I'm also one who thinks his physique is utterly undesirable, and I much preferred the physique I had developed prior to using steroids, from an aesthetic standpoint. Feats of strength are one thing (all of which are essentially unverified), but from an aesthetic standpoint? Yea, natural dudes today can do MUCH better.
In all fairness to botslayer, he's absolutely open about his steroid use on these forums, so I think it's unfair to be critical of the fact that he doesn't disclose that on his facebook page. I'm open on these forums, and with a select few people in my personal life. I would never disclose that fact on facebook.
FWIW, I don't have any problem with people using steroids for any reason.
The point of contention is that his position is that the fitness world is duplicitous and full of crap. I simply pointed out that he is doing the exact same thing.
He was an athletic superstar in his time.
This depends on his true weight. If he was 180 then with years of hard work yes. If he was 202 as listed then no.
I;ve always known of Sandow, but I'm fairly well read in the history of the "iron game." Most people really don't know who he was, and the few that do probably just recognize the name as the trophy awarded at the Mr Olympia contests.
I've always held that Sandow's credit was not so much as a strongman, but moreso as the first name to cash in on the fact that more people seemed willing to witness an aesthetic physique than watch large, roundish strongmen hoist things overhead. Even so, I really doubt anyone ever held him as the yardstick to measure development, especially in regard to the current modern ideal. Back then, the body was worked more through performance type movements rather than specifically aimed at targeting muscle groups (ie. direct chest work). I could see people pushing Steve Reeves as a sort of measuring stick ("perfect symmetry" as his neck, arms and calves all measured the same), but even then, few do.
5'8 and around 180 lbs... not really earth shattering stats, and definitely attainable for most people.
This is exactly what I was saying.
I'm confused. Have you never meet a natural athlete, pro athlete, genetic freak in your lifetime. Wouldn't you say let's not use Bo Jackson as a measure stuck. who never worked out but somehow looked like that. Who was a known freak throughout his entire life. With a million stories about how great he was naturally. There are tons of natural guys today who are bigger than he was and lean
To be honest the more I think about it... I have seen some High School wrestlers whom have made it to the State Championship levels whose physiques weren't to far off from this pic. Some actually had better lower body development. Its not much of a stretch to say that they would be able to achieve the above development if the focused away from wrestling and focused on physique development.
truthfully a friend of mine has better looking physique than sandow with bigger shoulders, many juicers think he is half natty and i know for a fact this guy doesnt juice he just has some good genetics... shit he has almost the same physique as me and i have done my fair share of cycles, in my years of training of i have seen a couple of people genetically gifted been called out on that AAS train but many were natty. Genetics does matter in bodybuilding, look at arnold before he got on AAS the dude looked better than half the posters on here.
I hate those people! Haha. I've got a mate who is 6' 3" and a lean 220 with massive arms and shoulders. Literally never picked up a barbell in his life.
Old time strong men and bodybuilders are certainly more realistic aspirations for natural lifters than most of the guys in fitness magazines today.
Kinda disappointed that OP uses roids finally.
Why is that news to you? He says in multiple places he uses. Why does that discredit his strength and physique?
Aren't you on TRT?
I think it is because for most people, including myself, it definitely changes the validity and how impressive someones hard work and discipline is, generally speaking. If anyone says, “Na man, steroids don’t give me these results, hard work and dedication does!” they’re living under a rock. A 185 lbs guy who has never touched steroids whom squats 550 is very admirable. A 185 lbs guy whom does use steroids who squats 550 is really nothing impressive. That is the difference in my mind. Both are great guys I’m sure and are passionate about lifting, and I would drink a beer with both of them, but one of those guys is an average Joe just like me, and the other one is one helluva an athlete who has potential at the highest levels of competition.
Here is a cool study where men were giving anabolic steroids… They had two placebo groups with and without exercise, and two groups giving steroids with and without exercise. Even the guys who did NO exercise and received testosterone built more muscle tissue and strength than the placebo group with exercise.
If anyone is interested in reading the study, here is the link:
No offense, but there's tons of issues with that study.
One, age of the men? Some could be declining dramatically in test levels, and pushing those levels far past normal human levels could easily cause growth. Basically bringing them back into their
prime. Also factor in baseline hormone levels of the men. If they had been chronically low test they could basically be going through a mini puberty. I don't know about you, but I grew like a weed well before I started training seriously.
Two, occupations? I have a fairly physical job. If I didn't go to the gym, took 600 mg of test, amd went to work, I would grow. I'd probably grow a lot.
Three, purely anecdotal, I have prejudice against that article because I have seen it quoted many times by 130 lb beginners as an excuse to either start cycling, give up entirely, or attempt to discredit any storoid user's work.
Fourth, all the placebo group lift more than the testosterone group. That lays a foundation for later muscle growth. Do you think the test will allow them to keep increasing in weight by 3 kilos every 10 weeks without training? Besides my personal bias that the idea of growing without getting any stronger would be worthless.
I agree with all you said except this. Anyone who squats 550 to me is pretty impressive especially since this is probably not even his peak potential. I get what you mean, being a natural myself, but I still think people who use tend to work a lot harder than the naturals. At an elite level at least.
On a tangent, but this is pretty much why I have zero issues with users. I see steroids as a way to work harder, not work less.
You are a beast, you're the new measuring stick!