“One hundred milligrams a week,” he told the outlet of his testosterone usage, “and then three Dianabol a day, so that was 15 milligrams a day.”
Hahahahahhaaajhhhaaaaaaa!!
@RT_Nomad maybe you were using too much. I didn’t know reasonable TRT + dosing could do such things. Clearly I am a puny sink. Oh well.
What about those no Test, golden-age stacks with no test and heavy on the nandrolone?
I never took this stack, but I tend to believe that 15mg/day of Dianabol is the sweet spot. I always got a positive step improvement every cycle of Dianabol (only). They weren’t huge gains, but more of a steady improvement, where I never thought to say that my first cycle was the best cycle (because it wasn’t.)
I did do a no testosterone stack in 1977 of 100mg/wk of Deca and 15mg of Dianabol “off season” and dropping the Dianabol in favor of 15mg/day of Anavar for the show. That was probably what people would say was my breakout conditioning.
In 1978 I added 200mg/wk of testosterone to my stack with 200mg/wk of Deca (which just became available in 200mg/ml vial) and 15mg/day Dianabol.
IMO, Arnold was the best low dose steroid (pre-HGH and insulin) bodybuilder who ever competed. (IMO Sergio had the proportions, but did not have the muscle group separation that Arnold had.)
We had an agreement that you will stop this obsession and need for my attention.
Why do you need me to read something you post so much?
I dont agree with you, i dont care about you, no matter what you post, the more you tag me the more i will only think you are more creepy, pathetic and obsessive.
Some time back i tought that even if i dont agree on something, i tought you are smart. But since i noticed that the more i ignore you the more you obsess about tagging me and replying to my posts, i actually dont even think you read anything you link or that you know anything. You act exactly like the internet creeps and stalkers start on that Netflix docu-series. Its just weird. You dont even have a chance to ever see me in real life no matter how much you obssess. Just drop it. We had an agreement and you broke it in like 2 months.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Competitive BB is a curious genetic competition. Best to gauge your potential while staying under 500-600 mg/week total androgens (decent rule of thumb).
I thought you might enjoy the articles. Have a great evening.
Your inferential skills could use some work. Best.
Edit: took the tag off since it triggered you so bad. Peace to you.
Don’t you believe that all sports related competitions are genetic competitions?
I know that bodybuilding competition is very marginally a sport.
And if you are referring to “curious” as an odd method, I always saw bodybuilding competition as the male counterpart of women’s beauty contest. In fact, they were similar as late as 1972 in that the AAU awarded 5 points out of a possible 80 points for an interview. They wanted the all American boy image for the title Mr America.
I remember knowing an AAU Mr America competitor telling a when the judges asked Robby Robinson during the group interview what he did for a living. The competitor said, “That dumb son of a bitch said he was on unemployment and disability.” Robby Robinson got Most Muscular, but only placed 5th.
Absolutely. I always say I am fortunate I don’t get paid for my looks.
Great story.
Your point is well taken and why this no PED crusade and “level playing field” mantra is utter bullshit. No amount of PEDs will ever overcome inherent genetic gifts of some vs others in a given sport.
If there is a God may he/she/it/they/other bless Lance Armstrong in the next life. Take all the gear you want and let’s see what you can do. That should be professional sports and this is coming from SAFE ole readalot.
For the most part, “that is” fits better than “that should be”.
FWIW, I don’t believe the ultra low doses claimed by some of the competitors. I don’t believe they used doses like they do now, but the top guys weren’t taking ~200 mg/wk. I also think Arnold at one point claimed doing a Deca / Primo stack that was like 750 mg/week each (probably with Dbol mixed in).
If you’re interested, Tom Platz did steroid interviews of 90s competitors (you can find them on YouTube). I believe the only honest one was Paul Dillet. The videos are a bit comical because they use the thing that makes their voice sound different, and blur their faces out, but you can tell exactly who is who (especially Ronnie).
Great clarification 
.
The video I shared before with Platz circa ~1983 seems realistic to me. I can believe Platz ran 600 mg/week total androgens.
I wonder if AS will pull a Caitlyn Jenner here shortly. Just a hunch…
He has changed his statement on gear use recently. He now claims that his Olympia stack was 100 mg/wk of Deca and 20 mg/day of Winstrol. Video is only about a minute long.
