Let me start with some disclaimers. This is not a hate thread. I'm not sure I'm a "fan" of anyone, but the "Rock" seems like a good guy. And he's a relatively decent actor for his roles (action genre).
I was reading an article in my local paper today about a number of actors beefing up to play superhero parts - a departure from the Toby Maguire era. One actor mentioned was the Rock for his last role opposite Vin Diesel. He claimed he got up to 280 with a 54" chest and 23" arms. Now...
the 54" chest is certainly reasonable (and utterly believable), especially at 280. Shit, I just lost 25lbs in the last 6 months and just measured my chest @ 52" (@ about 237lbs.). So 54 sounds utterly reasonable, if not a tad small at 280lbs? But...23" arms WITH a 54" chest? Am I missing something here? The bodyweight certainly sounds about right for 23" guns, but that chest measurement is throwing me off. And yes, I am skeptical about claimed 23" bicep measurements of a lean arm, outside of BB with the customary AAS use.
Exaggeration or bad journalism?
Interestingly, some of the actors were denying AAS use (to be expected for public relations and legal reasons but I'm not sure anyone other than the Rock has a physique approaching one that would require AAS, but when you factor in the relatively short amount of time they prepare for a role...it makes you wonder. One guy packed on a claimed 30lbs of lean mass for a role. How the fuck long have most of us worked for 30lbs of lean mass?!). This isn't a "Rock is on AAS" thread. I don't care. The Rock looks fucking great, as do these other guys playing these recent roles. It's not an AAS thread.
I'm just really thrown the fuck off by this 54/23 claim - it seems...off. I'm not a "measurement" guy, or a BB so I really don't know how to evaluate the claim or proportions. I'm curious as to informed opinions about the seeming disparity.