How did he get so jacked if roids were not a thing back then? Also his training methods were a bunch of crazy wacky lifts that modern "science based" bodybuilders would consider useless and even dangerous
So what was his secret? Were natty test levels just extremely high back then?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Although he did look good, a lot of it I suspect was the halo effect from low body fat, coupled with the right lighting. Also early photos were notorious for being 'shopped' in the darkroom.
>"The more things change the more they stay the same"
What he said, but happier and with my mouth open.
Lol, you're right. Didn't realise I was clenching my teeth as I was typing..
because we made full circle and now 22 FFMI with 6pack is 100% roids because the guy having it clearly has acne/thin hair/too big delts /whatever bs reason. Whys that? think its because zoomers thinking theyre capped after 2-3 years of lifting and powerbloaters who never seen their body sub 20%
1. "Also his training methods were a bunch of crazy wacky lifts that modern "science based" bodybuilders would consider useless and even dangerous." Not true. What many did at the time for muscle correlates-ish with what Arthur Jones ended up extolling: 8-12ish big exercises, 1 set to max, 10-20 reps. The 'whacky lifts' were trained with modern-ish strength training principles: e.g. 'bent press' ramp up over a few sets to a max effort once a week and lift less weight on other days (which is Tommy Kono or Bill Starr's H/L/M) and taking complete rest 'when needed' for a week or two. This is all in the books of the era.
2. Sandow had great genetics and looks like a more 'seasoned' version of drug-free bodybuilders with great genetics. Compare Sandow with young, drug free, Dorian Yates. The bodies are very similar.
3. Pics from the era use lightning techniques and some are obviously retouched by artists.
4. Male hormones and health were obviously better pre destruction of european manhood past WW1, though next to nothing is known definitively. If that Norway study showing that ethnic Norwegian IQ has dropped 1 point plus per decade since the 1950s is true, it's obviously a clear example of a decline in health across the 20th century.
>4. Male hormones and health were obviously better pre destruction of european manhood past WW1, though next to nothing is known definitively. If that Norway study showing that ethnic Norwegian IQ has dropped 1 point plus per decade since the 1950s is true, it's obviously a clear example of a decline in health across the 20th century.
Neither the IQ nor the hormones are true.
In the 50s only upper class citizens would ever get a IQ test, and these are dubious tests as well. Test tests were never common either and even today people usually only do it if they show symptoms of low test or are cycling
Most of the strongmen of that era recommended using very light weight, full muscle control and very hard squeezing for each rep, resulting in a very hypertrophic state.
They could do weird exercises because they didn't use any significant weight because almost all the resistance was obtained with counterforce in the intense squeeze. They basically only used the weights to have something to grab on to and guide the squeeze.
They also all advocated 'holding isometric' exercises of various types, pushing against or pulling an immovable object.
Isometrics are good for strength adaptations but not for hypertrophy
If you do the exercises they recommend correctly then you'll experience lots of hypertrophy.
I think it's the squeezing and the movement combined that does the trick. I don't get hypertrophy if I squeeze and hold still, but but I get an insane muscle burn if I squeeze hard and move at the same time with light weights.
Isometrics are the least optimal type of exercise for hypertrophy. The most optimal are eccentrics. Isometrics are great for training your CNS for maximum motor unit activation. I think you're confusing most fatigue=most hypertrophy when it's most fatigue=most strength adaptation.
>I think you're confusing most fatigue=most hypertrophy when it's most fatigue=most strength adaptation
Well, kind of. But it's not strictly isometrics because you also have movement and weight involved.
However, with light weight you can control it like an eccentric exercise.
If you don't squeeze as hard it won't burn as much and you will get more of a pump.
At a certain rep count you get the maximum hypertrophy.
But really you just start out squeezing hard and then less and less like a dropset.
I believe a dropset is one of the most hypertrophic exercises you can do.
The science isn't totally black and white in this area especially with all the factors involved in the bronze era squeezing techniques.
