What's Your Weight & Arm Measurement?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
161

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Are 20" guns impressive on a guy with 25% BF and a big gut? No.

You should stop trying to increase your arm size at the point where you can no longer put an inch on your arms for every 1/4" on your waist.

Stupid shit right there. 1" on the arms and 1/4" on the waist is the limit? Ha! That means a person could go from 14" arms to 18" arms and gain a whoping 3" on their waist (triple your limit) and that would be a BAD thing?! It would take all of a couple months to get rid of the extra fat whereas those four inches on the arms takes years.[/quote]

Actually it’s even worse, 4 inches on your arm would be 1 inch on your waist with his ratio. 14->18 inch arms at the cost of going from 32->33 in my waist? Yes please.

162

[quote]
Natural Nate wrote:
That means a person could go from 14" arms to 18" arms and gain a whoping 3" on their waist (triple your limit) and that would be a BAD thing?!

red04 wrote:
Actually it’s even worse, 4 inches on your arm would be 1 inch on your waist with his ratio. 14->18 inch arms at the cost of going from 32->33 in my waist? Yes please.[/quote]

I’ll take either one of those. Now. Thank you very much.

163

Sorry, the actual ratio is 0.5 : 1.0 waist/arms.

This is applicable to someone who has a “decent” muscular base already. Say, 32-33" waist with 15" arms. Going for 18’s should take the waist no higher than 34.5"

If the “allowance” seems low, you have to consider the fact that the progression isn’t linear. Beginners can often put one or two solid inches on their arms without affecting their waist measurements at all. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the 19" guys who simply have to make 20" and end up adding 2" on their waist to do it.

My formula is applicable to anyone with a current waist circ. of ~34" or larger.

164

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Absolute measurements mean nothing. Ratio’s are everything.

You NEVER see a bicep floating around in the air. You see it attached to someone’s body.

Are 20" arms impressive on a guy with a huge gut and 25% BF? No. I’d be more impressed by a teen with solid 14.5" arms and 5% bodyfat.

You should stop trying to increase your arm size at the point where you can no longer put an inch on your arms for every 1/2" on your waist.

Instead of comparing absolute measurements, let’s compare physique ratios.

Here are mine

Chest:Waist 1.40
Shoulder:Waist 1.59
Waist:Hip 0.83
Waist:Upper Arm 2.46
Upper Arm:Forearm 1.16
[/quote]

Interesting…

chest:waist 1.43
shoulders:waist 1.59
waist:hip .79
waist:upper arm 1.88
upper arm: forearm 1.36

chest 46
shoulder 51
waist 32
hips 40.25
forearm 12.5
upperarm 17

5’9"
195

165

Yeah, good luck gaining that much arm size without adding some to the waist.

I am interested in the ratios though and see how I compare :shrug:

166

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sorry, the actual ratio is 0.5 : 1.0 waist/arms.

This is applicable to someone who has a “decent” muscular base already. Say, 32-33" waist with 15" arms. Going for 18’s should take the waist no higher than 34.5"

If the “allowance” seems low, you have to consider the fact that the progression isn’t linear. Beginners can often put one or two solid inches on their arms without affecting their waist measurements at all. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the 19" guys who simply have to make 20" and end up adding 2" on their waist to do it.

My formula is applicable to anyone with a current waist circ. of ~34" or larger.[/quote]

lol.

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:

lol.

[/quote]

I was going to type a longer response, but yeah I’ll go with that.

168

[quote]zaydadog wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Absolute measurements mean nothing. Ratio’s are everything.

You NEVER see a bicep floating around in the air. You see it attached to someone’s body.

Are 20" arms impressive on a guy with a huge gut and 25% BF? No. I’d be more impressed by a teen with solid 14.5" arms and 5% bodyfat.

You should stop trying to increase your arm size at the point where you can no longer put an inch on your arms for every 1/2" on your waist.

Instead of comparing absolute measurements, let’s compare physique ratios.

Here are mine

Chest:Waist 1.40
Shoulder:Waist 1.59
Waist:Hip 0.83
Waist:Upper Arm 2.46
Upper Arm:Forearm 1.16

Interesting…

chest:waist 1.43
shoulders:waist 1.59
waist:hip .79
waist:upper arm 1.88
upper arm: forearm 1.36

chest 46
shoulder 51
waist 32
hips 40.25
forearm 12.5
upperarm 17

5’9"
195[/quote]

Superb waist : upper arm ratio. Obviously, lower is better on that one.

From that alone, I know for a fact that you must look impressive. Especially from the side.

There is also a way to standarize the equation for height. I haven’t incorporated it yet, however. I use an excel spreadsheet for calculating these ratios when taking measurements of my clients.

Another major one is weight:height ratio

Then you standardize weight against each measurement and that really lets you know who has the most impressive physique.

Infinitely better than just tossing around measurements.

169

If anyone can find accurate measurements of pro bodybuilders, post them here.

I’m trying to find stats on Paul Dillett.

Sergio Oliva:
Greatest chest to waist difference of any Mr. Olympia champion in history, Sergio’s Chest was 30 inches (2.5ft) larger than his waist, the greatest “V” shape ever. He had a 58 inch chest, 28 inch waist).

2.07 Chest:Waist ratio. Insane.

For Waist:Upper Arm of a top pro let’s use 36 and 22 (pumped but unflexed), respectively. That gives us a 1.63 ratio. So now you can calculate the exact measurements you need to have the same ratio as Paul Dillett.

P.S. Upper arm measurements should not be taken flexed!

Lee Priest claims 28" waist and 21" arms (likely flexed).
Ratio is 1.33, probably the lowest in world history.

170

Superb waist : upper arm ratio. Obviously, lower is better on that one.

From that alone, I know for a fact that you must look impressive. Especially from the side.

There is also a way to standarize the equation for height. I haven’t incorporated it yet, however. I use an excel spreadsheet for calculating these ratios when taking measurements of my clients.

Another major one is weight:height ratio

Then you standardize weight against each measurement and that really lets you know who has the most impressive physique.

Infinitely better than just tossing around measurements.[/quote]

Thanks.

Why don’t you use any lower body measurements?

171

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
If anyone can find accurate measurements of pro bodybuilders, post them here.

I’m trying to find stats on Paul Dillett.

Sergio Oliva:
Greatest chest to waist difference of any Mr. Olympia champion in history, Sergio’s Chest was 30 inches (2.5ft) larger than his waist, the greatest “V” shape ever. He had a 58 inch chest, 28 inch waist).

http://www.oldtimestrongman.co…

2.07 Chest:Waist ratio. Insane.

For Waist:Upper Arm of a top pro let’s use 36 and 22 (pumped but unflexed), respectively. That gives us a 1.63 ratio. So now you can calculate the exact measurements you need to have the same ratio as Paul Dillett.

P.S. Upper arm measurements should not be taken flexed!

Lee Priest claims 28" waist and 21" arms (likely flexed).
Ratio is 1.33, probably the best ever in world history.

http://www.leepriest.net/leepriest.jpg[/quote]

Paul Dillet Measurements:

The vein across his chest - 3" thick.

172

[quote]Professor X wrote:
azza30 wrote:
Ah prof x. Nice to speak again!!!

Follow my training advice til you have at least 17 inch guns, then go add some direct arm work.
Also, those that say things like 'pro’s never used isolation movements to build their arms did they!?

Well they have well above average recovery genetics to become pro’s in the first place. Do not kid yourself that you can make pro like gains if you haven’t got the genetics first. An achievement of 17 inch arms is great for the average 99% of the population. Thinking otherwise will just make you divert your efforts into the more is better world that just doesn’t work.

And for the 17 year old. Time my friend. Time. try 5 x 5, and just wait and have patience.

Honestly, stop giving that advice. There is no reason on Earth for someone to avoid direct arm work until they have 17" arms.

First, most people will have a hard time even getting arms that big, especially since this site has been overrun with “fitness” trainers who can’t figure out if they actually want to gain muscle mass or run a triathelon. That is why most of the people in this thread have arms under 16".

If you want big arms TRAIN EVERYTHING INCLUDING YOUR FUCKING ARMS.

That means directly and indirectly.

Further, to anyone else, ask for a picture of the guys telling you to avoid all direct biceps work. You may just notice that most of the people recommending complete avoidance of this muscle group aren’t exactly stretching too many T-shirt sleeves themselves.[/quote]

I agree with Professor X. Most compound movements don’t fully fatigue the arm muslces. The long head of the triceps is almost completely unused in any pressing movement. The outer head of the biceps is also inactive for pulling or rowing.

The long head of the triceps as well as the outer bicep both cross the shoulder joint. This is why skull crushers done in a “lat style” or pullover movement are so effective. The same can be said for biceps. Bring the arms forward when curling. EMI studies have shown the effectiveness of these techniques.

173

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Sorry, the actual ratio is 0.5 : 1.0 waist/arms.

This is applicable to someone who has a “decent” muscular base already. Say, 32-33" waist with 15" arms. Going for 18’s should take the waist no higher than 34.5"

If the “allowance” seems low, you have to consider the fact that the progression isn’t linear. Beginners can often put one or two solid inches on their arms without affecting their waist measurements at all. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the 19" guys who simply have to make 20" and end up adding 2" on their waist to do it.

My formula is applicable to anyone with a current waist circ. of ~34" or larger.[/quote]

Where did this formula of yours come from? How did you decide to use those specific numbers?

I think that too often absolutes are thrown around when it comes to things like this.

Variability is everywhere. Genetics are important. Diet and training is key. Those are absolutes that are real.

174

[quote]zaydadog wrote:
Why don’t you use any lower body measurements?
[/quote]

I’ve got the WHR (waist/hip) ratio. That is the primary determinant of lower body aesthetics, at least for women.

WHR of 0.7 is supposedly the “ideal” hour glass figure for women which all men prefer.

A WHR closer to 1.0 is masculine, while a WHR closer to 0.7 is feminine.

Can’t really think of any other significant lower body ratio’s. I thought about doing calves:arms, but nobody really gives a shit about calves these days.

I suppose I should add waist:thigh

However, the legs “stand on their own” in a way that the muscles of the upper body don’t. If you look at a cropped photo showing someone’s thighs, you can tell what kind of shape that person is in simply by looking at the thighs alone. Whereas, with the upper body, you are always looking at the shoulders in proportion to the waist, the delts in proportion to the chest, and all that stuff.

It’s mainly used for fat loss purposes. I haven’t met a single person, male or female, who wants to bulk up their legs. Everybody wants to get them smaller. It’s only on the internet where you hear this talk of “training the wheels”.

175

[quote]Varanid wrote:
Where did this formula of yours come from? How did you decide to use those specific numbers?

I think that too often absolutes are thrown around when it comes to things like this.

Variability is everywhere. Genetics are important. Diet and training is key. Those are absolutes that are real.[/quote]

The formula isn’t really set in stone, it’s meant to illustrate the principle of physique ratio’s being more important than absolute measurements. Feel free to suggest your own ideal ratio. Obviously, it’s subjective. After all, there are guys who proudly walk around at 25% BF just to showcase their 20" fatceps. They obviously don’t give a shit about ratio’s. But they look bad, by classical aesthetic standards.

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
I agree with Professor X. Most compound movements don’t fully fatigue the arm muslces. The long head of the triceps is almost completely unused in any pressing movement. The outer head of the biceps is also inactive for pulling or rowing.

The long head of the triceps as well as the outer bicep both cross the shoulder joint. This is why skull crushers done in a “lat style” or pullover movement are so effective. The same can be said for biceps. Bring the arms forward when curling. EMI studies have shown the effectiveness of these techniques.
[/quote]

Muscles respond the best when they are trained from a stretch position. So, with triceps your upper arm needs to be above the head. Forget extensionns, the only way to go is close-grip, overhead lockouts in the smith machine. This is the single most effective exercise for arm mass, period. I would put a million on it versus any other exercise.

With biceps, the humerus needs to be in extension at the bottom of the movement. Incline curls are the best and practically the only movement you need. The hammer strength pictured above (from my gym) is also effective because it keeps the upper arms completely immobile. No swinging.

176

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
No swinging.[/quote]

“Beginning and intermediate bodybuilders tend to cheat to make a set easier, but advanced bodybuilders cheat to make a set harder.”

Quote from Lee Haney. Perfect isolation doesn’t mean perfect muscle stimulation.

177

230lbs, 18inch flexed. Pretty sure one is a tad bigger than the other though.

178

5’11 170lbs
Arms 14.5 flexed unpumped

179

6’2 … 215lbs…

right arm - 16.75
left arm - 17.00
right leg - 26.00
left leg - 25.75

180

I’m 6’ , 218 lbs and 17"