# How Big Are Your Legs?

#1

I've read that anyone who can reach 18inches on their arm has good genetics. But what about legs, what is a good thigh measurment for someone who is lean? and how big are your legs?

#2

I think mine are about 25 or something atm. Don’t really know.

All i do know is my hamstrings have grown pretty quickly lately that they’re rubbing together when i walk.

So I know they’re growing.

#3

80% of your waist measurement would be pretty massive (and my goal! approx 29")

#4

I’d say your legs have to be too tight wearing at least Hollister size 32-slim before you can make a thread about pants being too big.

So I don’t know… use deductive math reasoning from that fact.

#5

my waist is 34 and my thighs are 27 cold. and i am in no way super strong or huge. doesn’t that dylanj guy have 32/32?

#6

[quote]SSC wrote:
I’d say your legs have to be too tight wearing at least Hollister size 32-slim before you can make a thread about pants being too big.

So I don’t know… use deductive math reasoning from that fact.[/quote]

Perfect. I fit the qualifications!

I measured at 24.5" 3 weeks ago.

#7

It’s unfortunate, IMO, that the standard method of measuring leg size is at the highest point.

From the bb’ing perspective, a much more meaningful figure is at the midpoint or alternately at the center of the hamstring peak.

For example mine are 25.5" just below the glute/ham tie-in but only 22 3/4" at the hamstring peak. That is not too terribly mis-shapen, but there are some with turnip legs that may have a very large figure at the top of the thigh but not so much in the middle and are downright sad down near the knee.

In my own case progress has been in thickening the middle and down near the knee, with little change at the top.

So just measuring the top really does not give the picture, either of the general size of the leg, or necessarily of one’s progress.

What other muscles do you measure not at around or at the middle of the muscle belly, but up near the joint?

#8

68cm -> 26.77"

#9

I think 29" legs are the equivalent to 18" arms.

#10

Where do you measure?

While this is probably highly individual, I measure from the bottom of my ball sack.

#11

[quote]hardgnr wrote:
Where do you measure?

While this is probably highly individual, I measure from the bottom of my ball sack.[/quote]

If you don’t use a mirror to verify that the tape is below the glute-ham tie-in, that would inflate the figure quite a bit.

Not that I don’t know that many don’t inflate it that way: maybe they do, just as some give a lats-spread, sucked-maximally-full-of-air figure for their chest measurement rather than the standard relaxed.

#12

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s unfortunate, IMO, that the standard method of measuring leg size is at the highest point.

From the bb’ing perspective, a much more meaningful figure is at the midpoint or alternately at the center of the hamstring peak.

For example mine are 25.5" just below the glute/ham tie-in but only 22 3/4" at the hamstring peak. That is not too terribly mis-shapen, but there are some with turnip legs that may have a very large figure at the top of the thigh but not so much in the middle and are downright sad down near the knee.

In my own case progress has been in thickening the middle and down near the knee, with little change at the top.

So just measuring the top really does not give the picture, either of the general size of the leg, or necessarily of one’s progress.

What other muscles do you measure not at around or at the middle of the muscle belly, but up near the joint?[/quote]

In bodybuilding terms, I tend to measure mine at the height of contour of the sweep of my thigh. My quads thin out at the knee to the point that you might not think they are that big if you saw me in long shorts that came down to the knee, but they measure 30.5 inches at the greatest portion.

I agree that midway down the thigh is fine for beginners or people who don’t have much of a sweep at all, but in terms of those with much larger legs, it makes no sense to measure BELOW the peak of the sweep of the thigh.

#13

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
hardgnr wrote:
Where do you measure?

While this is probably highly individual, I measure from the bottom of my ball sack.

If you don’t use a mirror to verify that the tape is below the glute-ham tie-in, that would inflate the figure quite a bit.

Not that I don’t know that many don’t inflate it that way: maybe they do, just as some give a lats-spread, sucked-maximally-full-of-air figure for their chest measurement rather than the standard relaxed.[/quote]

Well, there is a big difference between getting your chest measured to buy a suit and getting it measured to see just how big it can be. Arnold did NOT have a chest over 60" in a relaxed state. He had over 60" fully contracted and inhaled.

In terms of a suit, I measure out to about 53 even though I am sure I could add a couple of inches by simply spreading my lats and inhaling.

#14

I make sure I get a nice slab of buttcheek in my measurement so I can feel superior.

#15

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I make sure I get a nice slab of buttcheek in my measurement so I can feel superior.[/quote]

Or you could simply double wrap it around the leg. I prefer to grab other people so we can all stand in a circle with our legs measured together. So far, my legs measure 4,564".

#16

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
hardgnr wrote:
Where do you measure?

While this is probably highly individual, I measure from the bottom of my ball sack.

If you don’t use a mirror to verify that the tape is below the glute-ham tie-in, that would inflate the figure quite a bit.

Not that I don’t know that many don’t inflate it that way: maybe they do, just as some give a lats-spread, sucked-maximally-full-of-air figure for their chest measurement rather than the standard relaxed.

Well, there is a big difference between getting your chest measured to buy a suit and getting it measured to see just how big it can be. Arnold did NOT have a chest over 60" in a relaxed state. He had over 60" fully contracted and inhaled.

In terms of a suit, I measure out to about 53 even though I am sure I could add a couple of inches by simply spreading my lats and inhaling.[/quote]

There’s established terminology though. “Expanded chest measurement” and “chest measurement.” The latter being normal.

There’s nothing at all wrong with taking an expanded chest measurement and reporting it as such.

I was referring to those who give the expanded figure as the chest measurement without ever saying it was expanded.

#17

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s unfortunate, IMO, that the standard method of measuring leg size is at the highest point.

From the bb’ing perspective, a much more meaningful figure is at the midpoint or alternately at the center of the hamstring peak.

For example mine are 25.5" just below the glute/ham tie-in but only 22 3/4" at the hamstring peak. That is not too terribly mis-shapen, but there are some with turnip legs that may have a very large figure at the top of the thigh but not so much in the middle and are downright sad down near the knee.

In my own case progress has been in thickening the middle and down near the knee, with little change at the top.

So just measuring the top really does not give the picture, either of the general size of the leg, or necessarily of one’s progress.

What other muscles do you measure not at around or at the middle of the muscle belly, but up near the joint?

In bodybuilding terms, I tend to measure mine at the height of contour of the sweep of my thigh. My quads thin out at the knee to the point that you might not think they are that big if you saw me in long shorts that came down to the knee, but they measure 30.5 inches at the greatest portion.

I agree that midway down the thigh is fine for beginners or people who don’t have much of a sweep at all, but in terms of those with much larger legs, it makes no sense to measure BELOW the peak of the sweep of the thigh. [/quote]

In my case, as can be determined from the midpoint not being drastically different from the point right below the glute-ham tie-in, I can’t see a definite midpoint peak for the quads – moving the tape measure up or down an inch results in hardly any change, so there is no definite point. So the hamstring peak, being about the middle of the thigh, I think gives a good overall picture of both hamstring and mid-thigh development.

But I can see your point that if someone has great sweep and has a definite largest-measurement point visible from the front that is not right at the midpoint, sure, use that point!

#19

X, to somewhat illustrate where you take your measurements, which yellow line here would best represent your measurement site? On my leg, I get almost a full 2" difference between the two sites shown here (top being the larger of the two)

#20

[quote]cueball wrote:
X, to somewhat illustrate where you take your measurements, which yellow line here would best represent your measurement site? On my leg, I get almost a full 2" difference between the two sites shown here (top being the larger of the two)[/quote]

You are missing the point. Two different well developed people may not have the peak of their sweep in the exact same place. e are not talking about people with “average” looking legs here. If your legs are big enough, then they probably have a sweep to them which refers to the peak of the curve on the outer thigh. It would make little sense for someone to look in a mirror and measure below or above that area.

#21

This is Ronnie Coleman. Ronnie shouldn’t be measuring his thigh below or above that area of his thigh that sticks out the most.