traviswyliedime
New member
Take out your ipod® ear buds next time you are at the barbershop and you will hear old-timers reliving the past, turning the most mundane activities into epic tales that rival the achievements of Beowulf. Time glosses over a lot of life’s nasty details in a temporal version of ‘beer goggles,’ allowing society’s more senior members to declare that sports heroes were better athletes, Mom’s cooking was the best and politicians were honest. Yet, an objective measure of ‘Then versus Now’ often disproves these passionately-held beliefs. Consider the iconic backfield of the 1924 Notre Dame Football team, nicknamed ‘The Four Horsemen.’ The players, quarterback Harry Stuhldreher, left halfback Jim Crowley, right halfback Don Miller and fullback Elmer Layden, led the ‘Fighting Irish’ to a national championship with a perfect 10-0 record, under coaching legend Knute Rockne. Though they were giants in college football history, each being named to the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame, none of the players exceeded 162 pounds in weight. One can only imagine how few plays these icons would last in a game against today’s top college defenses, or if they would even earn a roster spot on a Division I team.
Bodybuilding has existed long enough to develop its own ‘senior society.’ As the most vocal fans of competitive bodybuilding are young adults and adolescents, it is not surprising that debates of the greatest physiques often exclude past competitors. In fact, it’s difficult to find pictures of many of the one-time greats; prior to the ’90s, photo archives were not digital records available on the web. They were celluloid rolls of film or slides in protective sleeves contained in three-ring binders.
The earliest days of bodybuilding consisted of traveling performers who would put on displays of strength. It was not until the ’60s that a bodybuilding industry developed, resembling what it is today. Bodybuilding was a true niche activity, emerging out of the psychedelic ’60s, establishing its beachhead on the beaches of the Los Angeles communities. Young men, whose first taste of iron usually came through exposure to powerlifting, were immigrating to Venice, California to train at Joe Gold’s gym where it was rumored that the best bodies in the world were being developed. Within this nebula shone a star who defined the era and remains to this day a singular example in bodybuilding— Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold’s meteoric rise in the areas of bodybuilding, acting and now politics has been well documented. Even today, some of his photos are still regarded as representing the apex of muscular development. Some argue that there are or have been physiques equal to or even greater than Arnold’s, but his impact on bodybuilding continues to be unrivaled.
In comparison to today’s champions, does Arnold’s bodybuilding physique continue to reign supreme or would it pale, much like The Four Horsemen of college football? This is an argument that will never be resolved, since bodybuilding is subjectively judged. However, it is clear in comparing bodybuilders of Arnold’s era to current competitors that the bodies have changed.
Compare Arnold and his contemporaries to recent Olympians. At first glance, both groups are muscular and lean; yet, closer scrutiny reveals vast differences. The Arnold-era physique generally followed classical lines of symmetry, with an emphasis on upper body development. The general public was awed by these figurative and literal giants, as they embodied the desired aesthetics of the male physique at that time. Contrast those images with the more exaggerated development of today’s champions. The extreme builds that stretch the imagination as much as they stretched the skin of the elite competitors earlier this decade represent maximal development rather than the optimal aesthetic. The impressive but overwhelming accretion of mass parading across stages in recent years has been displayed to smaller and smaller crowds; the physique of modern champions no longer resonates with the public as the male ideal— witness the example of the gentlemen immortalized in the film “Pumping Iron.” The question could be posed, “Is it better for top bodybuilders to appeal to hardcore fans, or should the opinion of the public dictate the direction of the culture?” This goes outside the scope of this article and its companion on fat loss.
What accounts for the noticeable difference between the champions of the Arnold-era and current times? The ‘800-pound gorilla’ answer is drugs, and this will be addressed; however it belittles the sport to say that the only difference between then and now is a few jabs of a needle. Several top bodybuilding professionals contributed to this article, from this generation and from the Arnold-era. The consensus when asked about drug use during competition was “It’s not just the drugs, you have to consider…” Each of the respondents had a different emphasis, but universally, they all finished that sentence with an attempt to clarify that drugs were not the focus of their efforts— they were and are just a tool.
Unquestionably, bodybuilding in the ’60s and ’70s was a far cry from what it has become in the 21st century. The conditions were primitive, equipment was often made of scavenged parts, supplements were very basic and there was no money to be made as a bodybuilder. In conversations with several pros of that era, including men portrayed in “Pumping Iron,” it was clear that the culture and society of bodybuilding was not the sport it is today. Outside the Mecca of Venice, CA and a few other metropolitan areas, there was not much opportunity to participate in or even be exposed to bodybuilding.
Venice, CA was a magnet that drew the top talent in the world to its doors to learn from or at least be near the budding legends. As bodybuilding was such a niche activity, and its concept was foreign to most people, pioneering bodybuilders developed a tight community, supporting each other in their pursuit of physical development as well as against the verbal attacks of those who viewed bodybuilding as narcissistic, freakish or gay. [Attitudes toward homosexuality were vastly different in the ’60s and ’70s as compared to today.] Bodybuilders forged deep friendships and rivalries that continue to this day. The group barbecued together, traveled across the world together and drove each other to excel. Acceptance into this circle was earned through hard work, results and positive support. Much like a fraternity, these men recognized each other as trusted companions.
