Both of you are correct and both are wrong IMO. I love the discussion though
And the reason is in both your arguments; "genetics" and "steroid use" and the terminology of BB and PL.
In other words: you both are comparing chicken eggs with eggs of an ostrich. They are both eggs...but different rules apply.
A BB is judged on how his body looks...focussing on mass, symetry etc.
In other words: cosmetic.
A Powerlifter is judged on how much he Pushes or Pulls.
In other words: functional
Both follow different routes to improving their body, but also use overlapping techniques.
I can find little real indepth info on the guy in the movie...but he sure as hell does not just train for strength.
Everything doesn't work for everybody. People react different to different approaches. Some people will get very, very big using a PL routine and others while using a BB routine. And thats why there are so many philosophies, opninions, formats out there.
Strength does not always mean size and size does not always mean strength. And it sure as hell is not a given fact that more strength automatically means more muscle.
(--> this is an observable truth. )
I know skinny ass PL-ers who can outlift BB-ers anytime...and I know massive BB-ers who can not outlift me in BP or DL (and I am nothing compared to the size of these guys who are above all generally smaller in length than me, have lower BF and weigh far more).
(--> Now how is this possible if its a truth that strength automaticcal leads to bigger mass? )
But on the other hand there are also a lot of them that do outlift me and I know powerlifters that can beat just about anybody in size.
(--> SO...basically this means that there is no general rule. )
Most BB-ers I know train heavy but not as heavy as PL-ers...and most PL-ers I know are smaller than bodybuilders. Most BB-ers do others exercises than most PL-ers.
And all of them claim they are natty.
( --> So if I observe this in gyms than it logically leads to the conclusion that you can grow bigger by not being as strong and v.v. )
It is possible to grow in size with not growing proportionally in strength and vice versa. Do please notice that I am using the words: proportionally...so you do grow.
To illustrate that point:
I grow better when I do more reps with a lower weight than when I do a small number of repetitions with a large weight.
So I increase in size...without increasing my strength in equal proportion or I can increase in strength without growing in equal proportion.
So it all depends and all comes down to what works for you....and that leads back to genetics. And thus that there is no universal wrong or right...just a personal situation.
Now as far as roid go I have NO personal experiences what so ever. But as I understand it it overwrites your personal natural genetic limitations. Do note I am using the word natural as I do believe that even with steroid you are limited by genes in what you can achieve with them. So the one who uses the most roids does not necessarilly becomes the best or strongest.
As far as I know most of the guys mentioned in the above posts are not just using once or twice....and started using early on in their carreers or even before they even had carreers but were just training.
Even though this is true it is also true that regardless of how much and how long they have used they also have amazing genes.
It does however mean that most things about size an strength that count for the mass of BB-ers and PL-ers who do not use anything of use once or twice do NOT count for these guys....and vice versa.
Just MO
).
But whatever you do, do it 100% and dedicate yourself.
