• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Ive seen alot of the time with "enhanced" bodybuilders they bulk into the comp - i.e there off-season is alot of the time when they eat the least amount of food.
 
Well since they are "Unassisted" they think they need to eat more to compensate for not being assisted.
An enhanced athlete can still make gains on less since they have greater ability to be Nitrogen Positive..

I suspected that's what you meant. Just had natty in there twice so could have gone either way.

I would dispute that, there's no reason for an enhanced athlete to restrict calories as they can use them much more effectively, are less prone to getting fat, and can get lean faster.

If a natty athlete has massively higher cals they will not use them as efficiently and will have a much harder time losing it, and it can take significantly longer to lose it.

If someone thinks that keeping calories at 6000 a day is some substitute for vitamins they deserve to be fat.

At the end of the day surplus is exactly that - surplus to your needs. A geared body can utilise more calories than a natty one. I see where you're coming from but I think that principle only really applies in relation to dieting.
 
I suspected that's what you meant. Just had natty in there twice so could have gone either way.

I would dispute that, there's no reason for an enhanced athlete to restrict calories as they can use them much more effectively, are less prone to getting fat, and can get lean faster.

If a natty athlete has massively higher cals they will not use them as efficiently and will have a much harder time losing it, and it can take significantly longer to lose it.

If someone thinks that keeping calories at 6000 a day is some substitute for vitamins they deserve to be fat.

At the end of the day surplus is exactly that - surplus to your needs. A geared body can utilise more calories than a natty one. I see where you're coming from but I think that principle only really applies in relation to dieting.
I'd agree with you. The mindset is a great obstacle to overcome for many.
 
I not know what professionals do, so when I make comments it's usually about us.

its interesting to hear Arnold say that during a "cut" phase they didn't have access to the cocktail of chemicals available to the current crop.
he and they used to use a high volume approach to their workouts coupled with bouts of cardio.
and a bottle of wine prior to the show.
 
its interesting to hear Arnold say that during a "cut" phase they didn't have access to the cocktail of chemicals available to the current crop.
he and they used to use a high volume approach to their workouts coupled with bouts of cardio.
and a bottle of wine prior to the show.

And they looked the goods back then.
 
Hardly what you call ripped though. Wasn't much difference between their bulked state and ripped/cut state.
 
Yeah, but nowadays fark.

Mast, Clen, DNP, T3 etc. Fark


413487-23d784f6-d429-11e4-915f-fd70bc6357a8.jpg
 
I don't see the point of this - because they supposedly didn't have the range of compounds they're akin to natty? Rubbish. And I've seen natty competitors bring in better conditioning than Arnie did most of the time.
 
Top