Phil Heath Calls Out Arnold

Bigger Stronger Leaner
41

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

Lol, oh man, I hope I don’t drown talking about bodybuilding in an online forum! I’m just stating my opinion, you may feel it’s not valid, but that’s the point of the forums, right? I’ve said a bunch of times it’s just my opinion, as everyone who posts on here is clearly stating their opinion, but some people seem to get extremely offended on here with opinions that don’t agree with theirs, and make others feel like they have no right to take part in these conversations if they’re not lifeguard certified. SO, maybe you can say something constructive, or educate me so I can take my swimmies off.

I’ve always enjoyed your posts and training logs Flipcollar, so I’m sure you can give me some great info to further my knowledge. My opinion, as many people have already said on these forums, is that todays competitors are bigger than ever because they have to be. Because they have to be bigger, they take more PEDs than ever before, allowing them to work harder, train more, eat more, and put in more work to get bigger, and I fully understand without doing said work, the size wouldn’t happen. But, ultimately, that without the higher dosages competitors use now, they wouldn’t be able to do all that extra work to get extra big.

If todays competitors were on the same exact chemical regimen as Arnold was, would they still be bigger? My opinion is no, at least not by such a staggering amount. If you disagree, then tell me why, without insulting my swimming abilities.

42

I think Arnold’s mentality is what allowed him to get to the top at the time he competed (obviously not talking genetics here). Anyone who has read Wendy Leigh’s book, or any interviews with the old BBers from Arnold’s hometown knows that as a young kid, he had absolutely no regard for his health in terms of how everyone else in the gym used PEDs, but at least had a healthy respect, if not fear of what could possibly happen down the line from them. Obviously there’s a heck of a lot more info out there for Pros, if not the average gym rat buying a few ampules in the back pacrking lot of his local YMCA.

IMO, Arnold would do whatever it took to win. Any fans of the sport who have heard the many many stories about the man know what I mean. Would he have reached further development if he came up in the current BBing era? It’s all conjecture, but I would think there’s a very good chance he would have. Heck, look at Ferrigno in the late 70’s, and then again when he stepped onstage in the early 90’s.

If someone can honestly tell me that the reason big Lou was so much huger, and in just insane shape (comparable to guys like Yates and Levrone!) almost 20 years later than his “prime”, was muscle maturity, and not the presence (abundance?) of new, and more powerful ergogenic aids - and of course a better understanding of them! - it would just confirm to me that they don’t really understand what modern day bodybuilding has become.

This isn’t a dig mind you. I love following the sport, but I’m also aware of what’s what.

S

43

[quote]Steez wrote:

Linked Phil’s interview I mentioned in OP.
[/quote]

what an asshat, you’d never hear Yates or Ronnie talk with that attitude

44

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

Lol, oh man, I hope I don’t drown talking about bodybuilding in an online forum! I’m just stating my opinion, you may feel it’s not valid, but that’s the point of the forums, right? I’ve said a bunch of times it’s just my opinion, as everyone who posts on here is clearly stating their opinion, but some people seem to get extremely offended on here with opinions that don’t agree with theirs, and make others feel like they have no right to take part in these conversations if they’re not lifeguard certified. SO, maybe you can say something constructive, or educate me so I can take my swimmies off.

I’ve always enjoyed your posts and training logs Flipcollar, so I’m sure you can give me some great info to further my knowledge. My opinion, as many people have already said on these forums, is that todays competitors are bigger than ever because they have to be. Because they have to be bigger, they take more PEDs than ever before, allowing them to work harder, train more, eat more, and put in more work to get bigger, and I fully understand without doing said work, the size wouldn’t happen. But, ultimately, that without the higher dosages competitors use now, they wouldn’t be able to do all that extra work to get extra big.

If todays competitors were on the same exact chemical regimen as Arnold was, would they still be bigger? My opinion is no, at least not by such a staggering amount. If you disagree, then tell me why, without insulting my swimming abilities.[/quote]

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era.

Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.

45

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era. Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.[/quote]

What about things like peptides, diuretics, amount of time on, and combining more things? It seems like there are more drug differences than just quantities, even on the basics.

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era. Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.[/quote]

What about things like peptides, diuretics, amount of time on, and combining more things? It seems like there are more drug differences than just quantities, even on the basics.
[/quote]

I thought we were talking about leg size, maybe I missed something. Diuretics have nothing to do with leg size. I DO believe conditioning has changed drastically because of the drugs. No question on that. Many drugs have come to the market in the past 20 years that are relevant to this.

