[quote]desolator wrote:
I assume that the jeans aren’t tight as hell! Well you can say if the jean is a little bit tight fitting (but again, how tight jean can one with 26+inch thighs wear…) it can betray leg mass. But normal bermuhda shorts cannot show thigh muscles in a million years! Only the calves are shown, which sadly are difficult and painful for many to grow.[/quote]
The fact that you think 26" thighs are big explains everything.
Some chinese oly weight lifter actually look “bigger” than they may look due to them having a shorter stature and dense muscle. Check out Zhang Guo Zheng or Shi zhiyong
26 inch thighs on a normal frame are above average, I didn’t said that they are “big”. And this is not referred to you: but I am sick and tired of all the internet warriors, that consider 385 bench, 19 inch arms, 26 quads etc average
Going with this topic just look up Jim Cordova he is a LOT light then he looks, it has to do with muscle bellies and many many other factors
[quote]desolator wrote:
26 inch thighs on a normal frame are above average, I didn’t said that they are “big”. And this is not referred to you: but I am sick and tired of all the internet warriors, that consider 385 bench, 19 inch arms, 26 quads etc average[/quote]
I agree.
T-Nation is a fantastic forum that I consider a great place to find like minded people but if you say a guy is big, but others think he’s not, then you get shot down.
I’ve never measured my thighs yet, but I’ll do it later and let’s see if I’m even a man!
lol I can just tell that a poster looks like shit when they make a comment that they see “huge” guys with legs “as thin as my arms”.
You sir, are a dumbass.
This is physically impossible. Please post a picture of someone who fits this description who is not an amputee or is handicapped from the waist down.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
lol I can just tell that a poster looks like shit when they make a comment that they see “huge” guys with legs “as thin as my arms”.
You sir, are a dumbass.
This is physically impossible. Please post a picture of someone who fits this description who is not an amputee or is handicapped from the waist down.[/quote]
I agree. I have never seen this either and I really think most of these guys are beginners who think “huge” equals someone built like The Situation.
[quote]desolator wrote:
26 inch thighs on a normal frame are above average, I didn’t said that they are “big”. And this is not referred to you: but I am sick and tired of all the internet warriors, that consider 385 bench, 19 inch arms, 26 quads etc average[/quote]
19 inch arms are not average. Most people won’t ever even be able to build arms that big no matter how long they lift. That is why 18" is generally considered “big” by weight lifting standards.
26" quads ARE average (if not below average) for a weight lifter. Hell, even in the 50’s when they were greatly lagging by today’s standards they still averaged 27" or bigger IN CONTEST SHAPE (which means they were even bigger when not competing).
Big for a bodybuilder would be upwards of 28" in contest shape and 30+ when carrying more body fat.
I would consider a 385 bench press (assuming this is not just some weak one rep max with a super spotter) ok progress for someone lifting a couple of years…but horrible progress for someone training upwards of 5-7 years total seriously.
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]desolator wrote:
26 inch thighs on a normal frame are above average, I didn’t said that they are “big”. And this is not referred to you: but I am sick and tired of all the internet warriors, that consider 385 bench, 19 inch arms, 26 quads etc average[/quote]
I agree.
T-Nation is a fantastic forum that I consider a great place to find like minded people but if you say a guy is big, but others think he’s not, then you get shot down.
I’ve never measured my thighs yet, but I’ll do it later and let’s see if I’m even a man![/quote]
My legs are just about 26" and I’m 4 months post op ACL surgery. They were 27 and change before surgery. I’ve worked them for about 4 months tops in my entire life. I just took this pic. I couldn’t flex and measure them properly and they’re still near 26. That’s why personally I don’t think 26" isn’t much past average. The way desolator worded his post I thought he was saying 26" was a big deal. My bad if that’s not what he meant.
I’m glad the bar is set a little higher at T-Nation. I don’t consider someone bigger than the average guy BIG. I think some of the people (in general) do.
I measured mine now and got 25".
I’m sort of depressed now.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I measured mine now and got 25".
I’m sort of depressed now.[/quote]
If you wear jeans and can’t see the shape of the quad muscle at least a little through them, you are either wearing some really fucking baggy jeans that are likely sitting around your ankles at this very moment OR you have small legs.
I would hope most guys have 25" quads without much direct training at all aside from not being a complete couch potato.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
lol I can just tell that a poster looks like shit when they make a comment that they see “huge” guys with legs “as thin as my arms”.
You sir, are a dumbass.
This is physically impossible. Please post a picture of someone who fits this description who is not an amputee or is handicapped from the waist down.[/quote]
I agree. I have never seen this either and I really think most of these guys are beginners who think “huge” equals someone built like The Situation.
[/quote]
I am talking about guys that I know with 19+ inch guns who DON’T ever train low body. I can assure you they DO have chicken legs.
my quads measure 27 at their biggest point (without measuring over the glute muscle)
i am 6 feet 210 lbs and can squat 315, just for perspective my body fat is around 16-17 percent id guess, but i really don’t know
[quote]Nards wrote:
I took a pic of my 25" leg. It seems as though I have an OK little sweep on the outside,as in that it is at least visible,but that teardrop, or ‘quad over-hang’ isn’t really there.
[/quote]
Yes, you have small legs.
You knew this though, right?
[quote]desolator wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
lol I can just tell that a poster looks like shit when they make a comment that they see “huge” guys with legs “as thin as my arms”.
You sir, are a dumbass.
This is physically impossible. Please post a picture of someone who fits this description who is not an amputee or is handicapped from the waist down.[/quote]
I agree. I have never seen this either and I really think most of these guys are beginners who think “huge” equals someone built like The Situation.
[/quote]
I am talking about guys that I know with 19+ inch guns who DON’T ever train low body. I can assure you they DO have chicken legs.[/quote]
You do not know anyone with 19+ inch arms who has chicken legs, get over it. How big do you think my arms are?
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
[quote]desolator wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
lol I can just tell that a poster looks like shit when they make a comment that they see “huge” guys with legs “as thin as my arms”.
You sir, are a dumbass.
This is physically impossible. Please post a picture of someone who fits this description who is not an amputee or is handicapped from the waist down.[/quote]
I agree. I have never seen this either and I really think most of these guys are beginners who think “huge” equals someone built like The Situation.
[/quote]
I am talking about guys that I know with 19+ inch guns who DON’T ever train low body. I can assure you they DO have chicken legs.[/quote]
You do not know anyone with 19+ inch arms who has chicken legs, get over it. How big do you think my arms are?[/quote]
Again, agreed. Newbs think anyone bigger than them has HUGE arms.
I wouldn’t trust anyone but someone with arms bigger than 19" to judge someone else as having arms that big.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I took a pic of my 25" leg. It seems as though I have an OK little sweep on the outside,as in that it is at least visible,but that teardrop, or ‘quad over-hang’ isn’t really there.
[/quote]
Yes, you have small legs.
You knew this though, right?[/quote]
Guys it is NOT rocket science.
You don’t have to be YOURSELF a bodybuilder to recognize that someone HAS muscles
You don’t have to be an ACTOR to enjoy a theatrical play.
You realize that you are insulting my IQ when I come to a bb’ing forum and telling me that what I probably think as “jacked” probably is something like The Situation. LOL.
So X and waylander you are blatantly calling me that I can’t tell if someone is jacked? And X, I don’t care what your arms measure. But simply, there are some guys that obviously are NOT bodybuilders that have huge upperbodies. You calling me blind?
I am totally againist not training legs, but simply that does not mean that there are not people with HUGE upper bodies and untrained legs.
[quote]desolator wrote:
Guys it is NOT rocket science.
You don’t have to be YOURSELF a bodybuilder to recognize that someone HAS muscles
You don’t have to be an ACTOR to enjoy a theatrical play.
You realize that you are insulting my IQ when I come to a bb’ing forum and telling me that what I probably think as “jacked” probably is something like The Situation. LOL.
So X and waylander you are blatantly calling me that I can’t tell if someone is jacked? And X, I don’t care what your arms measure. But simply, there are some guys that obviously are NOT bodybuilders that have huge upperbodies. You calling me blind?
I am totally againist not training legs, but simply that does not mean that there are not people with HUGE upper bodies and untrained legs.[/quote]
Point being here, that I’m 247 and pretty damn lean, my arms don’t even measure 19" right now and as you can see from my avatar or pics I have put up anywhere else, they aren’t exactly small. Since my legs measure 29.5", I think it’s safe to say they aren’t chicken legs. Check my final diet pics in the T-Cell if you want proof of that.
So, you are saying you see people walking around everyday, bigger than me, with totally untrained lower bodies.
Right.
