10 guys the size of Arnold in “any real gym” and they aren’t using steroids?
First - It is 100% no mystery why there are many more large guys (the size of Arnold) today than there were 40 years ago - increased quality and access to steroids. Also, just to be clear, I’m not whining about this! I don’t care. This is what it takes to be competitive at the top of that particular game, and I accepted that a long ago. You can get big as a natural and look damn good, but you will not look like these people or perform like them on the platform.
Second - Constantly jacked up insulin works incredibly well when you are on gear/GH. This is why Pros are injecting insulin non-stop. It doesn’t work so well if you are natty, though, particularly if you have been training for a long time. You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. If you are a natty trainee, melting chocolate bars in your mouth to keep insulin peaked because you are too full from stuffing your face with food all day will do absolute fuck all but make you fat and buy you an express ticket to early type 2 'beetus.
The only way I think you could get away with this is if you were an olympic caliber athlete who was working out 8 hours a day, and even then it would be a suspect nutritional approach.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I agree, then. One needs to really consider his or her own goals first and not blindy accept what other people are doing.
My only point was that AAS use is a very important consideration when planning a diet, and when comparing one’s diet against another’s. Many people in the beginner stages don’t realize.[/quote]
I also think it has gotten so much attention lately that people now use this to say that “no natural can gain more than x amount”…which is happening all over the forum.
People use “steroids” to now mean you can’t get really big without it…because they are only looking at guys who compete in natural bodybuilding and don’t understand that different structures mean way different looks. It has become the “period” at the end of discussions as if all bets are off even looking at what someone does because steroids were involved.
Look, Dave Tate’s idea was to USE insulin to gain even more muscle in the long run.
It is why I am writing this now…because this strategy is WHY there are like 10 guys the relative size of Arnold today in any real gym and there was ONLY ONE 60 years ago.
It isn’t just the “steroids”…and the biggest guys seem to still be doing it the same way.[/quote]
There must not be many “real” gyms in the nation, because there sure as hell aren’t a lot of guys the size of Arnold running around, natty or not
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
What’s hillarious is that after you or someone else quoted Tate saying that about 4 McD’s sandwiches in one sitting(among others), you praised it as genius etc. I only mentioned your results because you offer so little to back up your theories that the only thing remaining is to see if you live up to them yourself.[/quote]
This entire paragraph is nonsensical. I quoted an entire discussion with Dave Tate…so you now think I believe every single word that he does because I said he is a genius?
How does that make sense to anyone?[/quote]
Wow! You’re such a lying w… Here’s your actual quote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Go about 3/4 of the way down for a ridiculous Dave Tate anecdote about bulking.[/quote]
[quote]“For breakfast you need to eat four of those breakfast sandwiches from McDonalds. I don’t care which ones you get, but make sure to get four. Order four hash browns, too. Now grab two packs of mayonnaise and put them on the hash browns and then slip them into the sandwiches. Squish that shit down and eat. That’s your breakfast.”
At this point I’m thinking this guy is nuts. But he’s completely serious.
“For lunch you’re gonna eat Chinese food. Now I don’t want you eating that crappy stuff. You wanna get the stuff with MSG. None of that non-MSG bullshit. I don’t care what you eat but you have to sit down and eat for at least 45 minutes straight. You can’t let go of the fork. Eat until your eyes swell up and become slits and you start to look like the woman behind the counter.”
“For dinner you’re gonna order an extra-large pizza with everything on it. Literally everything. If you don’t like sardines, don’t put 'em on, but anything else that you like you have to load it on there. After you pay the delivery guy, I want you to take the pie to your coffee table, open that fucker up, and grab a bottle of oil. It can be olive oil, canola oil, whatever. Anything but motor oil. And I want you to pour that shit over the pie until half of the bottle is gone. Just soak the shit out of it.”
“Now before you lay into it, I want you to sit on your couch and just stare at that fucker. I want you to understand that that pizza right there is keeping you from your goals.”
This guy is in a zen-like state when he’s talking about this.
“Now you’re on the clock,” he continues. "After 20 minutes your brain is going to tell you you’re full. Don’t listen to that shit. You have to try and eat as much of the pizza as you can before that 20-minute mark. Double up pieces if you have to. I’m telling you now, you’re going to get three or four pieces in and you’re gonna want to quit. You fucking can’t quit. You have to sit on that couch until every piece is done.