I don’t think time on has changed much, because I don’t think Arnold was coming off much, if at all, in his prime. Blast and cruise has been around for a long long time. People have always been pushing that boundary. And less was known in Arnold’s day about HTPA recovery, so I would assume guys like him didn’t really recognize the fact that longer cycles, at any dose, could negatively impact this.

Peptides are kind of interesting, but they’re prevalence is only very recent. They weren’t popular in Dorian’s years, the beginning of the mass monster era. Peptides are only minimally effective as compared to, say high dosed Testosterone. Peptides are most useful for maintaining, or even gaining, while off cycle, for those who do come off, because the side effects are minimal for the most part, and HTPA can recover while they’re being used.

Really, the biggest advancement in drugs (aside from the ones used for conditioning) is Trenbolone. I feel like I sort of minimized that in favor of an argument I was making, because it can be sort of mimicked through higher doses of Testosterone and Nandrolone… but Tren was a game changer.

47

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

Lol, oh man, I hope I don’t drown talking about bodybuilding in an online forum! I’m just stating my opinion, you may feel it’s not valid, but that’s the point of the forums, right? I’ve said a bunch of times it’s just my opinion, as everyone who posts on here is clearly stating their opinion, but some people seem to get extremely offended on here with opinions that don’t agree with theirs, and make others feel like they have no right to take part in these conversations if they’re not lifeguard certified. SO, maybe you can say something constructive, or educate me so I can take my swimmies off.

I’ve always enjoyed your posts and training logs Flipcollar, so I’m sure you can give me some great info to further my knowledge. My opinion, as many people have already said on these forums, is that todays competitors are bigger than ever because they have to be. Because they have to be bigger, they take more PEDs than ever before, allowing them to work harder, train more, eat more, and put in more work to get bigger, and I fully understand without doing said work, the size wouldn’t happen. But, ultimately, that without the higher dosages competitors use now, they wouldn’t be able to do all that extra work to get extra big.

If todays competitors were on the same exact chemical regimen as Arnold was, would they still be bigger? My opinion is no, at least not by such a staggering amount. If you disagree, then tell me why, without insulting my swimming abilities.[/quote]

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era.

Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.[/quote]

Excellent post.

48

[quote]Steez wrote:

Linked Phil’s interview I mentioned in OP.
[/quote]

I gotta admit his PR skills are quite lacking(or maybe his fanbase likes him like this, I don’t know). However, I don’t see anything wrong with him taking a pragmatic approach to all this. It’s his career and a business afterall.

49

Cool Flipcollar, thanks for the info, very informative. I will readily admit I do not know as much as you, or others, on this subject, so cool to learn some new facts. I will agree with you that I haven’t read up on the subject of PEDs as much as you have, so my opinion will obviously differ from yours, and you may consider it less informed, which is your right. I do wonder why this seems to genuinely anger and offend you, it’s just an online forum man.

All this being said, you obviously feel that PED’s are not at the root of the topic at hand. So, what do YOU think is responsible for the modern competitors drastic difference in size and figure than in the 70’s?

50

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

I think I gotta agree with Robstein here, I think I see the point he’s trying to make. He’s not making any outrageous statements or claims about PED’s. What he’s saying is that it isn’t valid for Phil to essentially say (paraphrasing) “My legs are much bigger than Arnold’s and he wasn’t big enough to hang with top competitors today.” Phil isn’t a better bodybuilder than Arnold, and to take a shot at one of Arnold’s “lagging” bodyparts doesn’t support Phil’s argument. If Arnold had utilized the same drug protocols and been competing in the same era as Phil, he’d have a good chance to be on the same level as Phil.

51

Pwolves, spot on, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, I thought I was.

52

[quote]robstein wrote:
Cool Flipcollar, thanks for the info, very informative. I will readily admit I do not know as much as you, or others, on this subject, so cool to learn some new facts. I will agree with you that I haven’t read up on the subject of PEDs as much as you have, so my opinion will obviously differ from yours, and you may consider it less informed, which is your right. I do wonder why this seems to genuinely anger and offend you, it’s just an online forum man.

All this being said, you obviously feel that PED’s are not at the root of the topic at hand. So, what do YOU think is responsible for the modern competitors drastic difference in size and figure than in the 70’s? [/quote]

Well, the biggest size difference is obviously in the legs. I don’t think (and I could be wrong here) that, say, pec size or arm size has drastically changed. And to me the main thing that happened was a change of aesthetics. Frank Zane really pushed the ultra-aesthetic look as far as it was going to go, and following that, a new paradigm developed. Judging changed to favor bigger guys after Zane.

