[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is Ronnie Coleman. Ronnie shouldn’t be measuring his thigh below or above that area of his thigh that sticks out the most.[/quote]
Gotcha, thanks.
Edit: So would you say that, regardless of level of development, the leg should just be measured at it’s largest circumference?
Not big enough.
Not big enough.
Mine are 30" and you have big legs when they cause problems with your jean sizes. Probably anything over 27" is considered big by most people. It’s the shape and sweep of the thigh that make it look massive though not just the measurements.
[quote]Short Hoss wrote:
Not big enough.[/quote]
Whoa.
[quote]MAS50 wrote:
It’s the shape and sweep of the thigh that make it look massive though not just the measurements.[/quote]
X2
I always like when a comparision is made. For thighs I think >3/4 of the waist measurement is when they start looking impressive.
[quote]MAS50 wrote:
Mine are 30" and you have big legs when they cause problems with your jean sizes. Probably anything over 27" is considered big by most people. It’s the shape and sweep of the thigh that make it look massive though not just the measurements.[/quote]
Truth, my thighs don’t have a big sweep, but they measure at 28" and really don’t look big at all.
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
MAS50 wrote:
Mine are 30" and you have big legs when they cause problems with your jean sizes. Probably anything over 27" is considered big by most people. It’s the shape and sweep of the thigh that make it look massive though not just the measurements.
Truth, my thighs don’t have a big sweep, but they measure at 28" and really don’t look big at all.[/quote]
Fatty fat?
31"
Off topic but, CueBall, do you have the full picture of the image you had the two yellow lines on? I think it’s a kick ass pic. Thanks
[quote]cueball wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is Ronnie Coleman. Ronnie shouldn’t be measuring his thigh below or above that area of his thigh that sticks out the most.
Gotcha, thanks.
Edit: So would you say that, regardless of level of development, the leg should just be measured at it’s largest circumference?[/quote]
I know you didn’t ask me, but:
If the purpose is to give an Internet figure and make people think the most possible, then if the biggest point is just barely under the ass but still including the glute-ham tie-in, sure, go name that, never mind that all of your thigh itself is substantially smaller, if that is indeed the case.
If the purpose is to give the standard figure then that would be the largest point but I think should not include the glute-ham tie-in.
If the purpose is to have an idea of progress being made and whether the leg looks good or not, somewhere in midthigh – and as Prof X says, if the largest point is anywhere around here then use that point rather than actual middle – tells a whole lot more than right at the top. A turnip leg looks like shit, no matter that the circumference at the top of the turnip may be large.
If the somewhere-in-the-middle point is actually larger than just under the glute-ham tie-in, then that is a much better situation than when just under the glute-ham tie-in is the largest point.
Oh, and of course if the thighs aren’t lean enough for reasonable vascularity, then any measurement is fat-inflated.
[quote]esk221 wrote:
Short Hoss wrote:
Not big enough.
Whoa.[/quote]
You guys posted at the exact same time too…
[quote]inkaddict wrote:
Off topic but, CueBall, do you have the full picture of the image you had the two yellow lines on? I think it’s a kick ass pic. Thanks[/quote]
Check your PM’s
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
cueball wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is Ronnie Coleman. Ronnie shouldn’t be measuring his thigh below or above that area of his thigh that sticks out the most.
Gotcha, thanks.
Edit: So would you say that, regardless of level of development, the leg should just be measured at it’s largest circumference?
I know you didn’t ask me, but:
If the purpose is to give an Internet figure and make people think the most possible, then if the biggest point is just barely under the ass but still including the glute-ham tie-in, sure, go name that, never mind that all of your thigh itself is substantially smaller, if that is indeed the case.
If the purpose is to give the standard figure then that would be the largest point but I think should not include the glute-ham tie-in.
If the purpose is to have an idea of progress being made and whether the leg looks good or not, somewhere in midthigh – and as Prof X says, if the largest point is anywhere around here then use that point rather than actual middle – tells a whole lot more than right at the top. A turnip leg looks like shit, no matter that the circumference at the top of the turnip may be large.
