Body -70s made without GH/slin/T3 etc

[Ethan-ate]

Probably thinking more early 70s guys but would you say for example the cast of Pumping iron plus the Mentzers, Tom Platz later, Robby Robinson etc only had access too....

Test,deca and primo and winnie var and dbol

Making the obviously bulking stacks deca,test,dbol and primo, var and winnie to "cut up".

Lets face it access to legit total 100% primo and var would make some serious change.

Fatloss wise, they were not as cut or as (diuretic) dry as todays guy but they no fat burners from the off, I think T3 popped up 1st but it being the 70s who knows.....the Mentzers both had amphet habit......apparently....but later on I believe.

I think the old skool low carb dieting and long long workouts allowed them to grow into shows,

 

[NeighborMike]

I dont know any old bodybuilders, just a lot of new ones
they said that really the biggest difference between then and now is the use of GH causing that disgusting gut

 

[Voxide]

Things were just done differently all around back then. You don't have this culture of excess when it comes to drugs like you do today. There are quite frankly a lot of differences even in standard doses.

Back then you'd do like 2 test redijects a week and like 10mg of Dbol a day and that was it.

 

[NeighborMike]

Things were just done differently all around back then. You don't have this culture of excess when it comes to drugs like you do today. There are quite frankly a lot of differences even in standard doses.

Back then you'd do like 2 test redijects a week and like 10mg of Dbol a day and that was it.

I dont think thats accurate.. without bothering to search im i believe there is lots of stuff talking about using large amounts of gear, they just didnt use all these crazy protocals they do now

 

[GrymReefer]

Its hard to exactly know what they used back then. That was the beginning of methodical approaches to muscular development. The knowledge of pharmacokinetics in regards to steroids in the 70's was pretty vague and those who did possess such knowledge did not learn it from public gossip. I'm sure dosages were far different when you take into consideration the idea that recognition of oestrogens (or lack there of) was miniscule at best.

Its almost comparing apples to oranges because so much as changed in such a radical way that its wild to think where bodybuilding first came from.

 

[CFC]

I find the history of PEDs in sports really interesting. So much that I wrote a thesis on the history of bodybuilding largely because of that lol. The use of steroids was actually pretty intense right from the 60s onwards in certain gyms - it was in the beginning quite a place-bound phenomenon, so it depended on where you were training really. Much initial 'knowledge' came out of the USSR (which started using them for Olympic athletes) and US coaches quickly cottoned on to their sudden improvements in lifts and performance and put their own athletes on various steroids, but mostly Dianabol in the beginning.

The one thing that did significantly change during the 1970s was (1) the increasing use of cocktails of steroids and ancillaries including diuretics (not necessarily changes in amounts used though) and (2) the rapid spread of their use from gym to gym and across the world - dissemination. Dosages were not 'low' by any standard. I had a 'protocol' from 1974 Gold's Gym that employed 60mg DBol per day with 100mg Anadrol and injections of Cypionate at up to 1000mg and Deca at over 600mg, but following a 'pyramid' protocol. Obviously this is not 3g of this and that, but who really knows how much the pros were using? Most of what they claimed was probably as much crap as today's pros.

 

[NeighborMike]

I find the history of PEDs in sports really interesting. So much that I wrote a thesis on the history of bodybuilding largely because of that lol. The use of steroids was actually pretty intense right from the 60s onwards in certain gyms - it was in the beginning quite a place-bound phenomenon, so it depended on where you were training really. Much initial 'knowledge' came out of the USSR (which started using them for Olympic athletes) and US coaches quickly cottoned on to their sudden improvements in lifts and performance and put their own athletes on various steroids, but mostly Dianabol in the beginning.

The one thing that did significantly change during the 1970s was (1) the increasing use of cocktails of steroids and ancillaries including diuretics (not necessarily changes in amounts used though) and (2) the rapid spread of their use from gym to gym and across the world - dissemination. Dosages were not 'low' by any standard. I had a 'protocol' from 1974 Gold's Gym that employed 60mg DBol per day with 100mg Anadrol and injections of Cypionate at up to 1000mg and Deca at over 600mg, but following a 'pyramid' protocol. Obviously this is not 3g of this and that, but who really knows how much the pros were using? Most of what they claimed was probably as much crap as today's pros.

