Steroids and Bodybuidling

As far as getting big without using steroids & the like: I think (I could be wrong) that you can get to the size of, or almost the size of, most WWE wrestlers, depending on genetics. Note the difference between such wrestlers and BBers is the body fat %. If the wreslers dieted down, I wonder if they wouldn’t be nearly as big.

Some pictures & links:
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=natural+bodybuilding
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=natural%20bodybuilding&spell=1&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com/results/olympia-05.html
http://www.naturalbodybuilding.com/results/2005%20North%20American.html

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
wow @ some of these responses.

roids have not caused today’s BBers to be bigger than Arnie and his contemporaries; Arnie and co used a bunch. eating a lot also has not caused it; that will only cause a small ‘intestinal’ bloat after eating a large meal (we all know what this is like).

Ronnie and co look differently from Arnie and co because of Growth Hormone and Insulin injections. this causes more protein synthesis (especially when combined with roids) and the side effect ‘lean pregnancy’ (which doesn’t have anything to do with roids, IIRC).

somebody please correct me if i’m wrong.[/quote]

I always thought the guys today want to be freaks. Back in the day (“Arnie & Co.”) wanted to be huge, but not absolutly freakish (see: Frank Zane). Therefore, the guys today WANT to use beoynd healthy levels of drugs (not just steroids, hGH, insulin, but also everything they can get their hands on, diuretics, and I bet stuff we’ve never heard of, if it will add a couple pounds).

[quote]facko wrote:

once i get to a certain size…and i dont want to get any bigger, how do i keep the muscle and not gain anymore?[/quote]

You don’t have to worry about that for a few years. If you don’t want to get bigger, just don’t think about getting bigger, and you will subconcioulsly make the right choices in your diet & training (which will be at a good level by the time you are at the state you want to be at) that you won’t have to worry about it.

[quote]Nomancer wrote:
As far as getting big without using steroids & the like: I think (I could be wrong) that you can get to the size of, or almost the size of, most WWE wrestlers, depending on genetics. Note the difference between such wrestlers and BBers is the body fat %. If the wreslers dieted down, I wonder if they wouldn’t be nearly as big.
[/quote]

Whoaaa there fella, are you saying that WWE wrestlers are drug free?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
You’ve got to be kidding me. Please, tell me I missed something.
Oh…gosh…can’t breathe…laughing too hard.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
wow @ some of these responses.

roids have not caused today’s BBers to be bigger than Arnie and his contemporaries; Arnie and co used a bunch. eating a lot also has not caused it; that will only cause a small ‘intestinal’ bloat after eating a large meal (we all know what this is like).

Ronnie and co look differently from Arnie and co because of Growth Hormone and Insulin injections. this causes more protein synthesis (especially when combined with roids) and the side effect ‘lean pregnancy’ (which doesn’t have anything to do with roids, IIRC).

somebody please correct me if i’m wrong.[/quote]

Simpleton. It’s obviously the HMB which is making these guys bigger. Didn’t anybody tell you that it “feels like deca”?

I help because I care.

[quote]gojira wrote:
Nomancer wrote:
As far as getting big without using steroids & the like: I think (I could be wrong) that you can get to the size of, or almost the size of, most WWE wrestlers, depending on genetics. Note the difference between such wrestlers and BBers is the body fat %. If the wreslers dieted down, I wonder if they wouldn’t be nearly as big.

Whoaaa there fella, are you saying that WWE wrestlers are drug free?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
You’ve got to be kidding me. Please, tell me I missed something.
Oh…gosh…can’t breathe…laughing too hard.[/quote]

Alright, I could be wrong; but I never said they were drug free.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
dont confuse this with comparing a skinny beginner who uses with a big beginner who doesn’t use. a general rule is that everybody can gain 40-60 pounds of muscle naturally, and that’s it. 40 for hardgainers and 60 for the freaks. this also must factor in their starting point when determining max size. so, hypothetically, a freak could get bigger naturally than a weakling could using. this may not be true though; it’s just speculation.

I hate blanket statements like this. No one can gain more than 60lbs without drugs? I know what you mean, but most beginners won’t.[/quote]

I happen to not think it’s true either. Maybe as a quite a rough rule of thumb for athletes who are already in shape and decide to focus on getting big. But plenty of these 130 lbers will be able to get past 190 without roids.