And it just kept moving in that direction, resulting in Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler battling for Olympias weighing in excess of 270 lbs. As Stu and others have mentioned, Arnold probably would have pushed his overall size more if judging criteria had favored that. But he was winning. Why would he have pushed in that direction, if he wasn’t sure it would be judged favorably?

And once again, PED advancements DO play a large part in what we see on stage now. I just think the role they play in sheer size is sometimes overestimated.

I’m not genuinely angered or offended by you, or anything you said.

53

Yes!

Agreed. He was also a good example of how to look awkward and disproportionate. And how not to win an Olympia or place any higher than 3rd.

It’s growing. I know many amateurs who do. And it they’re not that impressive either, especially with all the shit they’re taking. Insulin and GH is becoming a standard to the next stage of your bodybuilding career if you choose to go with PEDs. I’ve heard it a few times. “Can’t wait to get my GH and insulin started bro, gonna be huge!” My girl’s brother is 21y/o and already talking about it.

We were. And just Phil Heath’s comments about Arnold’s legs and the Arnold Classic judging. I really didn’t want this to be all about PEDs, but robstein just had to be that guy.

Word on the street is that Arnold would run Primo a lot. Have heard it was his drug of choice. But that’s just what I’ve heard.

54

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

Linked Phil’s interview I mentioned in OP.
[/quote]

I gotta admit his PR skills are quite lacking(or maybe his fanbase likes him like this, I don’t know). However, I don’t see anything wrong with him taking a pragmatic approach to all this. It’s his career and a business afterall.[/quote]

Yeah it leaves a sour taste but then you can’t really blame him at the same time. He’s not going to be competing forever, but come on Phil.

55

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

I think I gotta agree with Robstein here, I think I see the point he’s trying to make. He’s not making any outrageous statements or claims about PED’s. What he’s saying is that it isn’t valid for Phil to essentially say (paraphrasing) “My legs are much bigger than Arnold’s and he wasn’t big enough to hang with top competitors today.” Phil isn’t a better bodybuilder than Arnold, and to take a shot at one of Arnold’s “lagging” bodyparts doesn’t support Phil’s argument. If Arnold had utilized the same drug protocols and been competing in the same era as Phil, he’d have a good chance to be on the same level as Phil.
[/quote]

Yes he would’ve. Arnold dominated his field then, and he’d do it now. Before they announced his name winning his 6th title, they said “The one and only”. Phil will never have that effect on the sport.

56

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

I think I gotta agree with Robstein here, I think I see the point he’s trying to make. He’s not making any outrageous statements or claims about PED’s. What he’s saying is that it isn’t valid for Phil to essentially say (paraphrasing) “My legs are much bigger than Arnold’s and he wasn’t big enough to hang with top competitors today.” Phil isn’t a better bodybuilder than Arnold, and to take a shot at one of Arnold’s “lagging” bodyparts doesn’t support Phil’s argument. If Arnold had utilized the same drug protocols and been competing in the same era as Phil, he’d have a good chance to be on the same level as Phil.
[/quote]

Yes he would’ve. Arnold dominated his field then, and he’d do it now. Before they announced his name winning his 6th title, they said “The one and only”. Phil will never have that effect on the sport.[/quote]

This is assuming Arnold’s body can tolerate the health issues that come with being a 300lber. And we’re not just talking about drugs here.

Comparisons like this cannot be made without taking all other factors into account. The entire lifestyle as a whole could kill him or cause his premature retirement, or he could be the reigning champion for the next 10 years.

This is also why we cannot say it’s simply a matter of increasing his drug doses.

But, yes, I would root for Arnold. The one and only.

57

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set. [/quote]

Quality, dosages, whatever the combination is, does anyone think that training specifically, or any aspect OTHER than PEDs could be responsible for the current look of BB’ers?
[/quote]

Yes. Food and lifting heavier poundages.

What is your point? [/quote]

So you think the only thing separating todays BB’ers from 30 years ago is they’re eating more food and lifting heavier weights? My personal opinion is that the only thing separating Phil from Arnold is ultimately PEDs. Maybe the PEDs ALLOWED Phil to lift heavier weights and consume more food that could be synthesized into muscle or some cause and effect, but I cannot believe that if Arnold ate more food and lifted heavier weights he’d be just as big as todays competitors.

Let’s say Arnold and Phil are the same age, and Arnold was actively competing right now. Would his physique be an exact copy of the pictures posted above, or would he be just as big as current competitors?[/quote]

Who has disputed the fact that increases in PEDs are a significant contributory factor? You are acting like it’s the ONLY factor. You think PEDs build the muscle for you?

There are some fucktards on this site who have used MUCH MORE than what Arnold has used to reach 152lbs @5’11. If you don’t believe me, ask Yogi.

