T Nation

Muscles in Size Order

Hey guys. I’m coming up with a new workout plan. I split up the main muscle groups into individual smaller muscles. I’m having a hard time putting these in size order. All I really know for certain is quads > chest > triceps > biceps.

Any help would be appreciated. Tried searching…but couldn’t find much.

Here is the list of muscles [groups] that I need to be arranged in size order:

Quads
Chest
Shoulders
Lats
Middle Back
Calves
Triceps
Lower Back
Biceps
Traps
Hamstrings
Abs
Glutes
Neck
Rhomboids
Obliques
Forearms

You would probably want to train everything equally.

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
You would probably want to train everything equally. [/quote]

At least until you put on some mass to see what body parts you need to focus on more than others.

Thanks for replying. Not looking for training advice… just need these in size order.

[quote]toopa24 wrote:
Thanks for replying. Not looking for training advice… just need these in size order.[/quote]

x2 … lolol

OP admit it, you need help with your A & P homework.

What do you mean by middle back? …Your traps overlap your lats towards the middle of your back, so middle back is not a muscle group.

Anyways i have an idea of some but not all so i can’t help you out with certainty.

Glutes are your biggest muscle, it’s all common sense to be honest.

While I agree with Angus that this is most likely just for his homework I’m curious as to whether this even has a true answer. I guess it is typically answered based on a newborn baby? Or a male that doesn’t really exercise at all? Otherwise wouldn’t certain things vary person to person.

I mean even determining how to classify a muscle based on size? Lats are biggest by surface area but Glutes are biggest by mass.

Then on smaller muscles I imagine its even more difficult because not only would you have to determine what you mean by largest but also depends entirely on a person’s training.

If there was an answer I imagine it would be pretty easy to find but I really don’t think there is one. I mean look at Biceps vs Calves it would completely depend on a person’s training and genetics.

I’m completely speculating on this but would love to hear someone that is 100% sure.

[quote]Enders Drift wrote:
While I agree with Angus that this is most likely just for his homework I’m curious as to whether this even has a true answer. I guess it is typically answered based on a newborn baby? Or a male that doesn’t really exercise at all? Otherwise wouldn’t certain things vary person to person.

I mean even determining how to classify a muscle based on size? Lats are biggest by surface area but Glutes are biggest by mass.

Then on smaller muscles I imagine its even more difficult because not only would you have to determine what you mean by largest but also depends entirely on a person’s training.

If there was an answer I imagine it would be pretty easy to find but I really don’t think there is one. I mean look at Biceps vs Calves it would completely depend on a person’s training and genetics.

I’m completely speculating on this but would love to hear someone that is 100% sure.[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right. There is no correct answer to this question…which implies that it is not for a class but for his own misguided understanding of his own body and training.

My forearms are bigger than some people’s calves. Human beings are not carbon copies of one another.

Beginners need biology books, gym time several times a week, and the sense to follow those who have actually made the most progress.

[quote]Enders Drift wrote:
While I agree with Angus that this is most likely just for his homework I’m curious as to whether this even has a true answer. I guess it is typically answered based on a newborn baby? Or a male that doesn’t really exercise at all? Otherwise wouldn’t certain things vary person to person.

I mean even determining how to classify a muscle based on size? Lats are biggest by surface area but Glutes are biggest by mass.

Then on smaller muscles I imagine its even more difficult because not only would you have to determine what you mean by largest but also depends entirely on a person’s training.

If there was an answer I imagine it would be pretty easy to find but I really don’t think there is one. I mean look at Biceps vs Calves it would completely depend on a person’s training and genetics.

I’m completely speculating on this but would love to hear someone that is 100% sure.[/quote]

The way I see it is. Appearance has nothing to do with it. Bigger people often APPEAR to be shorter: for example someone who is 6’2" and weights 170lbs might APPEAR taller than someone who is 6’3" and 300lbs BUT obviously the 300lb person is taller.

If someone is bigger than me then it means they weight more. I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply for muscle groups in terms of their size.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Enders Drift wrote:
While I agree with Angus that this is most likely just for his homework I’m curious as to whether this even has a true answer. I guess it is typically answered based on a newborn baby? Or a male that doesn’t really exercise at all? Otherwise wouldn’t certain things vary person to person.

I mean even determining how to classify a muscle based on size? Lats are biggest by surface area but Glutes are biggest by mass.

Then on smaller muscles I imagine its even more difficult because not only would you have to determine what you mean by largest but also depends entirely on a person’s training.

If there was an answer I imagine it would be pretty easy to find but I really don’t think there is one. I mean look at Biceps vs Calves it would completely depend on a person’s training and genetics.

I’m completely speculating on this but would love to hear someone that is 100% sure.[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right. There is no correct answer to this question…which implies that it is not for a class but for his own misguided understanding of his own body and training.

My forearms are bigger than some people’s calves. Human beings are not carbon copies of one another.

Beginners need biology books, gym time several times a week, and the sense to follow those who have actually made the most progress.[/quote]

X2

[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:

[quote]Enders Drift wrote:
While I agree with Angus that this is most likely just for his homework I’m curious as to whether this even has a true answer. I guess it is typically answered based on a newborn baby? Or a male that doesn’t really exercise at all? Otherwise wouldn’t certain things vary person to person.

I mean even determining how to classify a muscle based on size? Lats are biggest by surface area but Glutes are biggest by mass.

Then on smaller muscles I imagine its even more difficult because not only would you have to determine what you mean by largest but also depends entirely on a person’s training.

If there was an answer I imagine it would be pretty easy to find but I really don’t think there is one. I mean look at Biceps vs Calves it would completely depend on a person’s training and genetics.

I’m completely speculating on this but would love to hear someone that is 100% sure.[/quote]

The way I see it is. Appearance has nothing to do with it. Bigger people often APPEAR to be shorter: for example someone who is 6’2" and weights 170lbs might APPEAR taller than someone who is 6’3" and 300lbs BUT obviously the 300lb person is taller.

If someone is bigger than me then it means they weight more. I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply for muscle groups in terms of their size.[/quote]

Appear sleaker maybe but a taller person is still going to look taller if two people are standing side by side if the difference is more than .5", for arguments sake. How tall somoene is is not an opinion. How ‘trim’ or ‘streamlined’ very much is a matter of judgment because of the differences in appearance humans can have. my opinion.