And if you can’t finish it, don’t you ever come back to me and tell me you can’t gain weight. 'Cause I’m gonna tell you that you don’t give a fuck about getting bigger and you don’t care how much you lift!"
Did I do it? Hell yeah. Started the next day and did it for two months. Went from 260 pounds to 297 pounds. And I didn’t get much fatter. One of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my life, though.
�¢?�¢ I gotta go, Nate. Gotta take a piss. E-mail me if you need anything.[/quote]
This man is a freaking GENIUS![/quote]
Isn’t it wonderful…
If I’m confused, then why are you above 15% for over a decade advising people to do the same? Hell, I’m glad you agree that getting over 12% isn’t necessary for more muscle gains. That’s probably the most concession anyone’s heard from you here.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
If a post-puberty natty goes full bore at this for a few years and does everything optimally (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be) then yeah this “optimally lifting and eating” natty with average genetics will probably be tapped out for gains by age 5 or 6 of serious training. Thing is no one trains everything “optimally” no matter how hard they try or think they are, so you can add a couple or so years to that for the “serious lifter”. But yeah I fully agree with the general premise.
Another ten to fifteen years from that though, significant cumulative gains can be made. Serious lifter age 15-20 will look very different from serious lifter age 6-8 even though the year wise progress may be small (muscle density, overall thickness, separation).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I agree, then. One needs to really consider his or her own goals first and not blindy accept what other people are doing.
My only point was that AAS use is a very important consideration when planning a diet, and when comparing one’s diet against another’s. Many people in the beginner stages don’t realize.[/quote]
I also think it has gotten so much attention lately that people now use this to say that “no natural can gain more than x amount”…which is happening all over the forum.
People use “steroids” to now mean you can’t get really big without it…because they are only looking at guys who compete in natural bodybuilding and don’t understand that different structures mean way different looks. It has become the “period” at the end of discussions as if all bets are off even looking at what someone does because steroids were involved.
Look, Dave Tate’s idea was to USE insulin to gain even more muscle in the long run.
It is why I am writing this now…because this strategy is WHY there are like 10 guys the relative size of Arnold today in any real gym and there was ONLY ONE 60 years ago.
It isn’t just the “steroids”…and the biggest guys seem to still be doing it the same way.[/quote]
yes lets used someone who COMPLETELY fucked up their health as an example of how we should bulk. also are you implying that there are people Arnolds size natural walking around everywhere? if so lol.
Recent article posted here yesterday on this meal frequency stuff:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I agree, then. One needs to really consider his or her own goals first and not blindy accept what other people are doing.
My only point was that AAS use is a very important consideration when planning a diet, and when comparing one’s diet against another’s. Many people in the beginner stages don’t realize.[/quote]
I also think it has gotten so much attention lately that people now use this to say that “no natural can gain more than x amount”…which is happening all over the forum.
People use “steroids” to now mean you can’t get really big without it…because they are only looking at guys who compete in natural bodybuilding and don’t understand that different structures mean way different looks. It has become the “period” at the end of discussions as if all bets are off even looking at what someone does because steroids were involved.
Look, Dave Tate’s idea was to USE insulin to gain even more muscle in the long run.
It is why I am writing this now…because this strategy is WHY there are like 10 guys the relative size of Arnold today in any real gym and there was ONLY ONE 60 years ago.
It isn’t just the “steroids”…and the biggest guys seem to still be doing it the same way.[/quote]
yes lets used someone who COMPLETELY fucked up their health as an example of how we should bulk. also are you implying that there are people Arnolds size natural walking around everywhere? if so lol.[/quote]
No, he is just saying something that he has no notion about. He wasn’t there 60 years ago and is basing his knowledge on second hand info. I stepped into my first “real” gym, in Montreal (guess who was born there and started there) in the mid '70’s. maybe it was youthful impression, but everybody there seemed big to me. Also, gyms where hard to find. Less gyms, more big people. So, your Arnold thing doesn’t stand up.
And Ryan, he wasn’t implying anything. You just added the steroids all by yourself.
Same with “protein was hard to get and tasted like chalk” comment. First off, it wasn’t hard to get. I lived in a small town in Canada and could get some anytime. My mom thought it was steroids :). Where? Health food stores and I had an uncle that owned one. he was also the guy that showed me my first Ironman magazine in the '70.