To Phil Heath, undertaking the potentially severe health risks, effort, injuries and eating like it’s a fulltime job to build and maintain a 300lb physique is a requirement for HIS LIVELIHOOD. If such size was a requirement during Arnold’s era, I can bet any amount of money Arnold would have taken all the drugs in the world to come out on top. But the fact is, he didn’t have to.

THIS is what Phil was implying in his rant.

This is also why the ex-competitive bodybuilders in the other thread stop maintaining their size after they retire.[/quote]

Yikes! Listen man, I’m just stating my opinion, I’m not trying to “prove a point” or have a pissing contest. These are forums where we state our opinions, yes? So, my opinion is that PEDs have played the most significant factor in todays BB’ing world of ridiculous size, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Obviously they don’t “put on the muscle for you,” with more assistance comes more work to build more size, but I don’t think it’s right for a current bodybuilder to insult the size of a bodybuilder from 30-40 years ago because it’s a different game now.

I do agree with you that size is a bigger factor for success today than it used to be, so the requirements for current competitors are different than they used to be.
[/quote]

It seems to be the case that the only people who say ‘it’s all about the drugs’ are people with little to no familiarity with the drugs in question. I’m sorry Robstein, but you’re clearly swimming in deeper waters than you should be.[/quote]

I think I gotta agree with Robstein here, I think I see the point he’s trying to make. He’s not making any outrageous statements or claims about PED’s. What he’s saying is that it isn’t valid for Phil to essentially say (paraphrasing) “My legs are much bigger than Arnold’s and he wasn’t big enough to hang with top competitors today.” Phil isn’t a better bodybuilder than Arnold, and to take a shot at one of Arnold’s “lagging” bodyparts doesn’t support Phil’s argument. If Arnold had utilized the same drug protocols and been competing in the same era as Phil, he’d have a good chance to be on the same level as Phil.
[/quote]

Yes he would’ve. Arnold dominated his field then, and he’d do it now. Before they announced his name winning his 6th title, they said “The one and only”. Phil will never have that effect on the sport.[/quote]

This is assuming Arnold’s body can tolerate the health issues that come with being a 300lber. And we’re not just talking about drugs here.

Comparisons like this cannot be made without taking all other factors into account. The entire lifestyle as a whole could kill him or cause his premature retirement, or he could be the reigning champion for the next 10 years.

This is also why we cannot say it’s simply a matter of increasing his drug doses.

But, yes, I would root for Arnold. The one and only.[/quote]

Arnold is numero uno.

58

To add to all the points raised above, the relative increase in bodybuilding’s popularity over the last 20-30 years means that the genetic talent pool involved in the sport is also much, much greater. You now have perhaps literally 100s of thousands of guys vying for the Olympia, rather than probably a few thousand back in Arnold’s day. Back then, the only true ‘freak’ was arguably Sergio Oliva.

Arnold was gifted, sure, but he was blessed primarily with a good structure, and naturally great muscle bellies in the showier muscles (pecs, shoulders, bis). Not to say that if he hadn’t hit lats, glutes, legs etc as hard, he would be more proportionate by today’s standards.

The debate about ‘the look’ that people prefer in pro bodybuilders is really about the concept of what constitutes the ideal physique - and the 2 main camps are the ‘Apollonian’ ideal (Frank Zane, Arnold, Serge Nubret, Shawn Ray, Bob Paris) and the ‘Herculean’ ideal (Yates, Coleman, Heath, Cutler, pretty much all the biggest current day pros). Actually, you probably could argue that Coleman, Flex Wheeler and maybe Lee Haney combined the best of the 2 ideal - great size, as well as pleasing lines.

As dt79 said, people might hold Arnold as the ideal (and I don’t think most casual fans who do, realise how big he was), but everyone pretty much wants to see the freaks on stage. When you see the elite in any endeavour, you don’t want to be able to say ‘that’s nice’, you want to say ‘holy shit!!!’.

59

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era. Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.[/quote]

What about things like peptides, diuretics, amount of time on, and combining more things? It seems like there are more drug differences than just quantities, even on the basics.
[/quote]

I thought we were talking about leg size, maybe I missed something. Diuretics have nothing to do with leg size. I DO believe conditioning has changed drastically because of the drugs. No question on that. Many drugs have come to the market in the past 20 years that are relevant to this.

I don’t think time on has changed much, because I don’t think Arnold was coming off much, if at all, in his prime. Blast and cruise has been around for a long long time. People have always been pushing that boundary. And less was known in Arnold’s day about HTPA recovery, so I would assume guys like him didn’t really recognize the fact that longer cycles, at any dose, could negatively impact this.