Of course, the question often arises, “What were the Arnold-era champions using?” It is fair to say that drug use was perhaps as prevalent in that group as it is today, as these men were driven and competitive, just as bodybuilders are today. Over the decades, several have admitted to anabolic steroid use in magazine interviews, but understand that the social and legal environment was more open at that time. Of course, there was no standard drug schedule then, no more so than there is now. However, in talking with several of the icons, a general pattern emerges. Training was consistent year-round, with the intensity being relaxed only slightly off-season to focus more on strength and mass; bodyweight did not fluctuate nearly as much, remaining within 5-10 percent of competition weight. Bodybuilding was a demanding lifestyle; few of these men had careers or dependents. Few had a significant amount of money to spend on clothes, housing or drugs. Also, the amount and types of anabolics available at that time were much more limited than today. Considering the limited resources (money, anabolic steroids), promoters rewarding aesthetics over mass, and the more conservative use of drugs by those bodybuilders, amazing physiques were developed, using a surprisingly small amount of anabolic steroids.
In general, cycles only lasted 8-12 weeks; most bodybuilders of that era only cycled twice a year. There was no insulin, GH, IGF-1, etc. The training, especially pre-contest, was intense and catabolic; thus, the drugs of preference were those that maintained mass and drive. The gyms were owned and managed by guys like Joe Gold, who was actually in the gym and part of the scene, not an investor. There was no place for rage or disorderly conduct. All of these factors influenced the cycles to being more androgenic and lower-dosed than the pre-contest cycles of today, explaining why the bodybuilders of that era were all much fuller-appearing and not as lean. Diuretics weren’t typically used and there were no local inflammatory drugs like synthrol or prostaglandins, so the size and shape was directly reflective of the underlying muscles and the overall conditioning (body fat, subcutaneous water). Most people don’t realize that 10 years later, The Underground Steroid Handbook still only listed 29 drugs used by bodybuilders.
One champion of that era was quite frank in stating, “Look, we weren’t saints. That’s just what was there at the time.” He went on to state that, like other competitors, nobody wanted to give up an advantage to anyone else. In reminiscing, he related his opinion that the Arnold to Haney years represented the peak of bodybuilding.
So, in the course of a year, the pros of the ’70s were cycling twice, for a period of 8-12 weeks each cycle at peak dose. Pyramiding added a few weeks to the beginning and end of the cycle. The cycles were basic and moderate, consisting of 10-50mg of Dianabol (or other oral equivalent, e.g. Winstrol, Anavar) daily, stacked with 200-800mg testosterone ester weekly. Some used Deca or Primobolan in place of or along with testosterone; others may have stayed with an all-oral cycle. [Many do not realize that most of these bodybuilders were getting their drugs through a physician. Nearly all LA bodybuilders in those days were patients of Dr. Kerr.1] It is noteworthy that the cycles used in those days were very similar to the cycles used by most current, non-competitive, anabolic steroid users of today.2
Now, this is not to say that there were not those who pushed anabolic steroid use to the extreme at that time. There were some known for following the ‘more is better’ path— a few to a premature death. This trend became increasingly prevalent during the mid-to-late ‘80s as bodybuilding’s appeal became mainstream; suddenly there were millions of people wanting the ‘Arnold’ look or its female equivalent. It is pathetic that to this day, laypeople are unwilling to acknowledge the commitment, sacrifice and honest labor that Arnold, his contemporaries and successors put in to achieve those physiques. The public (and anti-doping concerns) wish to believe that anabolic steroids are a quick substitute for years of strict training, dieting and other factors which are the essential foundations to bodybuilding success (competitive or personal). Another factor that contributed to the pressure for longer, higher-dose cycles and the eventual inclusion of GH, insulin and other drugs was the de facto standard, rewarding greater mass and minimal body fat by event judges and the publishing industry. The larger bodybuilders of the Arnold-era weighed 230-240 pounds and were over 6’ tall. Now, competitors walk onstage weighing 20-90 pounds more, with much less body fat. [2008 Mr. Olympia champion Dexter Jackson competed at a weight similar to Arnold’s, despite being seven inches shorter.] If one looks closely at the pictures from the ’70s Olympia meets, a near-absence of vascularity would be noted. Today, the entire vascular tree can be mapped from the 10th row of the audience.
It was the untimely death of Andreas Munzer and the revelation in the German periodical Der Spiegel of his alleged cycle, that brought the extremes to which drug use were headed to public light. Munzer was known for pushing himself rigorously and this approach was reflected in his drug protocol.
More recently, reports of drug use by elite competitive bodybuilders, as well as non-competing men and women seeking the strength and/or mass offered through anabolic drugs, have been published in professional journals. What is apparent is a disorganized approach, especially outside of the elite competitor circles.
