Will biceps stop getting bigger past a certain point, if you ignore calf training? My biceps are very reluctant to get past 16 inches, but when you see my lower leg development, they look out of place on my physique. Thanks in advance.
I rememeber a few years back reading an article on this site which was talking about the correlation between calf muscles and bicepts. I think if you ignore your calf training you will find it a bit tougher to add more size to your bicepts, so you might wanna chuck in some calf work into your training schedule.
Rza
My calves are an inch or two bigger than my arms. Call it genetics. Call it I don’t do direct arm training per se but do hammer my calves everyday I hit the gym. Call it what you want. I don’t beleive neglecting one area of the body will improve another.
There is no correlation. Calves are completely genetic, much like forearms. While you can definitely make big improvements, they aren’t like body parts like biceps or chest that have a lot to do with your work ethic and not just genetic tendency for larger muscles in that area.
My calves measure out at about 18" standing unflexed last I checked. My arms are bigger than my calves. My arms hit 18" years ago and my calves weren’t even 16" (maybe even as small as 14") back then.
Your growth of individual body parts has MUCH to do with growing ALL OVER, but let’s get rid of this idea that one body part is somehow limited by another when they are not antagonistic in and of itself.
Obviously, if you neglect every muscle in your legs, your overall growth will be decreased. That doesn’t mean that your calves have to specifically grow a certain amount for your biceps to do the same.
Upper arm size is very dependant on overall lean-mass weight. Poliquin once wrote that you could add about 1" to upper arms for every 15-25 pounds you gain overall.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
Upper arm size is very dependant on overall lean-mass weight. Poliquin once wrote that you could add about 1" to upper arms for every 15-25 pounds you gain overall. [/quote]
I have found this to be true as well, however, 25lbs is pushing it. On average, I have found it much closer to about 15lbs for every inch on your arms. Basically, if you aren’t growing all over, don’t expect big guns.
Thanks for clearing that up professorX.
Do you do much direct calf training? As i have not really noticed any gains through training them. My powerlifting friend has never directly trained his calves and they just seem to keep growing but he does weigh about 60lbs more than me.
[quote]Rza UK wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up professorX.
Do you do much direct calf training? As i have not really noticed any gains through training them. My powerlifting friend has never directly trained his calves and they just seem to keep growing but he does weigh about 60lbs more than me.[/quote]
I train calves almost every day. They are the only body part on me that I can consistently train and have them only respond minimally. They measure decently for some people but not for someone my size.
I love training calves. I think they ar ethe one muscle group that give you a very powerful look immediately when they are huge, much like traps and forarms. Of course, when you are gynormous all over, you look pretty powerful as well.
I highly doubt there is any correlation what so ever. Ive seen too many average joe’s in the gym with huge biceps and tiny calves.
It would be like saying you cant build big triceps unless you have big quads.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is no correlation. Calves are completely genetic, much like forearms. While you can definitely make big improvements, they aren’t like body parts like biceps or chest that have a lot to do with your work ethic and not just genetic tendency for larger muscles in that area.
My calves measure out at about 18" standing unflexed last I checked. My arms are bigger than my calves. My arms hit 18" years ago and my calves weren’t even 16" (maybe even as small as 14") back then.
[/quote]
I’m not sure completely genetic is the proper semantics there X. You are a living example that daily hammering of the calves can bring them way way up. I’m not discounting the genetic component by any means. In general I think most people aren’t willing to put forth the effort get the big calves and they too quickly chalk it up to poor genetics.
I have 2 brothers both of whom have 13" calves. Those the genetics I’m born with. Yet I have achieved 19"+ by hitting those babies 4-5 days per week like yourself.
If anything I would say I have poor bicep genetics. No peak, not very long and full long head.
Genetics are genetics you play the hand you’re dealt. Work ethic is work ethic; there you make your own hand.
[quote]saps wrote:
I’m not sure completely genetic is the proper semantics there X. You are a living example that daily hammering of the calves can bring them way way up. I’m not discounting the genetic component by any means. In general I think most people aren’t willing to put forth the effort get the big calves and they too quickly chalk it up to poor genetics.
[/quote]
I may have brought them up, but they still lag behind everything else. If they grew the same as other muscle groups on me, they would be 20". Most people aren’t willing to put the effort in…but bodybuilding isn’t for most people.
[quote]dankid wrote:
I highly doubt there is any correlation what so ever. Ive seen too many average joe’s in the gym with huge biceps and tiny calves.
It would be like saying you cant build big triceps unless you have big quads.[/quote]
What’s your definition of huge…
[quote]dankid wrote:
I highly doubt there is any correlation what so ever. Ive seen too many average joe’s in the gym with huge biceps and tiny calves.
It would be like saying you cant build big triceps unless you have big quads.[/quote]
There is a systemic component whereby your entire physiology, all of it, gets the message that you are forcing upon it routine stresses that it is in it’s best interest to adapt to as efficiently as possible.
That extends to EVERY CELL in your body. “Big” is relative. You will not reach your potential anywhere without reaching it everywhere. Stupidly overdeveloping some ares over the others isn’t the same as any one area being as developed as it could be.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
dankid wrote:
I highly doubt there is any correlation what so ever. Ive seen too many average joe’s in the gym with huge biceps and tiny calves.
It would be like saying you cant build big triceps unless you have big quads.
There is a systemic component whereby your entire physiology, all of it, gets the message that you are forcing upon it routine stresses that it is in it’s best interest to adapt to as efficiently as possible.
That extends to EVERY CELL in your body. “Big” is relative. You will not reach your potential anywhere without reaching it everywhere. Stupidly overdeveloping some ares over the others isn’t the same as any one area being as developed as it could be.[/quote]
Ya, but the OP’s biceps are only 16". He’s likely being held back for lack of full body strength, rather than lack of calf size. And he’s probably not near his max potential either.
I think that he’s too much of a pussy and/or too stupid to increase his curl-poundages significantly over time.
Thanks for clearning up my problem - I’ll try 100 reps with the blue dumbells instead of the pinks next time - always wondered why I got funny looks. Are you also one of those guys who squats too - looks like really hard work. You’re a real man!
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
I think that he’s too much of a pussy and/or too stupid to increase his curl-poundages significantly over time.
Thanks for clearning up my problem - I’ll try 100 reps with the blue dumbells instead of the pinks next time - always wondered why I got funny looks. Are you also one of those guys who squats too - looks like really hard work. You’re a real man![/quote]
I forgot the “Now go and prove me wrong”.
Listen, the reason I have small calves is because I have neglected to train them - I’m the first to admit that. That fact doesn’t make me a pussy, although it does mean I’ve been lazy. I’m not a competitive BB, but I do see that my lower legs are not inproportion to the rest of my body. Seriously, if I’m deadlifting 450lbs and getting stronger (yes ok no world record but hardly light to the average person) then I’m training hard.
Yes, some guys have chicken legs and big upper bodies, but in my experience they are either on steroids or no tvery lean. I guess that since my calves are essentially un-trained, I will soon be able to answer my question for myself.
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
Seriously, if I’m deadlifting 450lbs and getting stronger (yes ok no world record but hardly light to the average person) then I’m training hard. [/quote]
Dude, EVERY newbie who logs in claims they can deadlift over 400lbs. Every single one of them. No one is impressed by these numbers anymore as a result.
I know one thing, there is something wrong if so many of you are deadlifting over 400 yet none of you look like you can.