Ive heard stories about all those crazy doses. An old school body builder who was friends with dexter jackson once told me he would take stuff like test cyp and inject the entire bottle e3d

The guys were that big back in the day, but just like i told about a minimal amount of gear needs to be used for the long lean look, there are certain things that need to be done to put on the kind of weight that will allow you to be between 220-240 solid muscle with no fat

 

[CFC]

I have a former pro who is a friend and shall remain nameless, lol. But he got to the point in the early 90s of simply filling up 100ml empty vials with a mixture of everything and site-injecting an entire vial every week. Plus orals etc. I don't know how he's still alive in all honesty.

Generally speaking though, like in most sports, everything has become more scientific hence the improvement. But it would be wrong to think that this hasn't always been the case. Going back into the 19th century physical culture/bodybuilding was always about using scientific principles. Mostly about training and nutrition until the 1950s, and then also pharmacology.

But today it's just that more of the various variables have been increasingly optimised, and science has advanced in its understanding. Changes in the appearance of bodybuilders have been surprisingly incremental if you really think about it, although there are a lot more people looking the part today, which is due to the spread of information via gyms and more importantly the internet.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I dont know any old bodybuilders, just a lot of new ones
they said that really the biggest difference between then and now is the use of GH causing that disgusting gut

I'm pretty sure the gut is actually from abusive amounts of insulin. In addition to the increase in visceral fat, it can actually cause fat to be stored in the GI tract as well. Combine that with inflammation and constipation from high dosed oral steroids and various other meds including prescription stiumulants, painkilers, etc

 

[NeighborMike]

I'm pretty sure the gut is actually from abusive amounts of insulin. In addition to the increase in visceral fat, it can actually cause fat to be stored in the GI tract as well. Combine that with inflammation and constipation from high dosed oral steroids and various other meds including prescription stiumulants, painkilers, etc

while those things do add to it, growth gut is a well known thing in the bbing community

 

[CFC]

I think the 'gut' issue is over-discussed in terms of meds/GH etc when the issue is probably as much about modern dieting strategy.

If someone cuts for long and hard - eg 16+ weeks as used to be standard contest dieting practice - then the gut diminishes dramatically. Intestines and organs shrink to reduce energy use. The GI tract takes up quite a large proportion of the body's energy needs, and when you're not eating much, you simply don't need as much to digest the smaller quantities of food. And so they shrink.

Over the last 10-20 years though, it's become increasingly common for top competitors to 'grow into' a contest, with calorie intake as high as many amateurs bulk on in the off-season. I suppose the abundance of fat-burning drugs has enabled guys to get cut and stay more cut year round without genuinely cutting calories very much at all.

But of course the upshot of this is that the GI tract needs to maintain it's size in order to properly digest the vast quantities of food that are still coming in. Hence very few have the kind of tiny guts that guys back in the 70s were able to show off.

 

[NeighborMike]

I think the 'gut' issue is over-discussed in terms of meds/GH etc when the issue is probably as much about modern dieting strategy.

If someone cuts for long and hard - eg 16+ weeks as used to be standard contest dieting practice - then the gut diminishes dramatically. Intestines and organs shrink to reduce energy use. The GI tract takes up quite a large proportion of the body's energy needs, and when you're not eating much, you simply don't need as much to digest the smaller quantities of food. And so they shrink.

Over the last 10-20 years though, it's become increasingly common for top competitors to 'grow into' a contest, with calorie intake as high as many amateurs bulk on in the off-season. I suppose the abundance of fat-burning drugs has enabled guys to get cut and stay more cut year round without genuinely cutting calories very much at all.

But of course the upshot of this is that the GI tract needs to maintain it's size in order to properly digest the vast quantities of food that are still coming in. Hence very few have the kind of tiny guts that guys back in the 70s were able to show off.

So more then anything you feel like its just the overall enormous size of these guys now a days?

 

[CFC]

I'm sure you could probably be almost the same size without growing into a show the way it's done now, but rather by being super-huge before and cutting on a mostly hypocaloric diet? I guess that may be less healthy. But overall I imagine the reason this method has gained favour is because it does deliver a more guaranteed fuller physique on the day.

The potential for it to backfire with some guys (eg Roelly Winklaar) does make you wonder if they should go back to the old approach and see if it brings them in tighter if somewhat smaller...