A number of drugs have been developed since the 1970s that serve as adjuncts to anabolic steroids in promoting muscularity. Some control side effects, allowing greater doses of anabolic steroids to be administered; others promote muscle growth via different metabolic pathways, complementing the effect of anabolic steroids. Still other drugs have entered the bodybuilding circles as a consequence of the audience expanding outside disciplined athletes, as well as a function of anabolic steroids being viewed as and distributed through the same channels as drugs like cocaine and painkillers. Restricting observations to competitive, elite-level current bodybuilders, one sees some striking differences from the classical anabolic steroid stacks of the ’70s.
Currently, bodybuilders are using much higher doses of anabolic steroids, in conjunction with human growth hormone (GH), insulin, and rarely, IGF-1 to promote maximal muscle growth and recovery. Variably, some use human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) during a cycle to maintain testicular function and presumably increase testosterone levels. The use of aromatase inhibitors (Arimidex, Femara, etc.) is near-universal, and 5***945;-reductase inhibitors (i.e. finasteride, duasteride) are frequently added to control side effects. As a competition approaches, local inflammatory agents (i.e. synthrol, esiclene) are injected directly into muscle to promote localized swelling.
Another disturbing trend seen in the last decade or two is prolonged use, to the point where some bodybuilders do not go ‘off-cycle’ at all. More commonly, an off-cycle period is scheduled during the winter months, but it is brief and consists of a short bridge and accelerated post-cycle recovery. The off-cycle may be no more than 4-6 weeks in a year. The reasons for the near-continuous use of anabolics is the extension of contests throughout the year, frequent photo shoots for endorsements or media exposure, promotional videos or streaming on websites and appearances at amateur events. Today’s bodybuilder is more of a professional than the classical bodybuilder. In the ’70s, it was not uncommon to see bodybuilders working at an unskilled job to support the gym fees or travel. The top guys were sponsored, but there was little money to be made in bodybuilding, unlike today.
Today, top bodybuilders have product and clothing lines, endorsement contracts and agents. While there are several multimillionaire former bodybuilders, even among the current top competitors, income is relatively generous. Clearly, finances are both a requirement and motivation for the current generation of bodybuilder, as drug use and other expenses can cost more than $50,000 annually. A cost of $100,000 was estimated in the ’90s, but the advent of Chinese-manufactured GH brought drug expenses down considerably.
People have passions. Some drive themselves to reach new heights in excellence; others live vicariously through their idols as zealous fans. Some may argue the merits of the 1962 Ford Thunderbird Sports Roadster against the 2008 Saturn Sky Redline; if Johnny Unitas or Tom Brady is the better quarterback; or a preference for The Beatles 1968 White Album versus Guns N’ Roses’s 1987 Appetite for Destruction. For bodybuilding fans and bodybuilders, the question of who had or has the greatest physique of all time can be just as passionate. The defining presentation of Arnold at the 1975 Olympia is the standard for many, but calls for Sergio, Lee Haney, Dorian, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler or Dexter Jackson are heard as well.
If one focuses on the use of anabolics by bodybuilders, the culture and commitment of the men and women is lost. Of course, drugs are essential to developing the mass and definition requisite to excel in professional bodybuilding and over the course of time, they have played an increasingly dominant role.
One competitor noted that in the ’70s, the only real reward was the achievement, making bodybuilding a calling. A competitor of today commented that it is more of a business, requiring a person to be more professional and take calculated risks.
The comment could be made that for the Arnold-era bodybuilder, it was hard work back then; others may state that current bodybuilders work smarter, not harder. Some believe that genetics played a bigger role in the ’60s and ’70s (see Sergio Oliva, Mr. Olympia 1967-1969); some feel that genetics continues to play a role and that increased public awareness of bodybuilding and access to well-equipped gyms (and drugs) have improved the odds of the genetically-gifted entering the competitor pool.
Regardless of the differences across the generations, one fact is universal to all of these elite bodybuilding icons— they have devoted themselves completely to achieving physical excellence.
References:
1. Janofsky M. Doctor Says He Supplied Steroids to Medalists. The New York Times, 1989 June 20.
2. Cohen J, Collins R, et al. A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2007 Oct 11;4:12.
A comparison of cycles across time:
*The presentation of these cycles is for informational purposes only and does not condone the uses described below.
Early adaptor cycle— c. 1958
Four to eight week cycles of 5-20mg Dianabol daily
The classic cycle— c. 1960s-1970s
Duration: 8-12 weeks + taper
Week 1: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 20mg Dianabol daily
Week 2: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 30mg Dianabol daily
Week 3: Testosterone cypionate 200mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 4-6: Testosterone cypionate 300mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 7-10: Testosterone cypionate 400mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 40mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 11-12: Testosterone cypionate 200mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Week 13: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 14-16: Taper on Dianabol only
*Note: During the ’60s-’90s, pyramiding was common as post-cycle recovery was dependent upon tapering. Also, the lack of effective aromatase inhibitors and sensitivity to estrogenic side-effects caused some to use lower doses of testosterone and substitute Anavar for the Dianabol, though with lesser mass and strength benefits. Pre-contest cycles would substitute Primobolan for the testosterone in ever-increasing ratio. Rumors of higher doses are likely invalid as water retention and gynecomastia would have been evident.
