T Nation

Big Measurements

Hey everyone I was just asking what measurements for the chest, forearms, wrist, calves, arms, and legs would qualify as big. Now I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman big here lol. I’m talking about the average person seeing one as a big guy. 18" arms? 30" legs? stuff like that. Thanks

This is a silly questoin, but anyway…in my book the baseline for a decent physique is 45" chest, 16" arms, 24" thighs, 16" calves with a <32" waist. That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s more than most people ever achieve. Anything bigger is what I call ‘big’.

But remember that measurements aren’t everything - since when do people go up to someone and measure them? It’s all about the way you look. There are guys with sub-15" biceps who look good - George St. Pierre, for example.

My opinion…

legs 28-30
arms 18
claves 18
forearms 14
chest 48-49

Relativley lean numbers of course.

[quote]dl- wrote:
Hey everyone I was just asking what measurements for the chest, forearms, wrist, calves, arms, and legs would qualify as big. Now I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman big here lol. I’m talking about the average person seeing one as a big guy. 18" arms? 30" legs? stuff like that. Thanks

[/quote]

You ask some crazy questions.

Most of the general population now thinks that Brad Pitt is “big”. taking that into consideration, anyone with arms over 15" can now be “big”. Whoopdefucking doo.

In bodybuilding, assuming someone isn’t obese, 18" arms would put someone well above average. Arms larger than that in the off season probably mean that person would do pretty well if they dieted down and competed assuming everything else was in proportion.

A chest over 50" is “big”. Calves over 17" are “big”. Forearms over 16" are “big”. Quads over 27" are “big” on most people…unless they are midgets or extremely tall (those people always feel the need to jump in as if anyone was actually talking about super-giants over 6’5" or elves under 5’3").

Those are “Professor X’s guidelines to gym significance”.

Where is the thigh measurment taken?

[quote]KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken? [/quote]

In the backyard

[quote]wsk wrote:
This is a silly questoin, but anyway…in my book the baseline for a decent physique is 45" chest, 16" arms, 24" thighs, 16" calves with a <32" waist. That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s more than most people ever achieve. Anything bigger is what I call ‘big’. [/quote]

No. Those are what I call “I’ve shown up measurements.” Basically, if you’ve shown up in a gym for 2-4 years (range depends on genetics, with some blessed guys needing only 1 year to get there), you have these measurements. But they are not “big” in any meaningful sense.

Of course those measurements aren’t big - that’s exactly what I meant, which is why I said BASELINE. I didn’t say they were big: I said anything OVER them was big.

BTW, Prof X, your use of the terms ‘super giant’ and ‘elves’ in the same sentence made my day.

[quote]wsk wrote:
This is a silly questoin, but anyway…in my book the baseline for a decent physique is 45" chest, 16" arms, 24" thighs, 16" calves with a <32" waist. That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s more than most people ever achieve. Anything bigger is what I call ‘big’.

But remember that measurements aren’t everything - since when do people go up to someone and measure them? It’s all about the way you look. There are guys with sub-15" biceps who look good - George St. Pierre, for example.[/quote]

lol I’m not talkin bout lookin good though, im talkin bout lookin big.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dl- wrote:

In bodybuilding, assuming someone isn’t obese, 18" arms would put someone well above average. Arms larger than that in the off season probably mean that person would do pretty well if they dieted down and competed assuming everything else was in proportion.

A chest over 50" is “big”. Calves over 17" are “big”. Forearms over 16" are “big”. Quads over 27" are “big” on most people…unless they are midgets or extremely tall (those people always feel the need to jump in as if anyone was actually talking about super-giants over 6’5" or elves under 5’3").

Those are “Professor X’s guidelines to gym significance”.[/quote]

Did anyone else notice that all the measurements that would make someone be considered “BIG” in Prof X’s book all seem to be a little smaller than his own measurements??? Coincidence, I think not.

Just breaking your stones Prof and YES I think you are a big dude.(still jealous of your calves)

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dl- wrote:
Hey everyone I was just asking what measurements for the chest, forearms, wrist, calves, arms, and legs would qualify as big. Now I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman big here lol. I’m talking about the average person seeing one as a big guy. 18" arms? 30" legs? stuff like that. Thanks

You ask some crazy questions.

Most of the general population now thinks that Brad Pitt is “big”. taking that into consideration, anyone with arms over 15" can now be “big”. Whoopdefucking doo.

In bodybuilding, assuming someone isn’t obese, 18" arms would put someone well above average. Arms larger than that in the off season probably mean that person would do pretty well if they dieted down and competed assuming everything else was in proportion.

A chest over 50" is “big”. Calves over 17" are “big”. Forearms over 16" are “big”. Quads over 27" are “big” on most people…unless they are midgets or extremely tall (those people always feel the need to jump in as if anyone was actually talking about super-giants over 6’5" or elves under 5’3").

Those are “Professor X’s guidelines to gym significance”.[/quote]

haha crazy questions. at least you didn’t say dumb. But thanks, I know that people see Brad Pitt as big and shit like that, but I meant like not in the general populations eyes.

My legs are 26 and 3/4 and I’m 5’8 and a bit at 190 somethin pounds (my scale is broke), and I want my legs to be around 29 by the time I turn 18. so I’m usually not concerned with size but you know if I’m in the gym bustin my ass I wanna look like i fuckin workout lol.

Thanks for the posts, I’m gonna use your guidlines. Thanks

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?

In the backyard[/quote]

I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.

Why is it that nobody ever mentions glute measurements?

What are considered great glute numbers?

[quote]KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?

In the backyard

I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.[/quote]

I take it at the widest portion. This would differ slightly depending on where your outside “sweep” is greater on your quads. For people who have no development at all (and thusly no sweep), the place is halfway between the knee and hip. There isn’t much difference between the two on most people.

[quote]TravisCS84 wrote:
Why is it that nobody ever mentions glute measurements?

What are considered great glute numbers?

[/quote]

Glute development is measured by the number of times women have reached out to pat or grab it divided into the number of years you have been training. I am at 80%.

[quote]KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?

In the backyard

I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.[/quote]

Sorry man, jist kiddin. Couldn’t help myself :-]

How are people measuring forearms? 16" is absolutely huge on a semi-lean guy. Casey Viator’s forearms didnt measure 16" and are considered some of the best in history. I would say any forearm measured right, over 13.5-14 is well above average…

[quote]aslater wrote:
How are people measuring forearms? 16" is absolutely huge on a semi-lean guy. Casey Viator’s forearms didnt measure 16" and are considered some of the best in history. I would say any forearm measured right, over 13.5-14 is well above average…[/quote]

Yeah man 16" forearms makes you an ape.

[quote]n3wb wrote:
aslater wrote:
How are people measuring forearms? 16" is absolutely huge on a semi-lean guy. Casey Viator’s forearms didnt measure 16" and are considered some of the best in history. I would say any forearm measured right, over 13.5-14 is well above average…

Yeah man 16" forearms makes you an ape.[/quote]

I guess I’m an ape.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
Where is the thigh measurment taken?

In the backyard

I was expecting a response like this… I meant what part of the leg… I assume the top of the leg not near the knee. I just want to make sure I am keeping track of everything right.

I take it at the widest portion. This would differ slightly depending on where your outside “sweep” is greater on your quads. For people who have no development at all (and thusly no sweep), the place is halfway between the knee and hip. There isn’t much difference between the two on most people.[/quote]

Thanks X, thats what I figured, my legs measure just under 28" each but they don’t seem that big to me… my BF% is a tad bit high at this point but I doubt I would have put on 40lbs if I worried about it…
to the poster that said 24" thighs, ummm I think my thighs where around 24" before I ever trained legs, 24" is not big, escp compared to a 45" chest