TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Intro 02:34 - Summary of the evidence 04:21 - Early advertisements in muscle magazines 13:50 - Evidence of interest, but what about usage? 16:09 - Did testosterone build Silver Era physiques? 20:49 - Differences between Bronze & Silver Era physiques 31:22 - Why did they search for better hormones? 39:17 - It wasn't seen as a "steroid" or "PED" 43:33 - Modern interviews with Silver Era bodybuilders 49:13 - Acknowledging the nuance of the discussion 50:05 - How has our perception of the Silver Era changed? 58:26 - Conclusion Golden Era Bookworm's video presenting the evidence: th-cam.com/video/7QGH_HggjqQ/w-d-xo.html Support the channel and get early ad free access to these video: www.patreon.com/NattyLife
The stoic philosophical position and Buddhist enlightenment practice are to prepare ourselves to seek truths, while we become disillusioned as we eventually destroy all pretences.
I respect a man who can say he was wrong. It seems to me that bronze era physiques confirm that most silver era physiques COULD have been produced naturally. (I've personally known a couple of guys with similar such physiques who I know for a fact were clean.)
yeah this is it really - most of the silver age physiques could be achieved within ten years of sustained effort and better-than-average genetics. many men could have done it had they maintained a good diet and good lifting routines from about age 18 onwards. probably less now, given all the problems with low test levels in the western world, stemming from additives and chemicals in food as well as a general lack of day-to-day activity and poor sleeping patterns.
@@Quoxozist You're talking about America; we don't have those problems in Europe. And no, those physiques couldn't be attained with just "sustained effort and better-than-average genetics". You'd need to have your sleep and diet 100% wired in AND elite, top 0.01% genetics to look anything close to what the best silver era bodybuilders looked like. And if you by any chance COULD look like that naturally, you'd know after much less than ten years. Probably three-four years, tops. Again, that is if you have true ELITE genetics.
Can any of those guys spare some androgen receptors? I'd have to take the whole kitchen sink and the neighbor's sink as well to even dream of coming close to these physiques.
So, in summary, it would appear that bodybuilders took up using testosterone gradually from its first synthesis in 1935, but the early forms were not very effective and had strong side-effects, which limited their use, until the creation of dianabol in 1955, and the changes in physiques during the period 1935-55 are likely much more due to improved training methods and nutrition in that period than to steroid use.
В 1929году тестостерон только был обнаружен, в 1935 его начали пытаться достать из бычьих яиц, в 1936 году его наконец-то достали из бычьих яиц, в 1937 году начали производить короткий эфир для теста над соладами на равне с кокаином, мефом и героином им пичкали подопытных немцев. В 1939 был создан первый инъекционный пропионат тестостерона, и вплоть до 1945 его использовали в Германии во время второй мировой войны. Вы на полном серьёзе считаете что правительство Германии спокойно продавали тестостерон американским качкам для того чтобы снять с ними красивую обложку? Люди у вас есть хотябы доля интеллекта???
I told you back over a year or two ago they were using gear but you and some followers told me I was wrong, some of them made personal insults towards me. I don't just say things to hear myself speak, the evidence is there
Grimek's letter proves that he was natural before 1943. The first half of the Silver Era can still be considered practically natural, and the second half a slow transition towards the Golden Era
@@nicknamenick9448 Of course not what? Consider the facts - Grimek was inquiring about the first kind of steroid to exist - Grimek, by asking for information about testosterone, demonstrated that he did not already have the information
As a 67-year-old who's been and is still bodybuilding for 52 years, I've studied the "when did AAS use begin?" question for about 40 of those years. Below are two edited extracts of comments I've posted elsewhere: 1) Although the first anabolic steroid to be developed, testosterone, was available between 1935 and 1950 (all the others including Nilevar, Dianabol, Primobolan, and DecaDurabolin did not exist until after 1950), science/medicine hadn't discovered all its properties before 1950. Based on the limited research on the sick, on middle-aged men, and on young healthy men done until 1950, it was mistakenly believed that administering testosterone was only useful for restoring and normalizing the T levels of men whose bodies couldn't produce enough T, people whose bodies were severely depleted of T due to serious injuries and burns, and for middle-aged men whose T levels had fallen below normal (same as TRT today). The (erroneous, as was later discovered) conclusion then was that administering T to young healthy adult men was like adding water to a glass already full of water: "Any added spills off." Consequently, scientists, doctors, the public, and bodybuilders until 1950 were unaware that testosterone taken in high enough supratherapeutic doses (at least three times the therapeutic 100mg/week injectable dose) for long enough cycles could stimulate significant, visible hypertrophy. About 1950, the Soviet Union's further research for their Olympic athletes discovered that testosterone in those much higher doses can produce substantial mass and strength gains. A fact that corroborates bodybuilders' ignorance of the effects of high-dose testosterone until after 1950 is this: while dozens of bodybuilders have admitted AAS usage during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980, 1990s, et cetera, not a single bodybuilder has ever stated, "I used/tried testosterone during the 1930s/1940s". In contrast to bodybuilders after 1950, no bodybuilder who has been asked if he used drugs during the 1940s has ever stated he did; for examples, Steve Reeves, Jack LaLanne, and Dan Lurie all deny using testosterone during the 1940s. John Grimek states that the first time he used testosterone or any AAS was AFTER 1950 (with Ziegler). 2) NeoHombreol wasn't even the only brand of methyltestosterone available in the 1940s. Another brand, Metandren, was also available if not more commonly. It can seem logical to conclude that if oral testosterone was that easily available in the 1940s, then surely at least a few bodybuilders would have tried or used that oral. However, a closer examination of methyltest as a drug, together with an objective study of what science and medicine knew about the effects of testosterone generally until about 1950, questions that conclusion. Methyltestosterone is still available today (e.g. Metandren). However, the reason most haven't heard of it, in contrast to other oral AAS such as Dianabol or Anavar or Winstrol, or in contrast to injectable testosterone such as test cypionate or test enanthate or even test propionate, is that methyltest is 1) relatively poorly anabolic and 2) highly estrogenic and hepatoxic. It requires relatively huge doses to cause hypertrophy, and taken in those doses causes those serious side effects. That's why methyltest is not used today for hypertrophy. It's ANDROGENIC effects can make it useful for inducing momentary aggression for, say, a powerlifting contest or a workout, but its ANABOLIC effects are comparatively minimal unless taken in extremely high doses. [6/29/23 edit: read philo3936's correction about "anabolic" and "androgenic" below; and my subsequent acknowledgement of his correction] In high enough doses taken long enough, it's likely to cause liver damage, and more immediately, severe water bloat and "bitch tits". (Today, a bodybuilder could counteract the substantial water retention and gynecomastia of methyltest with an anti-estrogenic and/or aromatase inhibitor. But in the 1940s those counteragents didn't exist.) Science and medical research is progressive; not everything about a chemical and its effects are discovered and understood immediately, and with testosterone had been no different. Until 1950, research had learned only that testosterone was effective on UNhealthy young men (severly burned and injured, or suffering from a lack of adequate normal, natural testosterone production) and on middle-aged men whose T-levels had decreased, as a therapeutic drug for restoring/replacing clinically low T levels. The 1945 book, "The Male Hormone" by de Kruif (I own its 1947 reprint; see pages 107, 108) recounts that an experiment before 1945 using testosterone injections of twice the therapeutic (100mg/week) dosage on HEALTHY YOUNG men had failed to produce any results, and then concludes from that lack of effects that testosterone was useless for healthy young men and effective ONLY for restoring T to normal levels in middle-aged men with low T . The author, like the researchers, was mistaken, of course; because what was not researched before 1950 were the effects of administering at least seven- or eight-week long cycles of supratherapeutic dosages of THREE OR MORE times greater than the 100mg/week therapeutic dose which produces a "normal" T level in the average man (firsttime-beginner 8-week cycles of injectable testosterone cypionate or test enanthate typically use a minimum of 300mg/week, since that's what's been learned since 1950 is necessary for the average man to produce significant, visible hypertrophy). Based on the science known until 1950 about testosterone, that book accordingly promoted testosterone only as a therapeutic for middle-aged men, to restore them to the vitality and job-productiveness they'd had back in their youth. On pages 219 through 223, De Kruif compares the effect of methyltestosterone revitalizing middle-aged men in trades and in professional groups (lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, engineers, et cetera) to the effects of vitamins revitalizing young athletes, but he, like the researchers of the 1940s, mistakenly believed that testosterone had no effect on young healthy athletes whose own bodies already produced normal T levels. That's what doctors, researchers, and therefore the public - - including bodybuilders - - mistakenly understood about NeoHombreol then: it was an oral testosterone which could raise a man's T-levels to "normal" if his level was low; but that once it reached "normal" level, excess testosterone did nothing, so was ineffective on a healthy young man. Any doctor or researcher whom a bodybuilder might have asked before 1950 about NeoHombreol would have given that understanding as an answer. That's the reply which John Grimek would have received concerning methyltestosterone. The advertisements for Neo Hombreol M and Metandren were targeted at unhealthy men and middle-aged men suffering low T symptoms. Those ads weren't making claims to young men like, say, protein supplement ads have done, claiming "build huge muscles!" Any young male reading those ads would have seen words like "male climacteric" (old term for lower T due to aging), "low libido", or "restored vitality". Nothing in Organon's nor Ciba's nor Schering's oral methyltestosterone (or injectable test propionate) 1940s marketing made any claims or implications about the drug being effective for young, healthy male bodybuilders which would have motivated young healthy men to try it (and, they weren't over-the-counter drugs in 1940s in the US anyway -- they were prescription; of course, then, as today, the need of a prescription could be circumvented, but, point is, methyltest wasn't as easily available as bottles of aspirin).
DOZENS of top-level bodybuilders who used testosterone and other anabolic steroids after 1950 have admitted, "I took/tried the drugs in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, et cetera." Some (Steve Michalik being one infamous example) have also warned about the severe side effects and physiological damage excessive AAS use can wreak on the body. In contrast, NOT ONE person who was bodybuilding before 1950 has ever stated, "I used testosterone in the 1940s" nor "I tried methyltestosterone tablets in the 1940s". Nor has even one warned, "I used methlytestosterone in the 1940s and experienced serious water bloat and/or liver damage from using doses high enough to get a little gains." It's extremely significant to me, if bodybuilders had been using methyltestosterone or injectable testosterone during the 1940s, that not even one has later admitted it. If bodybuilders had used it during the 1940s, it's highly probable that at least one would have later admitted to it, in the same way many who used it in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, et cetera have later admitted their use. Again, bodybuilders before 1950 couldn't have used any of the other AAS including Dianabol, Nilevar, Durabolin, Deca-Durabolin, Halotestin, and Primobolan, since none of the other AAS existed until after 1950. The only AAS which had been developed and marketed before 1950 was testosterone. Together, those pieces -- 1) the belief during the 1940s that testosterone was useless for young healthy guys, 2) the fact that oral methyltest had severe side effects, including severe fluid retention, and 3) the fact that, in contrast to the dozens of bodybuilders admitting they used during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, to present, not a single bodybuilder has ever stated he used during the 1930s/1940s - - make it highly improbable to me, especially with no other confirmed and documented evidence of use then, that even one bodybuilder experienced significant, visible hypertrophy by use of methyltestosterone during the 1940s. From 1951 forward, the hypertrophic effects of large enough AAS doses became known and documented usage began, so, yes, every bodybuilder from 1951 forward is suspect of use.
@@philo3936 Technically, you're correct, of course -- since androgenic effects include anabolic effects, "androgenic" covers it all. I confess to lazily using the popular, vernacular-but-artificial distinction made between the terms, which employs "androgenic" to mean "male characteristics other than muscle-mass" and "anabolic" to mean "muscle-mass building". As we both know, anabolic steroids are the result of research for chemical derivatives and relatives of testosterone which have less of the other androgenic effects of exogenous testosterone and have a comparatively larger anabolic effect. However, despite oversimplified, careless, or outright misinformed claims about some AAS (for example, Dianabol) being "anabolic without the androgenic effects", there's no such thing as an anabolic steroid with zero androgenic effect; and, yes, every androgen has anabolic effect. Potentially, the term "anabolic steroids" is liable to be misunderstood to mean "strictly anabolic"; in contrast, its interchangeable term "androgenic/anabolic steroids" conveys the fact of that class of steroids being androgenic.
It really wasn't known that steroids could be used to enhance performance until a physician for the american weightifting team discovered that the Soviets used Testosterone in the 1954 world championship. After that it was possible, but still not common (or if at all) that it also came to bodybuilding. Probably happened after 1958 when Dianabol came to the market.
The pullover was also a major factor. As a thirteen year old who was introduced to bodybuilding by George Eiferman, who included the pullover right after the squat, I created what is still a 44 “ chest at the age of 79 and a height of 5’7”. I started off as an Olympic lifter and still lift as heavy as I can. I started off as a Hoffman follower then moved into bodybuilding. The Hoffman school built an incredible foundation and I wouldn’t be in the shape I am today without it. Good basic exercises, which, by the way, preceded Mentzer by many years, one set to failure of ten reps using progressive overload. Never took anything other than a protein supplement. Go nattys.
That's it.. 44.. that's average. I started with bigger chest than that at 5,7 as a teen. At about 150pnds Must of bin born with a bird chest.. poor guy
@@dormantmenace remember different bone density and structure cause different body types even if the height is the same 44 inches on the chest still looks massive on a 5,7 man
@@dormantmenace I hope you're just misinformed, since the alternative is that you're a sad little internet troll crying for attention. In case you're unfamiliar men in their 70s and 80s, what Gary has told us is extremely impressive. For context: I'm 6', and bone structure of my shoulders is wider than average. At my peak as a college athlete (ballroom dance), I was in the gym 6 days a week, 3 of those days spending time in the weight room. The widest my chest ever measured was 42". Now I was training for strength rather than size, and maintaining a very low body fat percentage. But very few people on campus could have out lifted me. Perhaps 44" is average if you're obese (or average among body builders in their peak, I'm not as familiar with that community). As a guy who specializes more in rock climbing now I can tell you there are tiny little dudes with 36" chests who can 100% out-pull both of us 😂 But absolutely not for your average healthy male. I'm glad Gary commented, and I hope to be as healthy as he is when I'm his age.