Andreas Munzer’s ‘Death Cycle’ (as reported in Der Spiegel)— c. 1996
Weeks 1-10: Ephedrine, Aspirin, Clenbuterol, Valium, Captagon, Cytomel***8232;***8232;***8232;
Weeks 1-5:***8232;Testosterone Enanthate 500mg daily,***8232;Parabolan 152mg daily,***8232;Dianabol 150mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 150mg, daily***8232;HGH 20IU daily,***8232;Insulin 20IU daily***8232;***8232;
Weeks 6-8:***8232;Masteron 300mg daily,***8232;Parabolan 152mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Tab 250mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 150mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Inj. 50mg daily,***8232;HGH 24IU daily***8232;***8232;
Weeks 9-10:***8232;Masteron 200mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Inj 100mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 200mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Tab 400mg daily,***8232;HGH 24IU Daily,***8232;Insulin***8232;IGF-1 Aldactone and Lasix for 3 days before show
Note: some have disputed this list as being inaccurate, whereas others state it is consistent with Munzer’s use. No toxicology report was available for confirmation of the drugs’ presence.
Current cycle— c. 2008
MASS-GAINING CYCLE:
Weeks 1-6**
1. 250mg testosterone enanthate every other day
2. 200mg Deca every other day
3. Growth Hormone (GH) 3IUs per day, every morning upon waking
3a. Insulin (Humulin-R) 8IU with breakfast/4IU 5-6 hours later
4. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
Weeks 7-12**
1. 250mg testosterone cypionate every other day
2. 200mg EQ every other day
3. Growth Hormone (GH) 3IUs per day
3a. Insulin (Humulin-R) 8IU with breakfast/4IU 5-6 hours later
4. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
Weeks 13-18**
1. 250mg Sustanon-250 or Test Cypionate (or Enanthate), every other day
2. 75mg trenbolone, every other day
3. Continue GH, 3IU per morning
4. Insulin (Humulin-R), 8IU with breakfast, 4IU 5-6 hours later
5. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara every other day
PRE-CONTEST DRUG CYCLES:
MINI-CYCLE:
1. 250mg testosterone cypionate every other day
2. Equipoise (Boldenone) 200mg every other day
3. Clenbuterol: 20mcg 2x per day
4. Cytomel: 25mcg per day.
5. GH, 3IU taken every morning before breakfast
6. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
START AT 8 WEEKS OUT:
1. 250mg Sustanon (or Test Cypionate or enanthate) every other day
2. Trenbolone 75mg, every other day. Take every day for last 7 days.
3. Winstrol, 50mg every other day. Take every day for last 7 days.
4. Continue Clenbuterol, GH, and Cytomel
5. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5 mg Femara every other day, every day the last 4 weeks
Note: There are numerous examples of bodybuilders using MUCH higher doses. This protocol is one that is consistent with many of the top-tier bodybuilders, averaging between 1,000-2,000mg androgen exposure/week. Of course, some report taking up to 5,000mg androgen/week, along with adjunct drugs. Several of the top bodybuilders still include oral anabolic steroids in their cycles at extremely high doses (e.g. oral Winstrol tabs in excess of 100mg/day). IGF-1 is still used by some, whereas the more exotic research chemicals (e.g. myostatin inhibitors, interleukin-15) or designer drugs are rarely mentioned. Further, most pros stay on year-round, though they may have low-dose ‘vacations’ of 150-200mg testosterone/week as there is insufficient time for full recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.
Recent competitor cycle, very high dose (unconfirmed)— c. 1996-2000
Weeks 1-17: 750mg testosterone cypionate/enanthate weekly***8232;
Weeks 1-14: 100mg testosterone propionate every other day
Weeks 15-20: 100mg testosterone suspension daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 50mg of Deca-Durabolin daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 150mg Parabolin every other day***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 50mg trenbolone acetate daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 100mg equipoise daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 8 Andriol gelcaps daily***8232;(Not specified): 8 Clenbuterol— 2 days on, 2 off***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 150mg Winstrol-V daily***8232;Weeks 1-20: 40mgs of Nolvadex ED***8232;
Weeks 1-14: 4 IU Growth Hormone (Humatrope) 5 days on 2 off***8232;
Weeks 15-20: 6 IU Humatrope— 5 days on, 2 off
Weeks 1-20: Insulin (Humalin N and Humalin R), dose not specified***8232;(Not Specified): Cytadren, dose not specified***8232;
Weeks 1-20: Cytomel 75-150mcg daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: Halotestin 40mg daily***8232;
Weeks 14-20: Masteron 50mg daily
Note: This cycle obviously was in use prior to the advent of effective aromatase inhibitors, as they have replaced the need for Cytadren and dependence on 5***945;-reduced anabolic steroids (e.g., Masteron). This is an extremely dangerous cycle due to the frequency and volume of injections, inclusion of Halotestin and use of insulin. It is present only for illustration of the drug use trends.