All I can say is that it works for me when I do it the right way.
Extremely impressive physique
>resulting in a very hypertrophic state
this means absolutely nothing, you're a fricking brainlet trying to sound smart
What's your argument?
That hypertrophy isn't on a spectrum from low to high?
Nta but that would be a sound argument since it isn't.
Hypertrophy is the increase in size of the muscle cells, in contrast to hyperplasia.
Hypertrophy is basically the relative size of the individual muscle cell.
You can say that the bigger the cell is, the more hypertrophic it is.
You can say that if you insist but a workout is still either going to induce hypertrophy or it isn't. There's no magnitude to it. It does it or it doesn't.
>a workout is still either going to induce hypertrophy or it isn't. There's no magnitude to it. It does it or it doesn't.
That doesn't make sense.
Hypertrophy is an increase in size of the cell. It's relative to the size before workout. Cells are not only either small or big, they're on a spectrum because it's a volume. You'll find each cell has a specific volume prior and post exercise. it either grows or shrinks or multiplies. That's basically all it means.
>Hypertrophy is the increase in the volume of an organ or tissue due to the enlargement of its component cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy
There is no "very hypertrophic state". They either hypertrophied and got a little bigger from the workout or they didn't.
A muscle cell can be compared to a balloon in a sense.
If you blow a little bit of air into it, it becomes a little bit hypertrophic.
If you blow a lot of air into it, it becomes very hypertrophic.
No it can't.
False.
Just flex as hard as you can and say grow grow grow.
he was right all along, and we mocked him like fools!
Good genetics. Your average natty cannot achieve that nowadays
He rubbed onions all over his skin.
But steroids already existed?
Is everyone here moronic now? You can look up the doping scandals of big sports. Baseball had its big one just before Sandow entered the scene with cannonball delts and low bodyfat, looking and performing completely different from the strongmen before him. Coincidence? You decide.
Sandow was israeli, btw. israelites were always big into the show biz aspect of physical culture and combat sports.
Maybe read a book sometimes, fricking American idiots.
>Bodybuilding was created by israelites
Thats sad
Steroids didn't exist in the bronze era no.
Even testosterone was only first synthesized in 1935
Brown-Séquard Elixir
This shit was animal jizz that they shot up into their veins. It was literally placebo. The effects have never been replicated because there's no organ in the body which contains test above that which you can find in any random muscle, and which has no effect.
>Players have attempted to gain chemical advantages in baseball since the earliest days of the sport. In 1889, for example, pitcher Pud Galvin became the first baseball player to be widely known for his use of performance-enhancing substances.[6] Galvin was a user and vocal proponent of the Brown-Séquard Elixir, a testosterone supplement derived from the testicles of live animals such as dogs and guinea pigs.[6]
Holy shit
Someone forgot to charge rent for Americans this month...
What? Don't like to be called out on your bullshit opinions? Too bad, you tiny American man.
Steroids didn't exist. The "doping" of late 1800's-early 1900's was basically limited to cocaine, morphine and strychnine. And it was hardly a scandal since it was not regulated at all, at most it could've been seen as dishonorable behavior.
Everyone was on steroids stop lying
let's see if that's true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#Discovery_of_androgens
First steroid was introduced in 1936, so no.
From your own link:
>The use of gonadal steroids pre-dates their identification and isolation. Use of Cow urine for treatment of ascites, heart failure, renal failure and vitiligo has been elaborately described in Sushruta Samhita, suggesting that ancient Indians had some understanding of steroidal properties of Cow urine around 6th century BCE.[203] Extraction of hormones from urines began in China around 100 BCE.[citation needed] Medical use of testicle extract began in the late 19th century while its effects on strength were still being studied.[137] The isolation of gonadal steroids can be traced back to 1931, when Adolf Butenandt, a chemist in Marburg, purified 15 milligrams of the male hormone androstenone from tens of thousands of litres of urine. This steroid was subsequently synthesized in 1934 by Leopold Ružička, a chemist in Zurich.[204]
People have been doping for millenia before actually synthesizing steroids. Don't be stupid.