Even if John grimek is now an unknown quantity there's still many bronze and early silver era physiques such as sandow, Hackenschmidt, the collection of indian bodybuilders. Disappointing but not damming by any means. Great videos brother, keep up the good work the natural bodybuilding community needs more voices like yours.
I really feel like the bronze age is thee age for the natural ideal. Silver may have started 100%, or maybe not, but it probably went steroid earlier than thought.
I saw photos of John Grimek at Stern's Gym in North Park, SD many years ago. That was, in fact, my neighborhood gym. Great place to work out. If you wanted to do squats, you had little competition for the rack but the BB bench was always busy! lol
Honestly, who cares? Steroids and GH are not for everybody and there is always going to be a natty community. I support both natural and enhanced groups. Both groups train hard and diet hard to meet their goals. You think Dorian Yates worked any less, because he was on gear? The guy championed HIIT training and took it to a limit that few could do without falling apart.
Still listening but .. I will say this: continue to build the natural community in today's era! If certain figures in the past did have assistance (or not) that doesn't mean now isn't the time to override it. I like your mission as a channel. All the best to you. we are the future, it's our duty to do better!
@@TetsuoTakayamaCyberpunkexactly. The importance of Bronze Age bodybuilders is we 100% know they were natty. Any one after 1935 is guilty until proven innocent IMO. Same with Olympic records.
I noticed that there's an assumption of morality when it comes to silver age bodybuilders and the potential for enhancements, the statement that its tempting to think of them being morally upstanding people but this letter shows..... There's absolutely no reason to assign morality to anyone seeking out such an advantage. It is considered a morality issue today at best because we A: know steroids have negative effects and risks and B: many sports have rules forbidding such drugs. In the 1930s where no such rules existed and no knowledge of the risks existed finding a way to increase testosterone with the idea that it would gain one an advantage is just a part of the game to them, like finding a better exercise or rep/set scheme.
So your comment "There's absolutely no reason to assign morality . . ." doesn't make sense. You imply that Grimek's letter shows they were not morally upstanding, but you then admit it wasn't illegal and the negative effects weren't understood. So what grounds have you for implying Grimek was not moral? After all, physical culturists used foods and supplements to "gain an advantage" and you could say that even training with well-designed routines and good equipment is seeking an advantage - since you could test the strength of the average non-weightlifter. After all, many amateur athletes would take long periods off from training and some would only train for a very short period of time just before competitions.
the section from golden at 45:29 - 49:12 is easily one of the most important parts of this video, and is what people who are worried their silver-era idols weren't natural really need to hear. makes perfect logical sense, and for me at least, is confirmation that my goals of reaching (and frankly, with our modern understanding of programming, nutrition, recovery, and overall training, perhaps even surpassing) the strength level and aesthetic physiques of the men from that era are perfectly naturally attainable! wish excerpts from this and other relevant points in the video could've been shown at the beginning as a preview before the interview actually began, because i really do think it's the key takeaway here
@@Magnus_Loov i don't know if you're being facetious or genuinely believe this, but in the case of the latter: respectfully, this kind of defeatist attitude is the exact reason so many natty guys turn to drugs after their progress starts stalling out after just a few years, instead of accepting that progress, while still constant, will be slower. do you honestly think all these guys from the silver era achieved their physiques because they just happened to have "top 0.1%" genetics, or is it because they trained hard for literal decades? like, what do you think happened between the bronze and silver eras? did everyone who started working out just magically have 3x better genetics?? this whole "talent vs hard work" argument is especially stupid when talking about lifting - when you start out, people say you have bad genetics, and when 6+ years go by and you've completely transformed, those same people say that you must have incredible, absolute top percentile peak genetics to look so good (for a good modern example, see alphadestiny's physique in his videos from 6 years ago compared to today - absolutely no one would've been saying he had great genetics back then, but surprise surprise, intelligent programming and incredible determination create results!). perhaps we just need to accept that "average" genetics are a lot better than what some people think
@@matrixyst Yes, you can get into a fantastic shape even with average genetics. Between the bronze and silver era? Competion happened. A lot, lot more people in a lot more competitions both national but international as well. Ie a pool of more people competing for it leading to two things: 1. The pool of the extremely genetically gifted people is bigger. 2. The motivation to train both hard and more methodical and diet great is spurred on by this competition. I don't think that aknowledging that genetics for being good at sports in general and having the ability to build muscle (and having the right structure) will lead to people turning to drugs. If you have, say top 20% (which are a lot of people) you can get a fantastic physique by hard and methodical training and good diet/lifestyle. Yes, some give up and have excuses like it's all genetics (which it absolutely isn't). But at the same time, some people who look at the genetic freaks and accuse them of doping when they themselves can't even get near that level are the kind of people I really dislike. To say that it's mostly about training and that its possible for almost everyone to get to the level of the top guys in the silver era is just delusional and frankly bad for the very reasons I just discussed.
@@Magnus_Loov The problem is that by the very nature of things, the guys who don't gain anything tend to drop out and in the pre-internet era had no way of complaining more widely. It is that it is harder to trust results nowadays, even online adverts for routines, supplements etc. are photoshopped or are manipulated, so that the "after" pictures represent a very temporary state, that doesn't reflect the long term reality. I remember one guy admitting that he trained for ages to produce the "after" picture, then he piled on the pounds to produce the "before" picture - so he was actually fatter after than he was before. As a result, there are plenty of people, nowadays, who are discouraged by routines in the muscle mags showing what the top guys do: a) the routines are not always honest and b) a natural trainer ain't going to get the same results as those on the juice. In the bronze era, in contrast, there were plenty of amateurs who succeeded and people like Sandow were not slow in taking credit for the success of their "students". The are all in black and white, so it is harder to use fake tan and clever lighting and posing to make them look more improved and of course, photoshop didn't exist. My personal perception is that the Bronze Era promised less and delivered more. But . . . advertising is advertising and Sandow and other trainers would have chosen the best samples from those who wrote in. And those people who failed would be less likely to write in. If they complained, who was going to listen? So, it is quite possible that it was only the genetic elite who succeeded. Except . . . those who were naturally fit and strong were probably less likely to be attracted by the ads - remember the old Charles Atlas ads? They were aimed at the scrawny guy who got bullied, not at the husky bully. Of course, it is possible that a lot of scrawny guys who took up training were actually the genetic elite, just didn't have the training or the nutrition. But I doubt it. People didn't have access to "supplements", so if someone relatively skinny ended up quite muscular it is probably the result of their training.
Everyone wants you to believe that you can be way stronger as a natural lifter and then you look at your progress, numbers and you become angry because you're not even near the guys at the top, despite training everyday, despite eating right despite having a perfect program. No one wants to hear the reality. Life is all about struggle, you need to push your head through the wall to see any kind of progress. If you're squatting 315, benching 225 and deadlifting 4 plates you're already a legend, stop comparing yourself to YT roidheads.
Early intermediate gym numbers aren't a "legend", they're simply a strength base. I say compare yourself with context. If you know multiple natural guys (actually natural, not TH-cam "Natural") at your height with a given physique, it's very likely you can achieve it or something similar as well. My physique Goal for example is "Elvis lifts" on TH-cam. Similar height to me, same Powerlifting background then went into Calisthenics and cut weight. Basically me bit 3-4 years ahead. Completely fine to "compare" yourself to someone with a similar background, similar height etc. What's not fine is me comparing myself to someone who is 20cm shorter with completely different proportions and being jealous why I can't look like that.
@@popcornto6032 And how many ppl do you know that are advanced lifters and you can prove that they're natural? Because I don't know any in real life. How often do you see a guy overhead pressing over 70 kg like me and that doesn't look like a monster? I'm absolutely destroying myself everyday trying to increase my overhead press just by 1-2kg and I sure do know how to train and eat properly.
@@popcornto6032 To give you an example I have a coworker who's 19 yrs old, I'm 36. He's been training 2 years and can overhead press 80 kg, but guess what he's on steroids and I'm not. I've been training seriously since 2014 so close to 10 years now.
those are good numbers but you can make it to the 315/405/495 as a natural. I did after many years at bw of 200-210 height 5'11, I think maybe 6-7 years but those numbers were my limit and I didn't push past that because my goal is hypertrophy not powerlifting. I push pressed (not strict) 225 for few reps at my strongest. Nothing crazy but If you look at Omar Isuf, who is maybe the least controversial natty take, I think you can progress a bit more as a natural with specialization in those lifts.
I had a 675 lb squat, thighs parrellel, 8 reps. Then I went back to a real gym and trained for another year and a half on (much safer) leg press and got a lot stronger. My deadlift was 700lbs. Stiff legged straight leg, full rom, set of 10 standing on a wooden box so plates dont hit the floor. Bench was garbage, I hated it, best was 375 lb negatives, full set of 10. Took me 5 years to get there, but it would be way faster now, I knew nothing when I started. I could train nearly any motivated guy to get above silver natty, maybe golden era. Would take 10 years or so, its not really easy.
I mean the possibility was there and you acknowledged that, so you weren't that wrong about it, but still very interesting to get a more broad view about it.
well look at you. the most amazing dude i have seen on the internet: presenting an idea in a video and then making a video about why you were wrong in the first video. I absolutely love it.
I think with good certainty we can say most of these guys were natty in the earlier years even after test was synthesized...probably the 40's into the 50's when it became more widely available. You can really see the mid-50s and into the 60s how everyone just absolutely blew up. Grimek asked about it in '43, as one of the older figures in the sport and probably more easily accessible to things like test and even he didn't have it. Look at his physique anytime before '43 and you will know 100% what is achievable natty. Look at the bronze era guys who we KNOW were natty, and compare to the bodybuilders pre-1945/50 at least. Similar size and with 50 years worth of knowledge both training and nutritionwise it is not far fetched to say the improvement in physiques from bronze to silver is impossible.
I'm just going to say, I believe Steve Reeves when he said he never juiced. He was a lifelong advocate for natural building, and lived a long healthy life span with none of the complications Arnold suffered.
Too many people here jumping to the conclusion that bodybuilders in the 40s were all of a sudden jumping on testosterone just because Grimek was curious in 43… the soviet weightlifters weren’t even experimenting with test until years later and the best lifters in the USA including Grimek didn’t experiment with it until Ziegler gave the york barbell lifters dianabol in around 1956-58 so relax people. We see the bodybuilding physiques get larger from then on, mainly the 60s not the early 50s and certainly not 1940s
Great video guys. Even if the Silver Era guys were enhanced, I think we all can agree their physiques could be naturally achievable, especially given the knowledge and resources we have today 💪
Even the bronze era guys were "enhanced." They were using known diuretics, stimulants and fat burners to get as lean as they were. Those cutting "supplements" are a hell of a lot more damaging to the body than gear is.
There is a case to be said that non-nattys developed lifting programs that is massively popular these days, many of them from Russia where it was state sponsored before. It *is* achievable for nattys but take oh so much longer, hence many just taking the drugs to cut down on the effort put in.
You say this only to make it more believable (to youngsters, fools, and other impressionable people) that you are natural when you are not. A quick glance at your profile makes this very clear...
I've known so many people who gain a lot of muscle naturally. Silver Era guys are 100% obtainable naturally. But the reason this is still such a topic of debate, is so many people can't do it naturally, they keep the argument alive from jealousy I think. I am natural. 49 years old. Started lifting again after a 12 year break. And some people think I am not natural. So there is no getting away from it.
Today's professional bodybuilders are walking pharma labs. It's not just steroids & T, but HGH, IGF-1, SARMs, etc - and large dosages to boot. I was reading somewhere that one recent Mr. Olympia top contender spends $10,000 a month on gear! Insane! And these modern-day physiques aren't aesthetic & pleasant to look at - they're freaks! They also look unhealthy with a heart attack or stroke just waiting to happen. The most recent winner of the Mr Olympia contest is a 5-6 dude who weighed 230 lbs in contest shape! He looks as wide as he is tall! The best steroid physiques that were aesthetic, defined & symmetrical were the Golden Era physiques with Arnold, Zane, Columbo, etc. At least those physiques were pleasant to look at & those guys looked healthy. But they were using a fraction of roids these modern-day guys are using & they weren't using any growth hormones, insulin or SARMs. I grew up with the Golden Era guys and though I was a competitive natural bodybuilder (won a regional title), I still idolized the Golden Era bodybuilders following their workout routines & diet. Who in the heck would want to follow today's bodybuilders let alone even want to look like these freaks. Lol
Regarding the shape of bronze vs silver era BBers we can also think about preferred bodyparts: if I recall well one of the very special phenomena in our body s that you can train a bodypart and "detrain" another to the point of, in due time, sculpt a physique with certain proportions. The emphasis on the strong midsection disappeared in the silver era and that muscle muss could conversely be "used" to fill chest and shoulders. It is really a fascinating conversation and I would actually love to have bodybuilding competitions that reflect the different canons in history.
@@jonssonnicolas You can even keep training legs but just keeping a lighter weight and focusing on technique and squeeze. As long s the priority goes to what interests you, those parts should grow more.
I always think about Reeves - the greatest physique ever. You can wonder if he took chemicals, but the fact is that he never needed to. He was blessed with outrageous genetics. And that's something you are either born with or not.
The bench press was uncommon before the 1930s.The early powerlifter or perhaps proto-powerlifter and Olympic Weightlifter Doug Ivan Hepburn bench pressed 565 pounds with feet in the air in early 1953 the bench press. Marvin Eder also immensely powerful popularized it as well. The inclined bench press was invented in the 50s further increasing bench presses and creating the shield per look by concentrating on the Pectoralis major. The squat rack was being used not a long Barbell without plates and one solid pieced lifted from one side from the floor then placed on the back and returned.