Prior thread @mnben87 is referring to for those interested.
Now @Bauber has to call the King full of shit as well. LoL.
It is the “Case of the Ever Decreasing Cycle Dosages Back in the Day”. Maybe dementia?
Genetics in a bottle.
I get why they lie, but anybody who knows anything knows they are all full of shit when they say stuff like this.
Anybody who knows anything about bodybuilding competition knows that it is much more of a genetics competition than it is a pharmaceutical competition. Anybody can take AAS.
I like foul lines. Here’s one: The 100 meter run. Who would believe that you could ever take enough AAS plus HGH and insulin and get faster than Usain Bolt was? The 100 meter run is primarily a genetic sport. You got it or you don’t.
The other foul line: You pick a sport that requires little to no genetic ability. That is the other foul line. But I assure you competitive bodybuilding is closer to the 100 meter run foul line than the other one.
There was a step jump in size and conditioning in 1984. Here HGH and insulin came into play. But still the genetically gifted rise to the top. PERIOD!
Though I have no idea how much AAS anyone took, IMO, in 1958 I don’t believe that competitors were taking extremely high doses of Dianabol. Maybe as years went on, competitors doubled, or more the “recommended” doses. When I was still taking Dianabol “only” I heard of a national competitor who was taking 80 mg/day of Dianabol (around 1976).
@RT_Nomad I’m curious to know your thoughts on the quality of AAS in your day versus more recent times. For example, and I’ve heard @hankthetank89 parody the same thing, I feel like the gear I used to get 20+ years ago was way better than the stuff I was able to get recently. This is all UGL mind you. Back in the day everybody I knew would Western Union their money to IP in China and pray you got your gear.
It could be the fact that my receptors were virgin back then, but even small dose Dbol would give me pumps to the degree I couldn’t even walk long distances for fear of calves cramping up. I had tried dbol from (3) different sources as soon as maybe 18 months ago and I couldn’t even tell. It leads me to believe the pharma AAS you were using was probably more impactful. The hex shaped pink Thais were magic back in the day.
We were getting the original pharmaceutical developers product in most all cases during the 1970’s. We totally believed we had the good stuff. But I don’t believe that we were getting more drug than what was claimed on the product, i.e., The light blue Dianabol tablet was claimed to be 5mg. I believe that they were very close to 5mg. All of our Dianabol was made by Ciba.
Around 1977, when Ciba’s patent for Dianabol had expired, we could get it made by Par at a lower price. We looked at Par’s methandrostenolone compared to Ciba’s as you would compare Bayer’s Aleve (naproxen) to Syntex’s Naprosyn. Bottom line: I don’t know if another company’s generic version of Dianabol is as good as Ciba. Then once you get unregulated AAS in the market place, I suppose it is a crap shoot. For all that matter, the unregulated could be stronger.
To me a factor could be that in the 70s, the individuals taking these drugs were likely more hardcore than today. It was more niche. Now, lots of guys at commercial gyms are on gear.
Perhaps that has to do with the perception. The people who excelled at the sport in the 70s were the ones taking drugs for the most part. It wasn’t just average guys that bench 200 lbs like we have today.
We probably did have a higher percentage of guys taking low doses back then that had impressive physiques, since they were the ones that were already hardcore and likely had good physiques. It was probably a higher percentage of guys that actually competed in BBing or strength sports vs just guys who lift at the gym.
That was definitely the case where I lived, but Pumping Iron marked a pivot of the public’s view of men’s physiques.
It seemed to always be the case, probably mostly due to the weaker men had no access to AAS. Most people had no idea what steroids were. Even most doctors would think of corticosteroids is you mentioned steroids. Now it is the reverse. Political morons, who know nothing about AAS, like to amplify their thought by adding “…on steroids.”
If you showed potential someone would likely ask if you wanted to get better results yet.
At the gym I trained it was definitely the case. But gyms that catered to the general public began to flourish. We were known as the Hercules gym. Most weaker men would not feel welcome at all. And gym etiquette was strongly in force. Most AAS users worked out in our gym. The gym owner was a major AAS source. (And that’s another story.)
My post was quite verbose haha. Just read it to myself. Sorry said the same thing multiple ways.
I agree though.