>The isolation of gonadal steroids can be traced back to 1931, when Adolf Butenandt, a chemist in Marburg, purified 15 milligrams of the male hormone androstenone from tens of thousands of litres of urine.
>This steroid was subsequently synthesized in 1934 by Leopold Ružička, a chemist in Zurich
that's the first we can say for sure.
Who knows how many dog testicles you have to eat every day before you get the effects of a small dose of a synthesized testosterone or steroid?
Starting on page 411 of the source[137]
https://www.endocrine.org/~/media/endosociety/files/ep/rphr/57/rphr_vol_57_ch_19_anabolic_steroids.pdf
We can not say for sure what 'testicular extract' was, what what in it, how well it worked or anything really.
it continues to report that the first synthesized steroid hormone was synthesized in 1934.
So anything before that is pure speculation.
Indians have been fricking up wikipedia for years pretending they invented everything 10,000 years ago. They aren't drinking cow urine for the steroidal effects.
Test didn't get used until after WW2. de Kruif's 'The Male Hormone' (1945) (tl;dr: a bestseller which extolled the drug as a fountain of masculine youth) popularized it, it was commonly used to treat injured soilders post war in Britain (Jim Halliday, a notable weightlifter from the era, was a prisoner of war with a micraculous story of skin and bones in a Japanese camp to champion lifter story) and by 1947 it was already commonly used in horse racing (Steve Reeves was actively involved in this community.) No bodybuilders from this era openly admit using test.
You're probably thinking about Voronoff's monkey testicle transplants, but I've never found any case study of it being used for BBing/sport. Rumoured to be popular at the time though.
>You're probably thinking about Voronoff's monkey testicle transplants
Was thinking about just this reading this thread
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-true-story-of-dr-voronoffs-plan-to-use-monkey-testicles-to-make-us-immortal
>Rumoured to be popular at the time though.
Here in France many aging horndogs in the parisian circles got their balls xenografted to monke, with great success it seems. Though the procedure had to be redone every 5 years or so.
It's a very interesting subject, and it could be quite interesting if there was a way to humanely harvest chimp balls (maybe growing them in labs, just like fake meat) in order to graft them. Does it nuke natural T levels in the end as with injections?
Stfu up Black person steroid abuse was already rampant at that time and widely available
>How did he get so jacked if roids were not a thing back then?
He looks completely within natty limits. You guys are so obsessed with roids you think it's impossible to look remotely fit without them. Cope and seethe, you just need to actually lift.
>He looks completely within natty limits
Show me a modern natty who looks as good as Sandow. Its simply impossible to achieve his physique with modern natural test levels
There are tons.
>inb4 "they're frauds"
All fake natties
SO WHAT THE FRICK IS THE POINT OF ASKING homosexual
To piss you off, homo
Mike ohearn
My fav era.
Firstly, they are not as jacked as you perceive them to be. They are pumped, under lighting, and there is nothing to compare them next to.
This is like standing cold naked in front of a full mirror, as opposed to getting a pump and doing a most muscular pose real close to the mirror. You will look like 2 different people.
Sandows arms are likely 15.5 inches there. Many of them like him around 5'9" 180lbs.
Of course this is impressive, and imo looks way better than the mentally ill roided bloat lords today.
Their diets would be meats, eggs, veggies but no sugars or mass carbs.
A handful of their lifts do not follow the 8-10 reps of a weight they can manage to build muscle, but the heaviest weights, often at 1 or 2 reps. This generally built strength as opposed to more size, which is why they have impressive lifts for their weight and size.
They would also use light weights and control each muscle group. Put it under dynamic tension.
Like the above, they also did use heavy weights.
You can conclude light weights were exaggerated in order to sell fitness regimes, as you could not ship big heavy weights back then. OR modern day started to move away from this intentionally in order to sell large machines and weights for profit.
