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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bbd3e8J5zM3OoYU.html Support the channel and get early ad free access to these video: www.patreon.com/NattyLife

Thank you for having me on your channel Dante

Thats because I am the only natural

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

There's so few people in this space on KZfaq, I'm grateful that both of you are of such quality. This is a very rational, evidence based approach

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!

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.

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.

Bronze Age bros ... we are so back 💪😎

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.

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.

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.

It's great to see a channel follow up and change their stance after they get new information

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

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

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.

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.

Great show. I hope you both collaborate again!💪

I love your channel & your honest approach to all your info. Thank you.

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.

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.

Carlos, always a pleasure to get your take on this subject. Well done, Sir! Cheers!

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 💪

At least my man George Hackenschmidt was a pure natty.

Would love if you guys had a weekly podcast! I for sure would be listening! 🙌👑👑🙌🎉

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.

I really enjoyed this conversation. You both have great points and insight. Sub to both your channels.

I love a KZfaqr'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!

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?

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

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.

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)

Great discussion! :)

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.

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 ;)

Excellent conversation

They still looked a lot more natural than today's highly juiced bodybuilders, mostly because they didn't have the crazy overdeveloped traps.

As a 79 year old body builder i never suspected anyone using before 1966!

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.

Amazing video as always. What do you personally think about Steve Reeves ?

very good information 😮

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.

Great video, thank you guys.

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.

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".

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).

Great video!

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 the only natural these days

Appreciate the honesty and accountability. Others would double down on their errors just to escape accountability. Salute. 🙏🏼

Very interesting 🙏🏻💪🏻

Excellent work.

Now, Boys, begin to develope physiques better than the silver ERA , be the proof of a new bigger ERA

KZfaqr: "I was wrong" Me: instantly subscribes

You guys have done great reserch bravo....

A related topic would be the decline in testosterone in men over the years.

Thank you for your service, guys.

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 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!!!

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.

This is not sad at all, them juicing does not nulify the fact that most physiques of that era are achievable natty.

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

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.

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).

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,

I would love ti see a video of you talking about yukio mishima, the bodybuilding scene needs his teachings and he has a lot of history

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.

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 😢

Great respect for you! You are interested in the facts and you admit a mistake.

Title seems like clickbait given the discussion around the twenty-minute mark.

This is why i got trust issues.

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".

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.

- 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.

Carlos channel is so excellent source of information A know about John Grimek might be using steroids as there was plenty of stories about him And there was stories about doctors giving out steroids around 1940's You have to put it into the drugs back then was experiment and they were so low dosage that they wouldn't make huge difference No one knew about when to take then when to come of them I was just a huge experiment Had a lot of stories that these guys try it and thought it was useless, It was nothing compared to the 80's and 90's

Aesthetically, I think the Silver Era body builders were the absolute peak specimens

Wow, this is what I like, hard evidence. That was some really clever research. 1.

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.

This changes nothing for me , the natural potential is still huge

I don't care too much I'm still going to smash the gym and see what small natty gains I can get

Have you interviewed Randy Roach, the author of the MUSCLE, SMOKE & MIRRORS series of books about the history of Physical Culture/Bodybuilding?

Somebody on the Internet admitting they're wrong? MADNESS!!!

That Bob Hoffman, Joe Weider split led to Marvin Eder being blocked unfairly.

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.

John Grimek's FFMI in 1940 was 26 or 27 at 87kg. Then in 1941, his bodyweight shot up to 100kg with an FFMI of 31. So in the space of 1 year, he put on 13kg of muscle and his FFMI jumped up by 4 or 5 points. Dodgy. I think he was experimenting with some sort of natural or synthetic steroids during this period.

So refreshing to see someone say, Hey, I have more information that makes my pior statements incorrect and this is what I know now.

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.

Solid respect.

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.

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.

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.

🤪Can't wait to hear the Eugene Sandow was on Clen.

I´ve read about those "testicle extracts" even from earlier era-like 20s. Gustav Fristensky, famous Czech wrestler wrote some shady messages to one of his friend how he needed those substances.

Two of my fav channels collabing 🤝

Ok testosterone was not very effective UNTIL esters were available . Like propionate and cypionate and so on. !

Gear was available from the mid/late 40's onwards (test pellets, Prop and methyl test). Guys were very open if you were in the circle. One of my good friends who trained at my gym was a training partner of Reg Parks and was very open about useage of many of the top early bbers. I did very well in competition btw and few were natty early on.