Solution to disappointed natties: become the natty Silver Era you thought it was. (I know it’s not conclusive that they did steroids but now it makes it you think)
Good stuff! I remember watching your video and thinking, 'I know I've read somewhere something about Silver Era bodybuilders already having access to testosterone', but I just couldn't remember well enough to comment about it. What I do recall thinking was that even though it wasn't overused the way it is today, it was very common for anyone bodybuilding to be on it since it wasn't frowned upon, yet, and was looked at somewhere along the same line as vitamins. EDIT: I see that you mention this exact thing in 39:25 hahaha.
Leroy Colbert's an interesting one he achieved a physique that doesn't really look natural in the slightest, but he also had some of the best genetics ever in the history of bodybuilding. He was more jacked than most adult men before he was even a teenager (something makes me think he wasn't taking experimental testosterone at 10 years old) and had a great structure, but then again his muscles do kind of have that enhanced look about them and he claims 21 inch arms which is obviously not something a lean natural can have at only a height of 5'9".
What do you mean? The shorter you are the easier it is to have bigger circumference on your arms. But anyway's Leroy's hard not to like, and there's lots of videos interviewing him on youtube. He talks about all this stuff and says steroids really didn't start coming around until the late 1950's.
@@The_Conspiracy_Analyst In the short term yeah, but assuming the taller guy continues training eventually the shorter guy's progress will slow down due to just overall being smaller in structure while the taller guy will keep making faster gains for longer. There's a reason you don't see natural 5'6" guys running around with 18+ inch arms while I think Eric Bugenhagen. 6'1" achieved 20 inch arms (fully pumped up with blood flow restriction) naturally. Also a 17 inch arm will look way bigger on a short guy than on a tall guy. Yep true that Leroy seemed like a really nice and knowledgeable guy, RIP.
why do you believe he wasn't using steroids even that early? when he was 13, steroids were legal and advertised in every bodybuilding magazine. you could order them through the mail without any issue. and surveys of bodybuilders find the average age that they begin using steroids is 14. so it's not impossible leroy colbert was ordering steroids through the mail at age 12. you could do it with a stamp and a money order. you don't think a kid serious enough about building arms to invent his own weights using pails and wet sand at age 12 couldn't figure out how to use the post office?
The amount of testosterone they were selling in the magazines (not the bodybuilding mags) contained such small dosages -- 10 mg -- as to be ineffective for bodybuilding. Additionally the absorption rate was 70%, so for a 10 mg dose you're only getting 7 mg...plus the liver damage it caused. I've yet to see one photo of any bodybuilder of that era with any trace of gynecomastia or body acne.
Yes, and if we are honest we can see that. He still looks a normal man that lifts weight. The following question still stands to this day. Where are all the natural influencers? Where? Even just one? Not much to ask with 7+ billion people in the world.
I love a TH-camr's channel that admits when he is wrong and corrects the information. Very few people or channels do this, especially in the era of Misinformation. You have earned yourself a new subscriber. Bravo!
It doesn't matter that some were on drugs (and yes, it was obvious long before this "discovery"), it was early enough that a decent amount of them will have been natural. Furthermore, we have guys today who look similar and are most likely natural, such as Alphadestiny (in my opinion he looks even better than most of the Silver Era guys). For me this discovery doesn't matter at all. I still will achieve 18" arms naturally and 15.5" forearms naturally below 18% Bodyfat (I'm 6'3" and currently have 16.75" arms and 14.25" forearms at ~30% Bodyfat). And I will have endurance, and health, and a decent amount of tricks in Calisthenics hopefully (I'm a big fan of Ring Dips, Muscle ups, Toe to Bar Leg raises, hand stands, Front Levers, Planche, L-sit etc. hopefully I will be able to do them one day).
You could definitely get 18”s at 6’3”. I’m only 5’11” and I had 18’s during one of my bulks at about 205 bodyweight. But i was more like 21% bodyfat at the time.
@@aidaninsua I mean cold flexed, not with a pump. And yeah, if I'm honest I think the limit is well above 18 for my height, probably 19 or 19.5", but I'm not pushing to the max, I'll be happy with lean 18s in 2-3 years.
Should show pictures of shows or winners of shows through the years. Maybe we can see when they get noticeable bigger. When was the first sign of gyno on a bodybuilder?
Just using the “eye test” it’s really in the 60s that bodybuilders start looking obviously enhanced. As we covered in this video, the FFMIs of silver era bodybuilders weren’t much different to the bronze era. They just chased a different aesthetic and didn’t get so lean. Whereas after dianabol (and other drugs) come out, the physiques quickly get both massive and shredded.
Excellent conversation - thanks - and as explained test/steroids were'nt considered ''cheating'' back then - it was just like a liver or vitamin tablet (the latest thing) in a quest to help build a better/bigger physique - as time went on and more guys discovered and tried them and everyone saw the ''benefits'' the amount of users would increase of course - if 10 guys showed up to a competition and 3 or 4 guys clearly stood out from the rest , you can believe that by the next year the other 6 would be on the gas also
7:58 - fyi - The advert design he mentions here was super common back then. You actually saw the same type of advertising designs in Comics too (running all the way through to the 80's/90's). An example would be the classic 'x-ray specs' adverts. or the kids submarine comic ad :) But, even back then, most people knew (avoided) those types of advert. They were considered 'low brow', even back then. Thinking they were all bs. But sometimes, there was gold to be found ;)
Look at the difference between reg park when he won mr yorkshire and when he moved to london and won the mr Britain 7 months later. The difference is huge.
It's very respectable for someone to not only present such entertaining and more importantly didactic content from an objective an unbiased perspective but also for them to admit when they weren't as accurate with their information as they previously believed then to continue to teach and entertain, more knowledgeably, confidently, and humbly. That's true adherence to the scientific method and a commendable positivist approach to living
I’m a grown adult, and my heart breaks at the thought of my favorite bodybuilders not being natty. I know it was always a possibility, but there was always a small part of me that simply wanted to believe 😢
I wouldn’t get so invested in it. Whether or not someone uses steroids has no bearing on the quality of work they did or how good of a person they were. Natty accomplishments are amazing, which is why I subscribe to channels like this one. However I also have tremendous respect for people who use PEDs at all levels from TRT on up. What matters is the person, not the drugs.
@@scottfree6479 Look, this is all cope. Steroids and artificial hormones undeniably increase your natural potential permanently. Their achievements are an example of the efficacy of science, not of the natural human athletic/bodybuilding potential
@Dick Jones I agree, but how do we know what healthy is in regards to hormones? Having a test level of 1500 might be perfectly fine, or it might be dangerous, we really do not know. Worse, it may even vary by individual, meaning you might need a test level of 1500 to get the same results I would see at 900. You might be natty and I might be enhanced. Obviously guys sauced out of their minds like Ronnie have done severe and irreparable damage to their bodies, just look at Bostin Lloyd. On the other hand, having test at the low end of normal or below is associated with an increase in all cause mortality. It isn't so clear cut, and it's only going to become more confusing as medical knowledge advances.
It could be that Silver Era bodybuilders, not thinking of these substances in the same light as we do today, didn't think it would be cheating to take them. They, perhaps, saw them as mere nutrition. To me at least, it is doubtful that they were completely natural; it makes more sense that they weren't. Then again they didn't have the "perfected" drugs that came later.
I can't believe how sad i am with some of the developments. It's fine, but it's a bit disheartening, even if we don't know who and how much exactly was used (Or maybe if they used at all lmao). Maybe those hormones are as good as natural test boosters lmao
Why are you sad? Does taking some gear mean they didn't work hard to be what they were? Let me put it like this. You could take all the HGH in the world and every single AAS that exists and you still will never be able to compete against any guy at The Olympia. And that's not a knock at you. It's saying that these guys with or without gear have the genetics to be something that you and I can't be.
@@jd9119 taking gear yes makes any and all of your so called "efforts" worthless because you dont even have to put 10% of the work of a normal person to have the physique, they dont deserve praise, nobody cares for cheaters, it just shows a bunch of weak, demented, effemiante and insecure clowns and nothing more. Also stop with the genetics cope, they dont makethat much of a difference like many copers like to massively blow it out of proportion showing they dont understand genetics at all, hard work and consistency does far more(which most people in bodybuilding lack, they generally become roiders, the weak willed scum without any conviction or determination or people who use genetics as a false excuse for their laziness) If you use roids, the only thing you deserve is mockery, scorn and massive ostracization.
@@jd9119 no. The very act of taking gear makes their physiques not achievable naturally, having good genetics does not do that, because you or I may have good genetics but just don't know about it.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef there are plenty of guys at the gym right now who are in grear and don't look like they've ever touched the stuff. There are tons of gym-heros that can't bench 2 plates but are on 500mg of tren
I want to share an anecdote: Back when I was 23, I had been working out for a few years- not truly “bodybuilding”, but I was steady and regular, taking creatine, seeing very slow, gradual changes. That year, my roommate, who had been partying and drinking heavily for the previous year, saw me with my shirt off. “Dude, I can tell you been workin out.” He said. Then he said “I’m gonna start working out.” For the next two months, he did 100 push-ups a day and ran 1-2 miles several times per week. At the end of those two months, he looked like Adonis. Every muscle was firm, heavily veined, and striated. He was shredded, and significantly bigger than me, eating the same diet as me, because we ate together. How? Both of his parents were Olympic-level track and field athletes. Genetics play a HUGE role in what your body will do naturally. Look at a Pit Bull and. Labrador Retriever. Is the Pit Bull bigger because it works out more? No. The Lab will never look like a Pit Bull. Genetics matter. Accept that, accept what you are, do the best for your body with the goal of longevity and long healthy life span. Looks are nothing compared to Health Span. Being able to hike, ski, surf, golf, and do fun activities into old age is what will help you enjoy your life as much as possible for as long as possible.
I only do Pilates for muscle-toning and hot yoga for endurance and still have an aesthetic physique that looks like a guy who lifts moderate weights. Genetics.
Years ago I spoke to a guy - Alan Peel - who worked at York in the 50-60s. He told me that at the time they introduced Dianabol, they also started doing "isometric" exercises. Here's the funny part; The lifters thought it was the isometrics that were making the difference in their lifts, and energy levels. You see, they were used to "performance enhancement" being like pep/speed pills, so when they took the D-bol, and didn't feel anything after 30 minutes, they all just said "this stuff is bunk". He told me that several lifters, who previously has dragged their feet coming to the gym and were tired & broken down, would suddenly be almost jumping through the doors saying; "Hey fellas! Man, I tell ya, those isometrics have got me feeling like I'm 19 yrs old again! And let me tell ya, my wife's a pretty big fan of those isometrics, if you catch my drift".
Isometrics were pushed by York as the reason for the sudden increase in size and strength of its lifters after 1958. Isometrics played a part...but they didn't tell anyone else. They also sold alot of power rack because of it.
The Bronze and Silver Era guys also used Yoga training and breathing techniques as an evolution from the Roma strongman whose ancestral origin was in India. This is largely supplanted by bulky steroid heads increasingly after 1970.
- Perandren(Testosterone propionate) was approved by FDA in 1939 - Testosterone propionate 2% ointment (Perandren Ointment) was the subject of NDA 0-0499 held by Ciba Pharmaceutical Co. This NDA was submitted to FDA on January 24, 1939, and under the procedures of the act at that time, the NDA “became effective” (the statutory equivalent of “approval” under the act as it appears now) on March 7, 1939, 23 years before passage of the 1962 amendments to the act. - John Grimek's FFMI jumped 3 points from 1940 to 1941 24.0 - 26.9 - If Grimek was already trying methyltestosterone in 1943 we could speculate that maybe we was already trying propionate in 1940? Can't find a photo from 1941 but his arms are way bigger in 1945 comparing to the 1940 mr.america picture. - I could speculate that grimek had the first 20 inches arms, in 1945 he was already huge - Steve Reeve seems natty, we have pictures with his evolution year by year, his arms are not huge, a modest 17 inches arms, he didn't have a huge transformation like Grimek in 1945 comparing to 1940.
At this point and at my 50"s all I care is about lean muscle,flexibility,functionality and strength. Combining weights,martial arts and calisthenics...it's been great for me. "Transporter" physique.
I don’t see a reason to admire the top bodybuilders because they’re mostly just a mirage. On one hand they look super strong but the amount of lifting and roids they’re putting in is actually harming them especially organs like heart kidneys and liver. It’s not something to really look up too just being a slave to your looks or appearance as opposed to just natural strength and health.
Yes, I was surprised by your earlier point-of-view. It had always been my understanding that bodybuilding as such was purely an invention of testosterone. No test, no BB. This is how BB took the place of 'strong-men' contests because the advantage of test gave the athletes the ability to 'shape' themselves that naturals just didn't have. With test, the body became clay. Apparently, you have confirmed that this is indeed the case. I am not anti-test, by the way. I never used it, but I have nothing against it. It's art (and sport).
The disappointing reality that no one wants to be a natty bodybuilder anymore really just makes me want to go nuts and become as crazy a natty bodybuilder I can be, just wish I had the time to do it because I work 12 hours a day, every day.
Body building as done today is so unhealthy. Focus should be on being lean and strong, not on mass, or having a sculpted look that someone says is the goal. I like TH-camr Atlaspowershrugged, and the old school bronze era guys simply because they are or were strong. I'd rather be like Arthur Saxon than any Golden era body builder.
If you really want to pursue that goal, but you feel like your job is impeding your ability to do so, it might be a good time to start looking for a better job.
OK I think a letter may is evidence but a proof that everyone was on the juice is to far fetched. I still believe that the majority of SA wouldn't used that. Some may tried but with low results. The problem is that the esters used were far to unstable and would have been far away of what was available in the mid 50's. Also they didn't know how to dose and apply this very early experimental steroids. I I think Reeves made a statement about early steroids saying they weren't convinced by the effictiveness of the new experimental substance. What could be is that a small fraction figured out how to use this. Regard that they also had to deal with the side effects like shut down of own test production. I guess that a few may have gained in the 40's may a small edge. Addition: like correctly pointed out the average FMI just began to change in the late 50's/early 60's. And the video on limits of hypertrophy of the bronze guys shows what is definately possible with the natural route.