Bodybuilding has existed long enough to develop its own ‘senior society.’ As the most vocal fans of competitive bodybuilding are young adults and adolescents, it is not surprising that debates of the greatest physiques often exclude past competitors. In fact, it’s difficult to find pictures of many of the one-time greats; prior to the ’90s, photo archives were not digital records available on the web. They were celluloid rolls of film or slides in protective sleeves contained in three-ring binders.
The earliest days of bodybuilding consisted of traveling performers who would put on displays of strength. It was not until the ’60s that a bodybuilding industry developed, resembling what it is today. Bodybuilding was a true niche activity, emerging out of the psychedelic ’60s, establishing its beachhead on the beaches of the Los Angeles communities. Young men, whose first taste of iron usually came through exposure to powerlifting, were immigrating to Venice, California to train at Joe Gold’s gym where it was rumored that the best bodies in the world were being developed. Within this nebula shone a star who defined the era and remains to this day a singular example in bodybuilding— Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold’s meteoric rise in the areas of bodybuilding, acting and now politics has been well documented. Even today, some of his photos are still regarded as representing the apex of muscular development. Some argue that there are or have been physiques equal to or even greater than Arnold’s, but his impact on bodybuilding continues to be unrivaled.
In comparison to today’s champions, does Arnold’s bodybuilding physique continue to reign supreme or would it pale, much like The Four Horsemen of college football? This is an argument that will never be resolved, since bodybuilding is subjectively judged. However, it is clear in comparing bodybuilders of Arnold’s era to current competitors that the bodies have changed.
Compare Arnold and his contemporaries to recent Olympians. At first glance, both groups are muscular and lean; yet, closer scrutiny reveals vast differences. The Arnold-era physique generally followed classical lines of symmetry, with an emphasis on upper body development. The general public was awed by these figurative and literal giants, as they embodied the desired aesthetics of the male physique at that time. Contrast those images with the more exaggerated development of today’s champions. The extreme builds that stretch the imagination as much as they stretched the skin of the elite competitors earlier this decade represent maximal development rather than the optimal aesthetic. The impressive but overwhelming accretion of mass parading across stages in recent years has been displayed to smaller and smaller crowds; the physique of modern champions no longer resonates with the public as the male ideal— witness the example of the gentlemen immortalized in the film “Pumping Iron.” The question could be posed, “Is it better for top bodybuilders to appeal to hardcore fans, or should the opinion of the public dictate the direction of the culture?” This goes outside the scope of this article and its companion on fat loss.
What accounts for the noticeable difference between the champions of the Arnold-era and current times? The ‘800-pound gorilla’ answer is drugs, and this will be addressed; however it belittles the sport to say that the only difference between then and now is a few jabs of a needle. Several top bodybuilding professionals contributed to this article, from this generation and from the Arnold-era. The consensus when asked about drug use during competition was “It’s not just the drugs, you have to consider…” Each of the respondents had a different emphasis, but universally, they all finished that sentence with an attempt to clarify that drugs were not the focus of their efforts— they were and are just a tool.
Unquestionably, bodybuilding in the ’60s and ’70s was a far cry from what it has become in the 21st century. The conditions were primitive, equipment was often made of scavenged parts, supplements were very basic and there was no money to be made as a bodybuilder. In conversations with several pros of that era, including men portrayed in “Pumping Iron,” it was clear that the culture and society of bodybuilding was not the sport it is today. Outside the Mecca of Venice, CA and a few other metropolitan areas, there was not much opportunity to participate in or even be exposed to bodybuilding.
Venice, CA was a magnet that drew the top talent in the world to its doors to learn from or at least be near the budding legends. As bodybuilding was such a niche activity, and its concept was foreign to most people, pioneering bodybuilders developed a tight community, supporting each other in their pursuit of physical development as well as against the verbal attacks of those who viewed bodybuilding as narcissistic, freakish or gay. [Attitudes toward homosexuality were vastly different in the ’60s and ’70s as compared to today.] Bodybuilders forged deep friendships and rivalries that continue to this day. The group barbecued together, traveled across the world together and drove each other to excel. Acceptance into this circle was earned through hard work, results and positive support. Much like a fraternity, these men recognized each other as trusted companions.
Of course, the question often arises, “What were the Arnold-era champions using?” It is fair to say that drug use was perhaps as prevalent in that group as it is today, as these men were driven and competitive, just as bodybuilders are today. Over the decades, several have admitted to anabolic steroid use in magazine interviews, but understand that the social and legal environment was more open at that time. Of course, there was no standard drug schedule then, no more so than there is now. However, in talking with several of the icons, a general pattern emerges. Training was consistent year-round, with the intensity being relaxed only slightly off-season to focus more on strength and mass; bodyweight did not fluctuate nearly as much, remaining within 5-10 percent of competition weight. Bodybuilding was a demanding lifestyle; few of these men had careers or dependents. Few had a significant amount of money to spend on clothes, housing or drugs. Also, the amount and types of anabolics available at that time were much more limited than today. Considering the limited resources (money, anabolic steroids), promoters rewarding aesthetics over mass, and the more conservative use of drugs by those bodybuilders, amazing physiques were developed, using a surprisingly small amount of anabolic steroids.
In general, cycles only lasted 8-12 weeks; most bodybuilders of that era only cycled twice a year. There was no insulin, GH, IGF-1, etc. The training, especially pre-contest, was intense and catabolic; thus, the drugs of preference were those that maintained mass and drive. The gyms were owned and managed by guys like Joe Gold, who was actually in the gym and part of the scene, not an investor. There was no place for rage or disorderly conduct. All of these factors influenced the cycles to being more androgenic and lower-dosed than the pre-contest cycles of today, explaining why the bodybuilders of that era were all much fuller-appearing and not as lean. Diuretics weren’t typically used and there were no local inflammatory drugs like synthrol or prostaglandins, so the size and shape was directly reflective of the underlying muscles and the overall conditioning (body fat, subcutaneous water). Most people don’t realize that 10 years later, The Underground Steroid Handbook still only listed 29 drugs used by bodybuilders.
One champion of that era was quite frank in stating, “Look, we weren’t saints. That’s just what was there at the time.” He went on to state that, like other competitors, nobody wanted to give up an advantage to anyone else. In reminiscing, he related his opinion that the Arnold to Haney years represented the peak of bodybuilding.
So, in the course of a year, the pros of the ’70s were cycling twice, for a period of 8-12 weeks each cycle at peak dose. Pyramiding added a few weeks to the beginning and end of the cycle. The cycles were basic and moderate, consisting of 10-50mg of Dianabol (or other oral equivalent, e.g. Winstrol, Anavar) daily, stacked with 200-800mg testosterone ester weekly. Some used Deca or Primobolan in place of or along with testosterone; others may have stayed with an all-oral cycle. [Many do not realize that most of these bodybuilders were getting their drugs through a physician. Nearly all LA bodybuilders in those days were patients of Dr. Kerr.1] It is noteworthy that the cycles used in those days were very similar to the cycles used by most current, non-competitive, anabolic steroid users of today.2
Now, this is not to say that there were not those who pushed anabolic steroid use to the extreme at that time. There were some known for following the ‘more is better’ path— a few to a premature death. This trend became increasingly prevalent during the mid-to-late ‘80s as bodybuilding’s appeal became mainstream; suddenly there were millions of people wanting the ‘Arnold’ look or its female equivalent. It is pathetic that to this day, laypeople are unwilling to acknowledge the commitment, sacrifice and honest labor that Arnold, his contemporaries and successors put in to achieve those physiques. The public (and anti-doping concerns) wish to believe that anabolic steroids are a quick substitute for years of strict training, dieting and other factors which are the essential foundations to bodybuilding success (competitive or personal). Another factor that contributed to the pressure for longer, higher-dose cycles and the eventual inclusion of GH, insulin and other drugs was the de facto standard, rewarding greater mass and minimal body fat by event judges and the publishing industry. The larger bodybuilders of the Arnold-era weighed 230-240 pounds and were over 6’ tall. Now, competitors walk onstage weighing 20-90 pounds more, with much less body fat. [2008 Mr. Olympia champion Dexter Jackson competed at a weight similar to Arnold’s, despite being seven inches shorter.] If one looks closely at the pictures from the ’70s Olympia meets, a near-absence of vascularity would be noted. Today, the entire vascular tree can be mapped from the 10th row of the audience.
It was the untimely death of Andreas Munzer and the revelation in the German periodical Der Spiegel of his alleged cycle, that brought the extremes to which drug use were headed to public light. Munzer was known for pushing himself rigorously and this approach was reflected in his drug protocol.
More recently, reports of drug use by elite competitive bodybuilders, as well as non-competing men and women seeking the strength and/or mass offered through anabolic drugs, have been published in professional journals. What is apparent is a disorganized approach, especially outside of the elite competitor circles.
A number of drugs have been developed since the 1970s that serve as adjuncts to anabolic steroids in promoting muscularity. Some control side effects, allowing greater doses of anabolic steroids to be administered; others promote muscle growth via different metabolic pathways, complementing the effect of anabolic steroids. Still other drugs have entered the bodybuilding circles as a consequence of the audience expanding outside disciplined athletes, as well as a function of anabolic steroids being viewed as and distributed through the same channels as drugs like cocaine and painkillers. Restricting observations to competitive, elite-level current bodybuilders, one sees some striking differences from the classical anabolic steroid stacks of the ’70s.
