markymark
Level 1 Valued Member
hi
Looking at Sandow, Aston, Klein + many more heavy lifters from the late 1800's to early 1900's their physiques are spot on. They are very muscely but not overly so and seem much denser than modern BB'ers. Emphasis seemed on arms, shoulders, core and legs. Not on pecs and lats.
Why is that? I have asked around quite abit but the answers vary from silly to guessing. Anyone know why their physiques were how they were and why they are so different to bb'ers say before the 1950's?
One guy said it was because natural test. levels were much higher in those days...but that makes no sense. If that was the case modern juiced up bb'ers would also look like that..but they don't.
The only thing i can put it down to their training. They did massive weights but with few reps....is that it? More?
One thing i have to say is they look way better than modern b.bers' They were strong and looked it. Not huge bloated gorrillars but lean, dense muscles. Something many modern b.bers will not accept.
thx
Looking at Sandow, Aston, Klein + many more heavy lifters from the late 1800's to early 1900's their physiques are spot on. They are very muscely but not overly so and seem much denser than modern BB'ers. Emphasis seemed on arms, shoulders, core and legs. Not on pecs and lats.
Why is that? I have asked around quite abit but the answers vary from silly to guessing. Anyone know why their physiques were how they were and why they are so different to bb'ers say before the 1950's?
One guy said it was because natural test. levels were much higher in those days...but that makes no sense. If that was the case modern juiced up bb'ers would also look like that..but they don't.
The only thing i can put it down to their training. They did massive weights but with few reps....is that it? More?
One thing i have to say is they look way better than modern b.bers' They were strong and looked it. Not huge bloated gorrillars but lean, dense muscles. Something many modern b.bers will not accept.
thx