T Nation

What's Your Weight & Arm Measurement?


#101

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LiftSmart wrote:

80% compound, 20% isolation ftw!

Honestly, these number rules are just funny. What if I claimed “70%/20%”? Will newbies run around the internet and spread that like fact?

No one even used to separate the exercises like that (and most serious trainers still don’t). You did what worked. If that involved squats, leg presses and leg extensions, so be it. No one worried about whether the damned exercises were 80% “compound”.[/quote]

I don’t actually meticulously separate it into a combo like that. That’s just generally what I tend to do. I’m not experienced enough yet to ‘know’ what’s best for my arms to grow.


#102

[quote]dakotah_13 wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dakotah_13 wrote:
6’
204lbs.
arm: 17 3/4 unflexed, just over 18 cold-flexed

i think for this thread, and this site there should be both measurements, the difference shows us roughly how much fat the person is lugging around…

No, it doesn’t. You wouldn’t know a thing about how much fat someone is carrying without a picture regardless of what measurements you look at.

If someone has 24 inch arms flexed and relaxed, then they’re probably pretty fat.

exactly. you cant flex fat… sadly for a lot of people, measure flexed or relaxed, it doesnt matter[/quote]

Both of you seem confused, as if you can only think of this as some guy who ONLY has fat on his arms.

If you are speaking of some linemen with 22" arms but who carries a body % over 20%, there is no fucking way the measurement is going to stay the same when flexed and relaxed.

In fact, the ONLY way your ridiculous scenario works is if we are talking about someone with ZERO muscle mass to speak of like some bed ridden morbidly obese person.

You do realize that muscle, even under fat, CAN be flexed?


#103

[quote]ahzaz wrote:
5’7 or 8
170-175lb

No pump:
Arms(flexed): L/R 13.6"/13.3"
Arms(relaxed): L/R 12.5"/12"
Calves: 17.2" Both
Neck: 14.5"
Waist: 30-31" Relaxed?
Quads: 22.5" both

Right handed, dont know why left is bigger.[/quote]

You have gigantic calves for the rest of your body and your bodyweight.


#104

Even powerlifters train there arms to help improve their main lifts and the byproduct of that is bigger arms even though that is not their main goal


#105


#106

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dakotah_13 wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dakotah_13 wrote:
6’
204lbs.
arm: 17 3/4 unflexed, just over 18 cold-flexed

i think for this thread, and this site there should be both measurements, the difference shows us roughly how much fat the person is lugging around…

No, it doesn’t. You wouldn’t know a thing about how much fat someone is carrying without a picture regardless of what measurements you look at.

If someone has 24 inch arms flexed and relaxed, then they’re probably pretty fat.

exactly. you cant flex fat… sadly for a lot of people, measure flexed or relaxed, it doesnt matter

Both of you seem confused, as if you can only think of this as some guy who ONLY has fat on his arms.

If you are speaking of some linemen with 22" arms but who carries a body % over 20%, there is no fucking way the measurement is going to stay the same when flexed and relaxed.

In fact, the ONLY way your ridiculous scenario works is if we are talking about someone with ZERO muscle mass to speak of like some bed ridden morbidly obese person.

You do realize that muscle, even under fat, CAN be flexed?
[/quote]

I am a good example of this
I am ~290 with 20ish% body fat(closer to 25 or so havent checked in a few weeks)
arms 16.5 cold/relaxed 18 flexed
calves are 17"
neck is little over 16"


#107

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dakotah_13 wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dakotah_13 wrote:
6’
204lbs.
arm: 17 3/4 unflexed, just over 18 cold-flexed

i think for this thread, and this site there should be both measurements, the difference shows us roughly how much fat the person is lugging around…

No, it doesn’t. You wouldn’t know a thing about how much fat someone is carrying without a picture regardless of what measurements you look at.

If someone has 24 inch arms flexed and relaxed, then they’re probably pretty fat.

exactly. you cant flex fat… sadly for a lot of people, measure flexed or relaxed, it doesnt matter

Both of you seem confused, as if you can only think of this as some guy who ONLY has fat on his arms.

If you are speaking of some linemen with 22" arms but who carries a body % over 20%, there is no fucking way the measurement is going to stay the same when flexed and relaxed.

In fact, the ONLY way your ridiculous scenario works is if we are talking about someone with ZERO muscle mass to speak of like some bed ridden morbidly obese person.

You do realize that muscle, even under fat, CAN be flexed?
[/quote]

There’s some truth to the fact that the greater the difference between your flexed and lean measurements, the leaner you tend to be.

I know the popular thing is to be on a perpetual McDonalds fed superbulk to 500 pounds, and that anyone whose interested in being lean or cares about bodyfat is a huge pussy, but there are some people out there who are not only serious about getting jacked but also getting lean.

And taking flexed and relaxed arm measurements is probably a better way to gauge body composition than using a shitty electric scale from bed, bath, and beyond.

I see a lot of women who weight over 250lbs with arms that must be more than 20 inches around. And maybe it’s possible that their arms measure more flexed than they do relaxed, even if it’s just a little. But I bet there’s a huge difference between a Pro Bodybuilder’s flexed and relaxed measurements.

Of course, you can’t really tell much about someone’s arms with just some measurements, but you can certainly tell more if you know their flexed and relaxed numbers.

But whatever. My arms are only 15 or 16 inches, and I care about what my bodyfat % is, so I automatically don’t know anything.


#108

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
There’s some truth to the fact that the greater the difference between your flexed and lean measurements, the leaner you tend to be. [/quote]

No, there isn’t. How much of a “peak” you have when flexed (which adds to that measurement) is completely genetic. Some people simply have a larger muscle belly at the greatest height.

[quote]
I know the popular thing is to be on a perpetual McDonalds fed superbulk to 500 pounds, and that anyone whose interested in being lean or cares about bodyfat is a huge pussy, but there are some people out there who are not only serious about getting jacked but also getting lean.

And taking flexed and relaxed arm measurements is probably a better way to gauge body composition than using a shitty electric scale from bed, bath, and beyond. [/quote]

What? Who EVER on this site has written anything that sounds like a recommendation to eat Mc Donald’s until you weigh 500lbs?

Not only can you not tell the truth, you don’t have very much comprehension about muscle tissue in general. There is NO relation between a difference in flexed/unflexed measurement and body fat percentage.

NONE.

[quote]
I see a lot of women who weight over 250lbs with arms that must be more than 20 inches around. And maybe it’s possible that their arms measure more flexed than they do relaxed, even if it’s just a little. But I bet there’s a huge difference between a Pro Bodybuilder’s flexed and relaxed measurements.

Of course, you can’t really tell much about someone’s arms with just some measurements, but you can certainly tell more if you know their flexed and relaxed numbers.

But whatever. My arms are only 15 or 16 inches, and I care about what my bodyfat % is, so I automatically don’t know anything. [/quote]

LOL at “15 OR 16 inches”. I have no doubt the only thing holding back your progress is YOU.


#109

http://www.T-Nation.com/article/bodybuilding/lost_training_tips_an_oldschool_collection_of_muscle_insight&cr=bodybuilding

From this Article

" 1. You Can’t Flex Fat!

Before skinfold caliper measurements, underwater weighings, and electrical impedance readings became popular to determine percentage of body fat, old timers had an interesting way to check their leanness. The test involved keeping a periodic record of the differences between the relaxed and contracted upper-arm measurements.

Before a workout and using a plastic tape, here’s what they’d do:

  1. Relax the arm and measure the circumference midway between the elbow and tip of the shoulder with the arm hanging away from the body. Record the number to the nearest 1/16th of an inch.

  2. Flex the arm and measure it at right angles to the bone around the largest part of the contracted biceps with the upper arm parallel to the floor. Record the contracted arm to the nearest 1/16th of an inch.

  3. Determine the difference between the relaxed and contracted measurements.

If you’re trying to get leaner, or just out of curiosity, you should apply the same guidelines to your arm. Over several weeks, if you’re getting leaner, the differences between your relaxed and contracted upper-arm measurements will get greater. If you’re getting fatter, the differences between the two will get smaller.

The reason one goes up and the other goes down is the fact that… you can’t flex fat! Only muscle contains contractile tissue.

Most of your noncontractile fat is stored directly under your skin, with thicker layers around your hips and midsection. When your percentage of fat is reduced, it’s reduced to a greater or lesser degree from all over your body.

Having 1-1/2 inches between the two measurements puts you at the approximate 10% level of body fat. A greater number is exceptional. The largest difference I’ve ever measured was on the arm of Casey Viator, who won the 1971 AAU Mr. America. Casey’s right arm was 17-1/8 inches relaxed and 19-5/16 inches contracted �?? which amounted to 2-1/4 inches between the two numbers.

His body fat was 3%. When Viator raised his arms and contracted them, his biceps and triceps seemed to explode �?? which is no exaggeration. "

Half the time anyone ever brings up the subject of how to get visible abs, leanness, or whatever else you can think of related to having low bodyfat, someone dismisses it. This isn’t hard to see.

I think the only thing holding me back from having bigger arms is, obviously, my light weight. I’ve been able to gain 35 pounds in a years time, the vast majority of it being lean mass. No, I’m not one of those people who can bench 405 after one year of training, but I didn’t have 12 inch arms for very long and I doubt I’ll have these arms for very long as well.


#110

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
…[/quote]

That article claims ribcage expansion from pull overs, which is also bullshit.

After you think about that for a while, ask yourself where the references are in that article showing a true direct correlation between biceps height and body fat.

This is why an education is more valuable than an article.


#111

I have about 1.5 inch difference between my flexed and unflexed measurement. I’m NOT close to 10% bodyfat. It may be a good way to measure your own progress but it isn’t going to tell you much about a persons bodyfat when comparing different people in the internet.


#112

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:
I have about 1.5 inch difference between my flexed and unflexed measurement. I’m NOT close to 10% bodyfat. It may be a good way to measure your own progress but it isn’t going to tell you much about a persons bodyfat when comparing different people in the internet.[/quote]

agreed I have 1.5" difference also and no where near 10%

working on it though


#113

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
TheDudeAbides wrote:
5’11"
244
arms: 17.5
neck: 17.5
calves: 17
thighs: 28
waist: 38 - I’m only including this so you don’t get the impression I’m a fat cow

interesting, that just seems like odd measurements all around for your height and weight[/quote]

In what way? Please elaborate. I’m not offended by the comment, just curious.


#114

Is it true to be in perfect “symmetry” your neck, calf and arm measurement should be the same ???
Or is that some myth ?


#115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightingScott wrote:

That article claims ribcage expansion from pull overs, which is also bullshit.

After you think about that for a while, ask yourself where the references are in that article showing a true direct correlation between biceps height and body fat.

This is why an education is more valuable than an article.[/quote]

I don’t see how it isn’t plainly obvious. You may not be able to tell exactly what someone’s arms look like by their flexed and relaxed measurements. But if the discrepancy between my flexed and unflexed arm measurements grows, then isn’t it likely that I’m getting leaner?

Sure, based upon my genetics I may never have a 5 inch difference between relaxed and flexed measurements, or whatever Kevin Levrone had. But if the discrepancy between my flexed and relaxed measurements grows, then me flexing my bicep is contributing more to the flexed measurement than it was previously.

And if everything in that article is wrong because it has a section about ribcage expansion, then I guess the article is also wrong in saying that doing calf raises will make your calves bigger.


#116

[quote]TheDudeAbides wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
TheDudeAbides wrote:
5’11"
244
arms: 17.5
neck: 17.5
calves: 17
thighs: 28
waist: 38 - I’m only including this so you don’t get the impression I’m a fat cow

interesting, that just seems like odd measurements all around for your height and weight

In what way? Please elaborate. I’m not offended by the comment, just curious.[/quote]

Like you said, your waist isn’t exactly a huge one, and your other measurements aren’t that large for your height and weight. I dunno, I could be mistaken, just seemed like you would have larger measurements for your height/weight


#117

150 pounds
5’8’’
cold flex 15’’
neck 17’’
quads 22’’
calves 15’’
waist 28’’


#118

[quote]Corkonian wrote:
Is it true to be in perfect “symmetry” your neck, calf and arm measurement should be the same ???
Or is that some myth ?[/quote]

I’ve heard Reg Park and Dorian Yates quote this and heard them say on youtube videos and so forth, they use this philosophy.


#119

5’7"
160 lbs.
16" flexed arms


#120

6’1, 90kg
14.5 arms, flexed and unpumped

12.5 forearm
25 thighs
43.5 hips (rofl)
41.5 chest
35 waist
15.5 calves

just redid them

here is 3 months ago. Haven’t done direct arm work at all and am surprised at increases:

85kg
40" chest
33.5" waist
hips 39.5"
24" thighs
14.5" calf
forearm 12"
arm 13.5"

my hips and quads are hilariously huge. My hips are already genetically big so the extra size makes it look freakish.

Think Dimas except without the gorilla lats and fatter, lol

My upper abs are also seriously so big that they stick out past my chest when I flex them. I don’t even think a v-shape is possible for me anymore unless I get ridiculously huge lats.

Lots and lots of deadlifts, squats, static holds, and isometrics with very little emphasis on upper body (which i really regret now as far as neglecting presses and pullups) for 6 months or so. I have no idea how I am gonna look when I lose 10 pounds of fat and am frightened to think about it!

I’m probably gonna look like a speedskater with my huge lower body and tiny upper lol.

any recommendations? haha