Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below This is kind of related to my post on the drug usage in professional bodybuilding. What do you guys think the next trend in bodybuilding will be? In the 70's it was size and symmetry. In the 80's it tended more towards smaller, shredded to the bone physiques. The 90's have been all about hugely, beastially, massive guys. What's next? I don't think that anyone can get much bigger than the guys that are out there today(Coleman, Ruhl, Cutler, etc.) so the next Mr. Olympia will have to be different unless it's going to remain all about hugeness. Do you think we'll see a revival of the Arnold type physique or maybe back to a Zane type? What do ya'll think? Personally, I kind of hope to see a revival of the 70's because I think they looked the best and, since I want to be...no, WILL BE!... a pro, I would really like to limit my drug usage to something sane.
Trends in bodybuilding
- Thread starter Grizzly
- Start date
blood_drinker
New member
I think that perhaps we'll have a few more years continuing the hugeness trend, but soon they'll realize that that is not truly bodybuilding. Quoting Milos Sarcev: "Bodybuilding is not just for the sake of more mass, it's for the physique you want."
And a massive physique is a physique of a mutant, not of a human. Bodybuilding (IMO) is about the beauty of a physique , not in its bestiality. I think we will go back to zane and the vaccuum poses. But then again what would happen to the current pros? I truly doubt they can strike the vaccuum pose. Many of them dont even have the two lower abs - filled with water.
It's a tough question that no one can answer, but many can predict. This was just my humble and uninformed opinion.
What do u think personally?
And a massive physique is a physique of a mutant, not of a human. Bodybuilding (IMO) is about the beauty of a physique , not in its bestiality. I think we will go back to zane and the vaccuum poses. But then again what would happen to the current pros? I truly doubt they can strike the vaccuum pose. Many of them dont even have the two lower abs - filled with water.
It's a tough question that no one can answer, but many can predict. This was just my humble and uninformed opinion.
What do u think personally?
blood_drinker said:
Just to be the devil's advocate here, I do have to point out that the physique of any bodybuilder is that of a mutant. Particularly once drugs have been introduced. Nature did not intend the body to carry huge amounts of muscle mass. That's why it's so hard for a lot of people to gain weight. I had never thought of it that way until I read an article on MESO stating that. Technically, with juice or without juice, bodybuilders are by definition not natural.
blood_drinker said:
To be honest, I hope the Zane type physique doesn't come back in style. Then I would never become Mr. Olympia. I'm already bigger than Frank Zane and I haven't even introduced drugs yet. I will say, however, that I'm not nearly and never have been, despite my best efforts, nearly as ripped as Zane and I'm not even sure that I can be. I want the Arnold physique to make a comeback. I would like to see the vaccuum pose re-introduced, though. Here's a question for you: if tight, stream-lined waists come back into bodybuilding fashion, will that eliminate the use of GH? From what I understand, GH is the culprit in the protruding pregnant bellies of the current pros.
Come on people! I know you all have opinions on this subject. There's been a lot of views, but very few replys. How about if we change the subject from "what do you think will be the next trend" to "what would you like to see professional bodybuilders/the next Mr. O to look like"? Would that help? Who wants to see another Arnold? Who wants to see if the human body can possibly get any bigger than Ronnie? Who wants tiny little dudes like Zane to win the O? Come on, give some input!
TheGame2001
New member
Grizzly
You got pictures of yourself grizzly?
Online?
You got pictures of yourself grizzly?
Online?
I like Physiques like Shawn Ray. He stays relatively lean year round. His contest weight is only 15 pounds from his offseason weight. I think he tips the scale around 210-215 come contest time. Of course, he is only like 5'7, so if he were taller his weight might go up proportionately. Ronnie is just amazing. But, I think the knowledge that these guys are probably screwing themselves up, kind of overshadows their hard work and integrity.
Re: Grizzly
Only one with my ex. No, posing pics. In a few weeks I should though.