Currently, bodybuilders are using much higher doses of anabolic steroids, in conjunction with human growth hormone (GH), insulin, and rarely, IGF-1 to promote maximal muscle growth and recovery. Variably, some use human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) during a cycle to maintain testicular function and presumably increase testosterone levels. The use of aromatase inhibitors (Arimidex, Femara, etc.) is near-universal, and 5***945;-reductase inhibitors (i.e. finasteride, duasteride) are frequently added to control side effects. As a competition approaches, local inflammatory agents (i.e. synthrol, esiclene) are injected directly into muscle to promote localized swelling.
Another disturbing trend seen in the last decade or two is prolonged use, to the point where some bodybuilders do not go ‘off-cycle’ at all. More commonly, an off-cycle period is scheduled during the winter months, but it is brief and consists of a short bridge and accelerated post-cycle recovery. The off-cycle may be no more than 4-6 weeks in a year. The reasons for the near-continuous use of anabolics is the extension of contests throughout the year, frequent photo shoots for endorsements or media exposure, promotional videos or streaming on websites and appearances at amateur events. Today’s bodybuilder is more of a professional than the classical bodybuilder. In the ’70s, it was not uncommon to see bodybuilders working at an unskilled job to support the gym fees or travel. The top guys were sponsored, but there was little money to be made in bodybuilding, unlike today.
Today, top bodybuilders have product and clothing lines, endorsement contracts and agents. While there are several multimillionaire former bodybuilders, even among the current top competitors, income is relatively generous. Clearly, finances are both a requirement and motivation for the current generation of bodybuilder, as drug use and other expenses can cost more than $50,000 annually. A cost of $100,000 was estimated in the ’90s, but the advent of Chinese-manufactured GH brought drug expenses down considerably.
People have passions. Some drive themselves to reach new heights in excellence; others live vicariously through their idols as zealous fans. Some may argue the merits of the 1962 Ford Thunderbird Sports Roadster against the 2008 Saturn Sky Redline; if Johnny Unitas or Tom Brady is the better quarterback; or a preference for The Beatles 1968 White Album versus Guns N’ Roses’s 1987 Appetite for Destruction. For bodybuilding fans and bodybuilders, the question of who had or has the greatest physique of all time can be just as passionate. The defining presentation of Arnold at the 1975 Olympia is the standard for many, but calls for Sergio, Lee Haney, Dorian, Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler or Dexter Jackson are heard as well.
If one focuses on the use of anabolics by bodybuilders, the culture and commitment of the men and women is lost. Of course, drugs are essential to developing the mass and definition requisite to excel in professional bodybuilding and over the course of time, they have played an increasingly dominant role.
One competitor noted that in the ’70s, the only real reward was the achievement, making bodybuilding a calling. A competitor of today commented that it is more of a business, requiring a person to be more professional and take calculated risks.
The comment could be made that for the Arnold-era bodybuilder, it was hard work back then; others may state that current bodybuilders work smarter, not harder. Some believe that genetics played a bigger role in the ’60s and ’70s (see Sergio Oliva, Mr. Olympia 1967-1969); some feel that genetics continues to play a role and that increased public awareness of bodybuilding and access to well-equipped gyms (and drugs) have improved the odds of the genetically-gifted entering the competitor pool.
Regardless of the differences across the generations, one fact is universal to all of these elite bodybuilding icons— they have devoted themselves completely to achieving physical excellence.
References:
1. Janofsky M. Doctor Says He Supplied Steroids to Medalists. The New York Times, 1989 June 20.
2. Cohen J, Collins R, et al. A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2007 Oct 11;4:12.
A comparison of cycles across time:
*The presentation of these cycles is for informational purposes only and does not condone the uses described below.
Early adaptor cycle— c. 1958
Four to eight week cycles of 5-20mg Dianabol daily
The classic cycle— c. 1960s-1970s
Duration: 8-12 weeks + taper
Week 1: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 20mg Dianabol daily
Week 2: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 30mg Dianabol daily
Week 3: Testosterone cypionate 200mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 4-6: Testosterone cypionate 300mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 7-10: Testosterone cypionate 400mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 40mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 11-12: Testosterone cypionate 200mg X 2 (Mon, Fri), 30mg Dianabol daily
Week 13: Testosterone cypionate 200mg, 30mg Dianabol daily
Weeks 14-16: Taper on Dianabol only
*Note: During the ’60s-’90s, pyramiding was common as post-cycle recovery was dependent upon tapering. Also, the lack of effective aromatase inhibitors and sensitivity to estrogenic side-effects caused some to use lower doses of testosterone and substitute Anavar for the Dianabol, though with lesser mass and strength benefits. Pre-contest cycles would substitute Primobolan for the testosterone in ever-increasing ratio. Rumors of higher doses are likely invalid as water retention and gynecomastia would have been evident.
