Well, in case of bodybuilding you need very hefty dose of hormones to even start looking like low level competitors. The bodybuilding physique isn't good for any particular activity. It's neither useful nor healthy. It's all organized so you need to grow yourself like cattle (bodybuilders even take steroids designed for making cattle killed for meat muscular). This is already terrible enough for men but for women it's way worse as their bodies are even less equipped to cope with huge artificial levels of male sex hormones and their derivatives.
I think it is a terrible sport. It's not only terrible for the competitors but also for the culture as a whole as normalizing steroid physique hurts normal people. It's not only bodybuilding by the way. Fitness magazines and Hollywood actors take most of the blame to be sure.
>I think it is a terrible sport. It's not only terrible for the competitors but also for the culture as a whole as normalizing steroid physique hurts normal people. It's not only bodybuilding by the way. Fitness magazines and Hollywood actors take most of the blame to be sure.
The world is growing fatter by the year so it does not seem as though people are too stressed about those conceptions of the body being thrown around. If anything, the normalization of obesity is a far more pressing threat. Just looking at recent stats is awe-inducing, and not in a good way.[0]
While the obesity epidemic is certainly the larger societal problem, we can try and develop a better representation of what's actually healthy. There's a happy medium between single digit body fat percentage (what most bodybuilders are aiming for in competition, and the image people have of them not recognizing it's their competition form not their year-round form) and 25% body fat (lower limit of obese for men, apparently).
It's not even just a larger societal problem, but something on altogether different scales of magnitude (pun not intended). People suffering from health issues due to bodybuilding are a rounding error of a rounding error in comparison. Getting anywhere close to that is an arduous task that will put off all but the most dedicated, so the problem solves itself.
I'm all for a more informed population on health matters, but I don't see the point of going after the practitioners of a specific hobby on account of it potentially hurting other people's feelings, as implied in the post I was originally replying to. Reminds me a bit of the mindset criticized in Harrison Bergeron.
I think the logic usually goes that people get fat because they know they'll never look like what they see in the media. And so the argument is that if we bring those depictions more towards the attainable, then more people will feel like they can get there and not just give up altogether.
>The world is growing fatter by the year so it does not seem as though people are too stressed about those conceptions of the body being thrown around.
You are assuming that seeing an impressive physique would inspire people to attain it. That doesn't follow. Stress, depression, and low-self esteem can encourage overeating or a sedentary lifestyle. If someone believes they cannot compete with others, they may give up entirely.
I wonder if the issue is cultural. We've, mostly, come to understand the impact of the common media representation of (often) hyper thin "perfect" women on women and girls in general, which is a lot of the reason for pushback into various (often ad) campaigns to present more typical female forms. But, like many things, there's a lag in the appreciation that men can experience the same thing and have similar reactions. Perhaps because it occurs in smaller numbers (not sure), or just a different attitude towards how men should be. Admitting that men have similar body image issues and due to similar causes as women is harder for people to consider, let alone accept.
Just look at the evolution of male movie stars. A handsome face and slim figure used to be all that was required (Clark Gable, Paul Newman, Peter O'Toole). Today the men have to be jacked (Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, George Clooney).
You can bet that to be a male star in Hollywood requires a personal trainer and a lot of work.
I had a similar image (though different individuals) in mind when I wrote my post. Older leading men were also in good shape, notable in a number of roles when they appeared shirtless or in short sleeve shirts, but rarely did they get to the extreme leanness (and muscularity) that modern (2010s in particular) leading men seem to be aiming for.
I do not think most people are aware of prolific steroid usage is... It mostly boils down to people pumping themselves full of steroids up until a week or so before the competition so they test clean. With almost zero body fat, most drugs are metabolized and removed from the body really quickly.
It was pretty depressing to realize that body-building is totally gamed and drug based. Not because I was ever into it, I think it's corny, it's just a real disservice to the ideal of healthy living.
Movie actors, fitness/underwear models, basically everyone on the cover of Men's Health or on a movie poster. Hell, very significant % of not so impressingly looking guys in your local gym are on steroids. Just Google for stats on steroid usage, estimate how many people go to a gym and think what it means. The mystery of Hollywood diet and training to lose 10kg of fat and to put 5kg of muscle in 60 days starts to make sense as well.
In many areas of the world it's completely risk-free as well as you won't get busted for possession of Testosterone or even stuff like Trenbolone.