Yeah if there was use it was definitely experimental. And the actual impact is hard to measure but likely would not have been major. I still think silver era physiques are naturally obtainable. And systematic use of PEDs didn’t enter bodybuilding until the later 50s and beyond.
@@NattyLifeYT agree the effect if there was any was miniscule. So silver era look is definately naturally obtainable and the vast majority of silver era guys wouldn't have an advantage due experimenting with early steroids. So for me nothing changes in the perception of silver era guys. They are still naturals for me and they show what's naturally possible.
As I've said before, I believe Leroy Colbert may have been prescribed some kind of testosterone for recuperation of his foot tear. That's when his arms got to over 20" and I had a friend that was prescribed sustanon for a foot injury. Just maybe.
@@jd9119 "Anabolic steroids have also been shown to be very effective with aiding the repair of orthopedic injuries by directly aiding in skeletal repair and aiding in muscle repair which allows for the strengthening of bones" I just grabbed this from google so it isn't entirely impossible.
@@Satarnoch A lot of pro-wrestlers when they tear a muscle, tendon or ligament (sometimes a combination) will go on gear in addition to taking HGH and possibly other peptides like TB500. I know John Cena came back from an injury that normally takes a year to heal in 6 or 7 months. And he came back even more yoked. But those guys are taking stuff that normal people are not prescribed when they're injured like that (although the TB500 wouldn't be prescribed to them either, they'd still take it).
17:15. Yeah, you gotta be careful with FFMI. Mine is 25 and I certainly don't use roids and I really don't even work out that hard (well I did in the past). My bone density kind of throws it off, but still.
To be honest I think it would be niave to think that bodybuilders would not use any means/including steroids as soon as they became available to build there physiques,
There's so much denial from the people in the comments section it's laughable. Yeah it's perfectly logical to think that your natty hero would be willing to ingest powdered bull's testicles in the hope it would give them an edge, but not experimental steroids as soon as they were developed.
Guys before the 1940’s were mainly weightlifters. With no emphasis on chest development. Bodybuilding contests were brought in to attract people to weightlifting meets at the end of the meet. Sometimes as late as 2-4am before starting the bodybuilding competitions. Hoffman really never liked bodybuilding it was Weider who changed everything.
49:03 I agree. I think possible use of any kind of testosterone or pre steroidal pharmaceutical would have been the exception not the norm. For that reason I don’t share Carlos’ change of view which sounds more like a let down of sorts. I think by far and away Silver Age was natural. The fact that some would have been curious about it shouldn’t be a let down. Curiosity about something new isn’t anything other than curiosity. I will always go to the mat and fight and defend against anyone who thinks Reeves used testosterone or steroids. He had a spectacular reputation amongst his peers. Another important circumstantial evidence against the claim of his use was his post Bodybuilding retirement era public campaign against the use of steroids in bodybuilding. He pleaded publicly with Arnold. He was a tireless crusader for natural fitness until his untimely death. If having been so public with his campaign against drugs in bodybuilding and he had taken testosterone or any kind of steroidal type drug you would think someone would have called him out as a hypocrite. Yet no one ever made any sort of accusation against the man. His character was solid. No hypocrisy found in him. It is irresponsible remarks like from the late Sergio Olivia who made passing comments that he Reeves did that are the source of some of the rumors. Yet Olivia never trained with Reeves, was a generation after Reeves, and never even moved to California so he was in no position to say anything about the man. My father was knew Mr. Pearl and spoke to him over the phone. Great bodybuilder but more importantly great man. RIP Steve Reeves, Bill Pearl
Doesn't change anything really. They still had top tier genetics and hypertrophic response to resistance training that most people don't meaning most won't ever get close to their level even after years of consistent training.
I suppose they will never admit to it because they feel it did them more harm than good. It's something they were likely misusing. Would they know anything about PCT usage? Photography and the art of posing improved physiques as well. Great video!!!
One thing not really considered is the competitive process that ensued from early bronze-age bodybuilders and is still active today. This process would be expected to continue to attract ever more genetically gifted participants, ratcheting up the competitive requirements on a continuous basis. The result should be better physiques over time (even without PEDs). This and the better training methods mentioned (very much expected in a competitive process like this) explain the changing look. The next era also changed in look, and it had all of the hallmarks of PED use: more overall muscularity (high FFMI), but specifically exaggerated delts and traps. Because of the distribution of androgen receptors in the human body, it offers a pretty nice indicator of PED use. The exaggerated delts and traps indicate, along with high FFMI, indicate a high probability of PED use. Based on this, it looks to me like the silver-era bodybuilders may have used PEDs right at the end of that era.
I don't think they used steroids in the 1940's. Yes, the first 'roids were developed as far back as 1931, but they were weak, had really bad side effects on the prostate gland, and they were used in limited amounts in labs in the 1930's. In the 1940's, doubtful that more than a handful of people were interested in getting steroids--Grimek is mentioned here--but how many pharmacies stocked the stuff? Doubtful that many did, if any. JMO. And just because Grimek was interested didn't mean he took them, as is mentioned in the video. Keep in mind that in the US, Dianabol wasn't created until 1958, and it took off from there. It's possible that European labs developed them just after the war, particularly the Russians, who presumably used them in the 1952 Olympics to smash weightlifting records. But did the bodybuilders then know of them? Again, doubtful. I do remember reading a story about Grimek trying Dianabol around 1960, well after he'd retired. He said that they made him feel like he had the flu, so he stopped using them. (He only used them for about three weeks, as I recall). Finally, here's a link, and you'll have to scroll down to the bottom for a more in-depth explanation. (Sorry for the long post). www.anabolicsteroidforums.com/threads/1925-bodybuilder.121661/
1920s-1950s bodybuilders didnt need steroids they ate less calories and did more cardio, thats why they looked shredded and had smaller muscle mass, had they eaten more and did less cardio then they would have more bodyfat.
Post 40's chests and legs suddenly blow up - and their expressions are always "grinny" and goofy - like people who didnt have real dedication. It's a sign something else was boosting their muscle mass. You see it when you look at bronze era, they look like PTSD victims because they needed intense dedication. Then silver, suddenly they look easy-going and huge. Something caused that change and combined with discovery of Testosterone and so on, they have to have figured out someway to get it And they might be doing off-label taking of proto-steroids with a degree of quakery. LOTS of scientists and researchers are going to know people into serious sports and weights.
Just because one guy was interested in something doesn't mean it could ever be possible that ped use was anywhere near as rampant as it is today. The lengths men will go to cry that you can't be strong without roids just proves how weak men really are today. Men bacj then had more testosterone by a significant margin in average anyways. Studies show modern mens t levels are terrible compared to back in the day.
Former World's Strongest Man Doug Hepburn claimed that steroids were unavailable in the early 1940s, but by the late 1940s and early 1950s they existed and bodybuilders/other strength athletes were taking them. In an article on 'physical culture study' ("Doug Hepburn: The Challenge - 1999") that links to his defunct website, Doug considers the late '40s and early '50s as a "gray area" where we can't say for sure who was taking what (or anything).
@Dick Jones That didn't do anything. The first effective PEDs were only available in the laboratory/experimental stage in the late 30s and were only being used by the late 40s.
@Dick Jones People have been pushing snake oil for decades, but none of it actually did anything. There was no effective form of artificial chemical enhancement for strength available until the 20th century. Eating monkey testicles (!!) certainly wouldn't do it.
One huge thing this guy missed about the silver era transformations is testosterone ethers vs suspension. The improved synthetic molecules lasted longer in the blood stream.
I think these guys are ruining the reputation of past bodybuilders! Whatever they said they did not take them! And as you can notice they're not in exactly in the greatest shape themselves!
Not surprising, since the Germans were giving it to Vermacht soldiers to make them more aggressive. So it makes sense it would percolate to athletes everywhere 🏋
Look how strong Clevio Massimo Sabatino, George Hackenschmitt, Eugene Sandow, Warren Lincoln Travis, and Herman Gorner were back in the Bronze Age of Bodybuilding! Look at Marvin Eder, John Grimik, Steve Reeves, and in proto-powerlifting, Marvin Eder, Paul Anderson, Bob Hoffman, Doug Ivan Hepburn, and Tommy Kono in the 1949s and 1950s.
I always thought they were on something. The jump between the guys in the bronze era who were definitely natural, to the guys in the silver era was just way too big, it’s not just the fact the chest was being worked more either, the arms were far larger, their back was far larger. I have always expected they were on some test. Nothing else, just testosterone to allow them to build more muscle mass than what could be achieved naturally.
KEY questions: 1) Which companies would manufacture "testosterone" for sale? 2) Cost? Was it affordable? 3) Availability? Did you need a Rx? Would doctors even know of its existence to write a Rx? Which pharmacy? 4) A new product (like a drug) being sold in a bodybuilding magazine is far-fetched. Even today, a new drug doesn't hit the market that soon. 5) Evidence for professional athletes taking it in the 40s?? Remember, in the 40s, the working man was making squat. A baseball player or football player or even an Olympic athlete might have access AND be able to afford the drug. Finally, remember, the claim is "people taking "testosterone" to become muscular. So, we are talking about average Joe's trying to beef-up. Where would they get it? The YMCA? Seriously? No one would know what you are talking about.
My mission is to develop and discovery a natural bodybuilding, that brings health and wellbeing to peoples lives, that helps to fight with obesity, hypothyroidism, fat liver diseases, without exogenous synthetic hormones. I believe there is another way to make muscles than sit on the needle and be slave of it. Now I am interested in Hans Selye's teaching on stress. Russian professor Seluyanov was studied and developed some directions on how stress can influence your glands and how muscle grows depend on stress. I am also interested in his works.
Also I am interested in study of different types of weight lifting. For example you can do a positive phase first, then a 2 seconds keep, and then do a negative phase a little slowly, do this 5 times. Or you can reduce weight to 40% and do a 5 series of 5 x 10 sets with a 30 sec rest between set in series. And in this way you do not rest between positive and negative phases but do very slowly in the middle of movement till at the 5th set you feel a burning 🔥 and you have to stop doing exercise. Or you can do a pumping style to start a capillarization process in white muscles. To do that reduce weight to 50% and do exercise fast for 15 reps.
I tend to agree with the thinking that IF there were hormones available, they were not very effective, or else Ciba wouldn’t have had to develop the first true steroid later on. It makes sense to me that as bodybuilding developed as a sport and a culture, that it began to yield results like the silver era bodybuilders. Thanks for the discussion and the honesty. It’s always best to know what is truly possible.
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Intro
02:34 - Summary of the evidence
04:21 - Early advertisements in muscle magazines
13:50 - Evidence of interest, but what about usage?
16:09 - Did testosterone build Silver Era physiques?
20:49 - Differences between Bronze & Silver Era physiques
31:22 - Why did they search for better hormones?
39:17 - It wasn't seen as a "steroid" or "PED"
43:33 - Modern interviews with Silver Era bodybuilders
49:13 - Acknowledging the nuance of the discussion
50:05 - How has our perception of the Silver Era changed?
58:26 - Conclusion
Golden Era Bookworm's video presenting the evidence: th-cam.com/video/7QGH_HggjqQ/w-d-xo.html
Support the channel and get early ad free access to these video: www.patreon.com/NattyLife
Wow! A TH-cam channel that actually looks at new information and reconsider their previous conclusion.
The stoic philosophical position and Buddhist enlightenment practice are to prepare ourselves to seek truths, while we become disillusioned as we eventually destroy all pretences.
Great job for correction
They also used amphetamines.
what is Carlos' channel?
Thats because I am the only natural
NO ONE is gatekeeping like Jack..
Me too
and Mike o Hearn
Big fan bro
@@mateszabo9386 he's just so natural, I can't even explain it it's so umph 🗿
I respect a man who can say he was wrong.
It seems to me that bronze era physiques confirm that most silver era physiques COULD have been produced naturally.
(I've personally known a couple of guys with similar such physiques who I know for a fact were clean.)
Wow! A TH-cam channel that actually looks at new information and reconsider their previous conclusion.
yeah this is it really - most of the silver age physiques could be achieved within ten years of sustained effort and better-than-average genetics. many men could have done it had they maintained a good diet and good lifting routines from about age 18 onwards. probably less now, given all the problems with low test levels in the western world, stemming from additives and chemicals in food as well as a general lack of day-to-day activity and poor sleeping patterns.
@@Quoxozist You're talking about America; we don't have those problems in Europe. And no, those physiques couldn't be attained with just "sustained effort and better-than-average genetics". You'd need to have your sleep and diet 100% wired in AND elite, top 0.01% genetics to look anything close to what the best silver era bodybuilders looked like. And if you by any chance COULD look like that naturally, you'd know after much less than ten years. Probably three-four years, tops. Again, that is if you have true ELITE genetics.
Can any of those guys spare some androgen receptors? I'd have to take the whole kitchen sink and the neighbor's sink as well to even dream of coming close to these physiques.
Those silver era guys seems plausible to natural, I myself got close to that without using nothing
My best was 120kg 1,92m 11%bf at 23yo
So, in summary, it would appear that bodybuilders took up using testosterone gradually from its first synthesis in 1935, but the early forms were not very effective and had strong side-effects, which limited their use, until the creation of dianabol in 1955, and the changes in physiques during the period 1935-55 are likely much more due to improved training methods and nutrition in that period than to steroid use.
В 1929году тестостерон только был обнаружен, в 1935 его начали пытаться достать из бычьих яиц, в 1936 году его наконец-то достали из бычьих яиц, в 1937 году начали производить короткий эфир для теста над соладами на равне с кокаином, мефом и героином им пичкали подопытных немцев. В 1939 был создан первый инъекционный пропионат тестостерона, и вплоть до 1945 его использовали в Германии во время второй мировой войны.
Вы на полном серьёзе считаете что правительство Германии спокойно продавали тестостерон американским качкам для того чтобы снять с ними красивую обложку? Люди у вас есть хотябы доля интеллекта???
Thank you for having me on your channel Dante
You di good!
🤝 thanks for making this video possible
Excellent interview. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the future. Please continue the great work you're doing!