Edit: I just thought about why you asked that. It's prolly because I claimed to be bigger than Frank Zane. He may have more muscle in ratio to his frame size and all, but I have more overall mass...I think. I don't know. He just looked some damn tiny. When I flip through the "Encyclopoedia" and I see him standing next to Arnold it's almost laugable at how tiny he looks. That's one reason I hope his physique never comes back into style because I am a fan of hugeness. Also, I'm 6'3" so to have a stream-lined, long muscled body I would look very skinny and kind of like a little pussy, if you ask me.
TheGame2001 said:
Only one with my ex. No, posing pics. In a few weeks I should though.
Edit: I just thought about why you asked that. It's prolly because I claimed to be bigger than Frank Zane. He may have more muscle in ratio to his frame size and all, but I have more overall mass...I think. I don't know. He just looked some damn tiny. When I flip through the "Encyclopoedia" and I see him standing next to Arnold it's almost laugable at how tiny he looks. That's one reason I hope his physique never comes back into style because I am a fan of hugeness. Also, I'm 6'3" so to have a stream-lined, long muscled body I would look very skinny and kind of like a little pussy, if you ask me.
Last edited:
Blood&Iron
New member
Well, for me Arnold will always be the high-water mark. Huge arms and chest, small waist, good calves. Maybe his upper legs were a bit small, but other than that, he was perfect. Even his legs, though, were good. I'm not really a fan of the Tom Platz look although that's kinda what I've got going on myself. Much bigger than Arnold and I feel it just starts looking weird, and dare I say, freaky--but not in a positive way. I even think there's such a thing as being too ripped. Some of the pros today look like they have varicose veins criss-crossing their bodies. But I still think people like Larry Scott, Steve Reeves, and Reg Park look awesome, so what the hell do I know?
Blood&Iron said:
Agreed! Arnold is, was and always shall be the man...until I come onto the scene
A lot of people are always criticizing his legs, but I don't think they were that bad at all, either. Although, if they were about 2 inches bigger he would have been all the more perfect.
MonStar1023
New member
Yeah I REALLY hope that the Arnold physique comes back into bodybuilding. In my opinion he looked BETTTER then any other bodybuilder ever and I hope his type of physique comes back..
Hes a MonSTAR...
Hes a MonSTAR...
Arnold had a great body. I would love to see the 70's come back. Franco Columbu had a great body too, and he was strong as an Ox.
http://www.darkwoods.com/bodybuilder/male/bb/gallery/fullsize/columb06.jpg
http://www.darkwoods.com/bodybuilder/male/bb/gallery/fullsize/columb06.jpg
SteelWeaver
New member
I prefer the Arnold/ Zane type look too.
Would it be inappropriate to bring in female BB here? Trends for that seem to stir a lot of heated opinions. Just wondering what you guys' opinions are for the future of it. It seems like, right now, women or men who don't want to take drugs, are out of the pro running from the start, even if they have great genetics.
I think it's the nature of human beings to test limits, and since the sport is mostly about size, it's going to test size limits, so probably pros are just going to get bigger and bigger until something drastic happens, in whichever form, be it serious health consequences, IFBB legislation, or just the human/chemical size ceiling.
I mean, Joe Weider already did something drastic about female BB almost 10 years ago, and a lot of people were really annoyed about that, since he didn't allow the "natural" trend of getting bigger and bigger to run it's course, and people questioned his motives in a big way. I do, too, actually, mostly from a fairness point of view.
No other sport tells it's female athletes to hold back in their achievements, to run slower than they can, jump less far than they can.
BB's difficult, being so much about an "aesthetic" and being so tied up with the social aspects of body image and so on.
What's with "figure" and "fitness" anyway? I think there should be "figure" and "fitness" comps for guys, too! Fair's fair!
Opinions?
Would it be inappropriate to bring in female BB here? Trends for that seem to stir a lot of heated opinions. Just wondering what you guys' opinions are for the future of it. It seems like, right now, women or men who don't want to take drugs, are out of the pro running from the start, even if they have great genetics.
I think it's the nature of human beings to test limits, and since the sport is mostly about size, it's going to test size limits, so probably pros are just going to get bigger and bigger until something drastic happens, in whichever form, be it serious health consequences, IFBB legislation, or just the human/chemical size ceiling.