Also age - it's actually possible to lose 10kg of fat and gain 5kg of muscle in 60 days without any testosterone or whatever boosters when you're 22. I have a very, very hard time believing you can do this at age 48-50, like Josh Brolin did to play Thanos.
When I was 20 and started lifting regularly, I put on a lot of muscle very fast. But I plateaued in about 6 months and was never able to go past that.
I didn't do any steriods, because a friend of mine went from "pillsbury doughboy" (his assessment) to very jacked in about 9 months. He used steroids, and was shocked to find he'd lost a couple inches in height. The doc told him it was the steroids, and even worse, he'd still lose the usual height when he aged (we all shrink as we age).
He was pretty bummed about it, but still became very popular with the ladies and was happy about that.
>He used steroids, and was shocked to find he'd lost a couple inches in height. The doc told him it was the steroids, and even worse, he'd still lose the usual height when he aged (we all shrink as we age).
The things people believe constantly amaze me. Steroids don't make people shrink.
I did google that and found nothing that said that steroids would cause a healthy 20 something man to lose a couple inches in height. Your quote is quite wishy washy and not really supporting evidence to your claim.
Nevertheless, steroids are still implicated in height loss.
He took a lot of steroids (I don't know which ones), his doctor told him that was the cause, and nothing else accounted for it. Anyone considering steroids should consult with a physician first. Me, I wasn't willing to take the risk.
Those are corticosteroids not anabolic steroids. If you search anabolic steroids osteoprosis you will see that there is some evidence they should be prescribed to help reverse osteoperosis.
OP already stated they don't know what kind of steroids were used.
It's an anecdote and third-hand information, at best. Maybe OP misremembered something. Maybe the doctor was wrong or simply trying to convince the guy to stop using steroids. Maybe the guy lied about what really happened to protect their medical privacy.
None of us is in any position to determine what really happened. Facts as I understand them:
OP chose to not use steroids themselves because of scary story from person they knew.
Everything else is damn near wild conjecture as to "what really happened."
I wonder whether this height-reducing effect relates to the 'manlet' jokes one sees in various places online. There does seem to be a bit of an overlap in the demographics where one would see the two.
Trenbolone is Schedule III. It's illegal to possess unless you have a prescription, you can't legally order some without a vet prescribing it for your cow.
The actual drug trenbolone is scheduled, but a number of trenbolone preparations are (or at least were) exempted from the CSA because of their agricultural importance[1]. As I said, it instantly becomes a CSA violation the second a nonveterinary use occurs, but simple possession of unaltered Finaplix-H, for example, is or at least was just fine.
Modern actors aren't as willing to sacrifice their health for muscle as their historical counterparts, especially because the lean look is preferred over the muscle-bound appearance of yesteryear. Thus, (with rare exceptions, like Christian Bale between The Machinist and Batman Begins), what you see on screen today is hard-earned through hours a day in the gym, a very regimented diet, and hydration timing.
Generally, to get to the level of single-digits body fat you see on screen, you're looking at 3-6 months of clean eating (or more, depending on the actor's physique when they land the role), meaning among other things, no alcohol, no sweets, and lots of eggs or chicken meals. Someone being paid a few million dollars can afford to pay a nutritionist to custom-design a diet to meet specific appearance goals, a and they have a huge incentive to stick with that diet. For example, Chris Pratt had to give up beer, pizza, and all dietary pleasures for six months to go from being the fat guy on Parks and Rec to the main hero of Guardians of the Galaxy.
On top of the diet, the actor is spending hours on near-daily exercise for several months. Chris Hemsworth eschews cardio for pure muscle-building, but Paul Rudd and Kumail Nujani each spent a year preparing for their Marvel roles, using a blend of cardio and full-body workouts (as, in contrast to Thor, Ant Man and Kingo have lean physiques but neither actor was particularly athletic when cast), while Pratt spent nearly 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, for over 6 months on cardio activities to cut weight for the first Guardians movie (as he already had the muscle for the character underneath his excess bulk and just needed to reveal them).