Andreas Munzer’s ‘Death Cycle’ (as reported in Der Spiegel)— c. 1996
Weeks 1-10: Ephedrine, Aspirin, Clenbuterol, Valium, Captagon, Cytomel***8232;***8232;***8232;
Weeks 1-5:***8232;Testosterone Enanthate 500mg daily,***8232;Parabolan 152mg daily,***8232;Dianabol 150mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 150mg, daily***8232;HGH 20IU daily,***8232;Insulin 20IU daily***8232;***8232;
Weeks 6-8:***8232;Masteron 300mg daily,***8232;Parabolan 152mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Tab 250mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 150mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Inj. 50mg daily,***8232;HGH 24IU daily***8232;***8232;
Weeks 9-10:***8232;Masteron 200mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Inj 100mg daily,***8232;Halotestin 200mg daily,***8232;Winstrol Tab 400mg daily,***8232;HGH 24IU Daily,***8232;Insulin***8232;IGF-1 Aldactone and Lasix for 3 days before show
Note: some have disputed this list as being inaccurate, whereas others state it is consistent with Munzer’s use. No toxicology report was available for confirmation of the drugs’ presence.
Current cycle— c. 2008
MASS-GAINING CYCLE:
Weeks 1-6**
1. 250mg testosterone enanthate every other day
2. 200mg Deca every other day
3. Growth Hormone (GH) 3IUs per day, every morning upon waking
3a. Insulin (Humulin-R) 8IU with breakfast/4IU 5-6 hours later
4. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
Weeks 7-12**
1. 250mg testosterone cypionate every other day
2. 200mg EQ every other day
3. Growth Hormone (GH) 3IUs per day
3a. Insulin (Humulin-R) 8IU with breakfast/4IU 5-6 hours later
4. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
Weeks 13-18**
1. 250mg Sustanon-250 or Test Cypionate (or Enanthate), every other day
2. 75mg trenbolone, every other day
3. Continue GH, 3IU per morning
4. Insulin (Humulin-R), 8IU with breakfast, 4IU 5-6 hours later
5. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara every other day
PRE-CONTEST DRUG CYCLES:
MINI-CYCLE:
1. 250mg testosterone cypionate every other day
2. Equipoise (Boldenone) 200mg every other day
3. Clenbuterol: 20mcg 2x per day
4. Cytomel: 25mcg per day.
5. GH, 3IU taken every morning before breakfast
6. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5mg Femara, every other day
START AT 8 WEEKS OUT:
1. 250mg Sustanon (or Test Cypionate or enanthate) every other day
2. Trenbolone 75mg, every other day. Take every day for last 7 days.
3. Winstrol, 50mg every other day. Take every day for last 7 days.
4. Continue Clenbuterol, GH, and Cytomel
5. 1mg Arimidex or 2.5 mg Femara every other day, every day the last 4 weeks
Note: There are numerous examples of bodybuilders using MUCH higher doses. This protocol is one that is consistent with many of the top-tier bodybuilders, averaging between 1,000-2,000mg androgen exposure/week. Of course, some report taking up to 5,000mg androgen/week, along with adjunct drugs. Several of the top bodybuilders still include oral anabolic steroids in their cycles at extremely high doses (e.g. oral Winstrol tabs in excess of 100mg/day). IGF-1 is still used by some, whereas the more exotic research chemicals (e.g. myostatin inhibitors, interleukin-15) or designer drugs are rarely mentioned. Further, most pros stay on year-round, though they may have low-dose ‘vacations’ of 150-200mg testosterone/week as there is insufficient time for full recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis.
Recent competitor cycle, very high dose (unconfirmed)— c. 1996-2000
Weeks 1-17: 750mg testosterone cypionate/enanthate weekly***8232;
Weeks 1-14: 100mg testosterone propionate every other day
Weeks 15-20: 100mg testosterone suspension daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 50mg of Deca-Durabolin daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 150mg Parabolin every other day***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 50mg trenbolone acetate daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 100mg equipoise daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 8 Andriol gelcaps daily***8232;(Not specified): 8 Clenbuterol— 2 days on, 2 off***8232;
Weeks 1-20: 150mg Winstrol-V daily***8232;Weeks 1-20: 40mgs of Nolvadex ED***8232;
Weeks 1-14: 4 IU Growth Hormone (Humatrope) 5 days on 2 off***8232;
Weeks 15-20: 6 IU Humatrope— 5 days on, 2 off
Weeks 1-20: Insulin (Humalin N and Humalin R), dose not specified***8232;(Not Specified): Cytadren, dose not specified***8232;
Weeks 1-20: Cytomel 75-150mcg daily***8232;
Weeks 1-20: Halotestin 40mg daily***8232;
Weeks 14-20: Masteron 50mg daily
Note: This cycle obviously was in use prior to the advent of effective aromatase inhibitors, as they have replaced the need for Cytadren and dependence on 5***945;-reduced anabolic steroids (e.g., Masteron). This is an extremely dangerous cycle due to the frequency and volume of injections, inclusion of Halotestin and use of insulin. It is present only for illustration of the drug use trends.