I mean, Joe Weider already did something drastic about female BB almost 10 years ago, and a lot of people were really annoyed about that, since he didn't allow the "natural" trend of getting bigger and bigger to run it's course, and people questioned his motives in a big way. I do, too, actually, mostly from a fairness point of view.
No other sport tells it's female athletes to hold back in their achievements, to run slower than they can, jump less far than they can.
BB's difficult, being so much about an "aesthetic" and being so tied up with the social aspects of body image and so on.
What's with "figure" and "fitness" anyway? I think there should be "figure" and "fitness" comps for guys, too! Fair's fair!
Opinions?
The Dude said:
You know, I really like looking at the freaks too. For instance, today I was reading FLEX. Well, in one advertisement, there was some guy doing whatever. I suppose he had a nice physique or something, compared to normal people(who doesn't?), but, on the page before that there was pictures of Ronnie. So, I thought to myself "how the hell is this guy even remotely impressive?" I do have to say that going "backwards" to a more aesthetic and smaller physique will seem fairly un-impressive considering what we know is possible now. However, Arnold, Lou, Franco and Co. looked a lot better than the dudes do now, and bodybuilding is very much about aesthetics. So, as much as I love size for the sake of size, I do have to say that, as far as keeping in line with the ideals goes, the 70's era bodybuilder sets the bar. Plus, as much as I would like to be Ronnie sized, I don't want to do the amount of drugs necessary to be like that. An Arnold-type physique is much more attainable for many more people and also has less serious health consequences.
Stanknogger
New member
Ok, are there any good sites I can go to get a look at these different types of body builders, and their poses? What is this vacuum pose? Wha t kind of adverse health effects are you talking about, with arnold size?
Anyway for my 2 cents, I kind of like the looks of the really big guys who aren't that ripped and veiny, as opposed to guys who are totally ripped and veiny. But I am not a connoseiur I guess.
Do you think if you gave someone steroids and GH from when they were a little kid, and had them work out insanely, the could get much bigger than the pros today?
Anyway for my 2 cents, I kind of like the looks of the really big guys who aren't that ripped and veiny, as opposed to guys who are totally ripped and veiny. But I am not a connoseiur I guess.
Do you think if you gave someone steroids and GH from when they were a little kid, and had them work out insanely, the could get much bigger than the pros today?
SteelWeaver
New member
Grizzly said:
Uh, right, silly me. I guess I was referring more to female BB's. Or have all of them except Rachel McLish been on something or other? (Rather clueless about drugs).
"Do you think if you gave someone steroids and GH from when they were a little kid, and had them work out insanely, the could get much bigger than the pros today?"
Got any kids?
Yeah, the females are using crazy amounts of drugs too. Atleast since '85 there hasn't been a non-juiced competitior. The female body just cannot possibly become like Chizevsky, Chepiga, Gates or Lewis without a bunch of male hormones. Even if they could gain the muscle, there's no way they could get ripped enough without T3, clen and whatnot. Women's bodies are predisposed to higher levels of bodyfat. I would bet that female pros haven't used a tampon in ten years.
SteelWeaver
New member
Grizzly said:
OK, I agree that muscle gains in most women are a different story than for men, but about getting ripped, I think wilson6 and his client would disagree with you there. Check this out:
http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56161
Read the thread, too - she's apparently at about 6% bf here, and she competed in Nationals recently at lower than that, also without "ripping aids".
I also think that, just like men, some women are naturally more predisposed to be able to put on muscle more easily than most women and even some men, so we can't necessarily make a blanket statement that "the female body just cannot possibly" gain a large amount of muscle. Some women just naturally have higher levels of testosterone than normal.
Hell, I even met a woman once who had a beard. She wasn't a BB'er, or anything like that - just naturally grew a beard, and didn't see any reason why she should have to shave it. I'm sure if she HAD lifted a few weights, she would have grown pretty damn fast!
Of course, this doesn't go to say that I believe the Ms Olympia competitors are clean, just that they may not all be taking as huge amounts of drugs as some people think ... (?)
Similar threads
