Started By
Message

re: Is Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding still relevant?

Posted on 2/25/20 at 11:08 am to
Posted by lsu777
Lake Charles
Member since Jan 2004
31444 posts
Posted on 2/25/20 at 11:08 am to
Well no shite. I wasn't trying to say they were natural, but they were not huge in comparison to today's standards and where not a shite ton of gear compared to today. Most were taking less than a gram a week and were only on half the year.

But like I said before, no stress, tons of sleep, tons of high quality food And hard work helped them.

Most were also genetic freaks, go look how big Arnold was at 16, same with the others. They are the most genetically gifted of a two decade period.
Posted by DeafJam73
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
18521 posts
Posted on 2/25/20 at 11:48 am to
Bodybuilding was much better then. Arnold and his fellow competitors were actually aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Big, broad chest, symmetry in arms and upper back, little waist with a shredded midsection and highly developed legs. Now, mass is the name of the game. Get as big as you possibly can. The competitors now have blown out proportions and have shite conditioning.
Posted by sabes que
Member since Jan 2010
10156 posts
Posted on 2/25/20 at 12:42 pm to
I think the discrepancy here is comparing the amount of juice they were on to modern day pro bodybuilders, of course compared to the guys these days(who are on ungodly amounts of anything and everything) the guys in the 70s weren’t on near as much. However they were still what a normal person would consider juiced to the gills.
Posted by Nobelium
Member since May 2018
821 posts
Posted on 2/25/20 at 12:46 pm to
.
This post was edited on 4/24/21 at 11:31 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram