what do you guys think about the grecian ideal and symmetry. do you think this is the perfect calculator for symmetry? try it out scroll to about halfway down or a lil more and use the calculator.
WTF!!!, where did they get those pictures of the measurements? from an eating disorder clinic?
I’ve followed it myself actually since almost the beginning of weight training as it seemed a good idea to me for aesthetics and because I like having exact goals and being able to chart my progress in a quantifiable way, rather than for example just wanting to get hyooooge and on any given day it’s an arbitrary opinion as to how much that’s been accomplished.
It’s possible that doing so actually resulted in achieving precise proportions because it is true that things that were further behind got more work. I was horribly far off to start with. Embarrassingly so.
It’s also possible that the same outcome would have happened anyway due to the genetics falling that way, even though the starting point was so far off. Really impossible for me to know which, so I can’t advise that setting these goals beforehand is necessarily going to result in a different end state.
At my best, I’m within an inch on everything, using as the reference point my hip size which is probably the most fixed of the variables when fat is not an issue.
That is not that impressive incidentally, to those that want great size. Aside from not being that impressive in my case, for example the statue of David is supposed to meet those proportions, but by modern standards is not that muscular. (Since it’s proportional though it’s possible to be proportionally more massive, but unless for example having big hips this is not going to be huge chest or arms to fit the proportion.)
Basically this is not a modern bodybuilding set of proportions at all. It is probably correct, though, at least as personal opinion, that it’s more appealing to the average eye than modern bodybuilding proportions are, even at the amateur level.
The one thing that I find totally wrong with the concept is using wrist size as if it were fixed. It’s not. For example my wrist size was 6 1/4" before training and is now 7 1/2". So obviously if I based everything off my initial wrist size, I would have been way undershooting.
Not bad. I’m 6’3 and 223, with higher bf than I’d like. With a 7.5" wrist the calculator reccomended a 19" bicep which would be perfectly fine with me.
However at my height they also reccomended 230lbs which even if I was at 10% BF at that weight I would not have a 19" arm.
Just for clarity, I used the Grecian calculator which doesn’t give 19" for that wrist size – I wasn’t within an inch of that, would not want to give that impression.
I believe you used the Steve Reeves calculator.
Actually that raises another point about this thing: if it’s based off the statue, then wouldn’t the upper arm measurement be unflexed? That doesn’t seem right though as, in the statue, David’s arms aren’t that impressive.
I do think that Reeves did not have the claimed 18.5" arms for that matter. I don’t see how anything over 18" could be possible, as Sergio Oliva was barely over 20" cold flexed and he was far bigger. Certainly more than 1.5" difference between those two men.
Where the Reeves calculator gets I think just plain ridiculous is on chest size. For example, according to it, someone with a 39" hip size needs to have a FIFTY-EIGHT inch chest size. While weighing 190 lb 5’11", or 200 at 6’. Right.
The claim there is that Reeves chest was 54". I don’t believe it: perhaps 50" at most. Using the calculator, the 54" figure even if true would require the hips to be 36.5", which I doubt he was as slim-hipped as; and a more realistic I think 50" figure would by the calculator correspond to 33.5" hips. I’m pretty sure a man around 6" would look rather fragile and disproportioned, pretty much a heroin-chic look, at that hip size. This is just not either aesthetic or Reeves proportions. It looks bad to have a big ass but appearing dainty doesn’t work either.
Maybe the Reeves calculator is based off of claimed and quite untrue measurements instead of measured.
So basically I don’t think the Reeves calculator is sound on each point.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
WTF!!!, where did they get those pictures of the measurements? from an eating disorder clinic?[/quote]
haha i thought that too.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’ve followed it myself actually since almost the beginning of weight training as it seemed a good idea to me for aesthetics and because I like having exact goals and being able to chart my progress in a quantifiable way, rather than for example just wanting to get hyooooge and on any given day it’s an arbitrary opinion as to how much that’s been accomplished.
It’s possible that doing so actually resulted in achieving precise proportions because it is true that things that were further behind got more work. I was horribly far off to start with. Embarrassingly so.
It’s also possible that the same outcome would have happened anyway due to the genetics falling that way, even though the starting point was so far off. Really impossible for me to know which, so I can’t advise that setting these goals beforehand is necessarily going to result in a different end state.
At my best, I’m within an inch on everything, using as the reference point my hip size which is probably the most fixed of the variables when fat is not an issue.
That is not that impressive incidentally, to those that want great size. Aside from not being that impressive in my case, for example the statue of David is supposed to meet those proportions, but by modern standards is not that muscular. (Since it’s proportional though it’s possible to be proportionally more massive, but unless for example having big hips this is not going to be huge chest or arms to fit the proportion.)
Basically this is not a modern bodybuilding set of proportions at all. It is probably correct, though, at least as personal opinion, that it’s more appealing to the average eye than modern bodybuilding proportions are, even at the amateur level.
The one thing that I find totally wrong with the concept is using wrist size as if it were fixed. It’s not. For example my wrist size was 6 1/4" before training and is now 7 1/2". So obviously if I based everything off my initial wrist size, I would have been way undershooting.[/quote]
your right, in today’s bodybuilding standards this is very small. but from an aesthetic point of view being an average guy but looking good, i think these measurements wouldn’t be terrible.
Maybe good for some. It’s ridiculous for those with small wrists.
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol
How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.
I agree with it. I am pretty close on the measurements with a 7 inch wrist. I need another inch or so on the upper arms, 1/2 inch on the calves, and of course, to lean down. My waist is to big right now. A well proportioned body usually looks much more impressive even if you sacrifice total size to acheive it. Especially if you can stay relatively lean year round. I always point people to this pick to illustrate my point
Not overly huge and not even overly cut, but very impressive symmetry and balance.
[quote]ocn2000 wrote:
I agree with it. I am pretty close on the measurements with a 7 inch wrist. I need another inch or so on the upper arms, 1/2 inch on the calves, and of course, to lean down. My waist is to big right now. A well proportioned body usually looks much more impressive even if you sacrifice total size to acheive it. Especially if you can stay relatively lean year round. I always point people to this pick to illustrate my point
Not overly huge and not even overly cut, but very impressive symmetry and balance. [/quote]
true
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
WTF!!!, where did they get those pictures of the measurements? from an eating disorder clinic?[/quote]
Check out the subject’s face, which is partially visible in the last picture. They are measuring what appears to be a seven or eight year old boy. He’s pretty skinny, but not extremely so for a kid that age.
–milo
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.
Tried the calculator.
My measurements are almost all “ideal”; if anything, they are a tad larger. So why do I feel small?
I’m seriously bottom heavy according to that. I already knew that though.
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.
[/quote]
Me too.
[quote]Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol
How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.[/quote]
On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?
[quote]Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.
[/quote]
I don’t think that Sandow’s phyisique is hard to achieve; not talking about his strenght at the given size, though.
[quote]Imen de Naars wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.
I don’t think that Sandow’s phyisique is hard to achieve; not talking about his strenght at the given size, though.[/quote]
I thought that too but didn’t have the balls to tell the guy. The Physique isn’t i guess what nowadays we would call all swole but it is still a good goal to shoot for.
[quote]Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol
How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.
On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?[/quote]
yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…