MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Old-Time Bodybuilder Diets?
Author
Rating
Options

marktb

I have noticed thru searches of old-school bodybuilders and physical artists that they had tremendously defined abs with tiny waists, ala Richard Baldwin, John Balik, freddy Ortiz.

I am curious as to their dietary habits as to attain such defined midsections. I am sure they didn't follow the 6 meal a day plan to get their abs that way but I could be wrong.

Mark
Open User Options Menu

Jeremy McClinton

I recently read Steve Reeves' "Classic Physique" book which I believe was published in the late eighties or early nineties. In his book he describes his normal daily diet. It was three meals a day consisting of mostly natural, unprocessed, food. If I remember correctly he was big on having his breakfast meal be a protein shake that he made consisting of protein powder, milk, and eggs with other ingredients and a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice. That's about as exotic as it gets. His average lunch was fruit, vegetables, and dairy like cottage cheese and then a big salad with lean meat for dinner.

I remember when I first got the book a couple of years ago his diet was something that caught my eye because at that point I thought all body builders ate at the very least five meals a day and had since the beginning of bodybuilding. After doing some research into the old timers they all had relatively normal diets of their time but they stressed healthy habits like the avoidance of smoking, drinking, and trying to eat healthy foods and drinking extra milk to aid in the muscle building process by providing additional calories. Pretty straight forward stuff.

I sometimes wonder and doubt if the outright fanaticism of diets, supplements, and frequent meal eating that you see today in the physical culture world is really necessary. As you say, the old timers looked pretty damn good. Food for thought.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

You would be suprised at what some of these guys were eating in a day to build muscle. Espcially some of the guys out of Gironda's gym.

This post is not regarding steroid users of back in the day. They can get very cut and defined on drugs with little training knowledge and poor eating habits. Its the growth hormone now stopping that look with the new batch of pro's

My favorite example is Don Howarth. He reports not really growing (and he had plenty of cuts) without eating 3 dozen eggs a day, 2lbs beef, sometime a gallon of raw milk during his workout and up to a quart of raw cream each day.

Alot of guys just start cutting the amount of fat down to lose excess bodyfat. However you will find on a high protein high fat diet it will be much harder to put on bodyfat.

Gironda wrote about this in his unleashing the wild physique.

Wait for Muscle Smoke and Mirrors by Randy Roach to come out. He has some fantastic stories from some of the old timers and it talks about what it took for a natural trainee to put on muscle back before drugs were popular.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

sgsims1

I sometimes wonder and doubt if the outright fanaticism of diets, supplements, and frequent meal eating that you see today in the physical culture world is really necessary. As you say, the old timers looked pretty damn good. Food for thought.

Well said...
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

Jeremy McClinton wrote:
I sometimes wonder and doubt if the outright fanaticism of diets, supplements, and frequent meal eating that you see today in the physical culture world is really necessary. As you say, the old timers looked pretty damn good. Food for thought.


Don't underestimate genetics here. You're right, these guys look fantastic but recall, for example, Dr D's stories regarding Sergio Olivia. He loved to feast on pizzas and Coke (no Diet Coke in those days). Olivia also claimed he had a brother back in Cuba as well built as he was despite never lifting a weight in his life.
The point is if you have average genetics and want to look like Steve Reeves, you are arguably less likely to achieve such a feat if you adhere to his diet.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Absolutely agree , 95% is in the genetics with exercise and how you'll respond to the diet, too. The old time diets weren't anything special and sometimes insane, like some of the meals and amounts of supplements Gironda used to insist you need.

I've been eating pizza and drinking Coke my whole life and the only thing I have that can compare to Sergio's is the shaved head and that it has nothing to do with pizza.

Back in the day I tried Gironda's crazy shit too ; the 18 eggs a day with heavy cream and hand fulls of desiccated liver pills, LOL. Me and my buddy who got me back into training in the 80's would split gallon jugs of those liver pills we'd get at the supplier where we'd buy our plates in Phila.

Drinking that crap and swallowing all those pills was harder than my workouts .


Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

http://www.westonaprice.org/...dspecimens.html


http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/...ngth/sos-08.htm

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

Jeremy McClinton wrote:
I recently read Steve Reeves' "Classic Physique" book which I believe was published in the late eighties or early nineties. In his book he describes his normal daily diet. It was three meals a day consisting of mostly natural, unprocessed, food. If I remember correctly he was big on having his breakfast meal be a protein shake that he made consisting of protein powder, milk, and eggs with other ingredients and a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice. That's about as exotic as it gets. His average lunch was fruit, vegetables, and dairy like cottage cheese and then a big salad with lean meat for dinner.