If the somewhere-in-the-middle point is actually larger than just under the glute-ham tie-in, then that is a much better situation than when just under the glute-ham tie-in is the largest point.
Oh, and of course if the thighs aren’t lean enough for reasonable vascularity, then any measurement is fat-inflated.[/quote]
Well, I would agree running the tape up into your crotch ain’t the right way to do it. But I would assume that for most, including the aductors in the measurement would add some girth. On the photo of Ronnie X put up, It doesn’t appear that it would give much extra, since his outer quad sweep is so nice. As opposed to someone like Platz, who had very large inner thighs.
Also, where are you considering “mid thigh” to be? Half way between the crotch and knee, or halfway between
where the femur sits in the hip and the knee?
Well after going and looking at a few Platz photos, it appears that my previous assumption was wrong. It appears he would be measuring his thighs about the same place as Ronnie would.
Edit: Hmmm, I guess the pic wouldn’t load? a link then.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Well after going and looking at a few Platz photos, it appears that my previous assumption was wrong. It appears he would be measuring his thighs about the same place as Ronnie would.[/quote]
Most people’s quad sweep is in the same general area. However, the main take home point is that if your legs have no sweep (because they may be too tiny and pathetic as if they belong to a second grade school girl who has been starved in a basement her entire life) then you measure at the half way point between hip and knee.
If you have a quad sweep, then that is where you measure the leg at.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
cueball wrote:
Well after going and looking at a few Platz photos, it appears that my previous assumption was wrong. It appears he would be measuring his thighs about the same place as Ronnie would.
Most people’s quad sweep is in the same general area. However, the main take home point is that if your legs have no sweep (because they may be too tiny and pathetic as if they belong to a second grade school girl who has been starved in a basement her entire life) then you measure at the half way point between hip and knee.
If you have a quad sweep, then that is where you measure the leg at.[/quote]
I hear ya.
[quote]bakajin77 wrote:
My legs are a hair under 28" right now at 6’ 210lbs. I was at 26" when I first started lifting (was squatting 315 at the time and do 462 now) and have always got a lot of comments about having big legs so I’d say the 26-27" mark is somewhat similar to the 17" mark for biceps. [/quote]
You were squatting 3 plates when you first started lifting?
[quote]Artem wrote:
bakajin77 wrote:
My legs are a hair under 28" right now at 6’ 210lbs. I was at 26" when I first started lifting (was squatting 315 at the time and do 462 now) and have always got a lot of comments about having big legs so I’d say the 26-27" mark is somewhat similar to the 17" mark for biceps.
You were squatting 3 plates when you first started lifting?[/quote]
…not impossible…at least not where I live assuming the guy has decent genetics. When I was training using more powerlifting techniques back when we were first hitting 405lbs, we trained with this guy just out of high school who was just getting started. He was doing 3 plates within 3 training sessions, starting with two a side.
He also ran track and was more solidly built as a beginner than most of the pics I see here.
Everyone doesn’t have the same genetics.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Artem wrote:
bakajin77 wrote:
My legs are a hair under 28" right now at 6’ 210lbs. I was at 26" when I first started lifting (was squatting 315 at the time and do 462 now) and have always got a lot of comments about having big legs so I’d say the 26-27" mark is somewhat similar to the 17" mark for biceps.
You were squatting 3 plates when you first started lifting?
…not impossible…at least not where I live assuming the guy has decent genetics. When I was training using more powerlifting techniques back when we were first hitting 405lbs, we trained with this guy just out of high school who was just getting started. He was doing 3 plates within 3 training sessions, starting with two a side.
He also ran track and was more solidly built as a beginner than most of the pics I see here.
Everyone doesn’t have the same genetics.[/quote]
I agree but with 26" legs @ 6’ tall as an untrained individual, 3 plates a side seems like a lot. Not impossible, though.