But the real trick to the "cut" look on screen is dehydration; actors don't drink for several hours before shirtless scenes, which makes them appear thinner and more defined. (In several interviews, Kumail Nujani talks about nearly passing out after several filming several shirtless scenes for The Eternals, which required him to limit water consumption for nearly 12 hours before shooting.) This is something you can actually try yourself at home: take a before pic, spend a few hours on a long cardio activity like running or biking, and then take an after pic before you rehydrate. You will appear thinner and your muscles (if they were visible beforehand) will appear more well-defined, even though they aren't any bigger.
>while Pratt spent nearly 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, for over 6 months on cardio activities to cut weight for the first Guardians movie (as he already had the muscle for the character underneath his excess bulk and just needed to reveal them).
The problem is that they tell these stories, and people believe it. If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle.
Diet and exercise is, make no mistake, a huge part of it - all of that has to be on point. The reality very much involves manipulating hormones, and that means steroids, growth hormone, etc.
If he had really done six hours of cardio per day he'd likely disappear and have no muscle.
I suppose if you spend all of your day in front of a computer, you'll have difficulty understanding what the human body is capable of on its own with enough time and discipline and you'll just assume everyone is taking shortcuts. Najani isn't some special case; he's a prototypical example of "easy gains" that pretty much any guy can get with a year of dedicated training and diet if you're focused on muscular appearance rather than muscular performance. (For those who understand the lingo, this means he focused heavily on large fast-twitch muscles which grow quickly and easily, at the expense of the slow-twitch and medium twitch muscles that would relevant for most athletic performance.)
Members of the military routinely do 12+ hours a day of physical exercise, including hours of cardio, and yet none of them have problems disappearing (and only about 2.5% of military personnel use steroids). Triathletes, similarly, can spend 6 hours a day or more on exercise.
Cardio doesn't consume muscle unless you combine it with starvation. Muscles are the last-ditch choice of fuel. On a proper diet, cardio burns glycogen and fat. And if you're as fast as Pratt was when he started his that exercise regime, you've got plenty of fuel for hours of daily exercise, no steroids or hormones required (except for the ones your body generates itself in response to exercise and diet).
>I suppose if you spend all of your day in front of a computer, you'll have difficulty understanding what the human body is capable of on its own with enough time and discipline and you'll just assume everyone is taking shortcuts.
You're assuming an awful lot. I am sure there are more than a handful of people here who know when there is reason to be suspicious of someone's gains.
>Members of the military routinely do 12+ hours a day of physical exercise, including hours of cardio, and yet none of them have problems disappearing (and only about 2.5% of military personnel use steroids). Triathletes, similarly, can spend 6 hours a day or more on exercise.
Members of the military get very fit. But the body transformations we're seeing in Hollywood are emphasizing physique. Practical fitness is less of a consideration. And many bodybuilders do very little real cardio. Even when getting lean for competition, some do little more than fast walking.
Triathletes competing in the Ironman will obviously do more than 6+ hours on event day. I don't personally know of any who train like that. Three hours per day would be more like it, and not necessarily every day. There must be room for recovery.
I can speak more personally about road cycling. Six hour training blocks simply don't happen. Even six hour races are not that common even at the top pro levels.
>Cardio doesn't consume muscle unless you combine it with starvation. Muscles are the last-ditch choice of fuel. On a proper diet, cardio burns glycogen and fat.
Obviously the diet is key here. And my original point wasn't specific enough about this, but here goes: a lot of these Hollywood "transformations" aren't being honest about the diet versus the claimed exercise regimen. I don't want to take anything away from them in terms of their accomplishments - it is tough to nail all of this to achieve the body they're getting. And steroids help.
Not all cardio activities exclude strength components that would discourage/diminish muscle maintenance and development. Rowing and swimming, for example, or lower weight/higher rep strength routines that can maintain a faster tempo leading toward a hybrid strength/cardio workout.
I'm not sure I get your point. They are two men with very different base body types. But even looking at Phelps, especially at his prime in the Olympics, he has no shortage of muscles but has obviously trained with performance as a goal over presentation.
I'm confused because the parent poster is saying there are ways to maintain Brad Pitt's physique AND slim down by swimming, so I looked at a swimmer and didn't see this.
You're the only one that brought up Pitt. They spoke of Pratt. Similar letters, different name, different men.
My point was that cardio-centric fitness does not cause you to waste away from a muscle mass perspective, and I pointed out two exercises which are generally considered cardio but which result in people developing more noticeable muscles throughout their body or maintaining muscles already present. Contrasting with exercises like cycling and running, which focus on a limited set of muscles and, without additional exercises, do not promote a strong upper body or maintaining the muscles of the upper body if someone already starts off with well-developed arms, chest, and back.
