point. all this did is give me hope about what may be achievable on cycle.
This is actually of the utmost importance.
I can’t sleep at night without knowing whether AAS use puts on fifty extra pounds or lean tissue or seventy five pounds of excess lean tissue. I NEED to know more than anything in the world.
1 Like
That "before after’ transformation you’re looking at was achieved on like 700mg tren + test + a lot of winny. Please, do NOT try to replicate this in that given timeframe, this is not a realistic expectation to have from steroid use
2 Likes
This does happen, but from my experience, the guys on gear train harder than naturals. Maybe the guys I know are outliers? I think the using gear to not work hard thing is mostly a myth.
The guys I know I’m gear would absolutely bury most natural trainers. They just couldn’t keep up with recovery. Even using much less weight, they would be so worn out after a few workouts.
I would suggest it is a lot more than 1 in a billion if we had people willing to get to 400 plus pounds to do so. I currently know a natural closing in on 800 in wraps that is about 330. If he were to train hard and gain 100 lbs, he might be close, but this is a guy I know (and I don’t think he has 1 in a billion genetics).
This is a byproduct of the pharmacological effect AAS have on the human body. You can train harder than a natural bodybuilder and still take recreational drugs, party and eat badly.
The few I knew who used gear (probably a byproduct of my demographic) fit/fitted into the “train very hard, but often indulge in too many vices” category. As a result, likely due to anecdotal bias I am inclined to side with Frank C on this issue. I believe there is a distinct correlation between AAS use and recreational “party” drug use.
I’m aware anecdote is no substitute for clinical data, though I can link data backing my vested beliefs. It does appear as if a significant correlation exists between AAS use and psychotropic drug use.
Holy diabetes… That’s heavy
I think an important point is that most of those with elite genetics for strength and athleticism aren’t engaging in the pursuit of maximum muscle or strength because there is so much more money in other athletic pursuits.
There’s a US shot put Olympian, I forget his name, who recently put up a video of a set of 5 or so squats at 800lb.
Squats are an accessory for him, not a core lift, and while he may not be truly clean (not a debate for this thread, I think) he has at least passed the most strict of testing regimens to date so is atleast not ‘abusing’ in the way that would be possible if he were an untested powerlifter.
2 Likes