@@Bonebags we will
I told you back over a year or two ago they were using gear but you and some followers told me I was wrong, some of them made personal insults towards me. I don't just say things to hear myself speak, the evidence is there
Grimek's letter proves that he was natural before 1943. The first half of the Silver Era can still be considered practically natural, and the second half a slow transition towards the Golden Era
We also have pretty strong evidence that Grimek first touched the juice when he was given it by Dr. Ziegler in I think 1953 or 1954
Exactly!
Lol. Of course not
@@nicknamenick9448 Of course not what? Consider the facts
- Grimek was inquiring about the first kind of steroid to exist
- Grimek, by asking for information about testosterone, demonstrated that he did not already have the information
@@captainclarky5352 Facts!
Class act for crediting Carlos at Golden Era Bookworm for his research and having him on the show.
Well done, Natty Life. Ground-breaking information.
As a 67-year-old who's been and is still bodybuilding for 52 years, I've studied the "when did AAS use begin?" question for about 40 of those years. Below are two edited extracts of comments I've posted elsewhere:
1) Although the first anabolic steroid to be developed, testosterone, was available between 1935 and 1950 (all the others including Nilevar, Dianabol, Primobolan, and DecaDurabolin did not exist until after 1950), science/medicine hadn't discovered all its properties before 1950.
Based on the limited research on the sick, on middle-aged men, and on young healthy men done until 1950, it was mistakenly believed that administering testosterone was only useful for restoring and normalizing the T levels of men whose bodies couldn't produce enough T, people whose bodies were severely depleted of T due to serious injuries and burns, and for middle-aged men whose T levels had fallen below normal (same as TRT today).
The (erroneous, as was later discovered) conclusion then was that administering T to young healthy adult men was like adding water to a glass already full of water: "Any added spills off."
Consequently, scientists, doctors, the public, and bodybuilders until 1950 were unaware that testosterone taken in high enough supratherapeutic doses (at least three times the therapeutic 100mg/week injectable dose) for long enough cycles could stimulate significant, visible hypertrophy.
About 1950, the Soviet Union's further research for their Olympic athletes discovered that testosterone in those much higher doses can produce substantial mass and strength gains.
A fact that corroborates bodybuilders' ignorance of the effects of high-dose testosterone until after 1950 is this: while dozens of bodybuilders have admitted AAS usage during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980, 1990s, et cetera, not a single bodybuilder has ever stated, "I used/tried testosterone during the 1930s/1940s". In contrast to bodybuilders after 1950, no bodybuilder who has been asked if he used drugs during the 1940s has ever stated he did; for examples, Steve Reeves, Jack LaLanne, and Dan Lurie all deny using testosterone during the 1940s. John Grimek states that the first time he used testosterone or any AAS was AFTER 1950 (with Ziegler).
2) NeoHombreol wasn't even the only brand of methyltestosterone available in the 1940s. Another brand, Metandren, was also available if not more commonly. It can seem logical to conclude that if oral testosterone was that easily available in the 1940s, then surely at least a few bodybuilders would have tried or used that oral.
However, a closer examination of methyltest as a drug, together with an objective study of what science and medicine knew about the effects of testosterone generally until about 1950, questions that conclusion.
Methyltestosterone is still available today (e.g. Metandren). However, the reason most haven't heard of it, in contrast to other oral AAS such as Dianabol or Anavar or Winstrol, or in contrast to injectable testosterone such as test cypionate or test enanthate or even test propionate, is that methyltest is 1) relatively poorly anabolic and 2) highly estrogenic and hepatoxic. It requires relatively huge doses to cause hypertrophy, and taken in those doses causes those serious side effects. That's why methyltest is not used today for hypertrophy. It's ANDROGENIC effects can make it useful for inducing momentary aggression for, say, a powerlifting contest or a workout, but its ANABOLIC effects are comparatively minimal unless taken in extremely high doses. [6/29/23 edit: read philo3936's correction about "anabolic" and "androgenic" below; and my subsequent acknowledgement of his correction] In high enough doses taken long enough, it's likely to cause liver damage, and more immediately, severe water bloat and "bitch tits". (Today, a bodybuilder could counteract the substantial water retention and gynecomastia of methyltest with an anti-estrogenic and/or aromatase inhibitor. But in the 1940s those counteragents didn't exist.)
Science and medical research is progressive; not everything about a chemical and its effects are discovered and understood immediately, and with testosterone had been no different. Until 1950, research had learned only that testosterone was effective on UNhealthy young men (severly burned and injured, or suffering from a lack of adequate normal, natural testosterone production) and on middle-aged men whose T-levels had decreased, as a therapeutic drug for restoring/replacing clinically low T levels.
The 1945 book, "The Male Hormone" by de Kruif (I own its 1947 reprint; see pages 107, 108) recounts that an experiment before 1945 using testosterone injections of twice the therapeutic (100mg/week) dosage on HEALTHY YOUNG men had failed to produce any results, and then concludes from that lack of effects that testosterone was useless for healthy young men and effective ONLY for restoring T to normal levels in middle-aged men with low T . The author, like the researchers, was mistaken, of course; because what was not researched before 1950 were the effects of administering at least seven- or eight-week long cycles of supratherapeutic dosages of THREE OR MORE times greater than the 100mg/week therapeutic dose which produces a "normal" T level in the average man (firsttime-beginner 8-week cycles of injectable testosterone cypionate or test enanthate typically use a minimum of 300mg/week, since that's what's been learned since 1950 is necessary for the average man to produce significant, visible hypertrophy).
Based on the science known until 1950 about testosterone, that book accordingly promoted testosterone only as a therapeutic for middle-aged men, to restore them to the vitality and job-productiveness they'd had back in their youth. On pages 219 through 223, De Kruif compares the effect of methyltestosterone revitalizing middle-aged men in trades and in professional groups (lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, engineers, et cetera) to the effects of vitamins revitalizing young athletes, but he, like the researchers of the 1940s, mistakenly believed that testosterone had no effect on young healthy athletes whose own bodies already produced normal T levels.
That's what doctors, researchers, and therefore the public - - including bodybuilders - - mistakenly understood about NeoHombreol then: it was an oral testosterone which could raise a man's T-levels to "normal" if his level was low; but that once it reached "normal" level, excess testosterone did nothing, so was ineffective on a healthy young man. Any doctor or researcher whom a bodybuilder might have asked before 1950 about NeoHombreol would have given that understanding as an answer. That's the reply which John Grimek would have received concerning methyltestosterone.
The advertisements for Neo Hombreol M and Metandren were targeted at unhealthy men and middle-aged men suffering low T symptoms. Those ads weren't making claims to young men like, say, protein supplement ads have done, claiming "build huge muscles!" Any young male reading those ads would have seen words like "male climacteric" (old term for lower T due to aging), "low libido", or "restored vitality". Nothing in Organon's nor Ciba's nor Schering's oral methyltestosterone (or injectable test propionate) 1940s marketing made any claims or implications about the drug being effective for young, healthy male bodybuilders which would have motivated young healthy men to try it (and, they weren't over-the-counter drugs in 1940s in the US anyway -- they were prescription; of course, then, as today, the need of a prescription could be circumvented, but, point is, methyltest wasn't as easily available as bottles of aspirin).
DOZENS of top-level bodybuilders who used testosterone and other anabolic steroids after 1950 have admitted, "I took/tried the drugs in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, et cetera." Some (Steve Michalik being one infamous example) have also warned about the severe side effects and physiological damage excessive AAS use can wreak on the body.
In contrast, NOT ONE person who was bodybuilding before 1950 has ever stated, "I used testosterone in the 1940s" nor "I tried methyltestosterone tablets in the 1940s". Nor has even one warned, "I used methlytestosterone in the 1940s and experienced serious water bloat and/or liver damage from using doses high enough to get a little gains." It's extremely significant to me, if bodybuilders had been using methyltestosterone or injectable testosterone during the 1940s, that not even one has later admitted it.
If bodybuilders had used it during the 1940s, it's highly probable that at least one would have later admitted to it, in the same way many who used it in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, et cetera have later admitted their use.
Again, bodybuilders before 1950 couldn't have used any of the other AAS including Dianabol, Nilevar, Durabolin, Deca-Durabolin, Halotestin, and Primobolan, since none of the other AAS existed until after 1950. The only AAS which had been developed and marketed before 1950 was testosterone.
Together, those pieces -- 1) the belief during the 1940s that testosterone was useless for young healthy guys, 2) the fact that oral methyltest had severe side effects, including severe fluid retention, and 3) the fact that, in contrast to the dozens of bodybuilders admitting they used during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, to present, not a single bodybuilder has ever stated he used during the 1930s/1940s - - make it highly improbable to me, especially with no other confirmed and documented evidence of use then, that even one bodybuilder experienced significant, visible hypertrophy by use of methyltestosterone during the 1940s.
From 1951 forward, the hypertrophic effects of large enough AAS doses became known and documented usage began, so, yes, every bodybuilder from 1951 forward is suspect of use.
Good post except for the androgenic effects comment which was inaccurate. Anabolic activity is androgenic activity.
@@philo3936
Technically, you're correct, of course -- since androgenic effects include anabolic effects, "androgenic" covers it all.
I confess to lazily using the popular, vernacular-but-artificial distinction made between the terms, which employs "androgenic" to mean "male characteristics other than muscle-mass" and "anabolic" to mean "muscle-mass building".
As we both know, anabolic steroids are the result of research for chemical derivatives and relatives of testosterone which have less of the other androgenic effects of exogenous testosterone and have a comparatively larger anabolic effect. However, despite oversimplified, careless, or outright misinformed claims about some AAS (for example, Dianabol) being "anabolic without the androgenic effects", there's no such thing as an anabolic steroid with zero androgenic effect; and, yes, every androgen has anabolic effect.
Potentially, the term "anabolic steroids" is liable to be misunderstood to mean "strictly anabolic"; in contrast, its interchangeable term "androgenic/anabolic steroids" conveys the fact of that class of steroids being androgenic.
Thanks for the long post, was a nice and informative read. Cheers.
Fascinating research. Thank you!
It really wasn't known that steroids could be used to enhance performance until a physician for the american weightifting team discovered that the Soviets used Testosterone in the 1954 world championship.
After that it was possible, but still not common (or if at all) that it also came to bodybuilding. Probably happened after 1958 when Dianabol came to the market.
The pullover was also a major factor. As a thirteen year old who was introduced to bodybuilding by George Eiferman, who included the pullover right after the squat, I created what is still a 44 “ chest at the age of 79 and a height of 5’7”. I started off as an Olympic lifter and still lift as heavy as I can. I started off as a Hoffman follower then moved into bodybuilding. The Hoffman school built an incredible foundation and I wouldn’t be in the shape I am today without it. Good basic exercises, which, by the way, preceded Mentzer by many years, one set to failure of ten reps using progressive overload. Never took anything other than a protein supplement. Go nattys.
Awesome
That's it.. 44.. that's average. I started with bigger chest than that at 5,7 as a teen. At about 150pnds Must of bin born with a bird chest.. poor guy
Pullovers are a crazy exercise. I think you’d be interested in Natural hypertrophy’s video about them. I started doing them at 15
@@dormantmenace remember different bone density and structure cause different body types even if the height is the same 44 inches on the chest still looks massive on a 5,7 man
@@dormantmenace I hope you're just misinformed, since the alternative is that you're a sad little internet troll crying for attention.
In case you're unfamiliar men in their 70s and 80s, what Gary has told us is extremely impressive. For context: I'm 6', and bone structure of my shoulders is wider than average. At my peak as a college athlete (ballroom dance), I was in the gym 6 days a week, 3 of those days spending time in the weight room. The widest my chest ever measured was 42". Now I was training for strength rather than size, and maintaining a very low body fat percentage. But very few people on campus could have out lifted me.
Perhaps 44" is average if you're obese (or average among body builders in their peak, I'm not as familiar with that community). As a guy who specializes more in rock climbing now I can tell you there are tiny little dudes with 36" chests who can 100% out-pull both of us 😂 But absolutely not for your average healthy male. I'm glad Gary commented, and I hope to be as healthy as he is when I'm his age.
Even if John grimek is now an unknown quantity there's still many bronze and early silver era physiques such as sandow, Hackenschmidt, the collection of indian bodybuilders. Disappointing but not damming by any means. Great videos brother, keep up the good work the natural bodybuilding community needs more voices like yours.
I really feel like the bronze age is thee age for the natural ideal. Silver may have started 100%, or maybe not, but it probably went steroid earlier than thought.
@@Winterascent I think the top rated ones were probably chugging the early version of oral testosterones on a daily basis.
I saw photos of John Grimek at Stern's Gym in North Park, SD many years ago. That was, in fact, my neighborhood gym. Great place to work out.
If you wanted to do squats, you had little competition for the rack but the BB bench was always busy! lol
Honestly, who cares? Steroids and GH are not for everybody and there is always going to be a natty community. I support both natural and enhanced groups. Both groups train hard and diet hard to meet their goals. You think Dorian Yates worked any less, because he was on gear? The guy championed HIIT training and took it to a limit that few could do without falling apart.
Dorian is a good guy, even back in the day.
Still listening but .. I will say this: continue to build the natural community in today's era! If certain figures in the past did have assistance (or not) that doesn't mean now isn't the time to override it. I like your mission as a channel. All the best to you.
we are the future, it's our duty to do better!
Yeah but you can’t take them as example
@@TetsuoTakayamaCyberpunkexactly. The importance of Bronze Age bodybuilders is we 100% know they were natty. Any one after 1935 is guilty until proven innocent IMO. Same with Olympic records.
There's so few people in this space on TH-cam, I'm grateful that both of you are of such quality. This is a very rational, evidence based approach
I noticed that there's an assumption of morality when it comes to silver age bodybuilders and the potential for enhancements, the statement that its tempting to think of them being morally upstanding people but this letter shows.....
There's absolutely no reason to assign morality to anyone seeking out such an advantage. It is considered a morality issue today at best because we A: know steroids have negative effects and risks and B: many sports have rules forbidding such drugs.
In the 1930s where no such rules existed and no knowledge of the risks existed finding a way to increase testosterone with the idea that it would gain one an advantage is just a part of the game to them, like finding a better exercise or rep/set scheme.