Just look at athletes before widespread steroid use. They have spent way more time training than actors and haven't looked like that even in sports that require dehydration like boxing.
That's exactly the problem with lying about steroids. It took a while for Arnold and his successors to admit that they were on 1000mg of test per week (plus other stuff of course; normal production of even high test men is below 100mg). Now people believe that yeah that bodybuilders are obviously juiced but physiques of elite athletes like soccer players or Hollywood actors are natural because they are smaller.
Remember, significant % of guys in your local gym are on juice. There are no doping controls in Hollywood. Testosterone won't kill you, it may even make your life better if you use it wisely. Would you take it if million dollars and fame were on the line? We know they take it because we know quite well how juiced up physiques look.
Besides, if someone who is not a professional athlete did 6 hours of serious training per day their body would give up sooner rather than later unless the recovery was "enhanced".
I don't condemn steroid use btw. I oppose widespread lying about it by the users and the media.
>I don't condemn steroid use btw. I oppose widespread lying about it by the users and the media.
Yeah this is the thing that annoys me. Recently listening to Tim Ferriss interviewing an amazing female powerlifter. She deadlifts 4x body weight and other sorts of remarkable feats.
So the entire 2 hour show discussed her insane training regimen and diet and other forms of wellness. Hearing how much she squats in a week was daunting (“what am I doing with my own weak training then!?”)
Then I googled her (Stefi Cohen) and she has shoulders like cannonballs (female Dan Green) and ripped abs like a male bodybuilder. So very obviously steroids play an essential role in her training /recovery capacity.
I have no problem or quibble with that. Want to take that, fine. Probably the only way you’ll meet the records she has established.
What I dislike, though, is the interview where everything BUT drugs is discussed. Drugs enable the recovery that enables her insane workload. Especially when Ferriss purports to dig into “the secrets of high performers”. Well this is one vital secret.
I felt like this interview was deceptive in a way.
Like I said earlier, I’m not opposed to steroid use. I decided not to use them myself. But it would be refreshing to hear about the high performers among us who do. I’d like to know their thinking around the decision. I’m sure it valid and more refined than whatever I’d expect them to say.
It's annoying but there's one obvious reason they don't talk about it: Not only is it cheating in their sport, but it's even flat-out illegal. So of course they don't talk about it. Even though it's completely obvious from everything else they're talking about. Hell, just listen to her voice! The testosterone use is undeniable.
Just look at athletes before widespread steroid use. They have spent way more time training than actors and haven't looked like that even in sports that require dehydration like boxing.
Athletes train for performance, generally meaning muscle strength and endurance. Actors train for appearance, generally meaning muscle size. These different training goals generally require very different training programs.
Would you take it if million dollars and fame were on the line? We know they take it because we know quite well how juiced up physiques look.
Clearly, you don't, or you would see immediately that Rudd and Najani are not juiced. If they were or had been juicing, they would be significantly more muscular after a full year of training.
Besides, if someone who is not a professional athlete did 6 hours of serious training per day their body would give up sooner rather than later unless the recovery was "enhanced".
With proper exercise form, proper diet and recovery, the human body can sustain elevated levels of serious training indefinitely. Our armed forces do it all the time; only 2.5% of the military uses steroids.
It depends how much you take. TRT like doses don't make you balloon like bodybuilders. They are also much healthier. You can do 200-250/week for some time then back to 100-150/week and you will get huge benefits in both muscle mass and recovery but you will still look natural at least to untrained eye.
> Just look at athletes before widespread steroid use. They have spent way more time training than actors and haven't looked like that even in sports that require dehydration like boxing.
How widely are you thinking, and where are you getting your stats? People have been using steroids for decades now, so comparing pre-steroid athletes to modern day athletes is apples and oranges. Exercise science has come a long way over the decades, not to mention the cultural ideal body images have also changed.
The article touches kind of similar topic - these competitions frame themselves as healthy look and wellness and what not, but the look is not achieved by healthy methods.
>Modern actors aren't as willing to sacrifice their health for muscle as their historical counterparts, especially because the lean look is preferred over the muscle-bound appearance of yesteryear
While it's true that the Schwarzenegger look isn't in vogue, it's a bit of a myth to think that steroid usage would lead to that look in any short amount of time.