 

[NeighborMike]

They should defiantly go back i dont think they need vacuum stomachs back i just dont think those guys look good

by default i feel like dexter jackson should win every year just cause of the fact imo he always does look the best, but BBing caters to size now

 

[Ethan-ate]

Some really good informative and "real" posts here ,always good to read.

Agree with CFC using Winklaar as a example, even if you look at the much smaller version of him in "Generation iron" you can see he's pushed it ......a tad.

I hope big Rammy doesn't get contorted the same way.

My take on the "doses of old".....

BBin hearsay is mostly BS and back then the desire to win was just as strong as it is today,if Franco knew Zane was taking 5 dbol, you think he'd take 5. No way.....thequalityof gear coming from a smaller poole was better it seems so doses that might sound small were infact not at all especially if as mentioned above Dbol was American knocked up for the olympics to counter the russian testosterone.....if we are talk olympic golds with behind the scenea government approval I imagine it was "potent shit".

My view on the guy as someones whos been on the "inside" at shows is.....I've seen it more on the big fella who of course have carb up more.

I have seen 200Ib and sub 200 guys who Used slin and GH look tight as fuck.

I've heard ALOT of and seen a few final 24hr prep go awry and watch the pregnancy grow.

A interesting final point is the visceral /sub-q fat.

Endo guys usually having the sub q and naturally ecto (like me but short) having visceral which is like compacted lard behind the tanversus abdominis(spelling soz) ...basically squeezed against your internal, doctors call it heart attack fat.

I think.....dont quote me, sub-q is easier to lose as it has Blood supply running thru it being closer to the skin.

Anyhow slin is "supposed" ....could be bro science, not sure on PUbmeb that exogenous slin causes visceral fat if abused.

Another thought comes to mind probably unrelated that most heavy drinkers I know who used to be slim get a "beer belly" which is always rock hard visceral fat........estrogen related?

Only jumbo palumbo knows, lets face it ,until guys are marked down for a big belly it will stay.

A internet pic of a guy exhaling 2014 Olympia next to Zane vacuum isn't entirely fair thou as social media now means there are millions of pics posted in todays world exposing every error.

 

[GrymReefer]

I remember Dorian Yates mentioning something about his belief on the "gut" is from the rampant use of insulin for its ability to appear more full. It honestly just makes them a little less defined and a little more round. Considering a typical Olympia Professional I'm sure there protocol for effective insulin usage is outrageous and most likely detrimental.
This study highlights the statement that there is no conclusive evidence that iinsulin resistance and accumulation of visceral fat share a common factor...... Visceral fat?


Honestly now.. I'm thinking the supraphysiological levels of insulin protocols disrupts the metabolic feedback loop with the adjacent hormones (ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin) I found in another study the relationship between obesity in methadone patients and alterations to the activity of the protein hormone, adiponectin. Considering leptin is produced from the adipose tissue, ghrelin comes from your G.I tract, but adiponectin is distributed from multiple points and is encoded by a gene. Would this allow a higher probability of mutation to the sequence? Leptin is a peptide and so is ghrelin, but would a protein hormone make that much of a difference?


From what I can remember from genetics, a peptide hormone is just a amino acid sequence. A protein hormone is a specifically designed amino acid sequence and shape for properly performing its task. It has been suggested that variances in the gene coding for adiponectin also facilitated what kind of predisposition there was for Type II Diabetes...in rats.

Anyone have any thoughts on what predisposes or triggers the body to store visceral fat to a larger degree?

EDIT: So I just found a piece of information that contradicts my original contradictory study that contradicted what I originally believed about insulin and visceral storage.

Retinol-binding protein 4 It suggests visceral secretes RBP-4 whose mechanics have been shown to increase the resistance to insulin. Glucose uptake via adipocytes regulates the activity... (adipocytes are fat cells and our fat cells secrete the hormone leptin to regulate energy. It is our "satiety" hormone)

Another thought comes to mind probably unrelated that most heavy drinkers I know who used to be slim get a "beer belly" which is always rock hard visceral fat........estrogen related?

EDIT: Well I guess I was able to find something to validate the possibility of estrogen being a factor even if alcohol severely diminishes T serum concentrate.... Estrogen Production and Action
....