I remember when I first got the book a couple of years ago his diet was something that caught my eye because at that point I thought all body builders ate at the very least five meals a day and had since the beginning of bodybuilding. After doing some research into the old timers they all had relatively normal diets of their time but they stressed healthy habits like the avoidance of smoking, drinking, and trying to eat healthy foods and drinking extra milk to aid in the muscle building process by providing additional calories. Pretty straight forward stuff.

I sometimes wonder and doubt if the outright fanaticism of diets, supplements, and frequent meal eating that you see today in the physical culture world is really necessary. As you say, the old timers looked pretty damn good. Food for thought.


Good post!

In regards to the last paragraph, I would think fanatical diets of any sort would hinder overall physical development in the long term.

Does the frequency of eating meals speed up the metabolism. Perhaps if the meal was LARGE enough in content. Small caloric meals of 300-400 calories speeding up metabolism?.....This is highly questionable. Large meals cause a drowsiness effect, so what would be the benefit of speeding up the metabolism, if all one wanted to do is sleep after a big meal.

BALANCE is the key!
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

I can make anyone grow on pizza and coke if I give them the right anabloics. This is so degenerating to the body. I find to eat as much as Gironda says you have to work your body up to it gradually. Also the quality of food makes a big difference.
Raw milk and Raw cream are so different and so much better then the pasturized stuff at the grocery store. I don't have the time to write it all out.
Didn't read the weston price article posted but the whole website is filled with great information that can be related to bodybuilding.

Not saying genetics don't play a factor but they can be overcome with proper diet, training and will. Don't let the genetics argument be your crutch for not achieving your training goals.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

Butters

marcrph wrote:


Does the frequency of eating meals speed up the metabolism. Perhaps if the meal was LARGE enough in content. Small caloric meals of 300-400 calories speeding up metabolism


There is no relation between meal frequency and metabolism. This BBing myth has been regularly shot down by modern research.

I think Mentzer put it best when he said BBers are in fact over-nurtured and need more solid training rather than more precise nutrition.
Open User Options Menu

rtestes

Mississippi, USA

Dr. Darden

You had a good body. Did you eat anything but just plain food. The best bodies I saw drink milk by the gallon ate steak and Hamburger meat and plenty of eggs. That was before the "metro" nutritionists started messing with us.

We would to use the protein but we quickly went to just plain milk fortified with dry milk and eggs. Forget those liver pills.

Tell us about what you and other contestants ate, before the PhDs taught you.
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

Butters wrote:
There is no relation between meal frequency and metabolism. This BBing myth has been regularly shot down by modern research.

I think Mentzer put it best when he said BBers are in fact over-nurtured and need more solid training rather than more precise nutrition.


Tend to question that premise. Consider:
1) The longer you go without food the more your body will try to conserve energy (namely fat). More regular feeds creates a more efficient environment - especially in relation to times in and around the workout.

2) How should an athlete consuming, for example, 5000 kcals a day best ingest this energy? Three meals a day? I think not.



Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

rtestes wrote:
Dr. Darden

You had a good body. Did you eat anything but just plain food. The best bodies I saw drink milk by the gallon ate steak and Hamburger meat and plenty of eggs. That was before the "metro" nutritionists started messing with us.

We would to use the protein but we quickly went to just plain milk fortified with dry milk and eggs. Forget those liver pills.

Tell us about what you and other contestants ate, before the PhDs taught you.


I ate a lot of meat and eggs and drank plenty of whole milk. Plus, I took protein powder. And I loved all those all-you-can-eat places that were popular around the college campus.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

Extra meals and extra calories may speed up the metabolism, but to what extent? If this was true, then all of the FAT people in the world would have extremely high metabolic rates. I sincerely doubt this is what occurs.

If one is building artificial muscle mass with forced feedings, what is the point? Narcissism? If you said power, strength then I might agree. I've only seen a few bodybuilders look good in a suit.
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

marcrph wrote:
Extra meals and extra calories may speed up the metabolism, but to what extent? If this was true, then all of the FAT people in the world would have extremely high metabolic rates. I sincerely doubt this is what occurs.

If one is building artificial muscle mass with forced feedings, what is the point? Narcissism? If you said power, strength then I might agree. I've only seen a few bodybuilders look good in a suit.


Eh, I'm not sure that warrants a serious response! You are aware of the metabolic activity of muscle as opposed to fat? And that that this muscle has to be acquired through exercise?

Regarding the point that building "artificial muscle" may equate only to vanity, if your suggesting the only moral excuse for such a pursuit is to take part in feats of strength then I think you're spilling hot air!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

stevecollins33 wrote:
Regarding the point that building "artificial muscle" may equate only to vanity, if your suggesting the only moral excuse for such a pursuit is to take part in feats of strength then I think you're spilling hot air!