There are many steroid "stacks" (meaning some kind of testosterone ester with other steroids on top) that are designed for the lean, dry look that many movie stars have reached in recent years. I don't doubt that some stars work for it naturally, but I do believe many have used them in the short term.
I also don't think it's incredibly risky to your health in the short term, depending of course on the steroid.
I don't doubt that many actors have used steroids, especially in the past. I simply doubt that many stars use them today, given that they don't need to anymore. Stars are given months to get in shape before filming begins (in the case of the Marvel actors, approximately a year before filming), and that's plenty of time for someone reasonable in shape to develop a muscular physique without steroids.
Getting a visible 6-pack is a lot easier than people think it is. It doesn't require steroids, just discipline and time.
A friend of mine blew out his knee in a skiing accident. After his operation, he needed rehab, and went to the best he could find. It was where pro football players went for rehab. He said he couldn't believe how hard they worked out, so he asked one.
The guy laughed, and said something like: "If I don't get back in shape, I lose several million dollars and my career." They're highly motivated, to say the least.
Even elite professional endurance athletes don't do 36 hours of cardio training per week so I suspect that part is an exaggeration. The practical maximum is something around 25 hours. More than that is counter productive because it doesn't allow for enough recovery time. Over training actually makes people weaker.
Nujani is on gear, and what's more, he has an NDA which means he can't talk about it even if he wanted to.
I can't prove it, of course. But don't fool yourself, that's what's happening. Look at his jawline if you don't believe me, what diet is supposed to do that?
Nujani is on gear, and what's more, he has an NDA which means he can't talk about it even if he wanted to.
Najani gave a series of press interviews in 2019/2020 as part of the original press campaign for The Eternals, so I don't know why you think an NDA would apply here. (And for that matter, the SAG agreement with the studio would generally bar an NDA of that nature.) He had a year to get into shape, and a wife to make sure he kept to his diet, and that sort of transformation is definitely doable for a normal guy in a year. If anything, his transformation is pretty underwhelming given that he had a full year to get ready; if he had been doing steroids his arms and chest should be significantly larger.
Look at his jawline if you don't believe me, what diet is supposed to do that?
His jawline in that picture is natural; that's what it can look like when you have <9% body fat and you're extremely dehydrated and sucking in your cheeks when the picture is being taken.
>It mostly boils down to people pumping themselves full of steroids up until a week or so before the competition so they test clean.
The most common "base" of a steroid cycle is testosterone. If you stopped injecting testosterone a week before a competition, you would still show unusually high levels of testosterone in your blood (even if you were using a shorter ester). But as others have pointed out, they don't test for steroids in most BB competitions.
My personal suspicion is that pro BBers who use steroids but deny it do so to protect product endorsements they have.
There is also no ester test. You have to inject it daily (or more likely several times a day) but it's detectable for like 4-5 hours. This plus first two no-shows not counting as failed test makes it possible to juice in professional sports which do out of competition testing. Granted I don't think it's popular in BB circles because yeah no testing and injecting as much as frequently would be painful.
there would be no bodybuilding without steroids, at least not in the way it is commonly understood. The physical transformation the body undergoes by taking anabolic steroids at high doses is like night and day. Without steroids, all the physiques would appear flat or emaciated, without the 'wow' factor.
There are some competitions with testing. However, seeing the physiques of the competitors on the relevant websites, I'm convinced they do indeed use anabolics or at least something to cut fat:
I guess the testing may be somehow fraudulent, or maybe it's just a fundamentally misconcieved procedure: maybe it's not possible to test for use of all or certain substances.
There are tested orgs but most, if not all are not considered pro. They do lie detector tests. I don't know if any do actual blood tests. Steroids, especially test, are hard to check for.
Yep, this is known as a positional arms race. For other examples, see how everyone now goes to college: when 25% of applicants do it, it's a competitive advantage for them, so everyone else moves towards doing it. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/23501/1/DP-54.pdf
Everyone's trying to game the public, from clerics to tech workers to politicians. Bodybuilders seem like a relatively insignificant part of that permanent and massive sale.
I can understand the frustration, but I don't think it's a good idea to take a paternalistic approach in this case.
