Is it possible to have 15" arms at 165-175lbs? Poliquin seems to say it isn’t but does his rule only apply to the biggest of arms?
Any thoughts on how long/is it possible it would take to gain 1.5" on an arm with out gaining more than 5lbs?
[quote]GripAndRip wrote:
Is it possible to have 15" arms at 165-175lbs? Polliquin seems to say it isn’t but does his rule only apply to the biggest of arms?
Any thoughts on how long/is it possible it would take to gain 1.5" on an arm with out gaining more than 5lbs?[/quote]
You’re just weird.
If Poliquin says it then it must be true.
It doesn’t matter how tall you are, or how long or short your arms are relative to your height. They’ll ALWAYS be the same size…
I know someone who’s 170 lbs and has 15" arms. We train together so I’m pretty sure of both stats.
It depends on their height. For a short person it’s quite possible, for a tall person, not possible at all.
I’m 5’9, 152lbs, low bf% and have 14 inch arms… and I don’t have an arm day. I’m doing Starr’s 5x5. So it seems possible that I could gain an inch on my arms if I gained 15-20lbs?
um i know someone who is 120lbs and has 14 inch arms… he’s also 5’3
I have 17.5" arms…but im 6’2 247lbs
[quote]Hanley wrote:
If Poliquin says it then it must be true.
It doesn’t matter how tall you are, or how long or short your arms are relative to your height. They’ll ALWAYS be the same size…
[/quote]
Poliquin is one of the most idiotic smart people or smart idiots I ever met. Take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s about making cash over anything else, unlike guys like Cressey.
As for the arm, it’s possible. I don’t do direct arm training. I have 16 5/8 " arms at 200 pounds. I’m 5’7". If I didn’t lift as a powerlifter, did more direct arm stuff, I could easily be 180 with bigger arms.
The only problem with arm measurements for me is the old claims of 20+ for everyone over 5’6", like back in the 70s. Arnold’s were 19 7/8 measured unpumped by Arthur Jones. If a 6’2" 235 pound guy didn’t have 20 " arms, a 5’7" 175 pound guy didn’t have 19 inch arms.
I have arms.
i think its possible at any height. thats not that large for arms and the body may allow that kind of imbalance.
but every day in the gym for someone like this is probably muthafuckin’ arms day and burnout curls in the squat rack day
I am 215 pounds with 15 inch arms. By Poliquins logic I would have to be 225 pounds to be able to have my huuuuge arms. By the way, I don´t directly train my arms and dont care how big they are, and I could easily drop 15 pounds of water weight if I wanted without noticeable decrease in my arms I believe. So is there some formula how big your arms can get? I don´t thinks so, its different for everybody. Trying to put everybody on the same line is stoopid.
And this whole thinking, “you have to gain 15 pounds all over if you want to get inch in your arms” is bullcrap. Body doesn´t care how proportionet you are. It only cares it can adjust to the demands you face. If you curl all day, at that point it only cares about your biceps, it doesn´t think about your legs. And vice versa.
[quote]Wrah wrote:
And this whole thinking, “you have to gain 15 pounds all over if you want to get inch in your arms” is bullcrap. Body doesn´t care how proportionet you are. It only cares it can adjust to the demands you face. If you curl all day, at that point it only cares about your biceps, it doesn´t think about your legs. And vice versa.[/quote]
It’s a rule of thumb. It may take more weight to gain an inch, or it may take considerably less, but as a rule of thumb it is fairly accurate, don’t take it as gospel.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how much an extra inch of muscle on your arms really is.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Wrah wrote:
And this whole thinking, “you have to gain 15 pounds all over if you want to get inch in your arms” is bullcrap. Body doesn´t care how proportionet you are. It only cares it can adjust to the demands you face. If you curl all day, at that point it only cares about your biceps, it doesn´t think about your legs. And vice versa.
It’s a rule of thumb. It may take more weight to gain an inch, or it may take considerably less, but as a rule of thumb it is fairly accurate, don’t take it as gospel.
I think a lot of people also underestimate how much an extra inch of muscle on your arms really is.[/quote]
When I first touched a weight, I had 12 1/2 " arms at about 115 pounds. Gaining 4-5" took 85 pounds, but as I said I could be a little lighter and bigger in the arms.
But the difference in just under thirteen to a little under 17" is amazing in the amount of mass. Do the area of a circle thing. The difference is a truckload of area.
are your arms 15 inches cold or pumped?
[quote]Wrah wrote:
And this whole thinking, “you have to gain 15 pounds all over if you want to get inch in your arms” is bullcrap. Body doesn´t care how proportionet you are. It only cares it can adjust to the demands you face. If you curl all day, at that point it only cares about your biceps, it doesn´t think about your legs. And vice versa.[/quote]
You have 15" arms. Perhaps you should try listening to people who have actually made that type of progress before you try to call it “bullcrap”. It has taken me about 15lbs for every inch on my arms and this seem to hold true for most people. Obviously these numbers are based on someone who is NOT obese.
I am betting that distinction actually had to be made for a few people.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wrah wrote:
And this whole thinking, “you have to gain 15 pounds all over if you want to get inch in your arms” is bullcrap. Body doesn´t care how proportionet you are. It only cares it can adjust to the demands you face. If you curl all day, at that point it only cares about your biceps, it doesn´t think about your legs. And vice versa.
You have 15" arms. Perhaps you should try listening to people who have actually made that type of progress before you try to call it “bullcrap”. It has taken me about 15lbs for every inch on my arms and this seem to hold true for most people. Obviously these numbers are based on someone who is NOT obese.
I am betting that distinction actually had to be made for a few people.[/quote]
My 115 to 200 would seem to say you need to add X amount of weight before it will happen. I didn’t specialize in arms ever and have done very little direct arm stuff from that time. Maybe one tri and bi exercise on an upper body day. So I think I could have hit 17" at maybe 180, more like 190 for sure.
Wait wait, hold up. Are we talking about length or girth??? :s
[quote]Hanley wrote:
Wait wait, hold up. Are we talking about length or girth??? :s[/quote]
For me it’s both, hahahaha!