T Nation

Bicep Shape

[quote]Singhbuilder wrote:
Here is the flexed position. Sorry about the shit picture, its the best I could do.
It seems as though I have an OK peak, but this is not really the case. The picture doesnt do the lack of peak justice.

SB[/quote]

You don’t appear to have super long muscle bellies. You also don’t seem to have great genetics for peak, but they aren’t terrible either. I think like others have said, you really just need to add more mass overall to your arms/body if you want your arms to be impressive.

Yeah, I see your point. I was responding to “your height doesn’t dictate how your muscle bellies are shapped when flexed,” which is true, but the overall size of the muscle belly (which is very much influenced by humerus length) has a huge impact on how much mass will be required to fill it out.

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Yes, but Gunter has very high biceps insertions, which show when flexed. I’m just saying that being tall and having long biceps muscle bellies will make it much more difficult to get a peak.[/quote]

Not true. Has nothing to do with height.

You are comparing having longer legs because your tell with having disproportionately long legs because your tall.[/quote]
in general a longer humerus = a longer biceps muscle belly. I’m not sure why this is a debate. It is easier to fill out a shorter biceps and thus get a peak.[/quote]

You’r still not comprehending the difference between proportionately longer, and physically longer. Just because you lengthen the sides of a triangle doesn’t change the shape. Basic physcis.

There are tall people with PROPORTIONATELY shorter muscle bellies/ different insertion points which allows them to appear bigger then others. Dwight Howard Benefits from this. I don’t think Shaq’s bicep is longer than average but compared to Dwight yes. Therefore if they had the same size arm, Dwights would look bigger and have more “pop”.

lol I get it. I’m saying that both matter.