[quote]gojira wrote:
Nomancer wrote:
As far as getting big without using steroids & the like: I think (I could be wrong) that you can get to the size of, or almost the size of, most WWE wrestlers, depending on genetics. Note the difference between such wrestlers and BBers is the body fat %. If the wreslers dieted down, I wonder if they wouldn’t be nearly as big.

Whoaaa there fella, are you saying that WWE wrestlers are drug free?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
You’ve got to be kidding me. Please, tell me I missed something.
Oh…gosh…can’t breathe…laughing too hard.[/quote]

Nah. Many/most problably aren’t. But it’s possible to get that big drug-free.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
dont confuse this with comparing a skinny beginner who uses with a big beginner who doesn’t use. a general rule is that everybody can gain 40-60 pounds of muscle naturally, and that’s it. 40 for hardgainers and 60 for the freaks. this also must factor in their starting point when determining max size. so, hypothetically, a freak could get bigger naturally than a weakling could using. this may not be true though; it’s just speculation.

I hate blanket statements like this. No one can gain more than 60lbs without drugs? I know what you mean, but most beginners won’t.

I happen to not think it’s true either. Maybe as a quite a rough rule of thumb for athletes who are already in shape and decide to focus on getting big. But plenty of these 130 lbers will be able to get past 190 without roids.
[/quote]

ProfX, js, i understand your skepticisms. im kinda skeptical myself.

note that i didn’t say ‘pounds,’ i said ‘pounds of muscle.’ this is a key difference. a lot of people say they gained more muscle than they actually did. many people like to consider lean mass gains as muscle gains while ignoring water gains, bone density gains, organ size increases, etc. many also dismiss small subcutaneous fat gains and remain unaware of visceral fat gains.

when i first came across the 40-60 idea i didn’t much care for it, but after considering it i now think that it may be close to accurate.

personally, i am more genetically inclined to build muscle than most, ive put on 35 pounds since started lifting, i estimate 30 of which is muscle, and i estimate that i am soon to be exiting (if not already) the intermediate stage and entering the advanced stage.

i know how to make gains, i do what needs to be done to make gains, yet gains are coming damn hard. this is the way the advanced stage works. i will take myself to my genetic limit, and will be overjoyed if i add 60 pounds of muscle to my initial physique by then.

P.S. i, too, dont care for categorical statements, and, yes, i do see how beginners could be confused by what i said. thanks for pointing it out.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
when i first came across the 40-60 idea i didn’t much care for it, but after considering it i now think that it may be close to accurate.[/quote]

…and I think this type of thinking will keep many from reaching their goals. I know I don’t have “average” genetics. However, the point is, if you make blanket statements as if NO ONE can gain over 60lbs of lean body mass naturally, it also affects those who can. That doesn’t mean YOU can, but honestly, I have seen many people with far better genetics than I have who blew past that mark if given enough training time. If they were underweight to begin with, it simply breaks that barrier that much easier.

No one knows what their genetic “limit” is until they reach it. Believing you can’t reach a certain point before you try ensures you never will.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
when i first came across the 40-60 idea i didn’t much care for it, but after considering it i now think that it may be close to accurate.

…and I think this type of thinking will keep many from reaching their goals. I know I don’t have “average” genetics. However, the point is, if you make blanket statements as if NO ONE can gain over 60lbs of lean body mass naturally, it also affects those who can. That doesn’t mean YOU can, but honestly, I have seen many people with far better genetics than I have who blew past that mark if given enough training time. If they were underweight to begin with, it simply breaks that barrier that much easier.

No one knows what their genetic “limit” is until they reach it. Believing you can’t reach a certain point before you try ensures you never will.[/quote]

do any of the natural people you know who have gained more than 60 pounds of muscle have before and after pics available. i’d really like to see them. although, that doesn’t rule out the fact that they could just be lying about their supplement status.

being that muscle gains are strongly correlated with and strongly dependant upon getting stronger i think it’s not too difficult to speculate about genetic limits.

let’s see… my personal bests in squat, dead, and bench have gone up about 200 pounds since i first started. i estimate that i’ve gained 30 pounds of muscle from this. well, using math that i think is accurate this would mean that if i added another 200 to each of the big three i would add another 30 pounds of muscle. this would put my ass to grass squat at 600-650, deadlift at 650-700, and bench press at 500-550.

a 1750-1900 total is super freak for a raw, natural lifter (possibly never heard of). even at 5’8", 235, 12%. keep in mind that this speculation is about a full squat, not power, and a bench press without exaggerated arch.

hmmm…im liking the 40-60 pounds of muscle estimate more now.