So your comment "There's absolutely no reason to assign morality . . ." doesn't make sense. You imply that Grimek's letter shows they were not morally upstanding, but you then admit it wasn't illegal and the negative effects weren't understood. So what grounds have you for implying Grimek was not moral? After all, physical culturists used foods and supplements to "gain an advantage" and you could say that even training with well-designed routines and good equipment is seeking an advantage - since you could test the strength of the average non-weightlifter. After all, many amateur athletes would take long periods off from training and some would only train for a very short period of time just before competitions.
@@charleshayes2528 i think you are actually agreeing with OP
Bronze Age bros ... we are so back 💪😎
the section from golden at 45:29 - 49:12 is easily one of the most important parts of this video, and is what people who are worried their silver-era idols weren't natural really need to hear. makes perfect logical sense, and for me at least, is confirmation that my goals of reaching (and frankly, with our modern understanding of programming, nutrition, recovery, and overall training, perhaps even surpassing) the strength level and aesthetic physiques of the men from that era are perfectly naturally attainable! wish excerpts from this and other relevant points in the video could've been shown at the beginning as a preview before the interview actually began, because i really do think it's the key takeaway here
Possible only if you have the 0.1% top genetics, that is. Most people won't get even near to it...
@@Magnus_Loov i don't know if you're being facetious or genuinely believe this, but in the case of the latter: respectfully, this kind of defeatist attitude is the exact reason so many natty guys turn to drugs after their progress starts stalling out after just a few years, instead of accepting that progress, while still constant, will be slower. do you honestly think all these guys from the silver era achieved their physiques because they just happened to have "top 0.1%" genetics, or is it because they trained hard for literal decades? like, what do you think happened between the bronze and silver eras? did everyone who started working out just magically have 3x better genetics?? this whole "talent vs hard work" argument is especially stupid when talking about lifting - when you start out, people say you have bad genetics, and when 6+ years go by and you've completely transformed, those same people say that you must have incredible, absolute top percentile peak genetics to look so good (for a good modern example, see alphadestiny's physique in his videos from 6 years ago compared to today - absolutely no one would've been saying he had great genetics back then, but surprise surprise, intelligent programming and incredible determination create results!). perhaps we just need to accept that "average" genetics are a lot better than what some people think
@@matrixyst Yes, you can get into a fantastic shape even with average genetics. Between the bronze and silver era? Competion happened. A lot, lot more people in a lot more competitions both national but international as well. Ie a pool of more people competing for it leading to two things: 1. The pool of the extremely genetically gifted people is bigger.
2. The motivation to train both hard and more methodical and diet great is spurred on by this competition.
I don't think that aknowledging that genetics for being good at sports in general and having the ability to build muscle (and having the right structure) will lead to people turning to drugs.
If you have, say top 20% (which are a lot of people) you can get a fantastic physique by hard and methodical training and good diet/lifestyle. Yes, some give up and have excuses like it's all genetics (which it absolutely isn't).
But at the same time, some people who look at the genetic freaks and accuse them of doping when they themselves can't even get near that level are the kind of people I really dislike.
To say that it's mostly about training and that its possible for almost everyone to get to the level of the top guys in the silver era is just delusional and frankly bad for the very reasons I just discussed.
@@Magnus_Loov The problem is that by the very nature of things, the guys who don't gain anything tend to drop out and in the pre-internet era had no way of complaining more widely. It is that it is harder to trust results nowadays, even online adverts for routines, supplements etc. are photoshopped or are manipulated, so that the "after" pictures represent a very temporary state, that doesn't reflect the long term reality. I remember one guy admitting that he trained for ages to produce the "after" picture, then he piled on the pounds to produce the "before" picture - so he was actually fatter after than he was before. As a result, there are plenty of people, nowadays, who are discouraged by routines in the muscle mags showing what the top guys do: a) the routines are not always honest and b) a natural trainer ain't going to get the same results as those on the juice.
In the bronze era, in contrast, there were plenty of amateurs who succeeded and people like Sandow were not slow in taking credit for the success of their "students". The are all in black and white, so it is harder to use fake tan and clever lighting and posing to make them look more improved and of course, photoshop didn't exist. My personal perception is that the Bronze Era promised less and delivered more.
But . . . advertising is advertising and Sandow and other trainers would have chosen the best samples from those who wrote in. And those people who failed would be less likely to write in. If they complained, who was going to listen? So, it is quite possible that it was only the genetic elite who succeeded.
Except . . . those who were naturally fit and strong were probably less likely to be attracted by the ads - remember the old Charles Atlas ads? They were aimed at the scrawny guy who got bullied, not at the husky bully. Of course, it is possible that a lot of scrawny guys who took up training were actually the genetic elite, just didn't have the training or the nutrition. But I doubt it. People didn't have access to "supplements", so if someone relatively skinny ended up quite muscular it is probably the result of their training.
@@Magnus_Loov The average natural testosterone levels for men was far higher in the Bronze and Silver eras than the later Golden and Modern eras.
Everyone wants you to believe that you can be way stronger as a natural lifter and then you look at your progress, numbers and you become angry because you're not even near the guys at the top, despite training everyday, despite eating right despite having a perfect program. No one wants to hear the reality. Life is all about struggle, you need to push your head through the wall to see any kind of progress. If you're squatting 315, benching 225 and deadlifting 4 plates you're already a legend, stop comparing yourself to YT roidheads.
Early intermediate gym numbers aren't a "legend", they're simply a strength base.
I say compare yourself with context. If you know multiple natural guys (actually natural, not TH-cam "Natural") at your height with a given physique, it's very likely you can achieve it or something similar as well.
My physique Goal for example is "Elvis lifts" on TH-cam. Similar height to me, same Powerlifting background then went into Calisthenics and cut weight. Basically me bit 3-4 years ahead. Completely fine to "compare" yourself to someone with a similar background, similar height etc.
What's not fine is me comparing myself to someone who is 20cm shorter with completely different proportions and being jealous why I can't look like that.
@@popcornto6032 And how many ppl do you know that are advanced lifters and you can prove that they're natural? Because I don't know any in real life. How often do you see a guy overhead pressing over 70 kg like me and that doesn't look like a monster? I'm absolutely destroying myself everyday trying to increase my overhead press just by 1-2kg and I sure do know how to train and eat properly.
@@popcornto6032 To give you an example I have a coworker who's 19 yrs old, I'm 36. He's been training 2 years and can overhead press 80 kg, but guess what he's on steroids and I'm not. I've been training seriously since 2014 so close to 10 years now.
those are good numbers but you can make it to the 315/405/495 as a natural. I did after many years at bw of 200-210 height 5'11, I think maybe 6-7 years but those numbers were my limit and I didn't push past that because my goal is hypertrophy not powerlifting. I push pressed (not strict) 225 for few reps at my strongest. Nothing crazy but If you look at Omar Isuf, who is maybe the least controversial natty take, I think you can progress a bit more as a natural with specialization in those lifts.
I had a 675 lb squat, thighs parrellel, 8 reps. Then I went back to a real gym and trained for another year and a half on (much safer) leg press and got a lot stronger. My deadlift was 700lbs. Stiff legged straight leg, full rom, set of 10 standing on a wooden box so plates dont hit the floor. Bench was garbage, I hated it, best was 375 lb negatives, full set of 10. Took me 5 years to get there, but it would be way faster now, I knew nothing when I started.
I could train nearly any motivated guy to get above silver natty, maybe golden era. Would take 10 years or so, its not really easy.
I mean the possibility was there and you acknowledged that, so you weren't that wrong about it, but still very interesting to get a more broad view about it.
well look at you. the most amazing dude i have seen on the internet: presenting an idea in a video and then making a video about why you were wrong in the first video. I absolutely love it.
I think with good certainty we can say most of these guys were natty in the earlier years even after test was synthesized...probably the 40's into the 50's when it became more widely available. You can really see the mid-50s and into the 60s how everyone just absolutely blew up. Grimek asked about it in '43, as one of the older figures in the sport and probably more easily accessible to things like test and even he didn't have it. Look at his physique anytime before '43 and you will know 100% what is achievable natty. Look at the bronze era guys who we KNOW were natty, and compare to the bodybuilders pre-1945/50 at least. Similar size and with 50 years worth of knowledge both training and nutritionwise it is not far fetched to say the improvement in physiques from bronze to silver is impossible.
I'm just going to say, I believe Steve Reeves when he said he never juiced. He was a lifelong advocate for natural building, and lived a long healthy life span with none of the complications Arnold suffered.
Too many people here jumping to the conclusion that bodybuilders in the 40s were all of a sudden jumping on testosterone just because Grimek was curious in 43… the soviet weightlifters weren’t even experimenting with test until years later and the best lifters in the USA including Grimek didn’t experiment with it until Ziegler gave the york barbell lifters dianabol in around 1956-58 so relax people. We see the bodybuilding physiques get larger from then on, mainly the 60s not the early 50s and certainly not 1940s
Not a lot of youtubers would come back on what they said and even less would be searching for it. It takes giant balls to do that.
I love your channel & your honest approach to all your info. Thank you.
It's great to see a channel follow up and change their stance after they get new information
Great video guys. Even if the Silver Era guys were enhanced, I think we all can agree their physiques could be naturally achievable, especially given the knowledge and resources we have today 💪
If I starved myself and quit lifting I would look like them.
Even the bronze era guys were "enhanced." They were using known diuretics, stimulants and fat burners to get as lean as they were. Those cutting "supplements" are a hell of a lot more damaging to the body than gear is.
You can reach the body Clarence Ross natural? Dream on... LOL
There is a case to be said that non-nattys developed lifting programs that is massively popular these days, many of them from Russia where it was state sponsored before.
It *is* achievable for nattys but take oh so much longer, hence many just taking the drugs to cut down on the effort put in.
You say this only to make it more believable (to youngsters, fools, and other impressionable people) that you are natural when you are not. A quick glance at your profile makes this very clear...
As a 79 year old body builder i never suspected anyone using before 1966!
I've known so many people who gain a lot of muscle naturally. Silver Era guys are 100% obtainable naturally. But the reason this is still such a topic of debate, is so many people can't do it naturally, they keep the argument alive from jealousy I think. I am natural. 49 years old. Started lifting again after a 12 year break. And some people think I am not natural. So there is no getting away from it.
They still looked a lot more natural than today's highly juiced bodybuilders, mostly because they didn't have the crazy overdeveloped traps.
Today's professional bodybuilders are walking pharma labs. It's not just steroids & T, but HGH, IGF-1, SARMs, etc - and large dosages to boot. I was reading somewhere that one recent Mr. Olympia top contender spends $10,000 a month on gear! Insane! And these modern-day physiques aren't aesthetic & pleasant to look at - they're freaks! They also look unhealthy with a heart attack or stroke just waiting to happen. The most recent winner of the Mr Olympia contest is a 5-6 dude who weighed 230 lbs in contest shape! He looks as wide as he is tall!
The best steroid physiques that were aesthetic, defined & symmetrical were the Golden Era physiques with Arnold, Zane, Columbo, etc. At least those physiques were pleasant to look at & those guys looked healthy. But they were using a fraction of roids these modern-day guys are using & they weren't using any growth hormones, insulin or SARMs. I grew up with the Golden Era guys and though I was a competitive natural bodybuilder (won a regional title), I still idolized the Golden Era bodybuilders following their workout routines & diet. Who in the heck would want to follow today's bodybuilders let alone even want to look like these freaks. Lol
@@nomad6086 for sure, $10,000 a month! wow, that sure is a lot of money to end up looking like a total freak. The whole thing is messed up now.
Regarding the shape of bronze vs silver era BBers we can also think about preferred bodyparts: if I recall well one of the very special phenomena in our body s that you can train a bodypart and "detrain" another to the point of, in due time, sculpt a physique with certain proportions. The emphasis on the strong midsection disappeared in the silver era and that muscle muss could conversely be "used" to fill chest and shoulders. It is really a fascinating conversation and I would actually love to have bodybuilding competitions that reflect the different canons in history.
Really intresting. Doing that right now by not training legs and blasting upper body.
@@jonssonnicolas You can even keep training legs but just keeping a lighter weight and focusing on technique and squeeze. As long s the priority goes to what interests you, those parts should grow more.
@@jonssonnicolas - I try not to skip leg day because “skipping” in any form probably trains legs 🤣
I agree - look at pro armwrestlers
@@PapaWheelie1 😂😂😂
I always think about Reeves - the greatest physique ever. You can wonder if he took chemicals, but the fact is that he never needed to. He was blessed with outrageous genetics. And that's something you are either born with or not.
Check out Ronnie Coleman before he started juicing his natural physique was insane and I do think he was natty at the time for a few reasons.
@Sarah Marie Boulerice He admitted when he was and wasn't on roids, and he would have reason to lie about it
There are photos of Reeves' father Lester. He was HUGE!
good video
have you considered looking into the history of insulin use since the 1920s?
there might have been some experimentation by bodybuilders
I'm covering that in a video coming up on my channel
The bench press was uncommon before the 1930s.The early powerlifter or perhaps proto-powerlifter and Olympic Weightlifter Doug Ivan Hepburn bench pressed 565 pounds with feet in the air in early 1953 the bench press. Marvin Eder also immensely powerful popularized it as well. The inclined bench press was invented in the 50s further increasing bench presses and creating the shield per look by concentrating on the Pectoralis major. The squat rack was being used not a long Barbell without plates and one solid pieced lifted from one side from the floor then placed on the back and returned.
Solution to disappointed natties: become the natty Silver Era you thought it was. (I know it’s not conclusive that they did steroids but now it makes it you think)
Very good idea! Become a source of inspiration for others.
Good stuff! I remember watching your video and thinking, 'I know I've read somewhere something about Silver Era bodybuilders already having access to testosterone', but I just couldn't remember well enough to comment about it. What I do recall thinking was that even though it wasn't overused the way it is today, it was very common for anyone bodybuilding to be on it since it wasn't frowned upon, yet, and was looked at somewhere along the same line as vitamins.
