I agree that the second one looks photoshopped, especially at the arm and waist. But I thought the first one might have been real. It looks very much like the photo he has on display on his own website, which is the one I had in mind when I mentioned his appearance in his mid-60s in a previous post: What makes you think this one is photoshopped? The nature of the curvature into his left lat?
Frank Zane is not a big man nor a wide man. The photo depicts him wider across the shoulders at an older age than when he was in top shape. That does not happen as one ages.
Perhaps, or maybe it's the pose? Either way, I get your point. And if his earlier pictures were indeed photoshopped, then it was unnecessary and overkill. As "pro" bodybuilders go, his symmetry was ideal and didn't need to be photographically messed with. He's relatively small-boned and has a small waist and hips, which, if someone is going to take steroids, is probably the best combination for aesthetics. Larger-boned guys would get bigger, but they would just look too thick and lack the taper. We can safely assume that the Mr. Olympia competition videos were not doctored, so this is what he assuredly looked like in his prime: I'm against the idea of taking steroids, but if I were ever to have taken them, then this is what I would have wanted to look like. It's already over the top compared to normal, and, in my opinion, any more would detract from the aesthetics.
Frank Zane was in our gym one day around 1975/76. He was in town for a guest posing appearance. I did not recognize him, he was wearing glasses and a full, navy blue Adidas running suit and looked tiny. When the sweat suit came off...OH BOY. The definition and muscle separation was amazing. I never took steroids back then and certainly wouldn't now at age 58. As a 145# teen my (unofficial gym lifts) total was 1,000 #. Squat, Dead and Bench
Funny, I met Zane in the late 70's as well. Watched him win the Olympia in Columbus and met him the next day at a seminar Arnold put on. He was wearing a blue sweat suit (I still have the picture) and I remember thinking he looked like a gymnast. It was hard to believe he was the guy that won the contest the night before. Recently started using his split for my training as I think I was overtraining at 57. I still incorporate the powerlifts and his routine gives you a day off between legs (squats) and back (deadlifts) to give your back the needed rest. Classic physique, they looked much healthier back during the golden age of bodybuilding.
One thing about Zane that I now find a bit disappointing is that he seemed to favor volume training and focused a lot on isolation exercises. As I mentioned previously, looking back, I think I did too much volume in my younger years and I did do a fair amount of isolation work. But that is the opposite of my current approach. Not that it matters, but I guess I'd have preferred that the guy with the best physique had trained on lower volume and frequency, and that he did mostly compound work. The world would just make a little more sense to me. But in the end, I know that "pro" bodybuilding physiques are more the result of drugs and genetic expression than routine and nutrition.
Zane did train quite light weights when I saw him. They didn't call him the chemist for nothing. I think the pros that we worshipped were great responders to steroids, they didn't know anymore about training than you or I. Full body workouts using a PHA system with compound movements 3X per week is all that's needed to stimulate one's muscles to their natural maximum.
Interesting that you mentioned Zane and lighter weights. I heard this as well. As the story goes, in the mid '70s or so, a couple of years prior to his first Olympia win, Joe Weider took Zane aside and told him that, although he had a good physique and excellent symmetry, he simply lacked the size to be a serious contender for the Olympia. And so Weider supposedly told Zane to train with heavier weights and the rest is history. Since we now know that Weider, himself, knew less about bodybuilding than he did about marketing and self-promotion, my guess is he just put Zane on "better" drugs. I've never even heard of PHA training until I read your post. Although I first cut back on volume in 2005, my real reduction began in 2012, when I started doing 3x/week full body training. Eventually, I reduced it to 2x/week and saw no difference. A couple of years ago, I read Doug McGuff's Body By Science, in which he advocates once a week workouts. I bought into the theory, but I couldn't buy into the practice. I eventually tried 3 workouts every 2 weeks and then, for a couple of months last summer, only once a week, before returning to twice a week. I had no reduction in strength or size as a result of the reduced frequency. The reason I went back to twice a week was because I liked going to the gym more often. But after rereading the book a year later, along with the last book by Mike Mentzer, I decided to give once a week workouts a try again, and have been doing so since June of this year. My current once weekly workouts are somewhat longer than what McGuff and Mentzer proposed, but the lifting portion takes no longer than 45 minutes. However, I also do HIIT at the end of the routine in addition to either one or two more HIIT workouts on the weekend. But they are very brief (and, of course, intense). I can tell you that I have not noticed any change in body composition, with arm, chest and leg measurements remaining essentially unchanged. Only recently, in the last few weeks, I have gotten slightly weaker on pull ups and dips (both weighted), but this is because my left shoulder is acting up again. I won't pretend that I have the same physique I had when I was in my 30s, or even my 40s, but there has been no drop-off, in either size or strength, that I can directly attribute to the substantial reduction in volume and frequency.