Also, back then, protein powder didn’t taste like chalk. That was the late '80, early '90’s. It tasted like ass. Try an MAG-10 with no flavour and intensify it 10 times, add lumps and a thick consistency and you have an idea. My uncle had me mix it with chocolate powder to make it “better”. When Rocky came along, you can bet I switch to raw eggs in a glass…
Sorry PX, you are making assumption and we all know what that does. Talk about what you know, stay on track (did you really need to “defend” Sergio in this thread, you who keeps talking about staying on track? And yes, I know you will either ignore this statement or start a sentence with “dude”) and use your knowledge to teach, not preach (that is why I used the Anthony Robbins analogy).
Apart from that, the new article will answer some of your questions, with references.
Peace
It’s probably not “fair” for me to drop back in here, as I haven’t been following the thread for a while. I just don’t have the energy to. But I was going to post this link for anyone interested.
Brad Schoenfeld discusses the issue and cites 29 different studies/references. The bottom line I come away with:
Both sides have some pros and cons. The most effective path is whichever you can stick with consistently, as neither method isn’t significantly, dramatically, overwhelmingly the better option.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Recent article posted here yesterday on this meal frequency stuff:
[/quote]
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
It’s probably not “fair” for me to drop back in here, as I haven’t been following the thread for a while. I just don’t have the energy to. But I was going to post this link for anyone interested.
Brad Schoenfeld discusses the issue and cites 29 different studies/references. The bottom line I come away with:
Both sides have some pros and cons. The most effective path is whichever you can stick with consistently, as neither method isn’t significantly, dramatically, overwhelmingly the better option.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Recent article posted here yesterday on this meal frequency stuff:
[/quote]
[/quote]
I already tried explaining that a page ago, but it didn’t get much traction. Hopefully yours has better luck.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Yea but we are talking about EXTREME gains in growth, not those that stem from adequacy. This makes a world of difference when looking at how long someone can grow.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Not being a dick, but how exactly do you know this?
[quote]StateOfPsychosis wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Yea but we are talking about EXTREME gains in growth, not those that stem from adequacy. This makes a world of difference when looking at how long someone can grow.[/quote]
Extreme growth requires training which is adequate for extreme growth. What is your point?
Holy crap.
If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]StateOfPsychosis wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Yea but we are talking about EXTREME gains in growth, not those that stem from adequacy. This makes a world of difference when looking at how long someone can grow.[/quote]
Extreme growth requires training which is adequate for extreme growth. What is your point?[/quote]
No point, just a poor attempt at being humorous.
[quote]JFG wrote:
No, he is just saying something that he has no notion about. He wasn’t there 60 years ago and is basing his knowledge on second hand info. I stepped into my first “real” gym, in Montreal (guess who was born there and started there) in the mid '70’s. maybe it was youthful impression, but everybody there seemed big to me. Also, gyms where hard to find. Less gyms, more big people. So, your Arnold thing doesn’t stand up. [/quote]
What doesn’t stand up? I said there was ONE Arnold back then. No one else walked around looking like anything even close to that unless they were also competing bodybuilders. Bodybuilding didn’t cross over into more of the mainstream until the late 70’s and 80’s.
Today, you can find people who don’t even compete who carry close to that size.
Protein shakes were not available in GNC’s, corner stores or anything like that back then…and they tasted like shit. That was the point. Not that they didn’t exist at all. I do appreciate the critique and editor remarks. I will use that for when my book comes out.
The above photo is guys who work out at Metroflex in Plano, Texas.
In the 60’s, no one that size was just a regular gym goer.
Today, half the gym looks like that in serious gyms.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Holy crap.
If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?[/quote]
I’m with X on this one. I don’t believe at all that progress ends after 5 years. There are so many ways to progress.
[quote]howie424 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Holy crap.
If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?[/quote]
I’m with X on this one. I don’t believe at all that progress ends after 5 years. There are so many ways to progress. [/quote]
Nope…Brick said there is no way…so we should all just believe that and stop trying.
[quote]howie424 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Holy crap.
If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?[/quote]
I’m with X on this one. I don’t believe at all that progress ends after 5 years. There are so many ways to progress. [/quote]
you can always progress, but the pace will slow down significantly. If it doesn’t, then imo that person’s training or diet was far from optimal.
I look at it as base building vs refinement