Conclusions and opinions vary
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

marcrph wrote:
stevecollins33 wrote:
Regarding the point that building "artificial muscle" may equate only to vanity, if your suggesting the only moral excuse for such a pursuit is to take part in feats of strength then I think you're spilling hot air!

Conclusions and opinions vary


Indeed. Some being more valid than others.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

stevecollins33 wrote:
marcrph wrote:
stevecollins33 wrote:
Regarding the point that building "artificial muscle" may equate only to vanity, if your suggesting the only moral excuse for such a pursuit is to take part in feats of strength then I think you're spilling hot air!

Conclusions and opinions vary

Indeed. Some being more valid than others.


As time will tell!
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

marcrph wrote:
Extra meals and extra calories may speed up the metabolism, but to what extent? If this was true, then all of the FAT people in the world would have extremely high metabolic rates. I sincerely doubt this is what occurs.


Actually fat folks have a higher metabolic rate then skinny ones.
This was shown in studies to debunk the myth/excuse that fat people are fat because they have a slow metabolism. Not true! They're fat because they eat too much shit too many times!

Franco


Open User Options Menu

Butters

stevecollins33 wrote:
Tend to question that premise. Consider:
1) The longer you go without food the more your body will try to conserve energy (namely fat). More regular feeds creates a more efficient environment - especially in relation to times in and around the workout.

2) How should an athlete consuming, for example, 5000 kcals a day best ingest this energy? Three meals a day? I think not.


1) No where did I say to avoid taking advantage of the pre- and post- workout window. These are the most crucial feedings in a training day. Nor would I say to not eat long enough for your body to start eating muscle for energy. Going without eating every 2-3 hours is not going to suddenly make your body start consume muscle. But if you want hard scientific proof go to pubmed and run a search on meal patterns and fat loss. You'll have to recheck your premise afterwards.

2) I doubt you'll find many individuals requiring 5,000 calories a day. In which case, my only advice to a person like that would be to get in your calories when you can, with at least two meals a day.

If you want some real world proof of a low frequency eating pattern check out this blog: www.leangains.com.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

North Carolina, USA

Ciccio wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Extra meals and extra calories may speed up the metabolism, but to what extent? If this was true, then all of the FAT people in the world would have extremely high metabolic rates. I sincerely doubt this is what occurs.


Actually fat folks have a higher metabolic rate then skinny ones.
This was shown in studies to debunk the myth/excuse that fat people are fat because they have a slow metabolism. Not true! They're fat because they eat too much shit too many times!

Franco




Franco,

Obese patients may have an increased metabolic rate, but to what extent?

Most obese patients are quite lethargic. I guess they sleep better with an increased metabolic rate. I wonder if the stress of obesity is so much of a disadvantage that a "slight" increase in M.R. is of no statistical meaning.

This leads to one of the major shortcomings of HIT IMO. Lack of activity. 2 HIT workouts a week do not expend much energy, thus making necessary a low calorie diet for any meaningful musculature.
Open User Options Menu

stevecollins33

Butters wrote:
1) No where did I say to avoid taking advantage of the pre- and post- workout window. These are the most crucial feedings in a training day. Nor would I say to not eat long enough for your body to start eating muscle for energy. Going without eating every 2-3 hours is not going to suddenly make your body start consume muscle. But if you want hard scientific proof go to pubmed and run a search on meal patterns and fat loss. You'll have to recheck your premise afterwards.

2) I doubt you'll find many individuals requiring 5,000 calories a day. In which case, my only advice to a person like that would be to get in your calories when you can, with at least two meals a day.

If you want some real world proof of a low frequency eating pattern check out this blog: www.leangains.com.


1) You make it difficult to take advantage of the pre, current and post-workout phases then if you DO NOT submit to smaller, more attainable, frequent feeds - as opposed to scheduling in the workout around your old school 3 square meals a day routine.
Further, what you ingest at these times is crucial. A blend of whey, amino acids, creatine combined with a fast acting carb, e.g. dextrose within 30 mins of finishing the workout contributes greatly to recovery and promotes muscle growth. Would such an affect be mirrored by sitting down to a giant steak, potatoes and veg?

Your point about 3-hour eating episodes is deeply flawed. No one is stating doing otherwise, e.g. 5 hours, will lead to atrophy. I think you should research a bit about positive nitrogen balance and come back to me.

2) Your doubts are not very well-founded! Bodybuilders, strength athletes and even some boxers can consume in excess of this amount.
It also strikes me as quite odd to adopt such a lax attitude when it comes to nutrition, e.g. "get the calories when you can..." Yet exercise selection, order, form, volume, intensity and frequency always seems to be stated in almost scientifical language and prescription. Nutrition is not the poor relation here, quite the opposite. Do yourself a favour and give it some more respect.
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy