I think I read a long time ago that a 16" neck, 16" arms and 16" calves were considered “ideal” proportions. Anyone else heard this? Presumedly the proportions would go up and down from there?
As a result I’ve always set a goal for 16 inch arms. I’m real close on the neck and arms but damn i’ve got a LONG way to go on the calves …
Just wondering if this is on track or F’d up in everyone’s opinion …
I heard that proportinatly your arms should be the same size as your calves, however i am lacking calves, hell i dont even think i have baby bull sperm yet
Not sure where sixteen comes from but the"Grecian ideal" dictates that the neck, upper arms, and calves should all be the same size.
This basically got started when Eugene Sandow went around and measured Greek and Roman statues to come up with proportions to build his body to. It was perpetuated for quite some time, probably most famously by Steve Reeves.
I think Arnold was kind of the breaking point away from that measuring stick in pro bodybuilding though.
I’m really tired.
I can’t figure out whether you are asking if that size of measurements would be “ideal” for those parts, or if the 1:1:1 ratio is ideal.
IMO arms should be bigger than neck, and calves should be bigger than arms.
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
I’m really tired.
I can’t figure out whether you are asking if that size of measurements would be “ideal” for those parts, or if the 1:1:1 ratio is ideal.
IMO arms should be bigger than neck, and calves should be bigger than arms. [/quote]
I read that it was the ratio that was significant … each part the same size …
I’m not so sure about the neck aspect, I’m not sure how that fits into the equation. I do know, however, that saying a certain arm size is “ideal” is misleading. Everyone’s going to have different proportions for their body sizes, and sixteen inches on a guy who’s 5’6" is going to be far different than someone who’s 6’5".
What is right, though, is that the arms and calves should always be the same size for the best proportionality.
[quote]Asgardian wrote:
Not sure where sixteen comes from but the"Grecian ideal" dictates that the neck, upper arms, and calves should all be the same size.
This basically got started when Eugene Sandow went around and measured Greek and Roman statues to come up with proportions to build his body to. It was perpetuated for quite some time, probably most famously by Steve Reeves.
I think Arnold was kind of the breaking point away from that measuring stick in pro bodybuilding though.[/quote]
In Pumping Iron, Arnold does say something like “I have a perfectly proportionate body right now.”
Calves = Arms = Neck
16" ???
Lol.
My calves are bigger than my arms, does this mean I should start curling in the squat rack?
[quote]pachell wrote:
My calves are bigger than my arms, does this mean I should start curling in the squat rack?[/quote]
Add me to the list. About a full 1.5 inch bigger than my arms. I’m bottom heavy though.
[quote]Tumbles wrote:
IMO …calves should be bigger than arms. [/quote]
Then I guess every bodybuilder in the last 60 years has it wrong then. Very few have calves bigger than their arms
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Calves = Arms = Neck
16" ???
Lol.[/quote]
Shit, at least he didn’t say 15. I can see people are shooting for the stars.
Too bad most don’t get off the ground.
20" is a magical number for me. I want it.
My calves are already 16 and they’re not remarkable at all.
Steve Reeves supposedly had that ratio.
My bis and calves are the same, but I think my neck is a bit under.
The neck:upper arm: lower leg ratio of 1:1:1 was just one of several measurements Steve Reeves aspired to, and suggested for the “classic physique.”
There was a height-weight chart he measured against: Starting at 6’ tall and 200 pounds, add 10 pounds per inch over 6’. Subtract 5 pounds for every inch under 5’11. At his best, Reeves was 6’1", 215 pounds, with a 29-inch waist.
Reeves also picked up a tip from Jack LaLanne: Aim for a 20-24 inch difference between chest and waist (Reeves had a 23" difference). This is responsible for the dramatic v-taper.
Lastly, Reeves aimed for a 24-inch width from shoulder to shoulder (he ended up at 23 1/2"). That’s measured straight across, not around the body. Again, this helps develop that classic-looking, aesthetic physique.
Yeah, I’ve heard the ancient Greeks suggested this as ideal proportions for their athletes.
Right now my neck, arm and calf only vary by about 1/4" (arms being the biggest).
Other than the two posters above, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen anyone with bigger calves than their upper arms??
A calf over 16" is a rarity at most gyms in my area!!lol
20-23" difference in chest vs. waist? Wow. I’d doubt most pro bb’ers (read walking pharmacies) can accomplish this.
My chest to waist ratio has always sucked, very flat sternum and wide hips, only 16" difference in my case.
THe height issue will always factor into anyone’s other measurements. I heard the Steve Reeves ‘ideal proportions’ theory early on, and if nothing else, it made me train my calves harder -lol
S
http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/fitness/4men.html
Is an example of the many “ideal measurement calculators”. They are supposedly based on wrist and ankle measurements as a base line of bone structure and the proportions of classical sculpture.
I think these are useful goals for average recreational bodybuilders to shoot for with drug free training along with the strength standards of a 300 pound bench and chin up and either a 400 pound squat or 500 pound dead lift.
Most men could reach this level in two to four years of serious training and it is a respectable level of development that doesn’t require an excessive investment of time and effort.
[quote]Radjxf wrote:
Other than the two posters above, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen anyone with bigger calves than their upper arms??[/quote]
About 3.5" difference between calves and upper arm, calves are bigger.
where do you measure the neck? at the base? adam’s apple?