Originally Posted by TBooze
They were developed in the 40s and used by some in the 50s and 60s, when Harold Johnson was also around.
I am not going to come out with a straight yes or no answer, as the evidence I have given was pure speculation and here say, without nothing to back it up, other than a hunch.
Just looking at Harold you're already speculating the man did steroids? Are you serious?
Ridiculous. We've got guys as well built if not better in the gym who don't lift. If you get your body-fat percentage low enough ANYONE will look ripped. Shit, if my BF% was low enough I'd look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club. It's all a matter of how fat you are... sub-cutaneous fat covers your muscles. It is for this reason that someone like myself with good abdominal strength can lack a six-pack whereas some skinny little bitch with inferior conditioning can look all ripped in the gut.
Originally Posted by john garfield
It's the myth, PP, that's fueled the body-building industry and every young boy since the bully first kicked sand in the kid's face in Charles Atlas ads on comic books.
You can ONLY be what your genetics will allow, or every dedicated fighter would look like Johnson and punch like Julian Jackson.
Yes, ANYONE can get like Harold Johnson if they train hard enough. He isn't a specimen by any means... he's not even particularly muscular. The ONLY thing I see in him that is exceptional is his low BF%. Genetics only give you a ceiling, they don't force you not to maximize your potential, and no, a Harold Johnson build is not unattainable for many of us.
There's a big difference between looking ripped and powerful and actually being powerful, fast and strong. Bodybuilders are much weaker than power lifters, yet power lifters look like shit. Same with Olympic lifters, many of those guys look downright small at the mid levels of competition, yet they're impossibly strong.