A 'Bigger' Look at Same Weight

Training
61

[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]

Dude, until you get arms around that size, it will be very hard for you to judge someone else as having arms of a certain measurement unless you literally surround yourself with competition level bodybuilders in your everyday life.

So yes, we are saying it is hard for someone small to look at someone that much bigger and judge their EXACT biceps measurement.

I seriously fucking doubt you are seeing guys my size and bigger with small legs that look like they belong on someone who weighs 150lbs.

62

[quote]Nards wrote:

[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]

“Let me down easy”
[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to insult you…but if you weren’t aware of that, I guess you have lived in that part of the world a tad too long. I am betting you are a freaking giant over there and aren’t used to anyone thinking “small” with regards to you at all.

This pic is old:
[photo]24383[/photo]

But they measured about 30" here. I think they are bigger now but haven’t measured them.

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But they measured about 30" here. I think they are bigger now but haven’t measured them.[/quote]

Don’t you ever train your calves?

Kidding… Kidding…

64

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But they measured about 30" here. I think they are bigger now but haven’t measured them.[/quote]

Don’t you ever train your calves?

Kidding… Kidding…

[/quote]

Oh, that’s just HIGH-larious.

65

In general I agree with X and Way, but there are big guys out there who don’t train their lower body. One guy at my old gym was in a motorcycle accident and fucked his leg up pretty bad (at least that’s what he told me) and doesn’t train his legs anymore. His upper body is still huge, though (and I should probably disclose this guy was NOT a natural trainee), and his legs were pretty small.

66

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
In general I agree with X and Way, but there are big guys out there who don’t train their lower body. One guy at my old gym was in a motorcycle accident and fucked his leg up pretty bad (at least that’s what he told me) and doesn’t train his legs anymore. His upper body is still huge, though (and I should probably disclose this guy was NOT a natural trainee), and his legs were pretty small.

[/quote]

Motorcycle accident with likely nerve damage is a completely different animal.

I have seen one guy who weighed about 215lbs who had a huge chest and biceps but lacked EVERYWHERE else. He was the biggest guy I have ever seen who had decent sized muscles but lacking development in his back and legs…and those parts were still bigger than most pics I see here.

67

Yeah I was just throwing out the exception to the rule, that type of thing.

68

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

[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.[/quote]
But what about this guy…,
It’s more or he can’t vs doesn’t workout his lowerbody.
And I don’t really KNOW him.
very impressive work Way, you look way better lean.

69

[quote]ghdtpdna wrote:

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

[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.[/quote]
But what about this guy…,
It’s more or he can’t vs doesn’t workout his lowerbody.
And I don’t really KNOW him.
very impressive work Way, you look way better lean.[/quote]

Notice I said people who are not handicapped from the waist down or amputee’s. It’s like when someone loses their sight the other senses drastically improve to compensate. I imagine it’s the same for someone paralyzed from the waist down.

And thanks.

70

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

[quote]ghdtpdna wrote:

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

[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.[/quote]
But what about this guy…,
It’s more or he can’t vs doesn’t workout his lowerbody.
And I don’t really KNOW him.
very impressive work Way, you look way better lean.[/quote]

Notice I said people who are not handicapped from the waist down or amputee’s. It’s like when someone loses their sight the other senses drastically improve to compensate. I imagine it’s the same for someone paralyzed from the waist down.

And thanks.[/quote]
I totally missed that part…, sorry
I am too bored and trying to be funny.

71

[quote]Professor X 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]

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).
[/quote]

I expected that too but, unless the way in which the measure is taken differs, it seems most were just a little below that in the 50’s

http://www.musclememory.com/articles/MrAsizes.html
http://www.musclememory.com/articles/universeStats.html

some Mr A and (nabba) Mr U stats from 50’s/60’s

The 27 inch norm seems to happen more in the 60’s. Dennis Tinerino with arms nigh on 20 had thighs at 27 for his 1967 Mr A win

However the point is that Dennis Tinerino shows what lean condition upper legs look like at 27, as in the pic (taken around that time)

So unless those talking about 26 are showing the same conditioning as a Tinerino or other 50’s/60’s bber it could be somewhat misleading.

What’s interesting about this too, returning to the thread title, is that it shows just how huge BBers can look. Tinerino weighed in at 217 at 6’ in height.

72

[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]

Me and my dad have the exact same flip flops.

^^
Very constructive comment

73

I dont have quad overhang for shit. All my leg size is in my Rectus Femoris and Biceps femoris. Reading the last page got me curious bout my leg size. Disappointed that Way has me beat by .5 inches, you prostitute.

Bright side is that i will lose practically NO size ANYWHERE when i cut. Lol it seems the only place fat stores on my body is my midsection.

74

Slightly offtopic: In that Arnold pic, his legs don’t look too out of proportion with his upper body, he has a nice teardrop as well.

75

When people say big upper body and chicken legs I think of Aaron Neville. Couldn’t figure out how to post pic so see link below. Discuss.

324×611 26.2 KB

76

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Or you could have a big gut that literally overshadows your legs.

77

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
When people say big upper body and chicken legs I think of Aaron Neville. Couldn’t figure out how to post pic so see link below. Discuss.

http://www.davidfary.com/Aaron%20Neville.jpg[/quote]

Are you kidding me with that pic? That’s a fat guy with little muscular development anywhere.

That’s the problem with this thread, people think ^^ is a “big guy”.

78

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
When people say big upper body and chicken legs I think of Aaron Neville. Couldn’t figure out how to post pic so see link below. Discuss.

http://www.davidfary.com/Aaron%20Neville.jpg[/quote]

Are you kidding me with that pic? That’s a fat guy with little muscular development anywhere.

That’s the problem with this thread, people think ^^ is a “big guy”.[/quote]

That guy is only muscular to sedentary people. He is filled out like someone who played football in high school or freshmen year of college, but if this is “big” to the guys here, then that explains the confusion.

79

“Big” is subjective.

To most people, you are big if they see you without a shirt and you have abs even if you are anorexic. For other people, being big is being 10-15 kgs above your height in cm while being lean. For most of us, big is when you are 25 kgs at least above your height.

420×630 93.7 KB

This guy is fucking big, 1.76m 130 kg.

80

[quote]desolator wrote:
I see a gut in the guy posted?[/quote]

Aaron Neville isn’t that fat. He is about as “fat” as I was at my heaviest weight. He just isn’t carrying enough muscle to look more filled out.

In other words, it is clear that the man has lifted weights regularly in the past. however, he isn’t that big to serious weight lifters. It would not surprise me if someone like that had small legs…because he clearly doesn’t put as much focus into building muscle mass as what me and Waylander are talking about. He’s big to people who don’t lift weights.

There is “weekend warriors” and then there is “serious weight lifter/bodybuilder”. People can complain about who gets to be called a “bodybuilder” all they want, but the truth is, the guy who is big enough for people to whisper about when he walks in the door is a way more of a bodybuilder than the little guy who no one can tell lifts weights in clothes just because he competed.