Peptides are kind of interesting, but they’re prevalence is only very recent. They weren’t popular in Dorian’s years, the beginning of the mass monster era. Peptides are only minimally effective as compared to, say high dosed Testosterone. Peptides are most useful for maintaining, or even gaining, while off cycle, for those who do come off, because the side effects are minimal for the most part, and HTPA can recover while they’re being used.

Really, the biggest advancement in drugs (aside from the ones used for conditioning) is Trenbolone. I feel like I sort of minimized that in favor of an argument I was making, because it can be sort of mimicked through higher doses of Testosterone and Nandrolone… but Tren was a game changer.[/quote]

I do know that one things I’ve heard a lot of different places is that natties struggle to maintain leg size and get into condition. I was thinking diuretics let you get conditioning without loosing muscle and having to diet harder?

It seems logical that better drugs/protocols for growth and for cutting might tie in to bigger legs.

Good info either way.

60

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

The problem I have with what you’re saying is that it doesn’t coincide with what we actually know about steroids of that era versus now. And the most effective steroids, aside from Trenbolone, go back 60+ years, and were used by bodybuilders in Arnold’s era. Dianabol, Nandrolone, Testosterone, Winstrol, and Anavar are good examples. These are staples in today’s bodybuilding world, and have been available for a long, long time. And high dosing of these steroids have the potential to yield results that come much closer to the bodybuilders of today than what Arnold did.

Platz is a good example of what was possible in terms of developing legs in that era, with the drugs available, and I sincerely doubt that he was simply taking more drugs than Arnold. Arnold thought his physique was perfectly proportioned. He could have made them grow more with the drugs available to him, he simply chose not to.

GH and insulin were not prevalent until the 80’s, so if you want to make the argument that these 2 drugs make all the difference, go right ahead. That’s a very, very difficult argument to make, particularly since access to GH is very limited to anyone below the Pro level. It’s simply too expensive. And I think insulin use is even less common.

Finally, I take issue with the idea that pros today are doing ‘extra work’. Gym sessions and frequency aren’t any different today than they were in Arnold’s day. Arnold was in the gym for hours upon hours, every day of the week. Hell, I know guys on this site who spend 3 hours a day lifting, and aren’t even on drugs! And they recover just fine.

The point of all this is as follows: less of this is simply a matter of opinion than you you seem to believe. There are a lot of facts out there about steroid use then and now, and I don’t believe you’ve done the reading on the subject to allow you to come to that understanding. My comment about swimming in deep waters may have offended you, but I stand by it. Perhaps it wasn’t worded very nicely, but that happens.[/quote]

What about things like peptides, diuretics, amount of time on, and combining more things? It seems like there are more drug differences than just quantities, even on the basics.
[/quote]

I thought we were talking about leg size, maybe I missed something. Diuretics have nothing to do with leg size. I DO believe conditioning has changed drastically because of the drugs. No question on that. Many drugs have come to the market in the past 20 years that are relevant to this.

I don’t think time on has changed much, because I don’t think Arnold was coming off much, if at all, in his prime. Blast and cruise has been around for a long long time. People have always been pushing that boundary. And less was known in Arnold’s day about HTPA recovery, so I would assume guys like him didn’t really recognize the fact that longer cycles, at any dose, could negatively impact this.

Peptides are kind of interesting, but they’re prevalence is only very recent. They weren’t popular in Dorian’s years, the beginning of the mass monster era. Peptides are only minimally effective as compared to, say high dosed Testosterone. Peptides are most useful for maintaining, or even gaining, while off cycle, for those who do come off, because the side effects are minimal for the most part, and HTPA can recover while they’re being used.

Really, the biggest advancement in drugs (aside from the ones used for conditioning) is Trenbolone. I feel like I sort of minimized that in favor of an argument I was making, because it can be sort of mimicked through higher doses of Testosterone and Nandrolone… but Tren was a game changer.[/quote]

I do know that one things I’ve heard a lot of different places is that natties struggle to maintain leg size and get into condition. I was thinking diuretics let you get conditioning without loosing muscle and having to diet harder?

It seems logical that better drugs/protocols for growth and for cutting might tie in to bigger legs.

Good info either way.[/quote]

I think your confused with what diuretics actually do. Fat loss is the main part of “conditioning”. Without adequate fat loss, diuretics will just make you dry and lumpy. They just increase the secretion of water from your tissues. It helps get that feathered look of a muscle and show all the little striations that water would inhibit you to see. Many average people take them to control blood pressure and other heart conditions.

So you’ll still have to diet the same with or without them.