The beer belly is a few things. One is definitely the carbonation of the beverage. You see this in individuals who drink a lot of carbonated products in general. Alcohol is but isn't a macronutrient. It is not a necessity to maintain our physiological processes so it isn't seen as a "macro". However, that doesn't hide the fact that its rather dense in reference to calories (alcohol-7 calories per gram) Alcohol also inhibits activity pertaining to lipid metabolism. We also can't forget about the oh so welcoming "drunkchies" its the munchies of the stoners, but more patriotic. Drinking generally increases your hunger. You eat at an excessively higher caloric intake coupled with metabolic inhibition from alcohol's presence in the liver and we got a body doing a lot of nothing and storing a whole lot of everything.


Effects of ethanol on lipid metabolism.
full text here - http://www.jlr.org/content/20/3/289.long

Endo guys usually having the sub q and naturally ecto (like me but short) having visceral which is like compacted lard behind the tanversus abdominis(spelling soz) ...basically squeezed against your internal, doctors call it heart attack fat.

Lol you know you can have 10-20 pounds of compacted fecal matter inside of you? My stomach drops in distention quite a bit on my zero carb days just due to the lack of digestion. Sometimes after a refeed and I can't even button my jeans up.

 

[Genetic Freak]

Excessive insulin secretion leads to desensitization for instance, Type II Diabetes.

A slight correction if I may:

It takes 2 insulin molecules to bind tyrosine kinase alpha receptor, this stimulates 3 phosphate molecules to bind inner membrane receptor IRS-1, this sends a signal to GLUT2/4 to open facilitating the transport of glucose into cell... This is the correct mechanism for facilitating glucose transport into a cell via insulin release...

In type II diabetes: Fatty acid accretions from poor dietary choices stop insulin binding tyrosine Kinase alpha receptors... (receptors become desensitized)... The body detects no glucose is entering the cell further releasing more and more insulin, until pancreatic beta cells burn out...

 

[GrymReefer]

A slight correction if I may:

It takes 2 insulin molecules to bind tyrosine kinase alpha receptor, this stimulates 3 phosphate molecules to bind inner membrane receptor IRS-1, this sends a signal to GLUT2/4 to open allowing glucose into the cell... This is the correct mechanism for glucose transport into a cell via insulin release...

In type II diabetes: Fatty acid accretions from poor dietary choices stop insulin binding tyrosine Kinase alpha receptors... (receptors become desensitized)... The body detects no glucose is entering the cell further releasing more and more insulin, until pancreatic beta cells burn out...

Oh so insulin is not biologically active in the cells until the signal successfully reaches GLUT2/4? So Type II is not only brought on by desensitization, but also exacerbation of the pancreas? I know Type I is just the complete inability for the pancreas to function appropriately (extremely simplified)

Thanks for pointing it out. So the fatty acid accretion is what eventually leads to receptor desensitization? I think I got this... I always assumed insulin was there and it had to slowly be metabolized away in the blood. Need to study up on this more..

In the instance of exogenous insulin administration, the fatty acid accretion isn't the factor in inhibiting insulin binding tyrosine kinase alpha receptors.. Was it just an overstimulation of a receptor itself which lead to down regulation? Or does the pancreas acknowledge an exogenous source and begins to lessen its secretion until it eventually shuts down?

By the way..what is your educational background in? Cellular metabolism? Or do you just enjoy reading about this stuff?

 

[Genetic Freak]

Oh so insulin is not biologically active in the cells until the signal successfully reaches GLUT2/4? So Type II is not only brought on by desensitization, but also exacerbation of the pancreas? I know Type I is just the complete inability for the pancreas to function appropriately (extremely simplified) The pancreas doesn't produce enough insulin in Type-I

Thanks for pointing it out. So the fatty acid accretion is what eventually leads to receptor desensitization? I think I got this... I always assumed insulin was there and it had to slowly be metabolized away in the blood. Need to study up on this more..

In the instance of exogenous insulin administration, the fatty acid accretion isn't the factor in inhibiting insulin binding tyrosine kinase alpha receptors.. No Was it just an overstimulation of a receptor itself which lead to down regulation? Or does the pancreas acknowledge an exogenous source and begins to lessen its secretion until it eventually shuts down?
Thats something they don't teach us sorry, but will look into it when I'm back at work

By the way..what is your educational background in? Cellular metabolism? Or do you just enjoy reading about this stuff?

BHSc.... Paramedicine (eventually)

 

[GrymReefer]

I see what you mean now. I'm getting a little too theoretical with my questions. I'm glad I miraculously stumbled upon this board again because you guys are helpful as hell.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.