EDIT: I see that you mention this exact thing in 39:25 hahaha.
Great show. I hope you both collaborate again!💪
Leroy Colbert's an interesting one he achieved a physique that doesn't really look natural in the slightest, but he also had some of the best genetics ever in the history of bodybuilding. He was more jacked than most adult men before he was even a teenager (something makes me think he wasn't taking experimental testosterone at 10 years old) and had a great structure, but then again his muscles do kind of have that enhanced look about them and he claims 21 inch arms which is obviously not something a lean natural can have at only a height of 5'9".
What do you mean? The shorter you are the easier it is to have bigger circumference on your arms. But anyway's Leroy's hard not to like, and there's lots of videos interviewing him on youtube. He talks about all this stuff and says steroids really didn't start coming around until the late 1950's.
I agree. 21" arms natural and lean is not impossible.
@@The_Conspiracy_Analyst In the short term yeah, but assuming the taller guy continues training eventually the shorter guy's progress will slow down due to just overall being smaller in structure while the taller guy will keep making faster gains for longer. There's a reason you don't see natural 5'6" guys running around with 18+ inch arms while I think Eric Bugenhagen. 6'1" achieved 20 inch arms (fully pumped up with blood flow restriction) naturally. Also a 17 inch arm will look way bigger on a short guy than on a tall guy.
Yep true that Leroy seemed like a really nice and knowledgeable guy, RIP.
why do you believe he wasn't using steroids even that early? when he was 13, steroids were legal and advertised in every bodybuilding magazine. you could order them through the mail without any issue. and surveys of bodybuilders find the average age that they begin using steroids is 14. so it's not impossible leroy colbert was ordering steroids through the mail at age 12. you could do it with a stamp and a money order. you don't think a kid serious enough about building arms to invent his own weights using pails and wet sand at age 12 couldn't figure out how to use the post office?
The amount of testosterone they were selling in the magazines (not the bodybuilding mags) contained such small dosages -- 10 mg -- as to be ineffective for bodybuilding. Additionally the absorption rate was 70%, so for a 10 mg dose you're only getting 7 mg...plus the liver damage it caused. I've yet to see one photo of any bodybuilder of that era with any trace of gynecomastia or body acne.
At least my man George Hackenschmidt was a pure natty.
Yes, and if we are honest we can see that. He still looks a normal man that lifts weight. The following question still stands to this day. Where are all the natural influencers? Where? Even just one? Not much to ask with 7+ billion people in the world.
And my man began raj aswell. Amazing chest and proportions
@@DhirC35 Shoulders and traps as well, amazing physique and they achieved all of that with nothing but hard work.
@@mark4lev There are some natty ones, but the natty ones aren't as big because most of the attention goes to enhanced physiques.
@@tommymecousinlostmecar4165 yep. He is my goal right there. Maybe dont wanna be as ripped as him tho.
I love a TH-camr's channel that admits when he is wrong and corrects the information. Very few people or channels do this, especially in the era of Misinformation. You have earned yourself a new subscriber. Bravo!
It doesn't matter that some were on drugs (and yes, it was obvious long before this "discovery"), it was early enough that a decent amount of them will have been natural.
Furthermore, we have guys today who look similar and are most likely natural, such as Alphadestiny (in my opinion he looks even better than most of the Silver Era guys).
For me this discovery doesn't matter at all. I still will achieve 18" arms naturally and 15.5" forearms naturally below 18% Bodyfat (I'm 6'3" and currently have 16.75" arms and 14.25" forearms at ~30% Bodyfat).
And I will have endurance, and health, and a decent amount of tricks in Calisthenics hopefully (I'm a big fan of Ring Dips, Muscle ups, Toe to Bar Leg raises, hand stands, Front Levers, Planche, L-sit etc. hopefully I will be able to do them one day).
You could definitely get 18”s at 6’3”. I’m only 5’11” and I had 18’s during one of my bulks at about 205 bodyweight. But i was more like 21% bodyfat at the time.
I am shorter than you, 305lbs, 15% bf. my arms are way bigger than 18". You can get there too. I did a planche yesterday. Thats possible for you too.
@@aidaninsua I mean cold flexed, not with a pump.
And yeah, if I'm honest I think the limit is well above 18 for my height, probably 19 or 19.5", but I'm not pushing to the max, I'll be happy with lean 18s in 2-3 years.
@@deltalima6703 Planche at 305lbs?
Good sir you need to get on TH-cam, this is an insane feat of strength that needs to be shown.
@Delta Lima 305 and 15% body fat? Okay bro. You're either trenning it up at a gram a week, or you're full of it.
Carlos, always a pleasure to get your take on this subject. Well done, Sir! Cheers!
Should show pictures of shows or winners of shows through the years. Maybe we can see when they get noticeable bigger. When was the first sign of gyno on a bodybuilder?
Just using the “eye test” it’s really in the 60s that bodybuilders start looking obviously enhanced. As we covered in this video, the FFMIs of silver era bodybuilders weren’t much different to the bronze era. They just chased a different aesthetic and didn’t get so lean. Whereas after dianabol (and other drugs) come out, the physiques quickly get both massive and shredded.
Excellent conversation - thanks - and as explained test/steroids were'nt considered ''cheating'' back then - it was just like a liver or vitamin tablet (the latest thing) in a quest to help build a better/bigger physique - as time went on and more guys discovered and tried them and everyone saw the ''benefits'' the amount of users would increase of course - if 10 guys showed up to a competition and 3 or 4 guys clearly stood out from the rest , you can believe that by the next year the other 6 would be on the gas also
7:58 - fyi - The advert design he mentions here was super common back then. You actually saw the same type of advertising designs in Comics too (running all the way through to the 80's/90's). An example would be the classic 'x-ray specs' adverts. or the kids submarine comic ad :) But, even back then, most people knew (avoided) those types of advert. They were considered 'low brow', even back then. Thinking they were all bs. But sometimes, there was gold to be found ;)
Look at the difference between reg park when he won mr yorkshire and when he moved to london and won the mr Britain 7 months later. The difference is huge.
It's very respectable for someone to not only present such entertaining and more importantly didactic content from an objective an unbiased perspective but also for them to admit when they weren't as accurate with their information as they previously believed then to continue to teach and entertain, more knowledgeably, confidently, and humbly. That's true adherence to the scientific method and a commendable positivist approach to living
I’m a grown adult, and my heart breaks at the thought of my favorite bodybuilders not being natty. I know it was always a possibility, but there was always a small part of me that simply wanted to believe 😢
I wouldn’t get so invested in it. Whether or not someone uses steroids has no bearing on the quality of work they did or how good of a person they were.
Natty accomplishments are amazing, which is why I subscribe to channels like this one. However I also have tremendous respect for people who use PEDs at all levels from TRT on up.
What matters is the person, not the drugs.
@@scottfree6479 Look, this is all cope. Steroids and artificial hormones undeniably increase your natural potential permanently. Their achievements are an example of the efficacy of science, not of the natural human athletic/bodybuilding potential
Don't be they were natty. I'm gonna make a post to explain why
@Dick Jones I agree, but how do we know what healthy is in regards to hormones? Having a test level of 1500 might be perfectly fine, or it might be dangerous, we really do not know. Worse, it may even vary by individual, meaning you might need a test level of 1500 to get the same results I would see at 900. You might be natty and I might be enhanced.
Obviously guys sauced out of their minds like Ronnie have done severe and irreparable damage to their bodies, just look at Bostin Lloyd. On the other hand, having test at the low end of normal or below is associated with an increase in all cause mortality.
It isn't so clear cut, and it's only going to become more confusing as medical knowledge advances.
the top physique natty's can achieve is bronze age.
It could be that Silver Era bodybuilders, not thinking of these substances in the same light as we do today, didn't think it would be cheating to take them. They, perhaps, saw them as mere nutrition. To me at least, it is doubtful that they were completely natural; it makes more sense that they weren't. Then again they didn't have the "perfected" drugs that came later.
I can't believe how sad i am with some of the developments. It's fine, but it's a bit disheartening, even if we don't know who and how much exactly was used (Or maybe if they used at all lmao). Maybe those hormones are as good as natural test boosters lmao
It's nuanced. He is not saying they are natural or not.
Why are you sad? Does taking some gear mean they didn't work hard to be what they were? Let me put it like this. You could take all the HGH in the world and every single AAS that exists and you still will never be able to compete against any guy at The Olympia. And that's not a knock at you. It's saying that these guys with or without gear have the genetics to be something that you and I can't be.
@@jd9119 taking gear yes makes any and all of your so called "efforts" worthless because you dont even have to put 10% of the work of a normal person to have the physique, they dont deserve praise, nobody cares for cheaters, it just shows a bunch of weak, demented, effemiante and insecure clowns and nothing more. Also stop with the genetics cope, they dont makethat much of a difference like many copers like to massively blow it out of proportion showing they dont understand genetics at all, hard work and consistency does far more(which most people in bodybuilding lack, they generally become roiders, the weak willed scum without any conviction or determination or people who use genetics as a false excuse for their laziness)
If you use roids, the only thing you deserve is mockery, scorn and massive ostracization.
@@jd9119 no. The very act of taking gear makes their physiques not achievable naturally, having good genetics does not do that, because you or I may have good genetics but just don't know about it.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef there are plenty of guys at the gym right now who are in grear and don't look like they've ever touched the stuff. There are tons of gym-heros that can't bench 2 plates but are on 500mg of tren
Now, Boys, begin to develope physiques better than the silver ERA , be the proof of a new bigger ERA
I want to share an anecdote: Back when I was 23, I had been working out for a few years- not truly “bodybuilding”, but I was steady and regular, taking creatine, seeing very slow, gradual changes. That year, my roommate, who had been partying and drinking heavily for the previous year, saw me with my shirt off. “Dude, I can tell you been workin out.” He said. Then he said “I’m gonna start working out.” For the next two months, he did 100 push-ups a day and ran 1-2 miles several times per week. At the end of those two months, he looked like Adonis. Every muscle was firm, heavily veined, and striated. He was shredded, and significantly bigger than me, eating the same diet as me, because we ate together. How? Both of his parents were Olympic-level track and field athletes. Genetics play a HUGE role in what your body will do naturally. Look at a Pit Bull and. Labrador Retriever. Is the Pit Bull bigger because it works out more? No. The Lab will never look like a Pit Bull. Genetics matter. Accept that, accept what you are, do the best for your body with the goal of longevity and long healthy life span. Looks are nothing compared to Health Span. Being able to hike, ski, surf, golf, and do fun activities into old age is what will help you enjoy your life as much as possible for as long as possible.
I only do Pilates for muscle-toning and hot yoga for endurance and still have an aesthetic physique that looks like a guy who lifts moderate weights. Genetics.
YOU ARE FUNNY GAY...........🤣🤣🤣
Years ago I spoke to a guy - Alan Peel - who worked at York in the 50-60s.
He told me that at the time they introduced Dianabol, they also started doing "isometric" exercises.
Here's the funny part; The lifters thought it was the isometrics that were making the difference in their lifts, and energy levels.
You see, they were used to "performance enhancement" being like pep/speed pills, so when they took the D-bol, and didn't feel anything after 30 minutes, they all just said "this stuff is bunk".
He told me that several lifters, who previously has dragged their feet coming to the gym and were tired & broken down, would suddenly be almost jumping through the doors saying; "Hey fellas! Man, I tell ya, those isometrics have got me feeling like I'm 19 yrs old again! And let me tell ya, my wife's a pretty big fan of those isometrics, if you catch my drift".
Isometrics were pushed by York as the reason for the sudden increase in size and strength of its lifters after 1958. Isometrics played a part...but they didn't tell anyone else. They also sold alot of power rack because of it.
😂😂
TH-camr: "I was wrong"
Me: instantly subscribes
The Bronze and Silver Era guys also used Yoga training and breathing techniques as an evolution from the Roma strongman whose ancestral origin was in India. This is largely supplanted by bulky steroid heads increasingly after 1970.
Can you redirect me to more info on this? Sounds fascinating.
- Perandren(Testosterone propionate) was approved by FDA in 1939 - Testosterone propionate 2% ointment (Perandren Ointment) was the subject of NDA 0-0499 held by Ciba Pharmaceutical Co. This NDA was submitted to FDA on January 24, 1939, and under the procedures of the act at that time, the NDA “became effective” (the statutory equivalent of “approval” under the act as it appears now) on March 7, 1939, 23 years before passage of the 1962 amendments to the act.
- John Grimek's FFMI jumped 3 points from 1940 to 1941 24.0 - 26.9
- If Grimek was already trying methyltestosterone in 1943 we could speculate that maybe we was already trying propionate in 1940?
Can't find a photo from 1941 but his arms are way bigger in 1945 comparing to the 1940 mr.america picture.
- I could speculate that grimek had the first 20 inches arms, in 1945 he was already huge
- Steve Reeve seems natty, we have pictures with his evolution year by year, his arms are not huge, a modest 17 inches arms, he didn't have a huge transformation like Grimek in 1945 comparing to 1940.
Appreciate the honesty and accountability. Others would double down on their errors just to escape accountability. Salute. 🙏🏼
At this point and at my 50"s all I care is about lean muscle,flexibility,functionality and strength.
Combining weights,martial arts and calisthenics...it's been great for me.
"Transporter" physique.
I don’t see a reason to admire the top bodybuilders because they’re mostly just a mirage. On one hand they look super strong but the amount of lifting and roids they’re putting in is actually harming them especially organs like heart kidneys and liver. It’s not something to really look up too just being a slave to your looks or appearance as opposed to just natural strength and health.
Yes, I was surprised by your earlier point-of-view.
It had always been my understanding that bodybuilding as such was purely an invention of testosterone. No test, no BB.
This is how BB took the place of 'strong-men' contests because the advantage of test gave the athletes the ability to 'shape' themselves that naturals just didn't have. With test, the body became clay.
Apparently, you have confirmed that this is indeed the case.
I am not anti-test, by the way. I never used it, but I have nothing against it. It's art (and sport).