I think I understand your perspective. Alternatively, how about truly normalizing steroid physiques out in the open, instead of as an open secret. That might make clear the benefits, risks, and costs. The taboo & black market sourcing of synthetic hormones/PEDs hurt normal people in ways that would happen without bodybuilding, fitness magazines, & Hollywood.
I will say that strongman is interesting. It eliminates the cutting weight aspect of bodybuilding at least, though admittedly retains the steroid abuse aspect. I think it fundamentally answers an interesting question though in a way that bodybuilding maybe doesn't, namely: What is the absolute limit of strength that the human body is capable of?
While I understand that A LOT of strongman competitors are using steroids, it is entirely possible to compete without them. I know this because I've done it. Not at the international level but at a state level and placed very well. I've never taken a PED in my life. I was also a successful power lifter without PED's (550lbs bench press, 680lbs deadlift, and 725lbs squat at my peak). Those who don't compete don't understand what the human body can be capable of. Don't get me wrong I'm blessed with a lot of natural ability but everyone can be far stronger than they think without the aid of PED's.
I think mobility and staying injury free are probably more important at the level you were at than PEDs and an aspect that many people underestimate. My squat topped out at 300 simply because of old injuries and mobility limitations caused by them.
Clearly strongmen on the international stage are using though.
Staying healthy and injury free is obviously important, but that's important at every single level. Also to be clear, a drug free 725 lb squat is very impressive, that's not something most people would be able to achieve even if they managed to stay injury free.
It is, 725 is a lot of weight. In fact I believe it probably contributed to a severe back injury later in life. At the time I was a division 1 college heavyweight wrestler that was forced to drop out and NEEDED an athletic outlet badly. So I lived in the weight room and chased numbers. I wasn't the healthiest mentally at the time and channeled all of that into it. I actually wouldn't recommend that level of lifting unless you LOVE it.
No need to worry, I don't plan on aiming for that level by a long shot. I'd be happy to hit 4 plates on my squat and would probably go into maintenance mode at that point, although not sure if I'll ever even hit that. Sounds basic but the comment I replied to is exactly my issues, consistency and staying injury free - college years consistency was a problem with homework/sleep, post college years I seem to be injury prone in my non-lifting athletic activities (I'm convinced my knees hate me), and obviously this past year I've also lost a ton of progress with no access to weights. Hoping to come back with a vengeance once gyms reopen.
Those are great numbers. If you don't mind me asking, what did you weigh when doing those?
I agree with you, that people can get far stronger than they realize. I'm not genetically gifted, started quite skinny, and still got a 325 bp, 405 squat and 525 DL at 195 back when I was younger. All I ever took was creatine and whey. I'm fairly tall, which seemed to help the lever action with my DL, but always caused my squat to lag.
Thanks! I'm not really close to that anymore, wish I was but not enough to put in the work. I lived in the weight room back then. I was 19 and bounced between 265-285 depending on the time of year. I wrestled in college for a year before having to drop out and I was right at 265 during that. I'm 6'1" also so not a little guy and that helps a lot. More than anything though I lived in the weight room. I actually mostly hated squats, I had a little bit of a poor technique and I believe to this day that all the weight under load on my lower back with poor technique help contribute to a pretty severe back injury later in life. Moral of the story: we should all be more careful when chasing numbers.
I hated squats also, but loved DLs. I would DL all day every day if I could. No single exercise did more for me strength, body comp or confidence wise.
The heavy lifting is a gift and a curse. I tore my ACL wakeboarding while I was near my strongest and the surgeon said my base strength definitely helped in my recovery. Eventually I had to stop chasing PRs after hurting my back playing basketball (plus I got old hah). I hope your back healed up ok, b/c back pain is the most debilitating pain I've ever experienced.
Yeah, I was referring to the top-level international competitions, the ones where we find out the absolute limit of no-holds-barred strength. Your numbers are absolutely impressive of course, but wouldn't have qualified you for the highest levels of competition (as you know). Hafthor Bjornsson has deadlifted an unbelievable 1,104 pounds, and you know that he's not natural. But without all the juice, we wouldn't even know that breaking 500 kg is at all possible.
I think it is a terrible sport. It's not only terrible for the competitors but also for the culture as a whole as normalizing steroid physique hurts normal people. It's not only bodybuilding by the way. Fitness magazines and Hollywood actors take most of the blame to be sure.