There is not much focus on light weights today because of this, and hence little studies. Often because the movements and tension applied was difficult to understand. I am in the camp of it does work, or at least it does maintain muscle mass.
But context of the size, most were no bigger than wrestler Christian Cage. One of the smaller wrestlers. We are just bombarded with massive roid mental shit online, the same way as we are told every guy is 6'5" online.
What do you think of this program? I have no interest in growing my chest, I just want a broad back, big arms, and great shoulders. I cannot perform squats, lunges, or anything of that ilk due to a knee injury. Deadlifts do not affect my knees for some reason, so I can perform those.
Current stats -
181cm
88kg
28 years old
Unemployed but have a home gym
1 rep maxes tested over the last few months.
50kg OHP
70kg bench press
100kg squat
115kg deadlift
Monday - Back and biceps
Deadlift 1x5
EZ Curl Bar bicep curl 4x5
Barbell Pendlay row 3x8
Preacher curl 3x12
One armed dumbbell row 3x12
Tuesday - Shoulders and triceps
Barbell overhead press 3x5
Dumbbell tricep kickback 3x12
Dumbbell lateral raise 3x12
Skullcrushers 3x12
Front raises with plate 3x12
Wednesday - Back and biceps
EZ Bar Bicep Curl 4x5
Deadlift 1x5
Preacher curl 3x12
Barbell Pendlay row 3x8
One armed dumbbell row 3x12
Thursday - Chest and triceps
Incline benchpress 3x5
Skullcrushers 3x12
Close grip flat bench benchpress 3x12
Dumbbell triceps extension 3x12
Dips 3xAMRAP
Friday - Biceps, shoulders, and back
Overhead press 3x5
One Armed dumbell row 3x8
EZ Curl Bar bicep curl 4x5
Lateral raise 3x12
Front raises 3x12
Saturday - go to synagogue and rest
Sunday - Chest and triceps
Flat bench bench press 3x5
Incline benchpress 3x12
Dips 3xAMRAP
Total volume per week
Deadlift volume - 2 sets
Biceps - 18 sets
Triceps - 15 sets (not counting bench)
Shoulders - 18 sets
Back - 15 sets (not counting deadlift)
Chest - 12 sets (not counting dips)
I perform the chest exercises because I do not want to develop any imbalances but I have no particular interest in growing my chest.
>synagogue
Lol I missed that with the wall of text.
What's wrong with that?
It's a good program though. Auschwitz mode will look appropriate on you.
Shit program rabbi. Do HIT instead
Men in the 50s had about 50% more testosterone on average than men today. Look it up.
So? This a body with 236ng/dl test levels. There are people who have naturally 800-1000 test level and they look like pear anons. Testosterone has very little to do with building muscle, its mostly just about how many androgen receptors you have. Thats partly why women can build big legs despite having 20ng/dl test, because they have a lot of androgen receptors in their lower body. But its literally impossible for them to build a strong upper body.
>Testosterone has very little to do with building muscle, its mostly just about how many androgen receptors you have.
I'm learning new things everyday.
This is going on my research list.
Thanks for mentioning this.
Its bullshit. You think pro bodybuilders have absurd levels of test for no reason at all? Building muscle is about receptors AND test levels
Stop lying motherfricking homosexual you already said that you are on testosterone motherfricking b***h ass Black person
/Pol/tier interpretation
because you can build a decent level of muscle without steroids, the specifics of the training method aren't that consequential up to a point. Also modern "science based" bodybuilders tend to promote only what they consider "optimal", despite the fact that many ways of training will still yield results (although arguably inferior results, results nonetheless)
He's a manlet and not that jacked at all.
I've seen 5'6 manlets get to this level within 2 years of working out.
I don't know why you morons gush so hard over this. Granted yes, it's realistic, but at the same time, why not strive for more?
He has a ok body
He lifted and kept lifting. That's all that matters. He ate a high protein diet too and knew to enjoy himself every once in a while.
He had access to alien technology