The disappointing reality that no one wants to be a natty bodybuilder anymore really just makes me want to go nuts and become as crazy a natty bodybuilder I can be, just wish I had the time to do it because I work 12 hours a day, every day.
I work ten 6 days a week,started slow after 2 years i look bronze era so i think anything is possible just keep training.
2 years to get to bronze huh? You know what, I just may do that. At 35, it's about time I got some healthier hobbies anyway. Thanks for the push, bro.
Body building as done today is so unhealthy. Focus should be on being lean and strong, not on mass, or having a sculpted look that someone says is the goal. I like TH-camr Atlaspowershrugged, and the old school bronze era guys simply because they are or were strong. I'd rather be like Arthur Saxon than any Golden era body builder.
If you really want to pursue that goal, but you feel like your job is impeding your ability to do so, it might be a good time to start looking for a better job.
@@mattakudesu good luck
OK I think a letter may is evidence but a proof that everyone was on the juice is to far fetched. I still believe that the majority of SA wouldn't used that. Some may tried but with low results. The problem is that the esters used were far to unstable and would have been far away of what was available in the mid 50's. Also they didn't know how to dose and apply this very early experimental steroids. I I think Reeves made a statement about early steroids saying they weren't convinced by the effictiveness of the new experimental substance. What could be is that a small fraction figured out how to use this. Regard that they also had to deal with the side effects like shut down of own test production. I guess that a few may have gained in the 40's may a small edge.
Addition: like correctly pointed out the average FMI just began to change in the late 50's/early 60's. And the video on limits of hypertrophy of the bronze guys shows what is definately possible with the natural route.
Yeah if there was use it was definitely experimental. And the actual impact is hard to measure but likely would not have been major. I still think silver era physiques are naturally obtainable. And systematic use of PEDs didn’t enter bodybuilding until the later 50s and beyond.
@@NattyLifeYT agree the effect if there was any was miniscule. So silver era look is definately naturally obtainable and the vast majority of silver era guys wouldn't have an advantage due experimenting with early steroids. So for me nothing changes in the perception of silver era guys. They are still naturals for me and they show what's naturally possible.
As I've said before, I believe Leroy Colbert may have been prescribed some kind of testosterone for recuperation of his foot tear. That's when his arms got to over 20" and I had a friend that was prescribed sustanon for a foot injury. Just maybe.
What kind of foot injury (in modern times) is treated with testosterone?
@@jd9119 I mean he wasn't a close friend so he might have been pulling my leg but an alleged gunshot wound.
@@jd9119 "Anabolic steroids have also been shown to be very effective with aiding the repair of orthopedic injuries by directly aiding in skeletal repair and aiding in muscle repair which allows for the strengthening of bones" I just grabbed this from google so it isn't entirely impossible.
@@Satarnoch I've never heard of anyone being prescribed test to treat a gunshot wound. GH probably would help, but it's never used for that.
@@Satarnoch A lot of pro-wrestlers when they tear a muscle, tendon or ligament (sometimes a combination) will go on gear in addition to taking HGH and possibly other peptides like TB500. I know John Cena came back from an injury that normally takes a year to heal in 6 or 7 months. And he came back even more yoked. But those guys are taking stuff that normal people are not prescribed when they're injured like that (although the TB500 wouldn't be prescribed to them either, they'd still take it).
A related topic would be the decline in testosterone in men over the years.
I really enjoyed this conversation. You both have great points and insight. Sub to both your channels.
very good information 😮
This is not sad at all, them juicing does not nulify the fact that most physiques of that era are achievable natty.
Prove it
@@robthevampireslayer3211 It will take years for me, but many people here on youtube did, go check them out.
Prove it to whom?
@@deltalima6703 Idk what he is on, something like that people do for themselves, proving it to anyone is pointless. Still, there are proofs online.
Cant even prove the moon landings to some idiots, not that I would waste my time trying.
Great to see you both in the same video. I love both your channels. 🏋️
Somebody on the Internet admitting they're wrong? MADNESS!!!
17:15. Yeah, you gotta be careful with FFMI. Mine is 25 and I certainly don't use roids and I really don't even work out that hard (well I did in the past). My bone density kind of throws it off, but still.
Amazing video as always. What do you personally think about Steve Reeves ?
To be honest I think it would be niave to think that bodybuilders would not use any means/including steroids as soon as they became available to build there physiques,
Especially if these bodybuilders from the past saw it as "vitamins". To them it would just be nutrition.
There's so much denial from the people in the comments section it's laughable. Yeah it's perfectly logical to think that your natty hero would be willing to ingest powdered bull's testicles in the hope it would give them an edge, but not experimental steroids as soon as they were developed.
Guys before the 1940’s were mainly weightlifters. With no emphasis on chest development. Bodybuilding contests were brought in to attract people to weightlifting meets at the end of the meet. Sometimes as late as 2-4am before starting the bodybuilding competitions. Hoffman really never liked bodybuilding it was Weider who changed everything.
That Bob Hoffman, Joe Weider split led to Marvin Eder being blocked unfairly.
This changes nothing for me , the natural potential is still huge
Excellent conversation
Would love if you guys had a weekly podcast! I for sure would be listening! 🙌👑👑🙌🎉
Great discussion! :)
49:03 I agree. I think possible use of any kind of testosterone or pre steroidal pharmaceutical would have been the exception not the norm. For that reason I don’t share Carlos’ change of view which sounds more like a let down of sorts. I think by far and away Silver Age was natural. The fact that some would have been curious about it shouldn’t be a let down. Curiosity about something new isn’t anything other than curiosity.
I will always go to the mat and fight and defend against anyone who thinks Reeves used testosterone or steroids. He had a spectacular reputation amongst his peers. Another important circumstantial evidence against the claim of his use was his post Bodybuilding retirement era public campaign against the use of steroids in bodybuilding. He pleaded publicly with Arnold. He was a tireless crusader for natural fitness until his untimely death.
If having been so public with his campaign against drugs in bodybuilding and he had taken testosterone or any kind of steroidal type drug you would think someone would have called him out as a hypocrite. Yet no one ever made any sort of accusation against the man. His character was solid. No hypocrisy found in him.
It is irresponsible remarks like from the late Sergio Olivia who made passing comments that he Reeves did that are the source of some of the rumors. Yet Olivia never trained with Reeves, was a generation after Reeves, and never even moved to California so he was in no position to say anything about the man.
My father was knew Mr. Pearl and spoke to him over the phone. Great bodybuilder but more importantly great man.
RIP Steve Reeves, Bill Pearl
Doesn't change anything really. They still had top tier genetics and hypertrophic response to resistance training that most people don't meaning most won't ever get close to their level even after years of consistent training.
I suppose they will never admit to it because they feel it did them more harm than good. It's something they were likely misusing. Would they know anything about PCT usage? Photography and the art of posing improved physiques as well. Great video!!!
One thing not really considered is the competitive process that ensued from early bronze-age bodybuilders and is still active today. This process would be expected to continue to attract ever more genetically gifted participants, ratcheting up the competitive requirements on a continuous basis. The result should be better physiques over time (even without PEDs). This and the better training methods mentioned (very much expected in a competitive process like this) explain the changing look. The next era also changed in look, and it had all of the hallmarks of PED use: more overall muscularity (high FFMI), but specifically exaggerated delts and traps. Because of the distribution of androgen receptors in the human body, it offers a pretty nice indicator of PED use. The exaggerated delts and traps indicate, along with high FFMI, indicate a high probability of PED use. Based on this, it looks to me like the silver-era bodybuilders may have used PEDs right at the end of that era.
Thank you for your service, guys.
I don't think they used steroids in the 1940's. Yes, the first 'roids were developed as far back as 1931, but they were weak, had really bad side effects on the prostate gland, and they were used in limited amounts in labs in the 1930's. In the 1940's, doubtful that more than a handful of people were interested in getting steroids--Grimek is mentioned here--but how many pharmacies stocked the stuff? Doubtful that many did, if any. JMO. And just because Grimek was interested didn't mean he took them, as is mentioned in the video.
Keep in mind that in the US, Dianabol wasn't created until 1958, and it took off from there. It's possible that European labs developed them just after the war, particularly the Russians, who presumably used them in the 1952 Olympics to smash weightlifting records. But did the bodybuilders then know of them? Again, doubtful.
I do remember reading a story about Grimek trying Dianabol around 1960, well after he'd retired. He said that they made him feel like he had the flu, so he stopped using them. (He only used them for about three weeks, as I recall).
Finally, here's a link, and you'll have to scroll down to the bottom for a more in-depth explanation. (Sorry for the long post). www.anabolicsteroidforums.com/threads/1925-bodybuilder.121661/
I’m the only natural these days
Me too
Likewise
For life
1920s-1950s bodybuilders didnt need steroids they ate less calories and did more cardio, thats why they looked shredded and had smaller muscle mass, had they eaten more and did less cardio then they would have more bodyfat.
Post 40's chests and legs suddenly blow up - and their expressions are always "grinny" and goofy - like people who didnt have real dedication.
It's a sign something else was boosting their muscle mass. You see it when you look at bronze era, they look like PTSD victims because they needed intense dedication. Then silver, suddenly they look easy-going and huge. Something caused that change and combined with discovery of Testosterone and so on, they have to have figured out someway to get it
And they might be doing off-label taking of proto-steroids with a degree of quakery. LOTS of scientists and researchers are going to know people into serious sports and weights.
Just because one guy was interested in something doesn't mean it could ever be possible that ped use was anywhere near as rampant as it is today. The lengths men will go to cry that you can't be strong without roids just proves how weak men really are today. Men bacj then had more testosterone by a significant margin in average anyways. Studies show modern mens t levels are terrible compared to back in the day.
Former World's Strongest Man Doug Hepburn claimed that steroids were unavailable in the early 1940s, but by the late 1940s and early 1950s they existed and bodybuilders/other strength athletes were taking them. In an article on 'physical culture study' ("Doug Hepburn: The Challenge - 1999") that links to his defunct website, Doug considers the late '40s and early '50s as a "gray area" where we can't say for sure who was taking what (or anything).
@Dick Jones That didn't do anything. The first effective PEDs were only available in the laboratory/experimental stage in the late 30s and were only being used by the late 40s.
@Dick Jones Lol. No, they didn'tXD
@Dick Jones People have been pushing snake oil for decades, but none of it actually did anything. There was no effective form of artificial chemical enhancement for strength available until the 20th century. Eating monkey testicles (!!) certainly wouldn't do it.
One huge thing this guy missed about the silver era transformations is testosterone ethers vs suspension. The improved synthetic molecules lasted longer in the blood stream.
So refreshing to see someone say, Hey, I have more information that makes my pior statements incorrect and this is what I know now.
I think these guys are ruining the reputation of past bodybuilders! Whatever they said they did not take them! And as you can notice they're not in exactly in the greatest shape themselves!
Great video, thank you guys.
Not surprising, since the Germans were giving it to Vermacht soldiers to make them more aggressive. So it makes sense it would percolate to athletes everywhere 🏋
That’s a myth, he talked about that in his previous video
I had a feeling reg park was juicing. He seemed to have blown up later in his career; especially when he meet arnold.
Il en faisait certainement , il était aussi gros qu'arnold et celui ci était dopé depuis son adolescence.
Dangerous topic, a lot of blackpilled guys in these comments incapable of nuance and critical thinking
Look how strong Clevio Massimo Sabatino, George Hackenschmitt, Eugene Sandow, Warren Lincoln Travis, and Herman Gorner were back in the Bronze Age of Bodybuilding! Look at Marvin Eder, John Grimik, Steve Reeves, and in proto-powerlifting, Marvin Eder, Paul Anderson, Bob Hoffman, Doug Ivan Hepburn, and Tommy Kono in the 1949s and 1950s.
I always thought they were on something. The jump between the guys in the bronze era who were definitely natural, to the guys in the silver era was just way too big, it’s not just the fact the chest was being worked more either, the arms were far larger, their back was far larger. I have always expected they were on some test. Nothing else, just testosterone to allow them to build more muscle mass than what could be achieved naturally.
I don't care too much I'm still going to smash the gym and see what small natty gains I can get
KEY questions:
1) Which companies would manufacture "testosterone" for sale?
2) Cost? Was it affordable?
3) Availability? Did you need a Rx? Would doctors even know of its existence to write a Rx? Which pharmacy?
4) A new product (like a drug) being sold in a bodybuilding magazine is far-fetched. Even today, a new drug doesn't hit the market that soon.
5) Evidence for professional athletes taking it in the 40s?? Remember, in the 40s, the working man was making squat. A baseball player or football player or even an Olympic athlete might have access AND be able to afford the drug.
Finally, remember, the claim is "people taking "testosterone" to become muscular.
So, we are talking about average Joe's trying to beef-up. Where would they get it? The YMCA? Seriously? No one would know what you are talking about.
My mission is to develop and discovery a natural bodybuilding, that brings health and wellbeing to peoples lives, that helps to fight with obesity, hypothyroidism, fat liver diseases, without exogenous synthetic hormones. I believe there is another way to make muscles than sit on the needle and be slave of it. Now I am interested in Hans Selye's teaching on stress. Russian professor Seluyanov was studied and developed some directions on how stress can influence your glands and how muscle grows depend on stress. I am also interested in his works.
Also I am interested in study of different types of weight lifting. For example you can do a positive phase first, then a 2 seconds keep, and then do a negative phase a little slowly, do this 5 times. Or you can reduce weight to 40% and do a 5 series of 5 x 10 sets with a 30 sec rest between set in series. And in this way you do not rest between positive and negative phases but do very slowly in the middle of movement till at the 5th set you feel a burning 🔥 and you have to stop doing exercise. Or you can do a pumping style to start a capillarization process in white muscles. To do that reduce weight to 50% and do exercise fast for 15 reps.
I tend to agree with the thinking that IF there were hormones available, they were not very effective, or else Ciba wouldn’t have had to develop the first true steroid later on. It makes sense to me that as bodybuilding developed as a sport and a culture, that it began to yield results like the silver era bodybuilders. Thanks for the discussion and the honesty. It’s always best to know what is truly possible.